Minutes
AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING
6 October 1998
Broun Hall Auditorium
ABSENT: K. Alley, R. Bartlett, M. Boudreaux, J. H. Cherry, L. Colquitt, J. Crawford, C. Dupree, G. Halpin, J. N. Hool, P. M. Johnson, F. Lawing, A. Magg, L. J. Myers, C. M. Moriarty, J. C. Neidigh, , C. Pitts, G. Plasketes, J. T. Regan, E. F. Thompson, W. Trimble
ABSENT (SUBSTITUTE): Capt. Burgess (Col. D. Lehm), B. DeMent (Mike Jernigan), R. Evans, Jr. (P. W. Jungnickel), R. Henderson (S. McLaughlin), J. Marion (P. J. Green), R. Mirarchi (Craig Guyer), C. Price (Robert Dunn), A. R. Tarrer (James Guin), H. Thomas (R. Broughton)
Senate Chair Glenn Howze called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes of the August 11, 1998 meeting were approved as posted on the Senate Web Page.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
A. President’s Office: William Muse
First, President Muse encouraged all Senate Members to join the Higher Education Partnership Program. Gordon Stone, Executive Director of the Partnership, spoke to the Senate about the organization several months ago. The cost to join is nominal, 12$/year. The purpose of the Partnership is to provide a voice for higher education within the political arena. Higher education needs a strong and articulate voice. Muse believes that Stone, with the advice and counsel of the Board, can provide that voice. The purpose of the Partnership is not to provide funding for political candidates, but rather to represent a large number of people with in the higher education community. A membership campaign is underway, headed by J. Brown (Journalism). Muse learned at last week’s board meeting that Troy State has already signed up 250 members. Membership on Auburn’s campus stands around 20. Muse feels that Auburn is not providing as much support for this organization as it should be.
Second, President Muse reminded Senate that he will give his State of the University Address at next week’s Senate Meeting, October 13, 3:10 p.m. in Broun Auditorium. At that time, he will attempt to provide an in depth analysis of the University’s current situation, including the efforts to establish priorities, and the identification of low priorities. Muse will be receiving recommendations on priorities and non-priorities on the 15th of October. Muse urged Senate members to let the process that is in place work, "to let it follow its course." Any proposals that come forward will be given both careful and impartial analysis before any final decision is made as far as what will be recommended to the Commission. President Muse regrets that there appears to be efforts to politicize the process and senses mass resistance or pressure to avoid consideration of ideas. Muse stated that ideas should receive both careful and impartial analysis and that he is committed to do so. "As an institution that values ideas and the analysis of ideas, we should be able to look at both the pros and cons of an issue, we shouldn’t object to the consideration of ideas." Muse looks forward to sharing his views in greater detail on the process next week for by that time, he will have better information.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked if President Muse could describe in greater detail the process of establishing both high and low priorities. More specifically, Bailey asked if Muse could explain why the memorandum sent out by the Interim Provost office on Aug. 24 listed a deadline of Sep. 9 for the submission of ideas on high and low priorities. Bailey agrees that the President has always been open to, and interested in faculty ideas, but that this window of time is not the optimal time to offer such input. Bailey understands that there are time restraints with regard to the Commission and pressure from the Board, but if efforts to mobilize opposition of possible threatened low priority cuts do exist, the reason could be that the process itself is flawed.
Muse replied by stating that Provost Walker would handle the question on the issue of priorities during his later presentation on the Priorities Committee Report. President Muse stated that he did not set the timetable for what (we) are attempting to accomplish and said that he would have liked more time to deal with the issue. He closed by saying (we) are trying to be as open and methodical as (we) can within the time frame that (we) are working.
B. Senate Chair and Commission Report: Glenn Howze, Chair
First, Howze seconded President Muse’s words on increasing University involvement in the Higher Education Partnership Program. Howze thinks it is important to become involved in some political way. A payroll deduction of 1$/month is no great expense. Howze is aware that this is a troubling time at our University and that some may be reluctant to spend money to join, but he thinks it is necessary and urges Senate to do so.
Second, Howze noted next week’s faculty meeting, Oct. 13. This will be an important faculty meeting and he urged Senate members and colleagues to attend. Previous attendance to these meetings has been disappointing, (we) should try to get as many attending this one as possible.
Third, Howze mentioned the status on University Committees. The Senate Leadership has been working with the President’s Office and is very close to completing the assignments.
Next, Howze brought up the subject of the faculty workload policy (presented in August by Mary Beaudraux, College of Veterinary Medicine). Howze asked Senate members to work with respective departments on filling out these forms and noting any flaws or problems. Howze encouraged Senate members to work with their faculty to see if the documents need fine-tuning. He plans on scheduling a vote on the workload policy at the November Senate meeting.
Also, Howze brought up the issue of the non-tenure track career ladders (discussed at the June or July Senate meeting). Howze stated that he had hoped to bring the issue to the floor sooner, but there has been good reason for its delay. Howze reminded Senate that there had been a previous presentation of such a research career ladder. This was passed by the Senate and moved on to the administration. Howze said that there have been some problems from the leadership point of view in terms of this document and (we) are still in negotiation with the administration on this document. (We) did not feel that it would be a good idea to bring this non-tenure track career ladder document to the meeting until the first document is resolved. Later on in the meeting, Jo Heath will discuss some of the problems that exist with the current version of the document.
Howze announced several upcoming meetings taking place. There will be a Board of Trustees meeting on Nov. 6 at 9 a.m. Immediately after, there will be a Commission meeting. At this meeting of Commission, Dr. Muse will present his report on priorities for the University.
On Nov. 11 there will be a Commission meeting for public comment, mainly involving the issues of reorganization, priorities and reallocation of low priorities. Howze encouraged Senate members, as well as others from the community to speak. Requests for public comment can be made to the Provost’s Office. The same rules apply for comment as in previous meetings. The meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and will be held at the AU Hotel and Conference Center.
On Nov. 19, the final meeting of Commission will take place. This meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and will also be held at the AU Hotel and Conference Center.
On Nov. 20 the Board of Trustees will meet to vote on recommendations of the Commission.
Lastly, Howze commented on the recent meeting of the Commission, held Sep. 18 at AUM. The chief item on that agenda was President Muse’s report on the reorganization of the University. President Muse’s report discussed possible mergers of departments, consolidation of AU and AUM Schools of Nursing, etc. The full report is available on the Commission Web page and Howze encouraged Senate to read it in its entirety.
With regard to academic program recommendations, Howze pointed out that all but one of the recommendations came directly from the Task Force recommendations. There was an understanding that President Muse would present his report and take questions, but no action would be taken upon his recommendations until the Priorities report is presented (Nov. 19). Howze fully expects that there will be some attempt to modify Dr. Muse’s recommendations. It is unlikely that the Board and Commission will fully endorse the recommendations, rather they will want to augment them in some way.
In addition to Dr. Muse’s report at the Sep. 18 meeting, Dr. Wayne Flynt made a wonderful statement outlining his view as to how (we) got to where we are today with regards to disputes with our Board of Trustees and how the Commission came about. His remarks can be found on the Commission Web Page.
At the Sep. 19 meeting, Howze also made several comments. These words, directed primarily at public statements made by Dr. Ed Richardson at a Board meeting held a couple weeks prior to the Commission meeting, are also available on the Commission Web Page.
Lastly, Howze commented on both the priority activity and the issue of 10% re-allocation. He feels that much of the activity is not taking place in the open and is proceeding without consultation with the faculty. Howze thinks that this is a grave mistake and that (we) will pay for it in the future. Howze is starting to detect tension and friction between certain elements of faculty and administration on campus. If there is some way to involve the faculty in this process, then it needs to be done. To Howze’s knowledge, there are some schools on campus that have made attempts to consult their faculty and there are some that have not. We should all try to have unity.
Louise Katainen asked for hours of meetings to be repeated.
C. Task Force: Barry Burkhart, Chair
Burkhart opened by stating that the Task Force had completed the task assigned to them. He then thanked the Task Force members for devoting their time: from AU faculty; Jo Heath, Y. Kozlowski, K. Fields, Connor Bailey. From AU Administration; D. Wilson, J. Henton, D. Wolfe, J. Pritchett. From AU Staff Council, B. Turner. From the AU A & P Assembly, Robert Gottesman. From the AU SGA, William Stagall. From the AU AUM, Jerome Taply. From the AUM Faculty, Don Nobles. From the AUM Administration, Tom Bocina, and before him, Joe Hill.
Burkhart recalled that the initial report the Task Force dealt with was on the Commission’s proposals for educational review. As a part of this process, the Task Force members read a prodigious amount of materials, including information on how change should be accomplished at a University. Upon doing so Burkhart stated that he could not find a single rule that the Commission did not break in its process in attempting to expedite change at this University. This is unfortunate because (we) feel the brunt of those ill-considered process decisions that were forced upon (us) by some members of the Board of Trustees.
The Task Force was then asked by the President to take on an additional task, to reorganize the University.
The Task Force recommended to the President that a set of criteria be established toward which any proposals for reorganization be evaluated against. The criteria established stated that any proposal should provide educational enhancement, a demonstration of efficiency, responsiveness to issues of viability and represent economies of scale.
The Task Force accepted some 38 proposals for reorganization. The Task force also attempted -- but failed -- to meet with stakeholders. Burkhart took personal responsibility of this failure.
Attached to the Task Force’s recommendations for reorganization was a letter of conveyance to the President. (The Commission also received a copy of the letter and report.) The body of the Task Force recommendations can be found on the Commission Web Page.
Burkhart read the letter of conveyance. In the letter, the Task Force made several observations based on an overview of the proposals and their work with the issue of reorganization. The letter included the following comments: "The Task Force has tried to respect the fact of Auburn’s excellence, the fact that Auburn is the only school university in Alabama listed as one of the top 50 public institutions... This makes us very cautious in recommending proposals that change what already works well...It has been hard to improve at the margins of excellence without undoing what makes us strong. This is particularly the case when such excellence is accomplished with significantly less state support than our peer institution and thus has been accomplished by ingenuity and creativity...We have been vigilant to do no harm to Auburn’s traditions of excellence. When harm could be anticipated, we have weighed that heavily in our considerations. However when we could see that a proposal had promised to refine or enhance success -- our mission -- we rated that accordingly. A difficult issue has been the time pressure of which the task force and the development of proposals had to work. There has not been adequate time for the process of discussion and debate, nor has there been sufficient time for all stakeholders in the process to have opportunity to explore all the ramifications of the combinations and permutations of the various proposals. We have tried as much as possible to hear from constituents but have not been able to gather systematic feedback from all stakeholders. As you consider these proposals, recognize that not all stakeholders have had as much opportunity to anticipate the implications of these recommendations as would have been desirable in the best of circumstances...We have not been able to obtain the collective wisdom of the University community in all circumstances. Not surprising given that the compressed schedule available for the preparations of these proposals, in absolute terms we received only a small number. Moreover, only a small number of these had the depth and range of supporting documentation necessary to review them adequately. Furthermore, given the infinite number of possibilities for reorganization, the relatively few proposals received, particularly given that many of these were not about reorganization per se, does not inspire much confidence that by some great fortune we have sampled the best of the possibilities from the available universe of great ideas.... It is very likely that better ideas exist than those in our current collection. We recommend that the University continue to look for more efficient or eloquent ways of accomplishing its goals. However we strongly recommend that the process by which future reorganization be accomplished be designed differently. The time pressure of the current process and the absence of a bottom up process persuades us that a more effective method for the design and development of strategies for reorganization is possible. Our conviction is that best first step for reorganization is to be found in the establishment of programmed priorities followed by extensive consultation with the units identified as candidates for change.... We have been generally conservative in our review and have focused our recommendations on those proposals, which appear to have clear and considerable merit in reference to, the criteria by which you requested that we be guided.... In spite of the difficulties mentioned above, there are a number of good ideas in these proposals. We have tried to identify these for your review, we have also tried to identify the negative consequences of those that may have surface appeal...We have also called to your attention the possiblity of combining elements in different plans when these seemed to make a good fit.... All members of the task force support the report attached to this letter. Our conviction is that these recommendation are grounded in a profound respect for the quality of Auburn along with the belief that thoughtful changes can be found to make Auburn better...."
Burkhart made several comments on both the reports itself as well as the President’s use of the report. Considerable pressure was brought to bear from constituencies outside the University for some of the proposals for reorganization. These proposals were made because they fit the constituencies’ single lens through which they used Auburn University. The most public example of this was the Alabama Cattlemen’s Association proposal to undo the 1984 reorganization of the University and move the biological sciences back into the School of Agriculture as well as make other changes including the dismantling of the School of Human Sciences.
The Task Force did not see that this met the aforementioned criteria set for reorganization. The Task Force made no recommendations that involved the disfigurement or elimination of any school. The Task Force did recommend that the School of Nursing and the School of Pharmacy be joined as the basis for a School of Public Health. After President Muse consulted with the Deans of those schools, he did not feel that this was the time to do so. With the exception to that item, the President passed the proposals on to the Commission. The Commission then agreed to accept these proposals, but not to act on them. Burkhart emphasized the fact that the Commission has not had their final say on the reorganization of the University.
Before closing Burkhart stated that it is a very important time for (us) to remember that (we) are our best colleagues and for (us) to work together in making sure that what is done to the University does not carve into her soul. Burkhart has no assurance that some of the members of the Commission would respect those criteria. Burhart said that he is fairly well assured that given a free hand, they would be without compunction in terms of making changes that would carve into her soul.
Burkhart then thanked Howze for the honor of chairing the Task Force.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Priorities Committee Report: William Walker
Walker began his report by stating he did not like the word non-priority because the term suggested that (we) are doing things we ought not to. He then described what he has seen take place over the past few months. According to Walker, the process started officially back in April 1997 when Dr. Muse, Dr. Parks and Executive Vice President Don Large made a proposal to the Board of Trustees that grew as a result of continual conversation between administration and Board members concerning the lack of adequate financial support. The proposal attempted to address that inadequacy by requesting an increase in tuition. The proposal that was made said that this University’s top priority over the next five years was to raise teacher salaries to 95% of the regional average. Walker has also recently heard several BOT members say that the raise should be 100%. An assumption was made that only inflationary increases would come from the state -- about a 3% annual increase. It would also assume that tuition would increase in a systematic and thoughtful manner to the average of the SRAV schools that we like to compare ourselves. We also agreed to increase the number of students paying out of state tuition and finally, the proposal stated that we would reallocate 1-2% of the budget annually for areas of high priority. The Board approved that proposal and the process began.
This past fiscal year every element of the University was asked to identify 1% of its budget. This time we were allowed to keep it in the various divisions and use it for additional salary enhancement. That, coupled along with what came from the state amounted to faculty raises of over 8%. Walker feels that the Board speeded up this process by forming the Commission to study the role of Auburn in the 21st century. As a result of that speeding up process, the President has charged each officer who is responsible for fiscal funds to identify 10% of the fiscal 1998 budget for possible reallocation over a five-year period. There has been little opportunity for discussion. The areas that are affected include those areas for which the Provost is responsible, for which Dr. Large is responsible, the Extension system, as well as athletics. Walker has received almost all recommendations from the deans and vice presidents and will begin to put together his recommendation to the President by Oct. 15. Walker has instructed each dean and vice president to identify their low priority programs as soon as possible and to let the faculty and staff know what their recommendations have been.
With respect to the high priorities, the President appointed a committee to recommend to him priority areas that should receive additional resources in order to achieve national or international recognition. Committee members include: W. Walker as Chair, Moriarty (VP Research), D. Wilson (VP Outreach), Burkalter (VP Student Affairs), J. Pritchett, L. Glaze, E. Harris (Alumni), D. Roland, W. Johnson, P. Backshotter, J. Bradley, G. Reeve, D. Sollie (HDFS). The committee has met three or four times. The Oct. 15 deadline for giving our recommendations to the President is the reason the faculty had such a short period of time to respond thus the memo that was referred to earlier.
Walker believes that the Committee has made its final determination, however he is not going to disclose information at this point. The Committee has until Oct. 15 to forward the document to the President and Walker would like them to have a final look at it before this takes place.
M. Boosinger (Secretary Elect) asked if deans and vice presidents have a deadline by which they should notify their faculty of the low priorities. The deadline was last week (Oct. 5-9.)
E. Morrison (Anatomy and Histology) asked what the administration sees as the positive aspects of this reallocation. Walker said the most obvious outcome is going to be the increase in faculty and staff salaries to a competitive level. Also, the notion that we can raise the reputation of this institution by identifying select areas and putting limited resources into those areas. Walker estimates that a total of 5 million dollars will be available for those areas.
J. B----- (Agricultural Experiment Station) asked if documents will be posted on the Web. Walker hopes to have copies of the report available for all faculty members by next weeks Senate Meeting.
U. Albrecht, (mathematics) asked why athletics isn’t giving up 10% of their funds. Walker stated that athletics has been asked to give up 10% of institutional funds but not auxiliary funds.
B. Burkhart (non-voting member) asked if the 10% is only a hypothetical figure and whether it is possible exist that a lower percentage would be taken from units. According to Burkhart, 10% is a mass critical number and that once you reach 10% from units that are as efficient as AU, you no longer are cutting fat, you are cutting muscle and in some places bone. Through his work with the Task Force he has noticed that the 1-% per year is less likely to damage the integrity of the University. Burkhart advocates that 10% is too draconian. He agrees with the strategy -- there have to be priorities that are going to be made in to first class programs -- but he is concerned that a 10% reallocation will cause great damage.
In response, Walker stated that the 10% figure is likely to differ from operation to operation. He agrees that what some units have to endure will be terribly destructive and he will reflect this in his recommendation to the President. Walker believes that he and VP Large will identify greater than 10% in order to give the President options to minimize harm done to some of these vital programs.
Walker also stated that this process of program assessment is going to be ongoing, and one that the faculty will be fully involved with. Walker envisions that a natural program review will continually take place, and the programs that fail to satisfy the criteria of the review committee over a period of time should be eliminated, thus releasing dollars back into the system.
C. Bailey (Steering Committee) asked who is responsible for identifying non-or low priorities. Walker said that the Deans and Vice Presidents, along with the involvement of their faculty, were responsible. The amount of faculty involvement has varied from division to division.
G. Hill (Chemistry) stated that all programs are not equal and that a 10% reallocation from each unit places an incredible strain on any unit. Walker said that they have only requested identification of 10% and that Muse will take what he sees necessary from those units. Cuts may be across the board, they may not be.
J. Dane (Agronomy and Soils) asked what the total dollar amount would be from the 10% allocation. Between 23-24 million over five years. Of that, the Provost office is responsible for 12-13 million. Just over 2 million is for Cooperative Extension System, 2 million for the Agricultural Experiment Station, 2 million from facilitates. He was uncertain and of additional breakdowns. In addition to salary increases, Walker said there will 9-10 high priority programs.
D. Himelrick (Horticulture) asked how broad the scope was in determining high and low priorities. Walker replied that the Committee looked for existing areas of expertise. What struck the Committee most was how much commonality existed in some areas across campus. In some cases, attempts we made to join those areas.
Walker plans on answering additional questions at the general faculty meeting next week.
B. Ad Hoc Committee on Social Security Numbers: James Hanson, Chair
A copy of the report was provided with the agenda at the current meeting.
The motion to adopt the report carried by voice vote.
C. Research Career Ladder Positions: Jo Heath
Heath presented the two primary issues of concern that are still under negotiation with the administration. The first point of concern deals with the protection from arbitrary dismissal of those research professors who have succeeded in getting their first promotion. The original document offered protection from this type of dismissal.
The second point of concern is the possible erosion of tenure-track positions. (We) want to make this position as good as possible without endangering the tenure track.
Howze followed up Heath’s report by stating that if these two points of concern are resolved the document will return to Senate for its review. If members want to approve the revised document they may do so, however members may also choose to withdraw.
OTHER ITEMS:
A. Presentation by School of Nursing: Dr. Terri Brower
A copy of the report was provided at the meeting.