5 October 1999

Broun Hall Auditorium

Absent: T. Tyson, S. Bilgili, D. Norris, H. Rotfeld, D. Lustig, M. El-Hawagi, J. Tippur, H. Thomas, R. Perritt, R. Wylie, B. Hames, U. Albrecht, S. Knowlton, R. Paxton, W. Brawner, R. Burleson, T. Brower, H. Maraman, F. Lawing, J. Neidigh

Absent (Substitute): D. Himelrick (F. Dane), D. Pascoe (P. Grandjean), R. Ripley (D. Cicci), S. Brinson (D. Sutton), M. Lisano (A. Brown), L. Slaten (P. Ulrich), M. Malloy (C. Reineke)

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m.

Announcements:

A. Senate Chair: Jo Heath: announcements

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved and can be found on the web at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule/

Linda Glaze was added to the agenda as item b. under "other items."

If you did not receive an agenda this week, please e-mail Marcia Boosinger at boosiml@mail.auburn.edu

David King (Geology) was concerned about monetary cuts in the library's science and technology journals. There were no cuts in the liberal arts journals because those journals are significantly less expensive. He spoke with David Housel and they set up a fund for journal purchases in which the athletic department will match, up to a certain amount, whatever is put into the fund by donations.

There will be a slight change in the P & T Committee procedures. There are two new classifications of faculty: clinical professors and research professors. The procedure that has been approved is that whenever a clinical professor is on the docket, then a clinical professor will also be on the P & T committee. The same is true for research professors. The problem is that there are not any of these type of professors yet. So this year only, there are tenured faculty, one research and one clinical, that will sit on the P & T committee and help evaluate these two new classifications.

There are two Board of Trustees inspired studies occurring. Academic forgiveness will be revisited. A poll is being conducted concerning academic forgiveness and how people feel about it. The Academic Standards Committee will meet with the AUM Academic Standards Committee. The other board inspired study will determine how many senior faculty teach core courses as compared to our competition.

Either IBM or Price Waterhouse is going to assess the computer equipment and services on campus. If you have any suggestions or recommendations on things you would like to see occur differently, you can contact Provost Walker or Charles Branch, the new chair of the Academic Computing Committee, at branch@mail.auburn.edu

A faculty member was told by Blue Cross Blue Shield that a certain medical procedure involving eye exams for diabetics was not covered by insurance. He then requested "arbitration," and Blue Cross Blue Shield does cover that eye procedure now. Arbitration is available to all faculty members.

The AAUP is having a Forum for the proposed Alabama lottery. Each speaker will have five minutes to present facts opinions and then the floor will be open for discussion.

Conner Baily (Steering Committee): The representative was invited from the Alabama Lottery Foundation. The idea is not to debate, but to present the facts as well as what it means for Auburn University.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) wondered if there will be a balanced point of view and if all sides will be presented.

Conner Baily (Steering Committee): If the representatives from the Lottery Foundation are able to come, then there will be a more balanced point of view. Two of the speakers have concerns about the lottery that they will express.

B. Provost Walker (representing President Muse)

One week from today the President will present his State of the University Address, and each Senate member and their colleagues are invited to attend.

The other item pertains to the Lottery Forum. The vote on October 12th provides all of us with the opportunity to express views on the proposed state lottery. President Muse would like to urge everyone to take advantage of the opportunity to vote and express views, and would encourage all colleagues to do so.

Outside vendors have been asked to help evaluate information technology on campus. This includes all computing as well as distance learning. Four applications were received. Of those, IBM and Price Waterhouse were chosen for further consideration. Each company was asked to present oral presentations, and the contract was offered to IBM. This is the college division of IBM, not the hardware division. They will come in and work with the community to develop a vision of what information technology should be on this campus. This process should take about 15 weeks. Then based on the findings of this study, a strategic plan for information technology will be developed.

 

Committee Reports:

A. Rules Committee: Dr. Jo Heath

On the last page of the agenda is a listing of the new committee members that is to be approved by the Senate. The Retention Committee has Mike Bozack listed as a new member, but he is a returning member, so his name should be struck from the list. This list includes only new members, and only those who are not ex-officio.

The list of new members was approved by voice vote.

B. Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics: Dr. Dennis Wilson

  1. FAR and CIA
  2. The NCAA requires that each representative have a faculty athletic representative. This person is always appointed by the president. Dr. Wilson serves in that role now as FAR. The university also has a committee that oversees intercollegiate athletics. This committee has been a model for other schools in the SEC.

  3. Composition of the Committee
  4. There are 11 voting members, and 4 ex-officio members. Voting members include a chair, VP for Business, VP for Advancement, representatives from the Staff Advisory Council, A & P Assembly, SGA, and four additional faculty nominated by the Senate. Non-voting members include the President, Provost, Athletic Director, and the Associate Athletic Director for Compliance.

  5. Two Documents on Line- CIA Strategic Plan; NCAA Program Certification
  6. These documents may be found at www.auburn.edu/administration/president/committees/athletics/ or by accessing the Auburn home page, then Administration-Office of the President-CIA. Several years ago, four areas of the athletic department were examined including compliance, academic integrity, fiscal integrity, and commitment to equity. This document, called the NCAA Program Certification document, includes the findings of this examination as well as other information about the athletic department. Every school and college were included in the self-study as well as many faculty members. The CIA Strategic Plan leads into number four of the outline, which includes the mission of the athletic department.

  7. Mission (Advisory to President and Athletic Director)
    1. promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics
    2. facilitate the integration of athletic and academic components of the collegiate community
    3. promote institutional control of athletics "squad list"

    Dr. Wilson shared a message to the Senate that he gives to new members of the CIA. He feels that college athletics, in Division I, is bigger than it ought to be. Generally, the entire administration feels that way as well. However, it is a societal issue that is beyond Auburn. The committee tries to work on issues that can be influenced such as the above mission statements.

  8. Subcommittees- Academic Standards; Awards; Career Counseling/Pro Sports Advisory; Compliance; Drug Education/Drug Testing; Priority and Seating; Summer Sports Camps; Title IX/Gender Equity
  9. Institutional control is maintained by the work of the subcommittees listed above. One example of an institutional control is use of a "squad list." No student athlete can get on the practice field until the student is on a "squad list" with an X by his/her name. This includes all sports. To get an "X" by the name, the list must pass through the Registrar’s office to ensure the student is in good academic standing. The list then passes through the financial aid office to ensure that student is not receiving benefits beyond what they are entitled to. It then passes through the athletic department. Here, the administration makes sure that no student athlete is on the list that should not be because of other eligibility factors. This operation goes on every day to make sure students are participating only if they are able to do so.

    The primary responsibilities of these committees are also available on line.

  10. Academics Compliance

New Associate AD New Associate AD

Academic Achievement "Secondary Violation"

Campus Collaboration

Both Academics and Compliance departments have new Associate Athletic Directors. The academic achievement of the student athletes is at an all-time high. The graduation rate is the highest it has ever been, second only to Vanderbilt in the conference. For the first time ever, the graduation rate of athletes has surpassed the rate of the normal student population. There has also been a big effort lately between the Athletic Department and the campus as a whole in areas such as the Writing Center, the Student Success Center, and various advisors in the Dean’s offices. An area of emphasis now is the tutors due to inappropriate activities involving tutors at other universities.

A major violation has not happened in a while at Auburn. A secondary violation is when the university unintentionally breaks the rules, the violation is self-reported, and some punishment is prescribed that is appropriate to the offense. An example of a punishment might be to make the student-athlete ineligible. Auburn University had eight such violations, which is about average in the SEC.

Jim Hansen (History) wondered what safeguards are in place at Auburn to ensure that tutorial abuses do not occur. What types of changes are being made with these tutors?

Dr. Wilson mentioned that there is an ad hoc committee to look at significant changes in this department. There is also an orientation program that each tutor is required to attend as well as an orientation guide book with all the do’s and don’ts. There is a move to use more retired persons from the university or the public school system. The main safeguard is to have a staff member on site at all times while the tutoring sessions are occurring.

C. Faculty Salaries Committee: Dr. Larry Gerber

Dr. Gerber outlined the agenda for this year’s salaries committee. The members of the committee include Don Large and Provost Walker as ex-officio members, Sam Lowder from Planning and Analysis as a non-voting member, Larry Gerber of History, Dennis DeVries of Fisheries, Michael Robinson of Architecture, Cindy Brunner of Pathobiology, and Renee Middleton of Education. Senate members may contact any member of the committee to give input into any decision concerning the committee this year.

The ongoing issue of equity of salary distribution is a main topic for the committee. The university has as a goal to reach 100% of regional averages by rank. This is not completely clear. Some faculty members believe that each faculty member should reach 100% of the average. More realistically, some faculty members will be above 100% and some will be below 100%. An important question to consider is if there are limits as to how much below the average should be allowed. Another consideration is the comparison between differing departments, colleges, and schools. Is the goal that every college or school should reach 100% of salary average, or is there some limit as to the variation? The committee made a recommendation to the Provost and to the President that there should be a limit as to the variation between departments as well as a floor for individual faculty members. Unfortunately the recommendation was not followed last year, but the administration hired a consultant to address some of these issues. If any Senate member has views about these equity issues, they are encouraged to make those views known to the committee. Dr. Walker has provided Dr. Gerber with the information about how equity issues were handled last year.

Another issue is the possibility for nine-month faculty to choose whether they wanted to be paid over nine months or over twelve months. This has come up again in discussion because of the transition to semesters. Marcie Smith in the Finance office has begun preliminary discussions on this issue. She has determined that it is feasible with the new programming to make such an option available. However, it would be a considerable cost to do so. The committee has discussed the possibility of conducting a survey of nine-month faculty to determine the interest of this option. That would occur this quarter.

The last issue involves the pay of faculty on nine-month appointment who will be teaching in summers after the transition to semesters. The principle that the administration is committed to is equal pay for equal work. If they teach a certain number of hours in a quarter system, and they have the same number of contact hours in the semester system, then they should be paid the same rate. It should not disadvantage faculty in terms of rates. One issue to consider is whether enrollments in summer will be such that it will enable the same number of faculty to teach as are currently teaching under the quarter system.

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary) wondered if the equity formulas which were followed this past year and given to the Faculty Salaries Committee from the Provost, were publicly available or not.

Dr. Larry Gerber hoped to be able to discuss that late next week in the committee meeting. The Provost did not have an answer to the question. Dr. Gerber feels that a transparent system, one where it is clear who is eligible and how the equity determinations are made, would benefit the university. In the near future, a survey will be available that will include a sample of the difference in each paycheck if it were over a twelve-month period as opposed to nine months.

 

D. ad hoc Committee on the Status of Racial and Ethnic Diversity: Dr. Renee Middleton

Members of the committee include:

Renee Middleton- chair

Jo Heath- ex-officio- Senate chair

Overton Jenda- DSSC

Yolanda Brady- Fisheries

Michael Mercer- Journalism

Holly Stadler- Counseling

David Wilson- VP Outreach

Debra Armstrong-Wright- Office of Affirmative Action (now retired)

Glenn Howze- Immediate past chair of the Senate

Robin Fellers- Nutrition and Food Science

The job of the committee was to review each college’s plan for improving diversity and forward those reviews to Provost Walker. The committee continues to focus on retention. The word "retention" comes before "recruitment" in the plan. The committee felt that it is more important to focus on retention without minimizing the role of recruitment. Each faculty member should know what is in the diversity plan and know what each dean and department head is holding each faculty member accountable for. Many of the plans are vague and barely touch on the retention piece. Many of the retention pieces were put into the plan based on how departments are currently operating with retention of faculty. It has been a philosophy of the committee that retention is something that happens at the faculty level, and the committee is urging each faculty to know what is in the diversity plan. The committee is now known as the RED (racial and ethnic diversity) Committee.

 

 

Other Items

Dr. Jo Heath- Chair: In the August meeting, the School of Human Sciences asked to be elevated to a College. It was put on hold until criteria became available on which to base the decision.

 

A. General Administration Guidelines for the Future Elevation on Designation of Departments, Schools, and Colleges: Dr. John Pritchett

The last time the Board of Trustees approved an elevation from School to College was in 1996. The School that was elevated was the College of Architecture, Construction, and Design. The Board made it clear then that before they carried out any further such actions, that they wanted to see a set of guidelines that the administration could use to assess the elevation of a group of departments to schools or schools to colleges.

In July 1996, Dr. Muse appointed a committee of Deans to make recommendations and criteria for elevation of school to colleges. In the fall of 1998, Provost Walker appointed a new committee of Deans to develop criteria for elevation of disciplines into departments as well as possible elevation of schools to colleges.

In January 1999, Dean John Heilman gave a report to the Provost. They were able to survey other institutions and included this in the report. There are few established criteria for this determination, and many times this decision is based on financial aspects or political actions. In July 1999, the Provost’s office analyzed Dr. Heilman’s report. They then gathered information across the university including credit hour production by each educational unit, number of faculty, and number of majors per academic unit. These metrics were then examined and compared to the definitions of departments, colleges and schools.

The Overarching Guidelines were discussed and Dr. Pritchett thought these guidelines were important to show the Board. These should be the overall guiding principles in whether or not a unit should be elevated or not. The first principle has to be the cornerstone of this policy.

[From distributed handout]

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE ELEVATION IN DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENTS, SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

Background

During the period 1995-96, several requests were forwarded to the central administration dealing with elevation of academic unit designations. Following Board approval of the name change for the School of Architecture to the College of Architecture, Design and Construction, some members of the Board expressed a desire for some guidelines which addressed this type of action.

In July of 1996, President Muse appointed a committee of deans chaired by Gordon Bond to develop a set of guidelines so that requests could be dealt with in a consistent fashion. Unfortunately, due to Dr. Bond's health problems and the departure of several other members of the committee, a final report was not prepared.

In the Fall of 1998, Provost Bill Walker reconstituted a committee of deans and asked John Heilman to coordinate the development of a set of recommendations.

On January 21, 1999, Dr. Heilman's committee provided its report to Dr. Walker. Dr. Heilman's report was based upon reports of experiences at a dozen peer institutions as well as a review of the report of the Committee which addressed administrative restructuring of Auburn University in the mid-1980's. In the latter report, Dr. Wayne Flynt wrote that, "Consideration of college or school status [is] centered on the general consensus of some elements of difference. A college is a broad academic unit containing an array of programs and disciplines. College status depends on size, complexity of programs, scope of understanding, or extent of funding. Schools may be freestanding or subsets of colleges, depending on factors relative to academic program objectives, accreditation agencies, faculty strengths and resource allocation." Dr. Heilman's survey revealed no clear pattern of well-accepted guidelines. But his committee did offer some general recommendations which are embedded in the Overarching Guidelines of the attached document.

The Provost's Office, working with Dr. Heilman's report, then proceeded to develop the attached general administrative guidelines. The overarching guidelines are viewed as the primary factors determining future elevation in designation of academic units. The general definitions and guidelines section is intended to be a general guide. Ultimate determination of change in designation recommendations will be based upon a holistic evaluation of all components.

[end of distributed handout]

Dr. Pritchett: Along with the guidelines, some definitions were developed to enhance this idea. The key to this definition, in addition to being complex, a college shows a great deal of interdependence across the university. Some general metrics were then developed for a college.

[From distributed handout]

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE ELEVATION IN DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENTS, SCHOOLS, AND COLLEGES

Overarching Guidelines

* Designation would enhance the unit's ability to serve all three areas of Auburn's mission.

* Units with similar missions in peer institutions are commonly designated as such.

* The unit has identified metrics for the assessment of its quality, peer institutions to which it can compare itself on those metrics, and a strategy for improving its performance on those metrics.

* There is a clear and compelling need for such designation.

* Such designation will provide a clear and compelling benefit to the university and will enhance the performance of the university's mission.

 

General Definitions and Guidelines to be Used in Concert with Overarching Guidelines

College

A complex administrative unit comprised of three or more departments and/or schools with similar missions and academic disciplines. A College normally demonstrates a degree of interdependence, providing instruction for a healthy mix of its own majors and majors from other university units.

 

* Ten academic degree programs at the undergraduate/graduate level

* One thousand majors across all degree programs

* Forty faculty FTEs at the assistant professor level or above

* Student credit hour production equivalent to budgeted instructional faculty FTE but no less than 25,000 student credit hours per academic year.

[end of distributed handout]

Dr. Pritchett: Faculty FTE’s do not all have to be instructional faculty. This can include experiment station faculty, extension faculty, or instructional faculty.

Many people view a school as a small college, but this definition is slightly different from that. It may or may not be free standing.

[From distributed handout]

School

A specialized administrative unit organized to deliver instructional programs which contribute to a limited number of specialized baccalaureate, first professional and/or graduate degree programs and to deliver associated research and extension/outreach programs. A School may be free-standing or a unit within a College. A School may or may not be organized into Departments. A School normally demonstrates a degree of independence, providing instruction principally for its own majors.

 

* One accredited baccalaureate or first professional degree

* Two hundred majors across all degree programs

* Twenty faculty FTEs at the assistant professor level or above

* Student credit hour production equivalent to budgeted instructional faculty FTE but no less than 5000 student credit hours per academic year.

[end of distributed handout]

Dr. Pritchett: The definition of a department is a more flexible definition due to the diverse areas across the campus.

[From distributed handout]

Department

A fundamental administrative unit which offers specialized instruction and proprietary degree programs in one or more closely related academic disciplines, with or without associated research and extension/outreach programs.

* One baccalaureate degree program

* Fifty majors across all degree programs

* Ten faculty FTEs at the assistant professor level or above

[end of distributed handout]

Dr. Pritchett: This document was taken to the Provost and Assistant Provost for review, and a few recommendations were made. The next step was to take this to the Dean’s Council, and a few changes were made here as well. The last step is to bring it before the Senate body for review. The numbers are not the most important issue. The most important things are the overarching principles. There is a pending action that is waiting on the administrative guidelines and criteria.

After developing these metrics, Dr. Walker looked at all the free-standing colleges and schools and compared them to the metrics. Agriculture, Architecture, Business, Education, and Engineering meet all four of the criteria for the metrics. Liberal Arts and Science and Mathematics also make all the metrics.

The only college that does not meet the metrics is the College of Veterinary Medicine. It meets the metrics as far as number of faculty, but does not meet the metrics for credit hours, degree programs, and majors. The mission of the college of Vet Medicine should be examined. It is a professional college with only one professional degree. All the master’s degrees have been consolidated into a single Masters of Biomedical Sciences degree. The same is true of all the graduate doctoral degrees. So it could be argued that due to the complexity, the compelling need, and the other factors that the college status of Vet Medicine is not a concern. This is for future elevation, not application to current units.

Two of the free-standing schools, Forestry and Pharmacy, meet all of the criteria for schools. Nursing meets three of the four metrics. It does not have the required number of faculty. The School of Human Sciences meets all metrics for a school, but it also meets all metrics for a college. The test was applied after the metrics were developed, not before. So the metrics support the already compelling reasons that the School of Human Sciences should be elevated to a college status.

Embedded schools within existing schools were not examined. For example, there is a School of Fine Arts within the School of Liberal Arts. It meets the four criteria. But in recent years, the bachelor’s and master’s degrees in music have been eliminated as well as the master’s degree in art, so this may not be the case in the future. There is the School of Accountancy within the College of Business that meets two of the four factors. There is also a School of Architecture within the School of Architecture, Design and Construction. It meets three of the four factors, and it is only one faculty member short of meeting all four.

There was also a survey conducted on departments. The departments Dr. Pritchett listed were ones that did not meet the numerical criteria, but he also felt that these departments were indeed important. Plant Pathology is one of these departments. They are being combined with Entomology. It no longer has undergraduate degree programs, but has outstanding graduate degree programs.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) wondered if there was any reason why the word "reclassification" was not used in the title.

Dr. Pritchett replied that the charge from the President to the first group of Deans is specific to grouping disciplines into departments. This effort focused on that aspect. The reorganization that is occurring now was approved by the Board of Trustees in January of this year. It preceded the finalization of this document. These methods will be applied to future elevation.

Cindy Brunner asked if it costs the university any more money for a school to move to a college.

Dr. Pritchett: The metrics and the overarching principles apply to the departments, schools, and colleges. Assessment is something that should be continual. Part of the condition of creating a new department, school, or college is to have a set of metrics to use in annual and ongoing assessment. The only cost to the School of Human Sciences is the cost of new stationary and new business cards. It is a long overdue recognition of the status that the School of Human Sciences should have.

Renee Middleton (Counseling & Counseling Psychology) questioned whether these are to be guidelines and not hard and fast rules.

Dr. Pritchett: The overarching guidelines are the heart of the document. They can show in general what a department or a school entails.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) feared that these criteria could be used as justification to merge departments. She commented that there were not any faculty members on the committee.

Dr. Pritchett: This was a development of simple guidelines in response to the Board. He would oppose using these guidelines for any restructuring, or consolidation of existing departments. This is only to assist the Board in elevating units as needed.

Dr. William Walker (Provost) cannot promise that this may not be used in that manner. He feels that basing decisions solely on numbers is naive. He feels that the School of Human Sciences needs to be called the College of Human Sciences because that is what the competition requires.

B. Proposal for a Change in the Auburn Bulletin: Dr. Linda Glaze, Chair, Curriculum Committee

Dr. Glaze received a request this summer regarding the source of the three hours of free electives that are currently required in the core curriculum. She thought it was SACS criteria. However, several years ago, SACS eliminated that requirement and they never had an hourly requirement. The committee recommends that the three hours free electives in every major be eliminated. The committee decided that it should be up to each department whether they want free electives or professional electives, and how many hours should be required. The original reason for the idea of free electives may have come around before the 41-hour core curriculum. This must go through the Senate for a vote.

Dr. Jo Heath (Chair): The usual procedure is not to vote until next time because this change was not seen ahead of time. Dr. Glaze would like for this to be voted on now.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) moved to suspend the rules.

Randy Bartlett (Industrial Design) was concerned that suspending the rules would continue to occur with every issue.

Dr. Heath answered by stating that if suspension of the rules came up again, it would have to be voted on again. It is not a vote to change the rules, but a vote to suspend the rules this one time.

Dr. Glaze explained the reason for the immediate vote today. There is a time frame for the bulletin’s completion. By voting next month on this change, certain departments would then need more time to make their changes, and it is important to finish the bulletin for the January Board meeting.

Suspension of the rules was approved by voice vote. Dr. Heath then moved to eliminate the three hours free electives.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) moved to accept the recommendation. Marcia Boosinger seconded the motion. It was approved by voice vote.

For the full proposal, see attachment to the October 5, 1999 Minutes.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.