9 November 1999

Broun Hall Auditorium

Absent: T. Tyson, R. Middleton, D. Pascoe, D. Lustig, M. El-Hawagi, J. Melville, H. Thomas, C. Johnson, R. Perritt, J. Hansen, R. Wylie, G. Hill, R. Paxton, W. Brawner, R. Henderson, S. Fuller, L. Slaten, R. Keith, J. DeRuiter, K. Krueger, J. Bannon, H. Maraman, J. Neidigh

Absent (Substitute): G. Howze (C. Bailey), D. Himelrick (J. Kessler), N. Godwin (K. Fields), S. Brinson (D. Sutton), M. Jardine (P. Johnson), M. Lisano (S. Dobson)

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

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

 

Announcements:

A. President’s Office: Dr. Don Large

Dr. Large gave a summary of the Board of Trustees actions. Governor Siegelman recently appointed Mr. John Blackwell to the Board of Trustees who will replace Mr. Jim Tatum. Mr. Blackwell is a partner with Inkana Properties in Huntsville. He has been the Director of Finance with the City of Huntsville, Director of Development at University of Alabama at Huntsville, Budget Director at UAB, and Vice-President for Finance and Facilities at the University of Montevallo. He brings some expertise in the area of finance and knowledge of higher education. Dr. Large thinks Dr. Blackwell will serve Auburn well.

The Board of Trustees met. Friday, the Budget Committee met first and their agenda was to review a premium increase in the health insurance plan and a proposed premium increase in the employee-funded dental insurance plan.

The Investment Committee met and looked at our asset allocations and the performance of our endowments. They found those to be adequate.

The Planning and Priorities Committee met and discussed the proposed General Administrative Guidelines for Future Elevation in Designation of Departments, Schools, and Colleges. This came about from a previous agenda item in which the School of Human Sciences requested that their status be moved from a school to a college. The Board asked first if there should be some guidelines before decisions be made for these issues. The Board did pass the proposed guidelines presented. They did ask about current situations where departments, schools and colleges do not meet the criteria that would be appropriate for determining future elevation. Provost Walker will bring that back to the Board in January for further discussion.

The proposal to change the School of Human Sciences to College of Human Sciences passed. Dean Henton did a very good job of putting that information together in order for the proposal to pass.

Lastly, in the area of planning and priorities, there was a presentation by Dr. Graham Lockaby. He presented one area from the Peaks of Excellence on forest sustainability.

The Properties and Facilities Committee met and discussed the proposed Poultry Science building. The budget, which was set in 1995 at $12 million dollars, was raised to $17 million dollars. It is unclear where the building will be located. There was a designated spot by Comer Hall, but that may not be the best location because it would take 80 existing parking spaces as well as require more spaces to accommodate the building. The additional money will go toward deficient and substandard laboratories, such as agricultural related programs. Nutrition and Food Science is the target area for the additional money.

There was a selection of an architect for the renovation of O.D. Smith Hall.

There was also approval for the proposed team dressing room renovation, provided that the athletic department could have the money, or have pledges for the money before the project begins.

The College of Engineering presented their precinct plan and it was approved. They have had outside architects and consultants work over the past three years on that plan.

The three-year contract for the Tiger Transit, which now has over 8000 riders a day, has ended. Dixie Excursions is the current provider, but was not the lowest bidder. Groom Transportation was selected. They are a Richmond, VA based company and have been in business since 1934. They have a variety of clients including Old Dominion University, Hartsfield-Altlanta International Airport, Ft. Benning, and Mercer University.

Conner Bailey (representing Glenn Howze): He is concerned that the criterion that was developed for elevation of units across campus has immediately been identified as a way of demotion as well. This seems to be an opening by members of the Board as a way of downsizing this University. He would like to see that discussion regarding this matter will follow the appropriate review procedures.

Dr. Large will pass the concern along and he feels sure that there will be that commitment of process.

Dr. John Pritchett: Dr. Walker asked Dr. Pritchett to do an analysis of all the departments. There is a strong justification for all departmental units with the exception of one or two. For example, several departments in Vet Medicine do not meet the criteria, but the college offers inter-departmental degrees. With the departments where the numbers do not add up, consolidation has already been proposed from previous processes. He does not feel it will be a problem.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) would like to echo Conner’s concern. Just recently in the Senate, the members argued about this issue should the guidelines pass.

Michael Mercer (Journalism): Will the new transportation company be hiring more employees, and will some of the Dixie Excursions employees be hired? Will the service in any way be changed?

Dr. Jimmy Ferguson: We don’t know yet if they will be hiring more drivers. Dixie Excursions has already indicated that they will need all of their existing employees in other areas. There will be fifteen new busses and he feels that the service will be even better.

B. Senate Chair: Jo Heath

  1. Glenn Howze has been given the Auburn Black Caucus Faculty Senate Chair award from last year.
  1. Ava Honan, Chair of the AUM Faculty Senate, was introduced. She is the person to contact if there are any concerns involving AUM.
  2. Larry Gerber asked that Senate members ask their colleagues to not throw away the salary questionnaire when it comes in the mail. There are only three questions and they could be important to the size of each faculty member’s paycheck. If there is enough support, there could possibly be two separate systems of payment. Primarily, the question is whether the pay for nine-month appointments should be divided into twelve equal payments, or ten unequal payments.
  3. The Instrumentation Committee has not met for four years. If anyone has a reason why this committee should be continued, please tell Jo Heath or Marcia Boosinger.
  4. There is a stack of rough drafts of new proposed room rules in the back of the room. Please look at this document and pass on any concerns or special requests to John Pritchett.
  5. It was mentioned at the last meeting that Yolanda Brady had not attended a single meeting of her committee. She wanted the Senate to know that she had a class conflict and could not attend the meetings.
  6. Alpha Kappa Delta International Sociological Honor Society is sponsoring an "Auburn vs. Alabama Food Fight" which benefits the East Alabama Food Bank. You are asked to donate canned food items in the red barrels across campus and at Kroger. Whatever school donates the greatest number of pounds of food wins the "Food Fight."

 

Committee Reports:

A. Academic Honesty: Dr. David Cicci

Dr. Cicci is the outgoing Chair of the Academic Honesty Committee. Cheating is still very popular at Auburn. Over the past three years, the Committee has heard 115 cases of alleged violations of the Academic Honesty Code. The violations ranged from copying homework and assignments, to cheating on an exam, to plagiarism, to submitting forged doctor’s excuses, to forging University grade change and readmission forms. In one more extreme case a student submitted a term paper that was downloaded from the Internet, still containing the URL from where it was obtained. Another case is a student who submitted a term paper that was plagiarized from the front page of the Auburn Plainsman. The most unbelievable case is one where a student submitted an obituary of his father in order to obtain permission to drop a course after the deadline. It proved to be fake as confirmed by a telephone conversation from the student’s healthy father.

Since 1996, violations have decreased from 59 down to 20. He hopes that the reduction is good news. But he suspects that faculty members are handling problems at the departmental level instead. This should not be done for three reasons. One, the established procedures protect the student’s right of due process under the code. Two, the Honesty Committee can better ensure that consistent sanctions are assigned for similar violations than can individual faculty members. Three, the Provost’s Office can provide verification for repeat violations by a student, which must be considered when recommending sanctions.

While it does take extra time to file formal charges against a student, it is a straight-forward procedure and not lengthy. After the charge has been formally filed, the Provost’s Office handles all the scheduling and correspondence in the case.

The recommended sanctions for the 115 cases were listed on the screen. Some examples of sanctions are obtaining a "0" on the exam or assignment, or a grade of "F" for that course. The transcript would also have a notation that the "F" was given for violation of the Academic Honesty Code. Suspension from the University for a specified length of time and expulsion from the University were other sanctions awarded.

Approximately 20% of the cases brought forward were found to have insufficient evidence.

Page 92 of the Tiger Cub contains an "Easy Guide to Reporting Honesty Cases." This was redistributed to members of the Senate. He asks that members share this document with those in their department. Also included in the handout are summaries entitled, "Guidelines to prevent and discourage cheating during exams," and "What to do if you suspect a student has cheated."

Dr. Cicci showed a summary of appeals for the last three years on the screen. There were only four appeals filed. Not one ruling was overturned.

The recommendations are just recommendations to the Provost’s Office. While four have been appealed to the President’s office, none have been overturned.

The Committee found that many students, especially freshman, do not understand the definition of plagiarism. By taking a few minutes at the beginning of the class to explain what you expect and what is permitted, you may prevent some violations. Next, cheating has become much more tempting, especially with the availability of papers and reports on the Internet. Dr. Cicci showed an example of a flier that was obtained from a bulletin board on campus. It tells how you can earn money by selling term papers, reports, and essays. It doesn’t say that you can also purchase these items from this organization. Please take extra time to investigate suspected plagiarism if at all possible. Third, there is a plentiful supply of fake doctor’s excuses available to students. When presented with such an excuse for missed work, always take a few minutes to verify that the excuse is legitimate. Contact the Chair of the Honesty Committee or Dr. John Pritchett if you have any concerns or questions about the process.

B. Insurance and Benefits Committee—Premium changes: Dr. Paul Johnson and Dr. Don Large

Dr. Paul Johnson (Chair, Insurance and Benefits Committee): This year there will be premium increases of 14.9% on the current health and dental plans. The reason for this increase is simple. The health plan is funded by Auburn University. A certain amount comes in every year in the form of premiums, 60% from the University and 40% from the employees, and a certain amount is paid out to pay claims. The amount going out has been greater than the amount coming in. The reserves have begun to diminish. If there is a 15% increase in health care costs, like is projected for the national average, then the reserves will go down below the prudent level. Therefore, there was the choice of either raising the premiums or cutting the coverage. For example, co-payments could have been increased and benefits for prescription drugs could have been decreased. The Committee did not feel that cutting benefits would be warranted, and they decided that they would increase the premiums to keep the reserves at a prudent level.

Dr. Don Large: Dr. Large reviewed the recommendation by the Committee and concurred with its plan. He showed some statistics and information about the insurance plan that were shown to the Board. Single coverage would be raised by $10.25, and family coverage would be raised $21.50. The dental insurance, which is 100% employee paid, has not been increased since January, 1997, and it will increase as well.

There has only been an increase of 5% in the past six years. There is some question as to why there would not be small increases instead of one 15% or 20% increase at once. The problem is that reserves are to be built up at only the cost incurred, not at something above that. It is a balancing act to keep the reserves at just the right level.

Right now it is projected that there will be over $6 million dollars in the fund from the start of the next year. With the increase, there will be $17.2 million dollars. Including the interest, there will be $23.8 million dollars with which to pay claims. $19 million dollars are expected to be paid out in the year 2000. The biggest concern is that the plan will be $2.5 million dollars out of balance even with the 15% increase through the next year. There may be a similar increase this time next year.

Dr. Large showed a comparison of Auburn’s coverage to peer institutions. He felt the deductibles are not out of line and actually may be lower in some areas.

The dental plan has 1300 participants and it is completely employee funded. The plan will be in a slight deficit at the beginning of the year. If it is not increased, the deficit will increase even more. There will be a $2.25 increase in single coverage and a $7.00 increase in family coverage.

Next, Dr. Large showed a Blue Cross analysis showing the high cost areas of health care for Auburn employees. Last year, $16 million dollars were spent, and the year before, $15 million dollars were spent on claims. There are a large number of dependents driving the costs. The group of individuals between ages 50-60 incur the most costs. Then, there is a drop off because of Medicare benefits for this group.

The top physician specialties are Orthopedic Surgery and Family Practice. The top drugs are Prilosac, Prozac, and Claritin. Seventeen to eighteen million dollars was spent on pharmaceuticals and this figure is likely to rise further.

Hospital admissions were not out of line with peers. Admissions costs were slightly less than peers. The number of hospital inpatient days per 1000 members was found to be in line. Fifty percent of the costs were spent at East Alabama Medical Center. Dr. Large also showed statistics on outpatient visits, outpatient costs and utilization by hospital, the top five hospital outpatient major diagnostic categories, and negotiated provider savings. Blue Cross also is a negotiator of health care costs. If Auburn were not connected to Blue Cross, $7 or $8 million dollars more would have been spent on health care costs.

Sacit Biligili (Poultry Science): What are the cost savings of putting the retirees on a different plan?

Dr. Large: There was about $1 to $1.5 millions dollars in difference. There are less than 500 retirees still on the Auburn University plan. There were a number of Extension employees and some spouses of deceased employees who could not move over to PHIP.

Michael Mercer (Journalism): Is the University contributing a 15% increase to the plan as well?

Dr. Large: Yes, the University will contribute 60% of the 15% increase. There will be a $20 million dollar increase, and the University will pay about $12 million of that. The University could pay a higher percentage to the fund, but then it would have to reallocate funds in other areas.

Kent Fields (representing Accountancy): Is there any mixture of funds between the health care portion and the dental portion, or are those funds kept separately? And second, traditionally the Insurance and Benefits Committee presented this type of proposal to the Senate before presenting it to the Board of Trustees. Why was it not presented first to the Senate?

Dr. Paul Johnson: There is no mixture of funds. The answer to the second question is that he (Dr. Johnson) did not know that it was traditional to present a recommendation first to the Senate. The data was collected at the beginning of summer, and it was a rushed process, but it could have been presented first to the Senate.

Dr. Large: He will try to make sure that it happens that way next year, assuming there will be an increase.

Virginia Morgan (representing the non-merged Specialist in Extension): Is it on-going that PHIP will not accept Extension retirees?

Dr. Large: He thinks that was just a problem with the way Extension employees were funded or the classification of those employees when the retirees were first moved. He does not think that is a problem now.

Dr. Johnson: You as Senate members should be thinking of some solutions for the upcoming year if another increase is necessary, and those suggestions should be made known to the Insurance and Benefits Committee. This year’s committee felt that they had limited support for benefit cutting as opposed to premium increases. But if that is not the case, please make your opinions known. Other options would be to increase the co-pay or modify the prescription drug allowance. Dr. David Lange of the AUM Finance Department will be the new Chair of the Committee.

 

C. Promotion and Tenure Committee—Recommended faculty handbook changes: Dr. Gene Hill

Dr. Jo Heath (Chair): The changes are recommendations by the P & T Committee, but the wording and the placement in the handbook were designed by the Handbook Committee.

Dr. Gene Hill: The recommendations were included with the agenda. He will move to pass each recommendation individually.

The first recommendation refers to organization of the dossier, as it is sometimes difficult to find items. The use of tabs and categories may make it easier to find items of interest. Recommendation #1 includes the wording "with tabs" as well as the four categories under "Information supplied by the candidate."

Christine Curtis (VP, Academic Affairs): She wondered why the word "Extension" was chosen. Recently, "Outreach" has been used more than "extension."

Dr. Hill: He does not know where that wording came from.

Steve Dobson (representing Biological Sciences): Isn’t the word, "extension" used in other parts of the handbook?

Cindy Brunner (Patholobiology): On page 3:11, there is a section containing Contributions to Extension.

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary): Extension is used extensively throughout that section. She suggests working on a language change at another time.

Michael Watkins (Philosophy) wondered if this were to be voted on today or if it should wait until the next meeting.

Dr. Jo Heath (Chair): Since it was mailed out with the agenda, it should be voted on today.

Dennis DeVries (Fisheries): Honors and Awards now do not have a category in which to fit. Should there be a separate category for that? It is included right after biographical data.

Dr. Hill: Many times that is included in either teaching or research.

Marcia Boosinger: There is a section that gives a very detailed description of information to be supplied by the candidate. There is also a section that discusses the general organization of the submission of the dossier. Gene’s change just goes to that general section. It does not remove anything. Since it may be unclear to people, if they follow what used to be page 3:14, then she does not think there is a conflict between that and what is in page 3:20. This is a summary organization that he is proposing.

Conner Bailey (representing the immediate past Chair): A couple of years age, John Heilman chaired a task force looking at outreach as part of the University mission. He understands that report was submitted and approved by the Senate and administration. Although some faculty may not have an appointment with the Alabama Cooperative Extension program, they do interact with the community and provide valuable services there. There has always been the question as to where people could record that. It is not really service, and he wondered if that section might be worded as, "Extension and/or Outreach."

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Moves to postpone recommendation #1 to January.

The Senate voted in favor of postponing recommendation #1.

Dr. Hill: Sometimes it is hard to assess the quality of the journals that candidates listed as publications. They wanted some sort of system of ranking that would allow the department to have some say as to which journal is the best. Recommendation #2 involves faculty input to assess the quality of the journals. Dr. Hill moves to adopt recommendation #2.

Steve Dobson (representing Biological Sciences): Doesn’t the library have access to ranking the quality of journals?

Dr. Hill: That information is available, but the P & T Committee does not have the time to check out every journal for every candidate.

Kent Fields (representing Accountancy): He would like to see some evidence that this input is coming from the faculty and not just from the department head. Many times there are differing opinions as to what constitutes quality journals.

Dr. Hill: He agrees that is true, but the idea is to let faculty decide what the top three journals are for their department.

Recommendation #2 was approved by a vote of 25-18.

Dr. Hill: Recommendations #3, 4, and 5 were put together by Dr. Hill because he feels they belong together. In the past, there have been papers where the authors were listed alphabetically, and some where the senior author was listed last, so the Committee felt it would be important to have a way of knowing the significance of the authorship of the candidate. It was also found that papers had been submitted for publication, but not accepted. Recommendation #4 states that some proof is needed of conditional acceptance, and candidates should avoid submitting publications that have not been accepted.

Terri Brower (Nursing): She thinks the wording should be "do not submit" rather than "avoid submitting publications that have not been accepted for publication." She has a problem in her department with individuals submitting conditionally accepted papers that had never actually been written. She made a motion to change the wording of the recommendation.

Sacit Bilgili (Poultry Science): He feels like he should get credit for work done. Even if it has not been accepted, it constitutes scholarly work that the individual should get credit for doing. Many times it takes years to have a paper reviewed, and that should not be a strike against the individual. Maybe it should not weigh as much, but have a separate section for these types of papers.

Dr. Hill: Usually the problem is that those papers are submitted with all the other papers, and the P & T Committee has to pick through them.

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary): Under "The Description of Research Creative Work" in the handbook, it does say that "work in progress and work anticipated should be described in no more than one page," and so it appears that work submitted could also be included at this point.

Ralph Zee (Mechanical Engineering): Why do we need recommendation #3, because the next sentence asks for the percent of the contributor’s contribution?

Alex Dunlop (English): It seems that the whole sentence in recommendation #4 is in conflict with what Marcia was talking about.

Herb Rotfeld: He thinks that Dr. Dunlop is misunderstanding the issue. The recommendation refers to the documentation that they want submitted. Marcia was talking about areas that can be listed under current research. So you can list all these things, but the recommendation is saying don’t send us the papers.

Sacit Bilgili (Poultry Science): The sentence is circular now. It would be more appropriate to say, "Do not submit manuscripts" rather than "publications."

In recommendation #4, does the word conditional mean that the paper has been submitted, but not yet accepted?

Dr. Hill: He interprets that meaning the paper will be accepted as revised.

The motion to change, "Avoid submitting publications" to "Do not submit manuscripts" was approved by a show of hands.

Dr. Hill: He then brought up the discussion referring to Ralph Zee’s point about deleting recommendation #5. Dr. Hill knows that from experience that candidates do not provide this information.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Does the new sentence asks for more of a general statement of about the standards in the candidate’s field rather than this particular publication?

Dr. Hill: Yes.

Kent Fields (representing Accountancy): It seems that this is a small burden to place on the candidate to provide some additional information to the committee.

Dr. Hill: All the information obtained is helpful to the committee.

Dennis DeVries (Fisheries): He is unclear what conditional acceptance means. If it is accepted, then it is accepted. If not, then it is not ready. He makes a motion to strike #4 and remove it from considering #3, 4, and 5 together.

Motion seconded.

Ralph Zee (Mechanical Engineering) speaks in favor of #4. There are many cases where a paper has been submitted, and you receive a letter from the editor saying it will be accepted provided necessary revisions are made. These could be major or very minor corrections. To take that out prevents the candidate from submitting that paper at all even though it has been accepted.

Terri Brower (Nursing): She speaks in favor of recommendation #4. Candidates have a difficult enough time submitting documentation. She had received letters herself where there were minor revisions to a paper.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) also speaks in favor of recommendation #4. Almost all the time, letters of acceptance of manuscripts state, "…pending upon receipt of your signing over the copyright to this paper," etc, we will proceed with publication of this paper.

The motion to strike recommendation #4 was not approved by voice vote. Recommendations #3, 4, and 5 were approved by a show of hands.

Dr. Hill: There was more than one case this year where the third year review was not properly held. He moves that the Senate adopt recommendation #6.

Dr. Jo Heath: The handbook changes can be postponed until the January meeting. There are several other motions that have to be voted on today.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She made a motion to postpone the handbook changes including recommendation #6 until the January meeting.

The motion was approved by voice vote.

 

D. University Curriculum Committee—Changes for 2000 Bulletin: Dr. Linda Glaze

The University Curriculum Committee looked at definitions of a double major and a dual degree over the summer. Currently, there are definitions for dual degrees and second degrees, but not a double major. These definitions are provided in the agenda attachments. The purpose of this recommendation is to recognize a double major for the student and to set standards for the department. ACHE will accept a double major provided there is a definition. Since there is no definition, there is a question of whether departments can include those in their total number of students enrolled in their programs. The motion is to accept the definition of a double major.

Paul Schmitt (Mathematics): In the definition of a double major, it states, "more than 30 additional hours," and in the definition for a second degree it states, "a minimum of 30 semester hours."

Dr. Glaze: She can change that to "completes at least 30" or "completes 30 or more hours."

The first recommendation was approved by voice vote.

 

F. Academic Standards Committee—Changes for 2000 Bulletin: Dr. Linda Glaze

The second recommendation refers to the standard set that requires a student to take a minimum of 15 semester hours to be considered for the Dean’s List. Several departments contacted the office and questioned that. Some degree programs, such as Physics, set up their model to not necessarily have a student take 15 semester hours every quarter. If a student follows the model that the department recommends, 4 of the 8 semesters do not include 15 hours. Therefore, that student could not be considered for the Dean’s List for half of the proposed semesters. The Academic Standards Committee is recommending that the minimum number of hours to be considered for the Dean’s List be changed from 15 hours to 12 semester hours because that is what is considered a full-time load.

Kent Fields (representing Accountancy): He thought that they were only allowed to have 3-hour classes, and some of the Physics classes reflected 4-hour classes.

Dr. Glaze: Calculus and Lab Sciences were approved for 4-hour courses, with three hours of lecture and one hour of lab.

The recommendation to change the number of hours from 15 to 12 was approved by voice vote.

The last item refers to Correspondence courses, which are now called Distance Learning courses. The issue is whether those courses should be considered in the calculations of the GPA. Dr. Glaze has reviewed the policy with the Associate Deans in all the Colleges and Schools across campus as well as the Academic Standards Committee.

The current policy is that the grade is posted to the transcript, but does not calculate into the Auburn GPA. A student has 12 months to complete a course with the possibility of extension. The proposed recommendation is to create two categories that will create two types of independent learning courses. One is called "transfer" and one is called "graded." Under the semester system, all of the Distance Learning courses will be reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee. SACS Accreditation requires that Distance Learning courses have the same learning outcomes as those courses given in a traditional mode.

It is recommended that the transfer option be changed to only allow the student nine months to complete the course with no option of extension. It would show on the transcript, but will not calculate into the GPA.

The main features of the graded option are that students will determine at the beginning of the course whether they want the course for a grade or for transfer credit. If they decide it is to be considered for a grade, then all the current policies for the traditional course would also apply to the graded option course. In that case, the grade is calculated into the Auburn GPA.

The motion is to establish the two categories of independent a-synchronous (in the field) distance education learning courses as outlined in the proposed Bulletin description.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Under the graded option, would the student only have that one semester in which to complete the course?

Dr. Glaze: Yes, like a traditional course. The student could get an incomplete, but the rules for an incomplete course would apply to this course as well. This is not talking about the independent study courses or the whole distance learning courses, which are generally at the graduate level. This is talking about the single courses that a student may sign up for and take.

Conner Bailey (representing the immediate past Chair): Is this referring to independent classes offered at Auburn University or any university?

Dr. Glaze: There are a percentage of courses that Auburn will accept from other universities as transfer credit. It is not known whether those course have been taken distance or traditional, so this proposal refers to only courses taken through Auburn. Other courses will be handled as any other transfer course would be handled.

Alex Dunlop (English): Could you clarify the target clientele for the two categories?

Dr. Glaze: Looking to the future, we would all agree that we no longer talk about correspondence. The graded option would potentially be students, who for scheduling reasons, cannot take the regular section during the traditional hours. A student cannot take these courses instead of the traditional course without the Dean’s approval. In the future, it could potentially open up the possibility for a student who was admitted to Auburn University, but is not in residence at that time. They can establish credits, and when they enroll in Auburn full-time, they could then use these courses toward their degree.

The transfer option is for those who do not intend to get a degree. We are trying to integrate these courses into the entire system and review process. Since they carry the name of Auburn University, it is important that we make sure those courses have the same academic review as the other courses.

The proposal to establish two categories of independent learning courses was approved by voice vote.

 

Other Items

A. Information Technology Initiative: Dr. Stephen McFarland introduced Janet Pumo, Principal, IBM Educational Consulting

Dr. McFarland: We brought a handout explaining the IT Initiative process and the members of the core team.

Janet Pumo (Principal, IBM Educational Consulting): IBM consulting group was invited to come in and assist Auburn University in the development of a strategic IT plan. The purpose of the plan is to help set direction on improving the Information Technology environment at Auburn, AUM, and other extension sites. The handout includes a description of the people on the core team and their e-mail addresses in case you need to get in touch with them. It also lists the objectives of the project in more detail.

The first phase of the project is to assess the environment. This will take nine weeks getting opinions and experiences about the environment, both qualitatively and quantitatively. In the next couple of weeks, 100% of the faculty and staff, and 15% of the students will receive a survey to get a sense of the quantitative satisfaction levels. Your voice is going to drive the direction that Auburn will take in investing in technology over the next three to five years. We will also be holding focus groups that will clarify some of the information, and have interviews when necessary. At the end of the nine weeks, we will have a sense of the environment.

In phase two, we will decide where Auburn wants to go in the future with IT. Phase three will be building the implementation plan. It will include the specific projects, the phasing of each project, the cost of each project and from where the funding will be coming.

There will be a forum tomorrow in Haley Center 2370 at 4:00 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. if there are any questions.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.