Auburn University Senate Minutes

11 January 2000

Broun Hall Auditorium

Absent: J. Novak, D. Lustig, M. El-Halwagi, J. Hung, H. Thomas, R. Perritt, J. Hansen, R. Wylie, L. Slaten, R. Keith, T. Brower, K. Krueger, H. Maraman, J. Neidigh

Absent (Substitute): T. Tyson (T. Griff), N. Godwin (K. Fields), R. Jenkins (R. Hartfield), S. Brinson (D. Sutton), A. Dunlop (D. Rygiel), M. Jardine (D. Martin), J. Bannon (J. Owen)

 

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

The minutes for the previous meeting were approved as posted. They can be found on the Senate web page at https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html.

 

Announcements:

A. President William Muse

The Alabama Legislature will go back into session early in February. It is anticipated that this will be a difficult session as far as funding for higher education. Muse met last week with Governor Seigelman and three other representatives from the Council of University and College presidents. They presented the case for funding of higher education, and specifically, they requested an equitable share of the growth of the education trust fund. They asked that one-third of the growth of the fund be allocated for higher education. This is the share that higher education had traditionally received prior to 1995.

The first obstacle to attaining that goal is an effort by Paul Hubbard, and the Alabama Education Association, to bring teacher’s salaries up to the national average in grades K-12.. This would require the entire amount from the growth of the educational trust fund and would not leave any for higher education. The Governor will be giving his recommendations to the Legislature within the next few days. Alumni and supporters around the state have been encouraged to write to the governor and to ask him to allocate one-third of the growth of the education trust fund for higher education. Dr. Muse encourages each faculty member to do likewise. He agrees that the teachers in K-12 should be fairly compensated, but at the current time, salaries in higher education are much further from the national average than are those in K-12.

On January 19th, each of our institutions will give a presentation to the House Ways and Means Committee. Dr. Muse will be representing Auburn University on January 20th.

The Board of Trustees will meet on Friday, January 28th on the AUM campus, the traditional site of the January meeting. There will be a full agenda of reports and proposals to present to the Board for their consideration.

A search has begun to fill the position of Associate Provost and Vice-President for Student Affairs. Dr. Betty Burkhalter has indicated her plans to retire from that position later this spring. President Muse commended Dr. Burkhalter for the outstanding job that she has done. He commented that she has focused the resources of that division on improved services for the students. She developed the Student Success Center, which has achieved national recognition. Few individuals have worked harder for the students than has Dr. Burkhalter.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): At the November meeting, there was discussion of the guidelines for the promotion of schools and colleges. A remark was made that if the guidelines could be used for promotion, they could also be used for demotion as well. We were told that there would be a follow-up to that question at the next Board meeting with regards to the departments that did not meet the criteria to be departments. She wondered what Dr. Muse was planning to present to the Board in that regard.

Dr. Muse: Provost Walker has prepared a report to present at the January meeting. There are sixteen departments that do not meet one or more of the criteria that were approved. In his report, he will identify the specific criteria that they do not meet. Our proposal is to ask the Program Review Committee to make recommendations as to whether that particular unit should retain its departmental status.

Dr. Walker: Many of the departments that are on the list have already been scheduled for merger. The recommendation is to refer those decisions to the Program Review Committee.

Cindy Brunner: As a member of the Academic Review Committee, she is concerned that they will be asked to demote departments by criteria that were never approved by this Senate for that purpose.

Dr. Muse: I think you will be asked to look at each unit in comparison to the criteria that were approved for departmental status.

Cindy Brunner: They were approved for departmental promotion, and that was very specific in the proposal that we saw. We discussed the issue of demotion of programs, and Dr. Pritchett said that that was not going to be a consideration.

Dr. Muse: I guess Dr. Pritchett did not have a vote on that issue.

David Himelrick (Horticulture): Can you update us on the status of the location of the Poultry Science building? How many classrooms it will provide?

Dr. Muse: He does not know the answers to those questions. At the last Board meeting, he asked the Board to increase the budget for that building and they agreed to do that. They also asked that the site for that building be rethought. He will carry some alternate sites back to the Board at the January meeting. He has appointed a new Building Committee that includes representation from Nutrition and Food Science.

 

B. Senate Chair: Dr. Jo Heath

The four people on the Nominating Committee to elect the new Senate Chair-Elect and Secretary-Elect are Barry Burkhart, Yvonne Kozlowski, Jean Weese, and Glenn Howze. Anyone who knows of a good candidate can tell one of these members or write Dr. Burkhart at BURKHBR@mail.auburn.edu or at the Psychology Department, 226 Thach.

Dr. Barry Burkhart: In May 1999, the Provost approved a policy to grant out-going officers of the Senate a Professional Improvement Leave. After recognizing the time and demands of this position, the outgoing Chair of the Senate would be granted a year of Professional Improvement Leave which will be funded by the Provost. The outgoing secretary of the Senate will be granted one semester of Professional Improvement Leave. He would like to thank Dr. Walker for this, because this job does curtail academic work for several years.

Jo Heath: The Senate Officers have started an Academic Recognition Project to get members of the Board of Trustees to recognize some of the faculty’s academic achievements at their meetings. At the next meeting, Byron Blagburn, will be introduced and his accomplishments will be briefly described. There has also been an ad hoc Honors Committee formed consisting of Jim Bradley as chair, Bert Hitchcock, and Caroline Dunn. They will put together a list of honors. If anyone receives one of the honors on that list, then they will be recognized at a Board meeting.

Nominations for Rules Committee need to be made soon, so please make any recommendations for candidacy known. There were handouts passed out from Buddy Mitchell and Sherri Fulford, Auburn's non-lobbyists. They are helping Auburn University lobby for one-third of the educational trust fund.

Informational Items:

A. Information Technology Initiative Update: Tom Wunderlee, Project Director and Janet Pumo, Principal, IBM Educational Consulting

Phase I, which has just been completed, is a survey of the strengths and weaknesses of the technology on this campus. An interim report has just been published on the web at www.auburn.edu/ITstudy. Twenty -three interviews and 2446 surveys were conducted. Over 30% of the faculty and staff responded as well as 14% of the students. There was an IT services inventory survey of forty different organizations. There were also ten focus groups that conducted. All of this information can be found in the interim report. It also has a list of the core team members, and comments may be directed to them.

The areas focused on were IT funding, how that funding is used, how effective that funding is. Hardware and software access, information networking access, and instructional technology were also focal points. Training and technical support and the management of IT on this campus were studied.

Those findings are critical to the next step. The IBM team will now look at the strengths and weaknesses in terms of the IT capabilities, as compared to the IT mission. The IT transformation principles will define and guide the team as the plan is implemented. Right now they are developing the initial recommendations. They will be consolidated and presented on Thursday, January 20th to the core team and Dr. Large, Dr. Walker, and a representative from AUM.

 

B. Diversity: Provost William Walker

Dr. Walker thanked the Senate for the marvelous job they did at identifying and successfully recruiting minority faculty. Eleven to thirteen faculty of color were hired into tenure-track positions. Twenty-five percent of the new faculty members hired were minorities. The recruitment process of minorities will be continued this year. Dr. Walker set a goal of identifying and hiring 20 minority faculty this next year. He will loan the money to hire people, especially in those areas where the faculty may be short. In other cases, areas where faculty may be leaving in the next few years should be identified. The Provost will advance money against that position if a minority faculty member can be hired and retained.

This is not limited to Assistant Professor positions. Last year Auburn was successful in recruiting two Associate Professors from other universities. He expects that this emphasis will continue into the future. It is important to have a faculty and student body that is more reflective of the state in which we live. Please revisit the minority recruiting plans that were developed in each school and college.

The best recruiting plan is rendered ineffective if those faculty cannot be retained. The cost associated with losing faculty because they do not receive tenure is very high. Many of us have seen a potentially tenurable faculty members who have been denied tenure because they did not have the benefit of sound advice and good counsel from senior faculty. All of the junior faculty members, regardless of race or gender, deserve our best effort on their behalf in respect to receiving promotion and tenure. He encourages each department to develop active mentoring programs on behalf of all junior faculty.

 

Committee Reports:

A. Calendar and Schedules Committee: Dr. Claire Crutchley

There were three pages in the agenda that were submitted by the Committee. On behalf of the members of the Calendar and Schedules Committee, Dr. Crutchley moved that the Senate accept the calendar for the 2001-2002 school year.

Kent Fields (Accountancy): What are the changes from the previously approved calendar?

Claire Crutchley: Three days of final exams were added to the ten-week summer. The fall graduation date was on a Monday. Fall now has a Saturday graduation date. A two-day fall break was also included on October 8th and 9th. Because of that, the start date has been moved back three academic days. The spring semester now has two dead days before finals, so the start of classes has been moved back one day in January.

Dennis Rygiel (English): In the summer semester of 2001, the calendar says "Exams" and "Summer Session." In the summer semester of 2002, the calendar reads, "Final Exams" and "Summer Term." What is the appropriate language there? Also, since student orientation begins August 15th, does that also mean that faculty appointments begin then as well?

Claire Crutchley: "Final Exams" and "Summer Term" are the appropriate phrases. She did not know the answer to the latter question.

David Bransby (Agronomy and Soils): Did the Committee consider splitting the two dead days during Spring semester? There is some concern that two dead days together will result in students traveling.

Claire Crutchley: The Committee responded to the students that they heard from. Those students asked for two dead days in a row.

Bruce Gladden (Chair-elect): Some universities gave a fall break, but not the extra Thanksgiving holidays, and we are doing both.

Claire Crutchley: This proposed calendar is almost exactly The University of Georgia’s calendar. It varies between schools.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She was on the original Calendar Committee and did a comparison of a dozen universities. Having a mid-fall break is very typical, and it is not unusual to have more than one dead day.

Ralph Henderson (Veterinary Medicine): Isn’t that a five-day Thanksgiving break that is listed?

Claire Crutchley: Those dates include the weekend.

The motion was approved by voice vote.

 

B. Insurance and Benefits Committee—Life insurance premiums: Dr. David Lange, AUM

About two-thirds of the faculty members are part of the current life insurance program. It includes either $3000 or $15,000 of life insurance, plus one times each individual’s salary up to $60,000 for death benefit. The current plan is designed to be a "pay as you go" program. The dollars being put into the system are going to pay the death benefits of the current or retired employees. Due to the demographic changes in the retiree class as compared to the active class, the premiums will have to be increased. In June of 1997, the insurance company informed the Insurance and Benefits Committee that there would have to be a 60% increase in the premiums.

The proposal is to cancel the current program. Then the University would provide one times an individual’s salary, up to $35,000 of life insurance, free of charge for all active employees. In addition, the University would fund the current retirees. This would also fund those employees who will retire within the next three years.

Active employees will have the option to purchase a five-year level term insurance plan of one, two, or three times their salary up to $450,000. Spouse and children will be added to the policy as well. It is portable, in case you leave Auburn University. It has greater death benefits; it will pay 50% upon premature death. It is a guaranteed issue. It also offers accidental death and dismemberment coverage. Auburn University also continues its share of the life insurance benefit.

Those who make more than $45,000, and are four or more years from retirement, will have some increased costs. The Committee did everything they could to try to minimize the increased costs.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past Chair): Did you have any contact with the current retirees?

Dr. Lange: The current retirees will only benefit from the change, so there was no contact made. Currently, they are paying $12 a year for death benefits. With the proposed plan, the death benefits will remain the same, but there will be no premium.

David Martin (Political Science): On the current active premium can be allocated for the five-year term plan or the cash value product. Will that be the same for everyone, or can an individual choose a cash product?

Dr. Lange: It is individualized. Whatever you are paying into the current plan can be allocated for the proposed plan, or you may choose a cash product.

 

C. Rules Committee—Calendar changes: Dr. Jo Heath

The General Faculty meeting will be moved up one month to fit in with the semester schedule. Also, the election of the new Rules Committee members will be moved up one month. The purpose for that is to get the University Committees approved at the beginning of fall term. This year there were a number of committees that were not established until the end of the fall quarter. The goal is to get the Rules Committee established early, the new Senate officers established early, and have June 1st as a deadline for the University committee nominations. During the summer, the Senate Committee structure could be established. Dr. Heath moved that the Senate accept the calendar changes.

The motion was approved by voice vote.

 

D. Promotion and Tenure Committee—Recommended faculty handbook changes: Dr. William Walker

On behalf of the Committee, he moved that the Senate accept the changes.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) moved to discuss the items one at a time. Motion seconded.

Motion approved by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair): Last time, there was discussion about recommendation #1 concerning the word "extension" versus "outreach." The Handbook Committee would prefer to consider that separately. Recommendation #1 now includes only that the handbook should "have tabs."

Jenny Morgan (Extension): Under item c, it should read Alabama Cooperative Extension "System" instead of "Service."

Dr. Heath (Chair): That is a friendly amendment and will be changed.

Recommendation #1 was approved by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair): Recommendations #2,3,4, and 5 were approved at the last Senate meeting. Recommendation #6 involves the third year review.

Dennis Rygiel (English): For a number of reasons, his department has voiced concerns about the confidentiality of the third year review. This may change the nature of the third year review. If it is to be included in the tenure packet, than less and less may be said about a candidate at that time.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Her own department had the same concern. If this recommendation passes, it may completely change the experience of the review and the environment. They consider that to be an advisory opportunity and a good chance to counsel that individual. It is not considered a time to scrutinize that person’s productivity in the context of whether he or she should be awarded tenure a few years later. They feel it is inappropriate to be a part of the dossier.

David Martin (Political Science): The Political Science faculty anonymously oppose recommendation #6 and #7 for the reasons already iterated by Dr. Rygiel and Dr. Brunner.

Recommendation #6 was defeated by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair) asked Dennis Rygiel if what he said for #6 holds true for #7 as well.

Dennis Reigel: He feels even more strongly about recommendation #7.

Recommendation #7 was opposed by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair): Recommendation #8 says that the teacher evaluation forms submitted should be as concise as possible.

Recommendation #8 was approved by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair): Recommendations #9 states that candidates for Associate Professor should be required to solicit references from outside sources instead of doing so as an option. Number 9 and #10 should be considered together.

David Martin (Political Science): The Department of Political Science wishes to table recommendations #9, 10 and 11 for further discussion. They are concerned about the number of solicitations made of other institutions. They thought that this might deluge other institutions, especially in areas where there are a relatively small number of specialists in a given field.

Stella Bentley (Library): In the rest of the P & T document, when there is reference to professors, there is also usually reference to librarian IV and archivist IV. That did not happen in this recommendation and the staff was not sure if they were being excluded.

Dr. Heath (Chair): She presumed that that was an oversight.

Richard Kunkle (Dean, College of Education): Would someone from the Committee give us some rationale as to why this recommendation is being made?

Dr. Walker (Provost): The Committee felt the strongest about this recommendation. Most schools and universities do require outside references for Associate Professors. They felt that those who do not have outside letters may in fact be receiving a negative advantage in their minds. He thought that it was an unusual situation when he came to Auburn, that letters were not required for promotion. The basis is to guarantee more consistency in the dossier and to make sure they are not shortchanging some deserving candidates. It is important by telling the world what the faculty members at this University are doing.

Dennis Rygiel (English): There is an option right now for departments. Consistency seems to be the only argument for this recommendation. In the Department of English, such letters are not necessary or appropriate. It takes a very long time to get works published in this field, so when someone goes up for Associate Professor, they rely on their own reading of that person’s unpublished materials. When a person is up for Full Professor, they expect that the individual have works published as well as having responses to that work. As a Department Head, he has often received letters that read that this individual would be promoted at their institution. The language in the handbook seems to be different at other institutions than at Auburn. Also, requesting the letters and providing other institutions with all of the materials takes time, effort, and some money, especially when the works have not been published. Their department thinks that a small amount of money should be given as gratitude and that has not been possible in all situations thus far, and will be less possible if more requests for references are made.

Carole Johnson (Communication Disorders): At the Associate level, it seems that these recommendations send the wrong message. The recommendation that passed earlier made teacher evaluations for teaching effectiveness as short as possible, but yet they are soliciting comments from colleagues who are not here to see that person’s effectiveness on a daily basis. For an Associate level, teaching is very important because it really shows how they are doing at Auburn with their students.

Dr. Health (Chair): The Committee wanted the evaluations condensed so as not to waste so much paper. They did not mean to de-emphasize teaching effectiveness.

Renee Middleton (Counseling and Counseling Psychology): In some departments, it does make sense to have letters of reference for Associate. When there are several areas in one department, it is useful to have others who are familiar with your work. She feels that it is necessary for her department, but understands that in others, it may not be appropriate.

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation): It should not be rejected because of a worst case scenario that someone may be overwhelmed at some school at some time if they get too many from Auburn. His impression from other schools is that it is common to be requesting letters at the Associate level to see what progress that individual is making. Many members of the P & T Committee have said that they want letters from institutions that are comparable to Auburn in quality. They want the letter to say, "Will this person be competent and capable of receiving tenure at your university?" The Committee wonders when they don’t get letters. They like to see them, and it has been an implied mandate. If we are a research university, then we should want Associate Professors to be making progress towards their national reputation, and that is established by outside letters.

David Pascoe (Health & Human Performance): The Committee’s expectation should be what we have before us, and that is that it is optional. He agrees that it should remain optional.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She received a mixed review from her colleagues. Most had no problems with the statement because they are used to writing letters for other universities. The Department Head stated that he is glad to see this recommendation. She also asked the Department Head if it were fair to require Associate Professors, as in recommendation #11, to achieve regional or national stature. In section #6 of the handbook, it states that a "candidate for Associate Professor through his or her scholarly activity should demonstrate stature as a regional or national authority." Asking for outside letters simply documents this stature.

Susan Villaume (Curriculum in Teaching): In the last few years, it has been stressed that there should be flexibility and openness in considering different pathways. For example, it has been talked about that teaching effectiveness should count very much for tenure promotion, and that extension and advances in technology should be included. When we ask for outside letters, they are only going to comment on research because they don’t see the other aspects of that individual. She would vote against this recommendation.

Dr. Walker (Provost): One requirement for promotion to Professor is that one should have a national reputation. One may attain this when they have a primarily instructional assignment. But if one is doing so through their teaching, we still look to see that there is national reputation. That is more difficult to do than through research. If the person’s assignment is 80% instruction, 10% research, and 10% service, then instruction will be focused on and the teacher evaluations will be looked at carefully.

Dennis Rygiel (English): There is no regional authority in English; it is all a national reputation. It may take years to attain national reputation. He strongly urges that they stay with what they have, and that is, as an option. It is also not probable right now to support this type of thing financially within his department.

Recommendation #9 was defeated by a vote of 25 to20. Recommendation #10 was included with #9.

Recommendation #11 was defeated by voice vote.

Dr. Heath (Chair): Recommendation #12 states that the President will meet with the deciding committee, before a decision is announced, in a situation where the tenure appeal is not accepted.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): It says that the President should meet with the committee, but doesn’t say what he will tell them at that meeting.

Dennis Rygiel (English): He questions the placement of the addition. There is a separate section on Appeals on page 324, section 14. It seems that it would be better placed here.

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary): Was this meant to deal with decisions that do not go to appeal?

Dr. Walker (Provost): This is meant to deal with any time the President has a question or his opinion is contrary to what the committee has proposed. Typically, he’ll comment during the first stage, letters go out, and then appeals are made. During this meeting, the President and the committee may discuss the reasons why a candidate was not accepted.

Kent Fields (Accountancy): Is this designed to override negative decisions as well as positive recommendations? Is this before any letters go out?

Dr. Walker: Any time he holds a different opinion than that of the committee, he will sit down and discuss that with them, so this will take place after the original letters go out.

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing & Transportation): He understands from previous Senate meetings that there are some situations where the President does not agree with the P & T Committee at the initial stage of the process.

Dr. Walker: In those cases, he is saying that before he will veto the decision, he will meet with the P & T Committee and discuss it. It belongs where it is proposed and not with the section on Appeals.

Kent Fields feels that the word "appeal" should not be used in the addition.

Bruce Gladden (Chair-elect): He moved to change the word "appeal" to "decision." The motion was seconded.

Dr. Walker: This verbiage says the meeting should take place prior to any notification.

The motion was approved by voice vote.

David Martin (Political Science): Since this includes promotion and/or tenure decisions, does this also include appointments from the outside with tenure?

Dr. Walker nodded "yes."

Dennis Rygiel: The process states that the President will inform the committee of an overruling decision within a month’s time. Where would the meeting come in?

Dr. Walker: The meeting would be prior to the notification to the committee within a month’s time.

Recommendation #12 as amended was approved by voice vote.

 

E. Rules Committee—Recommended faculty handbook changes: Dr. Jo Heath

These changes came about as the committees were being formed. Each committee made these proposed changes in the charge.

Section 7: The Provost does not usually attend the meetings himself, so the change reflects what has been occurring for many years. Section 7 was approved by voice vote.

Section 9: Approved by voice vote.

Section 11: The Registrar does not actually act a secretary since the present computer system is in effect.

Ralph Henderson (Veterinary Medicine): What is the present computer system and is there a common statement that ensures that notes are being taken at each meeting?

Linda Glaze: It is now more computerized and her secretary is the record keeper for the committee.

Section 11: Approved by voice vote.

Section 13: Approved by voice vote.

Section 16: Approved by voice vote.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Why would there be a staff member and an A & P member as voting members of the Faculty Welfare Committee?

Mary Boudreaux (Secretary-elect): One reason why we did not want to change the name is because we wanted it to remain a Senate Committee rather than a University Committee.

Section 22: Approved by voice vote.

Concessions Board: Approved by voice vote.

Discipline Committee: Approved by voice vote.

Graduation Committee: Changes only because of the semester change. Approved by voice vote.

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, the Institutional Biosafety Committee, and the Institutional Review Board for Use of Human Subjects in Research Committee do not want someone who cannot meet 12 months a year. Approved by voice vote.

David Pascoe (Health & Human Performance): We have had the University Attorney and the University Physician serve on the Institutional Review Board for Use of Human Subjects in Research Committee for the last ten years. Is it possible to add these changes?

Dr. Heath: Would you mind writing that down and postponing that until we had a chance to review it?

Insurance and Benefits Committee: Approved by voice vote.

Orientation Committee: Approved by voice vote.

Committee for Persons with Disabilities: Approved by voice vote.

Recreational Services Committee: Approved by voice vote.

Student Academic Grievance Committee: Approved by voice vote.

Ralph Paxton (Veterinary Medicine): On the Grievance Committee, there is no chair specified.

Dr. Heath: That committee did not recommend that change.

Non-Tenure Track Instructors Committee: This is a brand new addition to the handbook.

Cindy Brunner: Is this a Senate or a University Committee?

Dr. Heath: A Senate Committee

John Heilman (Dean, College of Liberal Arts): It says it will address special concerns, but how will it address these? He made a motion to change "address" to "consider" and "may propose policies." The motion was approved by voice vote.

Cindy Brunner: Should this just deal with non-tenure track instructors? Should it not also include research track and clinical track faculty?

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary): This Committee has already been approved by the Senate. It will be Section 23 in the handbook.

The addition as amended was approved by voice vote.

The blanket changes to the faculty handbook were approved by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.