Auburn University Senate Minutes

7 March 2000

Broun Hall Auditorium

Absent: D. Norris, C. Mullen, D. Lustig, M. El-Halwagi, D. Hendrix, H. Thomas, C. Johnson, A. Dunlop, R. Perritt, R. Wylie, S. Shapiro, M. West, B. Hames, R. Paxton, R. Henderson, R. Kenworthy, S. Fuller, M. Malloy, J. DeRuiter, V. Morgan, H. Maraman, C. Buchanan, J. Neidigh, D. Large, J. Ferguson, B. Burkhalter, C. Alderman, S. Schneller, A. Nix, C. Middendorf, P. Benson, K. Robinson, G. Mullen

Absent (Substitute): P. Schmitt (U. Albrecht), T. Brower (C. Skelton), L. Benefield (J. Morgan)

 

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. Provost William Walker: Dr. Walker did not have any announcements to present to the Senate.

B. Senate Chair: Dr. Jo Heath

Legislative update: Representative Jack Venable recently submitted a bill involving trustee selection. The bill states that when the current Superintendent of Education leaves his post, then from that point on, that person will not be represented on the Board of Trustees. Ed Richardson is still a member, but after he leaves office, the Superintendent of Education would no longer be on the Board of Trustees. This will be true only if the bill is passed.

Representative Mike Hubbard has suggested a new scholarship program in the form of a new bill in the House of Representatives. The money from out-of-state tuition from the colleges in Alabama, except Auburn University, will be used for scholarships.

Representative Jack Venable has also introduced a bill to allow common calendars among all the higher education institutions in Alabama. The word "common" refers to a window of time that each term should begin and end for each school.

The background check bill did pass last year, but there is a new bill that would exempt higher education.

The last item is a bill that would require each school district to levy a twenty mill tax for the purposes of education. Dr. Heath was unsure whether this applies only to K-12 or not, but if that section of education is well funded, then it will help higher education.

The President has asked for more Peaks of Excellence proposals, and he specifically asked Senate officers if they would like to submit a proposal. The officers chose to submit a proposal with the Graduate School for tuition waivers for graduate assistants.

The SGA has asked the Board of Trustees for more time for the forgiveness policy.

Dr. Health urged members again to volunteer themselves or nominate others for committee involvement. This can be done by accessing the Senate web page and clicking on the fourth item listed. She also asked the Agriculture Senators to meet with Bruce Gladden and herself after the meeting.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): What was the rationale behind tuition waivers being allotted to GTA’s and not GRA’s?

Jo Heath (Chair): The proposal is to improve on graduate instruction. Tuition waivers are the way to accomplish that.

Conner Bailey: Tomorrow at 3:00 in the House of Representatives in Montgomery, the Representatives will be acting on the legislation to decide whether the nominating committee for the Board of Trustees should include faculty membership. The House will be voting on this bill at 3:00.

 

Nomination and Election of Rules Committee Members:

Nominations from the last meeting were not closed. There were no further nominations. Therefore, Paula Sullenger (Library), Steve Knowlton (Physics), and Greg Pettit (Human Development and Family Studies) are the new Rules Committee members.

 

Committee Reports:

A. Rules Committee—Handbook Changes: Dr. Jo Heath

On page two of the agenda, the Program Review Committee would like to be known as the Academic Program Review Committee. It will be listed as Section 24 in the handbook. There should not be any brackets around the last sentence in the first paragraph. She moved to accept this addition.

It was approved by voice vote.

The next change involved the Patent and Invention Disclosure Committee. The Vice-President has always selected members for the Research Committee, and not the President. The members are also continuous positions rather than three-year terms. The changes are so that committee description fits what the committee is practicing. Dr. Heath moved to accept the changes for Chapter 2, Article 4 and Chapter 2, Article 3.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Could this committee function with no faculty members on it? Just because it is being done this way does not mean that it is necessarily desirable.

Jo Health (Chair): It could be that there are only faculty members or only A & P members on the committee at a time.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): He understands that this is the way it is being done, but wants to understand why that is. A lot of specialized committees require people with specialized knowledge and skills. The Rules Committee has always sought the advice of the Chair for the type of people that should be nominated. He feels that unless there is some compelling reason that the Rules Committee should not make recommendations, then this change should not be made.

Jo Heath (Chair): The Rules Committee has not nominated anyone in years because everyone on the committee is continuing.

Ralph Zee (Mechanical Engineering): Line two states that one of these {five} members will serve as chair, and he did not know to whom that referred. He would like to make the amendment that should read, "...one of the five faculty members or administrators should serve as chair."

Jo Heath (Chair): It is supposed to imply one of the five faculty members or administrators.

ROTC representative: He suggests that it should exclude the members that should not be chair. It should read, "One of the members, excluding members from the Auburn Research Foundation, will serve as chair."

The amendment was approved by voice vote.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): He moved that the original motion be postponed until someone from the President’s office can tell us why the Rules Committee should not be involved in nomination.

The motion to postpone the change was seconded. It was approved by voice vote.

Jo Heath (Chair): Last year, it was agreed that whenever a clinical professor came up for tenure, then a clinical professor should be on the P & T Committee that year, and similarly for the research professors. The clinical faculty present on the committee should hold the rank of clinical professor or research professor. Dr. Heath moved to accept the change of the P & T Committee.

Provost William Walker: Should it be ten voting members?

Jo Heath (Chair): That should be changed. The amendment is restating the original intent and should read, "…the Provost and nine to eleven faculty members."

Russell Muntifering (Animal and Dairy Science): The wording clearly states that the non-tenure track clinical faculty members and the non-tenure track research members should not vote on tenure, but it does not state that they will not vote on issues of promotion and tenure.

Jo Heath (Chair): The Senate voted that the non-tenure track faculty will vote on promotion, and then tenured faculty will vote on non-tenure track faculty promotion as well.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She is concerned that there is no limit as to the number of non-tenure track faculty on the committee.

Jo Heath (Chair): The Senate has already approved this committee. This year it was hard to find anyone to be on the committee. There is no physical limitation as to the number of non-tenure track members. Based on the document that was approved by the Senate last year, there is no reason to have a specific number.

Marcia Boosinger (Secretary): It was not specified one way or the other how many non-tenure track faculty there should be.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She would like to stipulate that there be at least "x" number of members on this committee who are eligible to vote on tenure.

The amendment reads, "The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall consist of the Provost as chair and nine to eleven faculty members, at least seven of whom are tenured."

Jim Hansen (History): Do you know how many tenure track faculty there are compared to clinical faculty. It seems that seven is not enough. It should be more like seven to nine.

Jo Heath (Chair): The two extra members refer to clinical or research faculty, and they would only be appointed if there are no clinical faculty on the committee. The other nine would have to be tenured faculty.

The amendment was approved by voice vote. The amended proposal was accepted by voice vote.

Jo Heath (Chair): The last change applies to extending the terms of the committee members on the Human Research Board. She moved to accept the proposed change.

The proposal was accepted by voice vote.

 

B. Academic Standards Committee—Minimum GPA Standards for the Flight Education Students in Aviation Management: Dr. Samia Spencer

The purpose of the request is that it is in everyone’s interest to raise the minimum GPA to a 2.25 for students to remain in the Aviation Management program. On behalf of the Academic Standards Committee, she moved that the Senate approve this request.

Thad Roppel (Electrical Engineering): What is the current minimum GPA?

Samia Spencer: The University GPA is 2.0, and they do not have a separate requirement.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobilogy): What does the Aviation Management program think of this change?

Samia Spencer: As far as she knows, the program requested it.

Linda Glaze (Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Affairs): It was part of their submission with the semester conversion, but they were informed that they should go through the Academic Standards Committee.

It was approved by voice vote.

 

C. Academic Standards Committee—Modified Graduate Admission Standards: Dr. John Pritchett

The Graduate Council proposed a modification in the graduate admissions standards. This was brought about by four factors.

    1. SACS requirement for periodic review.
    2. ETS recommends no cutoff scores.
    3. ETS recommends not combining the verbal and quantitative scores on standardized tests.
    4. DOE suggests that minimum scores may have an adverse impact as far as some minority groups are concerned.

The Graduate Counsel did an extensive review of admission standards of regional institutions. The Committee also asked for input from graduate program officers from all the departments on campus as well as other faculty. This past July, the Graduate Council approved the initial proposal; it was revised and approved in November, then approved by the Academic Standards Committee in January.

The current policy for a master’s applicant involves no minimum GRE score and no minimum GPA, but the two are calculated into a formula. The policy for a doctoral applicant involves no minimum GPA, but there are minimums for verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE. The scores are then factored into an admission formula.

The proposal states that there will not be a formula score, and there will not be a minimum GPA. It does suggest what the successful applicant should have. They will continue to require the GRE or the GMAT, but they will set no specific minimum. The plan is that the Graduate School will work with the individual departments in the development of the departmental admissions standards and address this more holistic approach. On behalf of the Graduate Council, Dr. Pritchett moved acceptance of the modified admissions standards.

Thad Roppel (Electrical Engineering): It seems that it will be harder, if not impossible to explain why a student was not accepted. Is that a consideration? Currently, the Graduate School sets a minimum and the departments are allowed to make decisions from there. Is this going to undo that process?

Dr. Pritchett: It depends on the reason that the individual was rejected. Each department has "x" number of students and "x" number of resources, and the applicants must be competitive for a limited number of positions. Admission to graduate school is not a property right; once you are enrolled, it becomes a property right. Actually, right now the Graduate School has minimum cut-off scores, and the department must request an exception for a student who does not meet these minimums. The applications are still sent to the department from the Graduate School, even if the student does not meet the minimum.

Jim Hansen (History): How much more time will this process take than a formula score?

Dr. Pritchett: He thinks it will take about the same amount of time.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): Are the policies at other institutions similar to this policy?

William Spencer (Graduate Council): In the institutions that were studied, no one had formula scores, and very few of them had minimum scores. Mississippi State has a court order that they are not allowed to have a minimum cutoff score. Most of the policies are more inclusive.

Glenn Howze: Has SACS given you any indication of what they think might be appropriate?

Dr. Pritchett: SACS leaves it up to the individual institution to set their own policy.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Wouldn’t this transfer the liability from a central administrative office to the departments?

Dr. Pritchett: The Graduate School is still the one that will do the official accepting or rejecting.

Mike Mercer (Journalism): Will this make the Graduate School more competitive with more numbers of applicants?

Dr. Pritchett: By working with the departments, he hopes that they can increase the number of highly qualified individuals. It may put us more in the ballpark with peer institutions, and we are competing with our peer institutions.

The proposal was approved by voice vote.

Jo Heath (Chair): The two candidates for chair-elect are Jim Bradley and Alex Dunlop, and the two candidates for secretary-elect are Carole Corsby and Isabelle Thompson. These positions will be voted on at the General Faculty meeting next week.

 

D. Academic Standards Committee—Course Repeat/Grade Forgiveness Policy: Dr. Bruce Gladden

On January 28th, at the Board of Trustees meeting, President Muse was instructed to bring forth a forgiveness policy at the April meeting. That duty was delegated to Provost Walker, and he appointed a committee that was in charge of developing a proposal that would be acceptable to both faculty and the Board of Trustees. The members of the committee are Dr. John Pritchett as chair, Dr. John Fletcher, Dr. Linda Glaze, Dr. Jo Heath, Dr. Bruce Gladden, Andrew Nix, and Jonathan Kennard, student representatives. There were also several representatives from AUM.

The policy does apply to both AU and AUM. It does not apply to Pharmacy, Veterinary Medicine, or Nursing students. The policy applies to D and F grades as well as some F/A grades. There is a maximum of three course grades that can be forgiven, and all courses and grades will remain on the transcript. Aside from the total GPA listed on the transcript, there will be an adjusted GPA (AGPA) that would omit forgiven grades. The AGPA would be used to decide academic suspension for a student.

Even with forgiveness, some courses would have to be repeated. If the course were required for a major or minor requirement, the course would have to be retaken. It would not have to be retaken if the student changes majors, or if that course was not a requirement.

 

The AUM Senate passed a resolution that affirms the general intent and spirit of the draft, and the Academic Standards Committee has voted on the policy. Seven voted for approval, one voted no, two abstained from voting, and one member was unavailable. Several of the members were reluctant to approve the proposal, but felt that it was inevitable. They felt that it was better to have a policy developed by the faculty than by the Board. Others felt that it was a reasonably good policy, and another did not like the policy at all.

Greg Pettit (Human Development and Family Studies): He moved to submit this policy to President Muse and to the Board of Trustees. Motion was seconded.

Jim Novak (Agriculture Economics): Isn’t the third sentence in the third paragraph redundant?

Bruce Gladden (Chair-elect): That is a sentence that has been recommended for removal by the AUM Senate to prevent confusion.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): She was given a copy of the forgiveness policy from Ole Miss. That policy stipulates that in order for a grade to be forgiven, the student must retake the course. How many policies from other schools allowed forgiveness of grades for which the students did not retake the course?

Bruce Gladden: Not very many. One point of view was that this is not necessarily a bad thing for students who change their major.

Mike Mercer (Journalism): Can a student have three grades forgiven from the same course, or does the forgiveness apply to three different courses?

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing and Transportation): If they want to use all their chances on one course, then that is fine by the policy.

Ulrich Albrecht (Mathematics): He had a problem with F/A grades. If a student does not come to class, then they do not deserve to have that grade forgiven.

Wayne Brewer (Entomology): I could support this policy if it required the student to take the course again, but he is concerned about wiping the slate clean without retaking the course.

Dwight St. John (English): In the first paragraph, what does the phrase regularly admitted mean, and why is there an exception for those three majors?

Ava Honan (President, AUM University Senate): At AUM, there are students who are provisionally admitted. They must take a certain number of courses before they are regularly admitted. We did not want this policy to apply to those students who have not yet been admitted.

Bruce Gladden: The three exceptions for the policy involve professional degrees. In Veterinary Medicine, if a student fails a class, then he or she is out of the program.

Tim Boosinger (Dean, Veterinary Medicine): Over two-thirds of our students already have their bachelor’s degree. Also, Dr. Boosinger is unaware of any other Veterinary College in the country that has a forgiveness policy.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): It may be that professional schools have organizations that require certain standards that the University departments do not.

Susan Villaume (Curriculum in Teaching): Was there any consideration for programs with capped enrollment as to whether the total GPA or the AGPA should be used?

Bruce Gladden: It would be up to the program.

Ralph Zee (Mechanical Engineering): He wanted to make sure that a student would have to repeat a course that is required for a major.

Bruce Gladden: It would not have to be retaken if a student changes majors or if that course is no longer a requirement for that major. In any other situation, a student would have to retake the course.

Michael Watkins (Philosophy): What if a student takes a course and receives a grade of D, and then retakes the course and receives a grade of F? If they have already asked for the first grade of D to be forgiven, can they then have their forgiveness forgiven in order to use their forgiveness on the grade of F?

Bruce Gladden: No

Jim Hansen (History): Will the adjustment take place right away, and how will that impact scholarships and the NCAA?

John Fletcher (Assistant Vice-President Enrollment Management and Admissions/Registrar): In the policy, the AGPA would be used for what the cumulative GPA is used for now. (i.e. academic standing, warnings, suspensions.) They would use the AGPA for the NCAA and scholarships as well. The total GPA would be used for any university honors and awards.

Renee Middleton (Counseling and Counseling Psychology): Is the major change that the course is just forgotten?

Bruce Gladden: The course is still there, but the grade is not calculated into the GPA for internal use.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Are there schools with policies that wipe the grade and the course from the transcript altogether? One member of the Board was surprised that our policy would leave the grade and course on the transcript.

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing and Transportation): Troy State wipes the course out completely.

Linda Glaze (Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Affairs): Even Vanderbilt leaves the grades and courses on the transcript.

Mary Boudreaux (Secretary-elect): The Board member was also shocked because this type of policy would not benefit students entering professional or graduate schools. He thought those students would be benefited as well.

Renee Middleton (Counseling and Counseling Psychology): Would it be helpful to inform the Board about what takes place at other institutions?

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): Regardless of how the vote comes out on this policy, he thinks it is very important that SACS is informed about the involvement of the Board of Trustees in setting academic policy on this campus. He would like to move that SACS be informed of this intervention.

Michael Watkins (Philosophy): Why not just have the first three F’s removed from the transcript?

David Pascoe (Health and Human Performance): There may be a difference between a 3 and a 5-hour course.

Joe Morgan (College of Engineering): If a student does not ask forgiveness for a required course, can they then transfer the equivalent course from another school?

Linda Glaze: Yes, except English Composition.

Susan Villaume (Curriculum in Teaching): Can a student ask for forgiveness for the F at Auburn if the course was retaken and transferred from another school?

Provost Walker: If it is a core course, we have to accept it from another institution. It seems reasonable to Dr. Walker that if a student wants to ask for forgiveness for a core course taken here, and then they want to take that course somewhere else, then that is ok. Only the credit would transfer and not the grade.

Steve Knowlton (Physics): He could approve this policy if it improves academic standards and if it is good educational policy. He does not see the educational merit in not having to retake a course that is forgiven. It may send a misleading message to students about academic standards.

David Sutton (Communication): He rises in support of this policy. It only takes into account three courses, and he does not see that it will lead us down a slippery slope.

Bob Keith (Nutrition and Food Science): How do the student members on the committee feel about this policy? If he were a student, he would want the grade and course totally wiped off from the transcript. As a student, there is some advantage in having this type of policy, but those grades can still be seen.

Bruce Gladden: At the SGA meeting, the students realized the implications of this policy. They did not want the policy to be extremely liberal and overly forgiving.

Lindsey Boney (Academic Affairs Chair for the SGA): Two weeks ago, the SGA asked the Board for more time to discuss this policy. The SGA officers that were in charge of the student survey regarding a forgiveness policy in 1997 are no longer students. Many members of the SGA do not want a forgiveness policy, but the survey revealed that 80% of the students were in favor of one. Therefore, the resolution to the Board asked for more time as well as stating that they were not necessarily in favor of this policy. They felt that the policy is moot if an employer can still see the total GPA with the D’s or F’s included.

Bruce Gladden: This policy would not benefit those students going to graduate school or a professional school, because those grades are recalculated according the school’s own standards anyway. The mathematical difference that this would make is not very significant in the overall GPA.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): Could we stipulate that the change in GPA could not occur until the end of a term in which forgiveness was granted?

John Fletcher (Assistant Vice-President of Enrollment and Admissions/Registrar): It would be like a regular grade change. It would be like delaying a regular grade change and for what reason?

Susan Villaume (Curriculum in Teaching): She understands SGA’s concern, but her concern is that there are programs and honors that are based on the GPA. If a student is admitted to a program with capped enrollment over a student who has never received an F, then this is not right. The total GPA is important to include on the transcript.

Randy Bartlett (Industrial Engineering): Does this apply to new students only or can students apply this retroactively?

Bruce Gladden: This can be used for students retroactively, but if it is a required course, it will still have to be retaken.

Sadik Tuzun (Co-chair, Academic Standards Committee): This issue has been around for almost three years. If we do not approve this policy, then the Board may decide to develop a policy. We are forced to come up with something. The Academic Standards Committee originally chose to reject a policy, but now they feel that they must come up with something that is tolerable to the faculty. It would be better for the faculty to develop this type of policy to ensure that the policy will not get any worse than it is here.

The motion was approved by a vote of 39 to 13.

Glenn Howze (Immediate Past-Chair): He would like to make a motion that SACS review committee be formally informed about this process.

Jo Heath (Chair): Before the Senate can vote, it must be seen ahead of time, so you can submit that with the next agenda.

 

Resolutions:

A. Appreciation of Efforts Made by the Auburn Alumni Association and Its Legislative Task Force—Ms. Paula Sullenger, Steering Committee

The first four sections outline what the problem is. The next four sections outline what these bills improve, and the resolution is for the Senate to express its appreciation to the Auburn Alumni Association for the work they did on these bills. She moved that the Senate accept this motion.

The resolution was approved by voice vote.

 

B. Permanent Funding for Women’s Studies Program—Dr. Mary Cameron

The Women’s Studies program seeks full institutionalization from the Senate. At the beginning of fall quarter, the budget for this program was cut from $22,000 to $5,000. They seek permanent funding from the university from new money.

For the past six months, Dr. Cameron has met with most of the Deans on campus to explain the program and ask for money to continue the program. She thanked the Deans from COSAM, Education, Human Sciences, Forestry, Agriculture, and Liberal Arts for their financial contributions.

The program is to provide a 12 semester interdisciplinary minor. It is currently housed in the College of Liberal Arts. They have just developed a Dean’s Advisory Committee. The Women’s Studies curriculum has recently been expanded by 40% and includes 39 courses. New courses are from across the campus including courses in History, English, Anthropology, Sociology, Criminology, Health and Human Performance, Human Development and Family Studies, Political Science, and Foreign Language. They would like to introduce a concentration in Women’s Studies as well as Women’s Studies major.

The program sponsors a speaker’s program for researchers to speak at Auburn as well as sponsoring other lecture series. It is one of the primary places where research of women and gender is promoted and enhances the promotion of female faculty at Auburn University. There are 53 women and men involved in the Women’s Studies Program as well as community members.

Jim Hansen (History): He moved that the resolution be accepted. The motion was seconded. Nationally and internationally, women’s studies have been the fastest growing curriculum in the past few years. There are 600 such programs in the United States, and our program at Auburn is close to the bottom in terms of financial contribution. The program does not cost very much, and to ask for permanent funding is completely justified.

The resolution was approved by voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.