Auburn University Senate Minutes

 

11 April  2000

 

Broun Hall Auditorium

 

Absent:  D. Pascoe, D. Lustig, M. El-Halwagi, H. Thomas, C. Johnson, R. Perritt, J. Hansen, R. Wylie, M. West, R. Henderson, R. Kenworthy, L. Slaten, R. Keith, M. Malloy, H. Maraman, C. Buchanan, J. Neidigh, D. Large, J. Ferguson, W. Alderman, S. Schneller, A. Nix, C. Middendorf, P. Benson, K. Robinson, G. Mullen, D. Sollie

 

Absent (Substitute):  N. Godwin (K. Key), R. Jenkins (R. Hartfield), R. Miller (R. Jaffe), T. Brower (C. Skelton), J. Henton (D. Cavender), S. Bentley (G. Anderson)

 

 

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. Muse was attending Auburn Day in Montgomery at the time of the meeting, and he apologized for his absence.  Auburn Day is an annual event that entertains members of the legislature.

 

The President has been selected for one of six finalists at the University of Florida.  He will be interviewing there on April 25th, 26th, and 27th.  There will be some people here from Florida asking the Administration and Faculty about Dr. Muse.

 

The Board meeting last Friday started at 9:00 a.m. and ended late in the afternoon.  The Board approved a 5.3% tuition increase that amounts to $5.4 million dollars.  This, along with the state increase, should allow for a 5% salary increase in the fiscal year 2001.  This proposal is not certain and will not be until the legislature develops its 2001 budget and until the governor approves it.  The Board set aside $750,000 of that for scholarship support to deserving students.  They also removed resident tuition status for students in the nine county area of Georgia.  This policy will begin in the Spring Semester of 2001.  Current students will be grandfathered and will not have to pay out-of-state tuition.

 

The Board also passed the Grade Adjustment/Course Repeat Policy.  The term Academic Forgiveness was deemed an inappropriate terminology.  It is similar to, but not identical with, what the Faculty Senate approved at the last meeting.  Instead of  three GPAs, only two GPAs will be reported.  The President thought that it was unusual for a transcript to contain three separate grade point averages.  Dr. Walker looked at several schools in the southeast and none of those schools had three GPAs on their transcripts.  Now there will be an asterisk by the course and grade that a student retakes.  A notation will be made that implies that this grade will not be calculated into the final grade point average.

 

The Board approved the new Department of Aviation Management and Logistics in the College of Business.  This is a combination of a program from the Department of Marketing and Transportation and the Department of Aviation Management.

 

They also approved the 2000-2001 bulletin that reflects the transition to semesters.  The new bulletin will be out in June.

 

The Board received the report of the Academic Program Review Committee.  The President decided to ask each Dean that has a department in question to meet with Department Heads, faculty, and students.   If there is an industry represented by that department, the Dean should ask a few fundamental questions. 

 

  1. What is the future of that industry?
  2. What changes, if any, should Auburn University make to ensure that the industry has the greatest likelihood of success?
  3. What changes, if any, should Auburn make to ensure that the graduates of this program are adequately prepared for a career spanning over fifty years?

 

Those recommendations should be presented to the Provost by the middle of May, so he can have recommendations for the Board of Trustees by the June meeting.

 

Dr. Walker presented five proposals for Peaks of Excellence to the Board of Trustees.  The Board was interested in Graduate Assistant Tuition Waivers and instructed Dr. Walker and Dr. Muse to have a proposal and action item for the June meeting of the Board.  The proposal involves about $3-4 million dollars in continuing funds, and it may span over a three to five year period.  The Board did not seem as interested in the other Peaks of Excellence.  Dr. Walker is concerned that there may not be adequate funding for these programs even with the tuition increase, espccially since $750,000 has been set aside for scholarships.

 

A new studio building was also approved for the three-dimensional art program.  Biggin Hall is going to be renovated.  To ensure that the deterioration in that building does not continue, a new structure will be built to house some of the activities that create a lot of dust.

 

Renovations and modification of the Pharmacy Building were discussed, but because of time, a subcommittee was formed to look into that issue.

 

Conner Bailey (Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology):  Concerning the proposed merger of Journalism and Communications, I  understand that the Provost will bring in a consultant to work through questions as they pertain to accreditation.  How will you go about selecting that consultant, and will you work together with the potentially affected faculty?  Will you come to a consensus with them in selecting a consultant?

 

Dr. Walker:  He would like to do that if it is possible.  The Communications faculty members seem to be more interested in the issue, and he will be working with them.  The Provost would like to have input from the Chair of the Accreditation Committee in Journalism as well as the individual who approved Auburn for accreditation in Journalism. 

 

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing and Transportation):  Transportation is not a freestanding department.  The newspaper report is the first that he had heard of moving Transportation out of its Department and into a Department with Aviation Management. 

 

Dr. Walker:  He understood that the Logistics faculty were supportive of the activity as well as the Department Chair and faculty.  He will look into the fact that some faculty were not notified or involved in the decision.

 

Mike Mercer (Journalism):  You mentioned earlier about industries that allow for departments to consult with them and the fundamental questions that should be asked.  Did this process occur before the proposed merger of Journalism and Communication?

 

Dr. Walker:  This issue of Journalism had been under discussion for some time.  The Guidelines for Departmental Status came about as a different issue.  Discussions with the industry are appropriate before the merger of a department.

 

Jim Novak (Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology):  What is the intent of Dr. Muse in reference to the recommendations by the Deans of each School or College in question?  What is the process of getting this input?  There is not much time for a coherent response.  What form should that information be in and to whom will it be addressed?  Are we to take it that you want a reduction in the number of departments?

 

Dr. Walker:  There is a short time table.  The input should be gathered from the Department Heads, faculty, students, and support groups, and it should be addressed to the Provost.  Dr. Walker told the Deans that they should be the ones that present recommendations to the Board of Trustees concerning their departments in question.  It seems to Dr. Walker that the faculty of departments with industrial connections should be in close communication with those industries.  (Poultry Science for example)  If that department has not had fundamental discussions with that industry, then they should.  The question to the industry ought to be, ‘Where are you going as an industry?  Rapid change is becoming the norm.  How are you as an industry located currently in the State of Alabama?  How are you going to adapt to that change?  What do you think Auburn University should do with that change?  With longer life expectancies, the graduates may have to be prepared for fifty years or more in their career.  Are the graduates going to be prepared for a long career in this industry?’  Everybody ought to be having these types of discussions with outside industries, and these qualifications could make a greater impact than arbitrary criteria in the establishment of departments.

 

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing and Transportation):  Before you were Provost, the Senate passed a resolution that Auburn move away from using social security numbers for student identification.  Most states are going away from using these numbers on driver’s licenses.  What is the status of us making this change?

 

Dr. Walker:  He agrees with not using social security numbers for ID.  He is not sure who would handle this issue.

 

Dr. Jo Heath (Immediate Past-chair):  The resolution did go to Dr. Muse after it passed in the Senate.  He showed little interest in the issue.  If he were to get some interest in it, then it might be changed.

 

 

B.   Senate Chair:  Dr. Bruce Gladden

 

Dr. Gladden introduced Bob Van Der Velde, the Chair-elect of the AUM Faculty Senate.

 

The officers of the Senate have been introducing top faculty to the Board of Trustees at the Board meetings.  The directors of the Peaks of Excellence have been giving presentations at these meetings.  A faculty honors committee has also been formed.  The members are Jim Bradley of Biological Sciences, Bert Hitchcock of English, and Caroline Dunn of  Rehabilitation and Special Education.  They were asked to come up with a list of honors that would be appropriate for the President to introduce to the Board of Trustees. 

 

Last Friday, this process began.  President Muse invited alumni professors who were able to attend, and they were introduced at that meeting.  Included in the list are Distinguished University Professors, Alumni Undergraduate Teaching Excellence Awardees, Outstanding Achievement for Minority Awards by College, Outstanding Teacher (Undergraduate and/or Graduate) Awards by College, SGA Outstanding Teaching Awardees, and Outstanding Outreach Awardees by College.

 

The stance of the Senate officers on the possible merger of Journalism and Communications is that they want faculty input of the departments involved, and input from other people who could evaluate the process.  They would like to keep the Academic Program Review Committee involved, and they are continuing to give that message to the Provost and to President Muse.

 

Conner Bailey (Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology):  There is a reform movement underway that is being pushed by the Auburn Alumni Association.  They have formed a task force and have involved all the alumni clubs of Auburn in the state of Alabama.  These clubs have encouraged their members to write to their Senators and Legislative Representatives with regard to two bills.  The first one is a constitutional amendment to expand the Board and the second is an enabling act that allows some faculty involvement. 

 

More than a month ago, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved both bills.  It sat in the Senate for almost a month.  The President Pro-tem decided to send the bills to the Finance and Taxation (Education) Committee.  This is one of the most important committees for this body.  Dr. Bailey’s concern was that this bill would be second to the budget, but that committee has already completed the budget.

 

There was a list of the names and addresses of the members of the Finance and Taxation (Education) Committee by County.  Dr. Bailey encouraged the Senators to write or call these Committee members.  He also encouraged the Senate to involve friends and colleagues in these counties.

 

 

Committee Reports:

 

A.  Academic Computing – Recommendations in response to IBM Information Technology Report –

Dr. Charles Branch

 

The Academic Computing Committee has not been active in the last few years.  Recently, the Committee has monitored the IT study and has analyzed the results of that study from a faculty and student point of view.   They looked at the report from IBM item-by-item and generated recommendations for things to be done on campus.  The items looked at were Administrative, Organizational Structure, IT professionals, and how the committees involved in IT were run.  Another section involves the use of Technology in the classrooms, in teaching and in research.  Funding, support and training were discussed as well as several other items.  One recommendation of IBM is to disband the Academic Computing Committee and the Committee members concur.  They feel that there should be broader representation and it should be more an advisory committee.  The Committee should be able to mediate between central and local IT issues.

 

This report comprises the recommendations of the A.U. Academic Computing Committee in response to the IBM IT report dated 1-20-2000. Our recommendations are based on the original IBM report, other previous reports, and feedback from some major IT users or providers who are not represented on our committee.

While we recognize that the IBM study did have some serious flaws in methodology, we do not believe that those flaws invalidate the study. A more detailed item-by-item response to the IBM report is available. That report addresses the specific flaws, and it points out the specific areas that would need additional information prior to implementing certain recommendations.

Information Technology Report - Dr. Charles Branch

Dr. Jo Heath (Immediate Past-Chair):  Do you know what the status is of the IT recommendations?

 

Dr. Walker:  There is a complicating factor.  He wants to push this forward and report to the Board.  The faculty were surveyed and the results showed that the faculty were content with what they had.  It could have been the survey.  He cannot imagine that the faculty are satisfied with the technology on campus.  That is the first thing that the Board will pick up on, and he has to think of a creative way to interpret that to accurately reflect what most faculty would agree on.

 

Dr. Branch:  The survey did not do a very good job of distinguishing between the have’s and the have not’s.  He imagines that it varies between those units who are able to spend money in that area and those who are not.

 

 

B. Academic Program Review Committee – Review of Academic Departments that do not conform to quantitative guidelines for Departmental designation – Dr. Mike Watkins

 

The members on the Academic Program Review Committee are Kelly Alley, who was not able to attend, Yolanda Brady, Cindy Brunner, Evelyn Crayton, Michael Moriarty, John Pritchett, Jack Rogers, Howard Thomas and David Wilson.  The Administration proposed the Overarching Principles and Guidelines for Departmental Status.  The Board of Trustees passed those guidelines.  The Board then asked why the guidelines could not be used to demote a unit.  They asked that all of the departments that did not meet the guidelines be reviewed.  There were 23 departments that failed to meet at least one of the four guidelines for unit status.  All but 15 of those were already being merged.  Two of the departments being merged still did not meet one of the numerical guidelines. 

 

The Committee received a letter in January with the charge to review all 16 departments in question.  The Program Review Committee has never been asked to review departments before.  Each department was examined to determine if there was some explanation, given the department’s specific mission and in light of the Overarching Principles, for why the department failed to meet the numeric criteria.  These explanations led to the recommendation that the numerical measures be changed in various respects.  It was the Overarching Principles that led to the formation of the Guidelines, and that led the Committee to change the numerical guidelines.  They recommended that the Overarching Principles, and not the Guidelines, serve as the primary status of a unit being altered.  Using qualitative measures, such as the Overarching Principles to determine the status of a unit, is a complicated task.   Therefore, the Committee recommended that a decision about a department’s status should be postponed until extensive program reviews are carried out.  The reviews have not yet been started, nor has the initiation of such reviews been approved.

 

The recommendations for the departments examined were made using the qualitative guidelines and Overarching Principles.  The Program Review Committee used its own recommendations in determining what recommendations were to be made concerning specific departments.

 

The recommendations for each department were to retain the department as currently configured.  Our recommendations are that each department be viewed individually.  They should not be merged or eliminated based solely on the Overarching Guidelines.  They did not call in representatives from each department because of time restraints.  Instead, each member sought out a department and spoke with representatives from that department.

 

Program Review Report - Mike Watkins

 

Conner Bailey (Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology):  You have presented this report to the Administration, and the response was to accept your recommendations to postpone any actions pending the Committee’s final outcome?

 

Dr. Watkins:  The Committee has not received a decision from the Administration one way or the other.

 

Dr. Richard Kunkel (Dean, College of Education):  Did the Trustees see this whole memo, and if so, did they have any response to recommendations 1 through 4?

 

Provost Walker:  Yes, they have seen the report.  There were some individual comments, but there was no official decision.

 

Dr. Watkins:  He considered the first four recommendations to be the important part of the report.

 

Conner Bailey:  What would you think of a Dean who might be pushing for departmental consolidation in light of your recommendations?

 

Dr. Watkins:  There are two ways that this could be understood.  One is that a Dean might make a recommendation against the committee’s.  Second, a case could be made that a suggestion from the Dean does not go against the Committee’s recommendations.  The Committee was asked to look at the individual departments given these criteria.  With the Overarching Principles in mind, one would be convinced that a department would be better served if it were not merged.  However, one’s judgment might change if one looked at the entire University and how resources could be used most efficiently.  But the Committee was not asked to look at that aspect.

 

Provost Walker:  There is another force at play that says get something done by the June Board meeting, and we are trying to accommodate that as well.  We have to have final recommendations to the Board on all these programs by the June Board meeting.  We would like to involve the faculty at every step of the way if possible.

 

Dr. John Heilman (Dean, College of Liberal Arts):  He did make the recommendation to merge Journalism and Communications.  On the surface, it may appear that he went against the Committee’s recommendation.  However, as a Dean, he might have had reasons to make such a recommendation.  He wants to look at the issues that might go against the advice of the Committee and address those.  There is also a broader set of issues. 

 

Conner Bailey:  There is a Dean who is proposing to go from 8 to 5 departments and that is a subject of active discussion.  Some of these departments are not listed here for the Program Review Committee.

 

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology):  In the Committee’s deliberations, it decided to emphasize the Overarching Principles instead of the numerical guidelines.  One way to consider the Principles in demoting departments is to turn them around.  They were intended to be used for promoting units on campus.  If they were turned around, you would be asking, ‘Is there a clear and compelling need to demote this department to another status?  Will merger or demotion cause a clear and compelling advantage to Auburn University?’  If you ask those questions in that direction, you will probably not find justification to warrant the changes in the status of those departments.

 

Dr. Watkins:  We need to decide a way of making these hard decisions that is not based on looking at four numbers.

 

Bill Hardy (College of Agriculture):  What he heard from the Provost’s presentation was that each Dean needs to look at the future of the industry, what changes each department needs to make to meet the industry’s needs, and will our students be prepared fifty years from now?  Now you are saying that something needs to be done by the June meeting.  Exactly what do you want from these departments?

 

Provost Walker:  There is a memo coming out that will list the specific questions that need to be answered.  There is a deadline for a presentation to the Board concerning the 16 departments.

 

 

Informational Items:

 

A.  Semester Transition Update – Dr. Christine Curtis

 

Dr. Curtis thanked many people for their work in the semester transition process.  Auburn is one of the few schools in the southeast that has not transitioned to semesters. 

 

This summer will be different.  It starts June 14th and the classes will be 60 minutes.  The reason for that is that there are only 37 days rather than the usual 47 days.  The longer classes will allow for the same number of minutes in the shorter time frame.  Saturday labs will be available if needed.  The classes will begin at 7:00 a.m.and last until 8:00 a.m.  The next class will start at 8:10 a.m. and will last until 9:10 a.m.

 

The starting date for fall is August 22nd and it is 15 weeks long.  There will be one week of finals and graduation is on December 16th.  Spring semester is January 10th until May 2nd with graduation on May 12th.  There will be an additional fall break the next year as well as two dead days.  On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, classes will be 50 minutes and run from 8:00 a.m. until 8:50 a.m.  Classes will begin on the hour.  On Tuesday and Thursday there will be 75-minute classes.  They will either start on the hour or on the half-hour.  On Tuesday and Thursday, there will be 15-minute breaks between classes.  In the summer term of 2001, there will be one 10-week session, which will have three days of finals.  There will also be two-five week sessions at the same time.  Some classes lend themselves very well to a condensed session, and some work better in a longer time period.  Because it is so concentrated in the summer, a maximum of 13 hours is to be taken in the 10-week session and 7 hours in the 5-week session. 

 

Nine-month faculty will be paid ˝ month’s salary at the end of June, a full month’s salary in July, and ˝ month’s salary in August.  Then, nine-month faculty will receive ˝ month’s salary on August 31st , full month salaries from Sept to April, and ˝ month’s salary in May.  The summer of 2001 will be a three-month summer as in years past.

 

 A set of guiding principles was developed to use throughout the process.  They have been very valuable in making decisions.  The most important principle was to protect the students through the transition.  The students should be able to complete their degree in a timely fashion, and any changes that are made should not delay their graduation.  In order to protect students, there was advising available early on, and students were encouraged to see their advisors early and often.

 

Another principle was to protect the faculty and the staff as well as maintain the quality of the curriculum.  Dr. Curtis was gratified to see that this was taken seriously by the degree programs.  SACS Accreditation must also be satisfied.  This was looked at during the entire process.

 

The curriculum review is complete.  The Academic Curriculum Review Committee and the Graduate Council have done their work.  There are a few name changes within minors, but all the undergraduate majors are complete as well as almost all of the graduate programs.

 

The Curriculum Oversight Committee started the process by working with the faculty in getting the core courses submitted.  The Core Curriculum will be 40 semester hours and the only major change is in the social science sequence.   There are two groups of courses.  The first group includes Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology and the second group includes Political Science and Economics.  A student chooses one course from each group.  The University courses are also available.

 

In the undergraduate curriculum, most of the degrees will be 100-124 semester hours.  Those with a large number of supporting courses have 128 hours.  There are two that have substantial supporting courses and those programs have 134 semester hours.  Some of the professional degree programs switched from four to five years in this process including Pharmacy.  The Graduate Council looks at each graduate degree program carefully.

 

In the advising process, the faculty must be careful how they work with the students.  We should make sure each student is given adequate attention to get through the process.  There is a student appeals process in place.  We hope that each problem can be solved at the College level.

 

The key factor for the transition of juniors and seniors is to see that the body of knowledge meets course requirements.  Some students may be switching directly into the semester curriculum leaving behind the old bulletin.  Other students may be following the quarter course requirements while in the semester system.  It is dependent on the degree program and the individual student as to how this transition will occur.  There is a 120-semester hour minimum requirement for graduation and each student should be assessed.

 

In going from quarters to semesters in terms of tuition and housing, there is a formula that takes the current schedule and multiplies by 1.5.  This will result in the semester tuition schedule.  Any other increases are from the Board of Trustees.  The current schedule helps to buffer against a phenomenon that has occurred at other institutions.  In schools in Georgia and Alabama that have transitioned to semesters, they have seen a decline in the number of hours that each student is taking.  Auburn has a fee for 10 to 15 hours, which should help buffer against students not taking a full load.  Please encourage the students to take 15 semester hours.  There is a deferred payment plan that was approved by the Board last Friday.  The student is given the opportunity to pay for the semester over two months.  The first payment is due in August and the second payment is due in September.  There will be a more lenient policy for graduate students, but that policy has not yet been formalized.  The students are allowed to pay by credit card.

 

The classrooms will be used more than they have been in the quarter system.  The Provost has brought all the classrooms in as general-purpose classrooms.  In selected cases where there is a specific equipment requirement, a classroom may be assigned to a specific Department or College, but that is a small percentage of the classrooms.  In some cases, there was priority given to a College based on proximity.  Scheduling has taken place for the first round, but some refinements need to take place.  The latest class schedule will be on the web right before fall semester. 

 

Dr. Curtis thanked Dr. Large, Dr. Muse and Dr. Walker for the opportunity to improve some of the laboratory and studio classrooms.  They agreed to have a Facilities and Instructional Technology Committee that was composed of faculty across campus.  Proposals were submitted and the results from that are some substantial improvements in classrooms.  In addition, the Deans gave specific priority for certain classrooms to be renovated.  Thach 112, Haley 1203, and this classroom are some of the targeted classrooms.

 

Jo Heath (Immediate Past-Chair):  How do you go about reserving a classroom for a special event?

 

Dr. Curtis:  We are developing a procedure to do that.  The first thing is to e-mail Mary Kuntz.  She and Dr. Curtis are developing a process for that.

 

Jim Bradley (Chair-elect):  You mentioned importance of students interacting with their advisors.  Will there be a special training program for advisors?

 

Dr. Curtis:  Academic Advisors in each College have been working with the Administration since 1997.  They have been doing self-training themselves.

 

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