Auburn
University Senate Minutes
11 April 2000
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.
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.