Auburn
University Senate Minutes
13 June 2000
Absent: J. Bradley, S. Taylor, D.
Bransby, D. DeVries, D. Himelrick, R. Saba, D. Norris, R. Middleton, S. Villaume,
C. Mullen, D. Pascoe, D. Lustig, R. Jenkins, M. El-Halwagi, J. Melville, T.
Roppel, R. Zee, H. Thomas, D. Sutton, C. Johnson, R. Perritt, J. Hansen, R.
Wylie, R. Miller, R. Locy, M. West, R. Paxton, W. R. Brawner, R. Henderson, R.
Kenworthy, S. Fuller, R. Bartlett, L. Slaten, T. Brower, M. Malloy, H. Maraman,
C. Buchanan, J. Neidigh, D. Large, J. Ferguson, W. Alderman, S. Schneller, T.
Boosinger, L. Boney, S. Boback, A. Redman, P. Benson, K. Robinson, G. Mullen,
P. Sullenger, D. Sollie
Absent (Substitute): J. Novak (C. Bailey), R.
Muntifering (L. Frobish), S. Bilgili (S. Ewald), J. Kush (G. Bengston)
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
I
would like to begin with some grand and glorious news. Auburn has had a faculty member selected for
a McArthur Foundation Fellowship. This
is the first Auburn person to be selected for this very prestigious award. Professor Samuel Mockbee in the School of
Architecture was named to this fellowship for his work in developing the rural
studio in West Alabama. He will
receive a grant of $500,000 spread over the next 5 years. This announcement will be made tonight on ABC’s “Nightline” program at 10:30 p.m.
At
the June 5th Board meeting, guidelines were adopted for the
2000-2001 budget that will allow us to achieve all of our goals. Those include improved compensation,
increased spending for maintenance of our facilities, and support of the Peaks
of Excellence Program including new programs that will be selected. Executive Vice-President Don Large as well
as the assistants of the Budget Advisory Committee did an excellent job in
preparing those budget guidelines for consideration.
The
Board approved the waiver of in-state tuition for Graduate Teaching
Assistants. This is a move that will
allow us to be more competitive in attracting the quality and quantity of GTA’s that are needed. He complimented Dr. Pritchett and Dr. Walker
in their work in presenting this to the Board and for their convincing argument
about the merit of this proposal.
The
employee fringe benefit package was enhanced by an expansion of the base salary
on which the deferred tax annuity can be contributed. The amount was increased from $18,000 to $21,000. He hopes that we will continue to be able to
raise that dollar figure in the future.
In
a move that generated considerable public comment, the Board approved the
merger of the Departments of Communication and Journalism into one
administrative unit effective in the fall of 2000. Dr. Muse recommended this change to the Board because it was
supported by Dean Heilman, Provost Walker, and an external review team. Dr. Muse also feels that a merger can
strengthen both programs. He is hopeful
that the faculty will work together in order to achieve that goal.
The
Trustees also approved a revised set of departmental guidelines recommended by
the Academic Program Review Committee that will give programs more flexibility
in meeting the standards for departmental status.
Lastly,
he commends the many faculty and students who have extended their hands and
hearts to the families of Changqing Chen and Yi Wu as well as our Chinese
students in general. The murders of
these two young people was shocking and horrifying to all of us. He thanks Provost Walker, Dean Pritchett,
and Mrs. Nejla Orgen for the responsible and responsive way that they have
dealt with this tragedy. Dr. Muse also
thanked Professor Daowei Zhang in the School of Forestry for his assistance
throughout this whole process.
Dr.
John Heilman (Dean, College of Liberal Arts):
The merger of Communication and Journalism takes place in the fall of
2001, not 2000.
Dr.
Conner Bailey (substitute for Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology): He applauds the Board action for tuition
waivers for GTA’s. What is the impact
for GRA’s? In his academic program,
GTA’s are on the Liberal Arts side of the program. Students in the agriculture side, in Rural Sociology, have only
GRA’s. He is concerned that these two
groups of students within a single program might be treated differently. How will the University make sure that there
are not two classes of graduate students?
Dr.
Muse: This proposal, as presented to
the Board, was justified on the basis of strengthening our undergraduate
instructional programs.
Provost
Walker: Beginning Fall semester, about
300 of the 600 GRA’s will already be covered by the program begun by the
President two or three years age. Dr.
Walker did not want to mention both GRA’s and GTA’s to the Board. He hopes that the President will push to
make provisions for the other 300 GRA’s in the next few years. Some of the granting agencies will pay
tuition for research assistants. If the
University has a policy that will pay tuition, then it is not asking granting
agencies for all that it should be. The
intention is to have GRA’s covered as well in two or three years.
Dr.
John Pritchett (Dean, Graduate School):
The existing 300 tuition waivers are being allocated to high priority
areas. It is the estimate that 150 of
those will be freed up for reallocation into those high priority areas because
there are a number of GTA’s that are covered under that program now. They are working on the reallocation issues.
Dr.
Conner Bailey: How will the Communication/Journalism
Department be structured? Will there be
a director on a 12-month appointment who has budgetary control over the unit or
has that not been worked out yet?
Dr.
Muse: John Heilman will chair a
committee that will begin work on details such as that one.
B. Senate Chair: Dr. Bruce Gladden
Dr.
Gladden pointed out some positive outcomes that have occurred recently. The Board approved the change in the
quantitative guidelines for departmental status. Some of the departments that were under question would not be
under question at all under the new guidelines.
The
in-state tuition waiver for GTA’s was also passed. This shows cooperation between the faculty and the Board. Faculty have been concerned about this
issue, and a number of faculty have talked with Provost Walker and Dr.
Pritchett concerning this matter. Dr.
Pritchett put together the quantitative information that supported the case and
he talked to the President and Board members about it. The Board saw a good case and they voted to
make that change. It is the intention
of the Senate leadership to pursue the idea of tuition waivers for GRA’s as
well.
Dr.
Muse also mentioned increasing the match from 5% of $18,000 to 5% of $21,000 of
all tax-deferred annuities for all employees.
One of the Board members told Dr. Gladden that it was hoped they
could increase the amount matched up to
5% of $30,000 over the next few years.
The point is, at least they’re thinking about the whole package of
compensation in addition to raising salaries.
He thinks that’s a positive move.
There
has also been some informal discussion of 50% tuition waivers for
dependents. The Board did not totally
reject the idea.
Dr.
Gladden realizes that there is a lot of mistrust between the faculty and certain
Board members. He thanked Jo Heath and
Gene Clothiaux for their continued interaction between individual Board members
and the faculty. Grant Davis has been cooperative and has set up several
meetings. There have been several lunch
appointments where a Board member has met with several faculty members for a
question and answer section. To date,
we have met with Mr. Samford, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Rane, and Mr. Blackwell. Mr. Venable is coming next week. The Senate leadership has met twice for lunch
at Board meetings with a Board committee.
This is a situation where 4 faculty members are having lunch with 5
members of the Board, and there has been a lot of discussion at those meetings.
At
the last Board meeting, the newest member, Mr. Jack Miller, discussed with
faculty the notion of a summer social event between the faculty and the
Board. He also mentioned a fall retreat
with Board members, Administration and faculty.
So,
there has been some better interaction between the Board and they are hearing
faculty concerns.
Provost
Walker is meeting with Deans and Vice-Presidents over the next month to discuss
a performance review. He asked for
faculty input about their respective Dean or Administrator. Dr. Gladden is very happy about this formal
review for administrators.
The
notion of faculty input was short notice.
He assumes everyone has received an e-mail message regarding input about
these individuals. There is an e-mail
address set up for this purpose or an anonymous response can be sent via campus
mail. Dr. Gladden has received some
negative feedback from faculty about this issue. The position of the Senate leadership is that they are happy with
the fact that Provost Walker is doing this review. They were also given the choice whether to receive faculty
feedback or whether they should do nothing at all. Some people think that faculty feedback in this fashion is worse
than doing nothing, but that was the decision made by the Senate leadership.
Some
people are wondering what has happened to Administrator evaluations from the
past. Several years ago, there was an
annual questionnaire in place that asked all faculty to respond and give
input. Around the term of John Grover,
the rate of return became incredibly low.
Administrators found that the responses that did come back were
entertaining reading, but were not of much constructive assistance. Therefore, the program was discontinued and
at this point, the Administrator Evaluation Committee is slowly trying to
review the questionnaires and ensure a process that gives a high rate of
return. They are working with Provost
Walker to develop something that administrators will be able to use.
At
the next meeting, there will be a vote to decide whether the agenda should be
posted on the web instead of being sent out by mail. There will be an e-mail message sent to each Senator as a
reminder of the posted agenda.
Cindy
Brunner (Pathobiology): She is
disappointed in the Senate leadership for claiming that they had short notice
on this administrator evaluation issue, and that by doing it as an e-mail
response is better than nothing. There
is a standing Senate committee that is charged with evaluating our
administrators on an annual basis, which we did for a period of time. To say that that was discontinued for a low
response rate doesn’t solve the problem.
For us to have gone for so many
years without administrator evaluations is a disservice. Faculty members are compelled to undergo
evaluation for our teaching. A low
response rate doesn’t give us the prerogative of not doing it. We may find the responses entertaining, but
they still go into our tenure dossiers anyway.
She would like to see the Senate leadership take this issue a little
more seriously than past Senate leaders have.
She challenged the faculty to demonstrate that responding via email will
ensure a better rate of return than
responding to a printed survey. She
feels that the e-mail system may be a “slam book” if it were published, but
doubts that it will be an effective method of evaluation.
Dr.
Bruce Gladden: He does not defend the
process right now. They are trying to
improve it.
Committee
Reports:
A. Non-Tenure Track Instructors Committee – Dr.
Alex Dunlop
The
Committee represents a diverse group of faculty members. The function of the Committee is not as an
advocacy group, but to consider the non-tenure track teaching faculty in the
interest of the University as a whole.
They began by distributing a letter to all non-tenure track instructors
to inform them of the committee and to solicit feedback from them as to their
concerns. Only two people responded to
the letter. However, the Committee was
able to get a general sense of the concerns of the non-tenure track
faculty.
A
set of general principles was developed that established guidelines that would
be clear to employers about their employees.
There is not a large problem at Auburn, but several concerns. Some larger urban universities have a large
pool of labor to draw from and therefore, the conditions are not as good as
they are at Auburn. The number of non-tenure track faculty has increased in the
last decade by 25%. Non-tenure track
faculty constitute about 20% of the total faculty. It is important to address concerns of this group.
This
resolution is the product of compromises, rewordings and changes in almost
every case. They present this now with
the anticipation that the Senate will vote on it during the July meeting.
To view
the Non-Tenure Track Instructors Committee Resolution
Dr.
John Heilman: Has anyone generated the
cost of the benefit package as listed in item number 5?
Dr.
Dunlop: No estimate has been made, and
this is the toughest item. The
committee contacted the Insurance and Benefits Committee in the fall because
this constitutes a proposal from them. Currently, the issue is still on their
agenda. One problem is that this could
isolate the part-time teaching faculty from the other part-time employees in
the University. Another problem is
cost. However, this is by far the issue
that is of greatest concern to the non-tenure track faculty. Provost Walker pointed out that item number
4 could be translated to mean that non-tenure track teaching faculty should
only spend 40 hours a week and no more on their jobs. That item may need to be reworded and feedback may be collected
between now and the July meeting.
Herb
Rotfeld (Marketing and Transportation):
As a general rule, Administrators have autonomy over hiring and
retaining these individuals even though non-tenure track faculty may vote on
retention and tenure of tenure-track faculty.
That issue has been raised before and it is not considered in this
resolution.
Dr.
Dunlop: That issue was considered, but
it was decided that non-tenure track faculty are hired in a different way than
tenure-track faculty because they are not hired by vote of the faculty. Therefore, it makes them feel a less of a
part of the department and of the University.
They did not produce a proposal regarding this issue. Temporary faculty are hired on a part-time
basis only and so were not included in the resolution.
Herb
Rotfeld: Some so-called temporary
faculty have been here a number of years.
There are reviews of tenure-track faculty, but temporary faculty can be
here a number of years and never undergo review.
Dr.
Dunlop: That is true, but they also
never achieve tenured status. They are
semester by semester. It is the
decision of the Department Head as to whether they should be hired again. Are you suggesting that criteria should be
established for that purpose?
Herb
Rotfeld: Yes. He understands that some temporary employees are hired at the
last minute, and therefore, should be involved in faculty meetings. In some cases, these faculty are retained
because the Department Head never brings them under review.
Dr.
Dunlop: He encouraged Dr. Rotfeld to
make an additional proposal in relation to this at the July meeting and forward
that to Professor Bohanan. She can be
e-mailed at: bohandj@mail.auburn.edu.
Cindy
Brunner: Could you clarify the charge
of the committee? Is it only non-tenure
track instructors and not other non-tenure track faculty?
Dr.
Dunlop: Yes, the entire teaching
faculty.
Cindy
Brunner: Teaching faculty is not
necessarily equivalent to the title of Instructor. There are faculty who teach who do not hold that title. Does this resolution apply to all non-tenure
track faculty or only those who hold Instructor position. Do Instructors comprise 20% of the faculty
or does that statistic apply to all non-tenure track faculty?
Dr.
Dunlop: That figure was based upon a
survey that the Office of Institutional Analysis put together and he thinks
that they used the title, “Instructor.”
Cindy
Brunner: Item number 5 would have a
large economic impact if it were applied to all non-tenure track faculty. She sees a problem with equity if it were
applied to only Instructors and not all the other part-time faculty.
Dr.
Dunlop: The committee decided to use
the term, “Teaching Faculty” to try to clarify between non-tenure track faculty.
Cindy
Brunner: She would use the title that
the University uses to hire these individuals.
We could have individuals claim to be teaching faculty based on what
they do during the day. Clinical
faculty teach classes, but they hold Clinical appointments.
Dr.
Dunlop: They felt that “Instructor”
might include Research and Clinical faculty, whereas “Teaching Faculty” did
not.
Jo
Heath (Immediate Past-Chair):
Originally, this committee was formed for Instructors because they
cannot become anything else than part-time employees and that is not true of
the Clinical or Research track faculty.
They are different because they are full-time employees.
B. Concessions Board – Dr. Charles Hendrix
Dr.
Hendrix informed the Senate of their right to an important funding source for
faculty, students, and staff. There
is a Committee called the Concessions Board.
It has nothing to do with concessions at football, baseball, or
basketball games. Every month that the
Coca-Cola and Camco come on campus, they pay Auburn University $10,000 for the
privilege of filling vending machines here on campus. Over the year, there is about $100,000 of money made available to
make people happy.
This
is a committee composed of faculty, A & P, graduate and undergraduate
students who meet periodically based on the submission of proposals. Every October 1st, Dr. Hendrix is
given $100,000 to spend. The money
cannot be spent on anything to do with teaching or renovations.
A
few things the Committee has provided includes equipment for students with
disabilities such as microphones for hearing-impaired veterinary students to
use during surgery when they cannot read lips because of surgical masks, chairs
in the Learning Resource Center, an upgrade of the English Center, lounges in
the School of Nursing, funding of student club projects in Aerospace
Engineering, and tubas for the band.
The band used to have to borrow tubas, so the Committee bought 13 tubas
for the band.
Anyone
can apply for the Concessions Board including Dr. Muse, departments, students,
student groups, faculty, or sporting clubs.
Applications must have department and Dean support to be
admissible. There are no forms to fill
out, but a budget and reasons for the request should be included in a
proposal. The number of people affected
by this request should also be included.
Groups are usually funded on a one-time basis only.
By
the end of this summer, the committee has $21,000 to spend. In kind monies are also appreciated. If an area is going to be renovated, you
must first contact Lucille in Facilities Division. The area must be properly planned and decorated. Dr. Hendrix can be contacted at hendrcm@mail.auburn.edu or at
844-2688.
Conner
Bailey (substituting for Agriculture Economics & Rural Sociology): What is the range of money that you provide?
Dr.
Hendrix: We have funded anywhere from
$300 for microwave ovens to $10,000-$15,000 depending on the number of people
affected. The “big kitty” is a large sum
of money that can come from the Concessions Board, but that cannot be
distributed by the Committee. For
example, lights on the intramural field were paid for with this money.
Virginia
Morgan (Cooperative Extension Service):
We do not have any students. Can
you still help us?
Dr.
Hendrix: It can be faculty or
students. For example, if your break
area is harvest gold, we can upgrade the furniture.
C. Program Review Committee – Dr. Mike Watkins
To view the Academic Program
Review Committee’s Report
During our first review of departments that failed to meet one or more of the quantitative guidelines for departmental status, we took the question to be: in light of what else we know, should these departments be merged because they fail to meet one or more of those four quantitative measures. In each case, our answer was no. Our primary concern at the time, and our primary concern still, is to insure that any merger result from a rational process. Any merger that results primarily because a department fails to meet one or more of those four quantitative measures would not be the result of a rational process. In that report we also recommended that the four criteria be altered in specific ways. Those recommendations were presented by the Provost to the Trustees and approved at their last meeting.
For
our second review, we were asked to review those departments again in light of
recommendations made by the deans of the respective colleges. The only recommendation
for a merger came from Dean Heilman, and he recommended that the departments of
Journalism and Communications be merged. The committee met with Dean Heilman
and representatives of both Journalism and Communications. Members of the committee were present during
a panel discussion concerning the proposed merger hosted by AAUP. I met with
the three consultants that were brought to campus to determine whether and how
the merger should take place. In light of these meetings, the recommendation
from Dean Heilman, and the recommendation from the consultants, we concluded
that the proposed merger made sense and that it was the result of a rational
process. This is not to say that the decision is the right decision, nor that
the process was perfectly rational. The committee believes, for instance, that
the process would have benefited from the consultants having been brought into
the process at an earlier stage. Nonetheless, if you look at decisions that
have been made concerning departments and programs at Auburn over the past few
years, the process leading up to the decision to merge Journalism and
Communications is a model of careful planning and good sense. We recommended
that should the merger take place, it be done in such a way that would allow
for Journalism to attain accreditation.
During
the debate over the merger, much was said and much reported and opined in the
press. Much of this was unsupported. And much was simply false. So give me a
moment to contrast what has been reported with what I know, or at least have
good reason to believe, to be the case.
1.
It
was reported that any merger of Journalism and Communications would prevent
Journalism from attaining accreditation. This belief was not unfounded, and was
a concern of the Program Review Committee when we made our first recommendation
concerning Journalism. The evidence that the merger would threaten Journalism’s
accreditation was, first, the wording of the accrediting board’s policy
statement. Second was the fact that just after the merger was first proposed,
Journalism was not given full accreditation, and apparently because of the
proposed merger. The consultants told me, however, that Journalism’s merger
with Communications would not threaten its accreditation; they cited a number
of accredited journalism programs that belong to interdisciplinary departments.
When asked why, then, was Journalism not given full accreditation, Susanne
Shaw, Director of the ACEJMC (the accrediting board for journalism) told me it
was because Journalism’s interim head, Jack Simms, “sabotaged” his program’s
accreditation by arguing to the board that they should not be accredited.
2.
It
has been suggested that the proposed merger was motivated by members of the
Board of Trustees as a way to punish Journalism for The Plainsman’s criticism of the Board over the past two years,
that the merger is a way of weakening The
Plainsman’s autonomy, and that Dean Heilman and Provost Walker, in making
the recommendation, are allowing themselves to be used as tools by the
trustees. Now it should be enough that no one has provided any evidence for any
of this, that’s there is no argument to support it. In my business, when you
say that you have no evidence for something, you are explaining why it is that
you are now going to sit down and shut up. But for some, it seems, to say that
you have no argument for what you believe is simply the way you write an intro
for an editorial. Call me sentimental and old fashioned, but it seems to me
that before we accuse Dean Heilman and the Provost (or anyone else) of lying or
of being deluded – and that’s what we must be doing since Dean Heilman and
Provost Walker have insisted from the beginning that this is not coming from
the trustees – we should have some evidence for it. As far as I can tell, and I’m
in a much better position to determine this then those writing editorials on
the topic, this is not about the trustees, and it certainly has nothing to do
with The Plainsman. This has never
had anything to do with The Plainsman.
3.
What,
then, is the motivation behind the merger? I think you should take the
recommendations by Dean Heilman and Provost Walker at face value. They feel,
rightly or wrongly, that the merger will strengthen both departments. Certainly
the consultants felt that both departments, and the programs they administer,
might be strengthened by the merger. In their report, and during their
conversation with me, they noted weaknesses of both departments and their
programs that might be shored up by a merger. For example, and contrary to a recent
newspaper report, the consultants shared the opinion of the Dean and the
Provost that Journalism’s faculty “are not well trained in scholarly research
methods” and do not do what would generally be considered research at a major
university like Auburn.
4.
Finally,
it was suggested that the consultants recommended a merger because they were
not charged with the task of determining whether the merger should take place,
but only with how it should take place. I note, first, that if they did not
feel that they were to determine whether the merger should take place, then it
is odd that they made such a recommendation. Second, regardless of their
specific charge or what they took that charge to be, I was not limited in what
I might ask them, nor were they limited in what answers they might give. When I
asked whether the proposed merger would likely benefit or harm the departments
or their programs their answer was: it will benefit both departments if the
departments let it.
Dr.
John Heilman (Dean, College of Liberal Arts):
Thank you.
The
meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.