12 October 1999

General University Faculty Meeting

Broun Auditorium

The meeting was called to order at 3:15 P.M.

The Spring 1999 minutes of the General Faculty Meeting were approved as posted.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

October 12, 1999

Address to the University Faculty

Remarks by President William V. Muse

I am pleased to report to you on the State of the University as we near the completion of this century and as Auburn University progresses through the 143rd year since its founding in 1856.

This fall brings us one of the largest enrollments in our history, a total of 22,120 students on this campus. This is a 1.6% increase over last fall. Included in that total is a 6.1% increase in graduate enrollment. We had targeted a freshman class of 3,700; as of the tenth class day, 3,702 new freshmen were enrolled. I am also pleased that we had a 10% increase in Black enrollment this fall.

1999-2000 also marks our last year on the quarter system. I want to commend Dr. Christine Curtis for her leadership of our transition to the semester system. I'm pleased with the extensive planning that has been done and with the cooperation that has been provided by everyone in this important undertaking.

No review of our current status would be complete without some reflection on the past year. 1998-99 was a

tumultuous year for Auburn University and it was easily the most challenging year of my academic career.

In both athletics and academics, Auburn was in the press and was in both pressing and depressing situations. In spite of the turmoil and conflict, however, I believe that Auburn has emerged, not unscathed, but certainly as a stronger and more focused institution.

Our problems in football drew much of the attention of the press and the general public. I will not attempt to rehash the events that occurred nor defend the actions taken; there has been more than sufficient comment in the public arena already. I will simply note that I believe that the leadership of our football program is in good hands and that we will be able to benefit from a well-run and competitive program in the future.

In spite of the travails in football, however, 1998-99 was one of Auburn's more successful years in athletics. Our student athletes had a graduation rate that was higher than that of the student body as a whole. In terms of competitive success, Auburn ranked among the top 20 schools in NCAA competition, winning one national championship and two SEC titles. We had no major NCAA rules violations and we finished the year in the black financially in spite of several well-publicized unexpected expenditures. Our athletic program is in good hands under the capable leadership of David Housel.

The most important issues that were being discussed this past year revolved around the reallocation of

resources, restructuring of our academic programs and the development of a strategic plan that would

position Auburn to be more competitive as we enter the 21st Century. The process initiated by the

Commission on the Role of the University in the 21st Century produced considerable anxiety and some

anguish on the campus. But I believe that the recommendations of the Commission that were eventually

adopted by the Board of Trustees were reasonable and workable and were, certainly, much less destructive

and disruptive than many feared. I realize that there are those who are still unhappy with some of the changes, but on the whole, I have been very gratified by the cooperation throughout the campus by those

affected.

The most important product of that process was a plan, adopted by the Board of Trustees, that will allow us

to address some of our long-standing problems in a very significant way. We have the potential over the next five years to move Auburn to where it has never been in terms of its capability to compete as a national university. Let's examine some of the elements of that plan:

1. The most important component of that plan, and one that will require about 70% of the new resources

that we generate over the next five years, will be to bring your salaries to a more competitive level. In order

to attract and to retain the very best faculty, administrators, and staff, we must be able to compensate

people at a competitive level. Our objective over the next five years is to bring faculty salaries, by rank, up

to at least 100% of the regional average for doctoral level universities. We feel that will require a minimum of an average of five percent increase per year. If we are able to achieve that goal, it may be the first time in

Auburn's history that has been accomplished. But that is a worthy goal for an institution that values its

people. Likewise, our administrative and staff salaries must equal the averages for their appropriate

reference group.

2. A second major component is to bring our facilities for teaching, research, and service up to a fully

competitive level. When I came to Auburn seven years ago, we were spending approximately $700,000 per

year on the repair and renovation of our facilities. This year we are budgeting $6.2 million for that purpose.

National guidelines indicate we ought to spend about two percent of our investment in our physical facilities per year on their maintenance. That will require us to spend about $10 million per year. With the plan that we have in place, we will be investing dollars at that rate by the end of this five-year period. Given the almost non-existence of state support for construction of new facilities, we have to pay careful attention to the maintenance and renovation of our existing space in order to provide our students and faculty the environment they need to perform their work most effectively.

3. The plan calls for our average departmental O & M budgets (our non-personnel costs ) to be increased by

3% per year. We have gone almost ten years with no increase in those budgets, allowing inflation to reduce

substantially our purchasing power for vitally needed supplies and services. This change will get our departments back on the kind of financial footing they need to be.

4. We will be investing $1 million per year to support instructional technology, the core curriculum, the

library, and increased diversity on the campus. That sum will undoubtedly be inadequate to address these

issues completely. But it will allow us to respond to those matters that are most pressing each year and

improve our performance in these vitally important areas.

On the issue of instructional technology, we have hired IBM as a consultant to help us develop a more

comprehensive plan for the campus. I am impressed with the progress we have been able to make with

limited resources. We have been designated as one of the "most wired campuses" in the nation. But we still

have a long way to go to catch up with the schools that are on the cutting edge in this new arena. I am

convinced that the changes that are occurring in the way that we collect, organize, and disseminate

information will revolutionize the teaching and learning process over the next decade. Auburn has to invest

the monies and make the changes that are necessary to fully prepare our students to operate in this

environment. If we don't, we're not going to be able to attract the kind of students we want and need to

maintain our stature as a major university.

A part of the funds set aside each year will also be used to enhance campus diversity. I am pleased with the

outstanding job that our department heads, deans, and the Provost did this year in attracting new Black

faculty fourteen new faculty joined us this fall, one of the largest groups of new Black faculty in our history. We continue also to make steady progress in attracting and retaining Black students. Through this enhanced diversity Auburn becomes a stronger institution and more responsive to all segments of our society.

The last and, perhaps, most controversial component of the plan is our so-called "peaks of excellence"

program. As you know, we have selected by competitive review seven academic areas that will be eligible for enhancement funding over the next five years. One million dollars per year in continuing funding will be available for allocation among these programs, in addition to a half-million dollars of one-time funding each year. All of the programs were asked to develop a strategic plan that benchmarked their current status and indicated the steps that would need to be taken to achieve greater national stature for the program. These plans were reviewed by a peer review team from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The rationale for this approach is relatively straightforward and it has been employed by most universities

that now rank among the best in our nation. To be seen as a university of national stature academically, a

university has to have some programs that rank among the very best in their particular discipline; that

ranking, we know, is highly influenced by the quantity and quality of research conducted and by the

reputation of its graduate programs. Even a few programs with a high ranking will raise the overall stature of the university. Obviously, the more programs that are nationally ranked, the stronger the reputation

becomes.

Unfortunately, Auburn has not had the resources, nor is it anticipated that we will have the resources to

compete at the graduate level in all disciplines. We have a very strong and comprehensive undergraduate

program, perhaps one of the strongest of a public university in the south. Our rankings in the U.S. News &

World Report and other publications would substantiate that conclusion. On the other hand, we have very

few graduate programs that are highly ranked by the National Research Council. But we feel that we have

some programs that have the potential to rise to that level. That is what the peaks of excellence program is

about to identify those programs that have potential to achieve and/or solidify their national stature and

programs that are important in the economic development in our state. If we are successful in this effort, all

of us at Auburn will benefit. Not only will the faculty both in and outside the Peaks of Excellence programs

benefit, but our current and future students will profit by having a degree from a university with an enhanced academic reputation.

In many ways, I believe that Auburn is in the best position it has been in many years. If we are able to stay

focused on our plan and take advantage of the opportunities that we have, we can take Auburn to places it

has never been to a higher level of recognition and stature as an academic institution.

Over the last several months, questions have been raised in the University Senate and by individual faculty

about support for graduate education, particularly the funding of graduate assistantships. Although

strengthening graduate education was not identified as a priority in our plan, this is an important issue that

we need to address. We must put ourselves in a competitive position to recruit the quality of graduate

students that we need in selected graduate programs. We are attempting to do that through the expansion of

graduate scholarships, although the resources that we can apply to that need are limited.

It is helpful, however, for one to understand some basic principles that come directly from Auburn's mission statement that was approved by the Auburn Board of Trustees as a part of the 21st Century Commission. Specific points from that mission statement are:

1. The University will give highest priority for resource allocation to undergraduate education.

2. The University will provide graduate programs in areas of need and importance to the state and beyond.

3. The University will emphasize established areas of strength and will focus available resources in those

areas of research and doctoral study that are or have the potential to develop into nationally and

internationally recognized centers of excellence.

At the graduate level, we simply have to focus our resources on those programs that are consistent with

those principles. That is certainly what the Peaks of Excellence program is about. But, we also recognize that there will be graduate programs for which there is a strong demand and a demonstrated importance to the state, beyond the recognized centers of excellence. We expect that our program review will continue and that we will seek to eliminate all non-viable programs by 2001. We cannot afford to invest our time, talent, and money in programs for which there is insufficient demand as measured by the viability standards, i.e., an inadequate number of graduates per year.

I have also received some questions concerning my comments to the Board at the September 22nd meeting,

calling for a renovation of Samford Hall as one of our deferred maintenance projects over the next five years. Samford Hall is the most recognizable icon on the Auburn campus and we have taken steps over the last several years to approve its external appearance through a new roof and landscaping of Samford Park.

These changes have generated a tremendously positive response from the community, our alumni, and

visitors to the campus. The interior of the building, however, is structurally much the same as it was in 1888 when it was built. There is evidence of termite damage to the wooden interior, deterioration of the brick masonry and moisture in the foundation that would suggest timely attention is needed if this important structure is to be preserved. Additionally, there are a number of life, safety, and health issues related to improper fire exits, lack of fire sprinklers, and poor indoor air quality due to inefficient HVAC systems. Additionally, the wood structure is highly combustible. Equally important, the building is not

handicapped-accessible, a deficiency which needs to be corrected. I have asked our Facilities Division to

develop a plan for the restoration so we can obtain some estimate of the costs for this project. It is my

intention that most, if not all of the monies for this renovation would be raised privately through a major

capital campaign.

On the subject of a capital campaign, I think it is time for the University to begin thinking of another major

effort in that regard. Our last campaign was tremendously successful, raising over $200 million. This has

helped to push our permanent endowment for the University and the Foundation to a current level of nearly

$250 million. But we need a much larger endowment in order to compete effectively in the market we are in. In the year 2006, Auburn will celebrate its 150th anniversary as an institution of higher learning. That

would seem to be an appropriate target date for the culmination of a campaign.

Finally, I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation to the Auburn Family for persevering during the

challenging times we have faced. An institution like Auburn University is only as good as the people who give of themselves to make it what it is. Auburn is a great University because of its people. You have done a marvelous job of using effectively and efficiently the resources available to you. You have played a significant role in the development of this state and nation. Because of your efforts, Auburn University is positioned to grow in quality, stature, and service in the future. I call on all members of the Auburn Family Trustees, Alumni, Faculty, Staff, Students, and Administrators to take pride in our accomplishments and put aside differences so that we might fully realize our potential as an institution. With a positive attitude about what we have overcome and where we are today, we can look to a bright future filled with great promise.

My best wishes to you.

 

 

Conner Bailey (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology): Some of the programs identified in the Peaks of Excellence, like Fisheries, are very important for the state, but most of the students are internationals. People outside the US are going elsewhere and working to the glory of Auburn. His concern is not to criticize Fisheries, but to say that graduate education requires and needs support well beyond the Peaks of Excellence. Teaching of many core courses is best met through graduate education. He is very concerned that Auburn will become very focused and stronger, but so narrow that the comprehensiveness is lost that is needed at the graduate level.

Dr. Muse: All of us would like to be comprehensive at the graduate level. Based on his analysis, there are not the resources to offer graduate programs in every major. The first priority has to be undergraduate education based on the mission statement. Then graduate programs will be offered based on the greatest demand and priority. The Peaks of Excellence program is designed to select a few of those programs that have potential to achieve national and international stature.

Among the proposals submitted, Fisheries was chosen as a program that could meet national stature in terms of its reputation. It has also played a significant role in fish production in Alabama as an agricultural process. It has played a major role also in the study of fish diseases and genetics. Alabama is now number two nationally in terms of catfish production. He feels that Fisheries is an appropriate selection. It is the best strategy now to choose a few graduate programs that meet national or international stature.

Conner Bailey: He feels that Auburn needs to be very careful before programs are eliminated that meet all of these standards.

Dr. Muse: Some programs are right on the margin of viability standards. Hopefully those programs can be strengthened. Auburn is under a mandate from the state legislature to review all programs and to achieve the viability standards by 2001.

Richard Penaskovic (Philosophy): He taught at a small college in upstate New York for many years. This small college had a very good sabbatical program. He is sad to learn that the sabbatical program at Auburn will be phased out by the year 2003. There are millions of dollars for technology, but money can’t be put into our people and our faculty.

Provost Walker: He agrees with Dr. Penaskovic about the importance of sabbaticals. He also came from a small university. Not once did anyone from his department have to ask for extra money from the central administration for adequate staffing. Other faculty members felt that is was an important activity and all helped out to cover the extra workload. He does not discourage sabbatical leaves. In the majority of the cases, there are adequate staff members to take care of the leave, and if not, the Provost would be happy to entertain any proposals.

Richard Penaskovic: Some departments have money and some do not, and so there is not a level playing field. The central administration should not cut out sabbaticals for some departments because they are not able to take up the slack.

Larry Gerber (History): He feels it is troubling to hear Dr. Muse say that all programs should be raised up to the viability standards that are arbitrarily set in the first place. In some cases, there are programs that will have trouble meeting these viability standards, but Auburn should continue to offer these degree programs for other compelling reasons. He believes we can become slavishly bound to numbers set in the legislation, which have some degree of flexibility, but he finds it hard to believe that the legislature will compel some of our fellow institutions to cut half of their programs. These standards should be a flag, and it should not be required that a program meet all these viability standards before it can be guaranteed stability.

Dr. Muse: The process followed will be continued. The Program Review Committee will review those programs that fall below the standards and make recommendations whether or not these programs should continue. The Committee is also looking at quality and uniqueness as well as the viability standards. It is not a blind adherence to the numbers. We are prepared for programs that do not meet the standards, but for other reasons, merit the continuation of that program. Auburn is the most conscientious of the state universities in trying to follow the requirements that were established. But that will not be done blindly.

Conner Bailey: Were the viability standards the motivating force in eliminating the PhD program in Economics?

Dr. Muse: He did not recommend for that program to be eliminated. It did meet the viability standards.

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology): The masters and PhD programs in Poultry Science are now marginal compared to the viability standards. Is it not ironic that Poultry Science is recognized as a Peak of Excellence, yet they are looking at eliminating its graduate programs or at least absorbing them into another program in the university?

Dr. Muse: Clearly the programs fall below the viability standards. They have not at this point been recommended for elimination.

Other Items

  1. Peaks of Excellence: Provost William Walker
  2. At the January 22 meeting of the Board of Trustees, there were seven areas that were designated for enhancement. These were recommended by the president and approved by the Board. After considerable debate, Fisheries, Forestry, Poultry Science, Biological Sciences, Detection and Food Safety, Transportation, and Information Technology were selected. Each of those areas were charged with developing a five year plan for carrying out the research productivity of that area and thereby elevating it to a level of national prominence. The Provost's office has been working very closely with each of those departments in the preparation of those plans.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science was taken advantage of in order to provide reviewers to conduct site visits of each of the areas. Each team consisted of three reviewers from outside the university as well as a staff member from AAAS.

    He acknowledged and thanked Dr. John Pritchett and all of his staff for working well together so these visits could be conducted in a short amount of time. Seven site visits were conducted in a few weeks.

    The site visitors were very positive about the process the University is taking and very complimentary of the idea of trying to take a few programs and elevate them to national prominence. They made suggestions as to how to improve each plan. Then each program was given the chance to make a presentation to the original Priorities Committee. The Committee then made recommendations to Provost Walker, and he in turn made recommendations to the president.

    Those recommendations included funding five of the seven programs in the first year. The two not to be funded in the first year are Fisheries and Poultry Science. Those areas were not sufficiently focused in their plans to achieve the goals that had been laid out. Each program will resubmit plans at the end of this calendar year, and it will then be determined if those programs will receive funding for year number two.

    The areas receiving funding for the first year are Biological Sciences, Forestry, Detection and Food Safety, Transportation, and Information Technology. The funding in year one will be $1,000,000 in continuing money and $500,000 as a one-time fund. In year two, there will be an additional $1,000,000 and additional $500,000. In year three, an additional $1,000,000, etc. so that in the fifth year there will be $5,000,000 that will be expended along with $500,000 that will be expended in one-time funds.

    Provost Walker is excited about this program and feels confident that it will achieve its goal of raising the University to national prominence.

    Larry Gerber: He understands that other programs will have the opportunity to achieve such status, but he has not seen any notification or application.

    Provost Walker: He and the President would like to continue this process. They do not want to introduce more priority areas for the money already allocated, but if new money is identified, then allow for proposals from other departments.

    Larry Gerber: Does that mean that the $5,000,000 that will be expended five years from now will all be spent on the five or seven priority areas that have already been identified?

    Provost Walker: Yes.

    Larry Gerber: He understood that the first $1,000,000 would go to those programs and it would then be open to other programs.

    Provost Walker: The plans and proposals that were made as well as the budgets were for five years.

    Richard Penaskovic: Wouldn’t it be better to have an outside source on the committee in the next round to eliminate self-interest? He also is surprised that not one of the 13 departments in Liberal Arts was selected.

    Provost Walker: He feels it is appropriate to discuss how the process should be done the next time around. There is another priority with regards to the College of Liberal Arts. There is $1,000,000 per year for Information Technology, the core of the library and diversity. Those are not continuing dollars, but this is a commitment by the University to areas which very strongly influence the College of Liberal Arts.

    Cindy Brunner: She understood that the seven programs chosen for the Peaks of Excellence were chosen for their academic excellence, and yet, the five year plans focus on research productivity.

    Provost Walker: He does not separate research and academics.

    Cindy Brunner: She does tend to separate these two only because some of the original plans were judged to be too comprehensive because they addressed instruction and outreach. She was surprised at the outcome.

    Provost Walker: All the areas that were selected were areas where there is already a strong research area. Biological Sciences, more than any of the others, has focused on graduate student acquisition, so that in five years from now, they may reach some level of national achievement.

    Conner Bailey: Originally the Peaks of Excellence was directed at programs and not necessarily departments. Some of the Peaks are fairly close to specific departments. For example, Forestry, Poultry Science, and Fisheries are specific departments. Others seem to be more program-oriented such as Detection and Food Safety, Technology and Biological Sciences. He also was confused because Dr. Muse seemed to link these three to graduate degree programs. Are we trying to develop interdisciplinary programs, or trying to develop graduate programs in certain areas, or trying to orient around departmental activities?

    Provost Walker: There are several aspects to the charge. One, if there is something that Auburn is not doing that it should be doing, then that might be a good area of emphasis, thus, the Biological Sciences area. Another is to take into account cross-disciplinary activities because in the eyes of funding agencies, that is where the emphasis will be. At the same time, a single discipline should not be ruled out if it should be recognized. The original proposal to the President was ten or eleven programs from which he narrowed down to seven. Dr. Walker hopes that next time, there won’t be a single formula used to choose programs. If this was repeated tomorrow, he thinks the top priority would be the graduate fellowships. This issue was just not brought up and was not made a priority for this year’s budget.

     

  3. Faculty Office Relocations: Dr. Christine Curtis

The word "math" in the distributed diagram is a generic word that includes both the Department of Mathematics and the Department of Discrete and Statistical Sciences.

In beginning this project, there were several things happening simultaneously. First, the Board of Trustees said they wanted the Math Annex demolished by the summer of 2000. There were a number of faculty and graduate students to move out of the Math Annex. They needed to be moved in a manner in which they could continue to do their work and not be disrupted. The second thing is that the Sciences Lab Center, which will house courses in core biology, core chemistry, supporting chemistry courses, and some biological sciences courses, will be located where the Extension Cottage and the east end of Saunders are now located.

Moving this many people was a very complex problem to be solved. The first priority was the students. Secondly, it was important that the faculty had a place to go without disrupting other faculty. And third, it was important that productivity continued, and that the students could continue going to class, and be able to find their instructors if they were being moved.

Medical Tech Labs are located on the east end of Saunders Hall. There were some health problems for the instructors because of the conditions of the building, so that lab was able to move to the Life Sciences Building last spring. There are also some Mathematics graduate students in Saunders who will need to be moved. It is the current proposal to move all the Math graduate students to Mell Hall as well as the Math and DSS graduate students from the Math Annex. Sciences in Motion is also located in Saunders will be moved to Allison Hall. The glass blowing shop will be moved to the other end of Saunders and will eventually be moved to the Sciences Lab Center when that is complete.

The Math Annex houses the most people to be moved. Because Mathematics and Discrete Math will be merging in a few years, the Dean and his faculty felt is was important to keep these faculty in close proximity to one another. They will be moved to Allison Hall and Parker Hall. Some of the graduate students and post-docs will be moving into the Leach Nuclear Science Center. They were able to consolidate a few laboratories there and were able to provide some space for those post-doctoral fellows.

The graduate students in Math and DSSC are not only students, but also provide a very vital role in teaching many courses, and many students seek their help. These students will be in Mell Hall so that they will be accessible to students on campus. The Extension Office will then move to the second floor of O.D. Smith Hall once it is renovated into a safer building. At this point, O.D. Smith Hall houses the Department of Industrial Design. A lot of the work they do is shop work and painting. This building is inadequate with inadequate safety devices for this department. It is now planned that this department will move to the second floor of the Wallace Center as well as occupying some of the shops in Wallace. This will place these students in a much safer environment in terms of fire safety and shop safety. When O.D. Smith is renovated, the Dean’s office of the College of Science and Mathematics will move into the bottom floor of this building from the Extension Cottage.

Those on the bottom floor of Extension Cottage are senior analysts from the Division of University Computing. The College of Engineering is going to allow the conversion of three classrooms on the third floor of Ramsey Hall into offices for these analysts.

The unit of the State Department of Education on campus is occupying some space in the Wallace Center as well as some space in the Petrie Annex. They have agreed to move to the Auburn University Research Park out by the airport.

Wallace Center is being worked on right now. Dr. Curtis publicly mentioned that Randy Moon and his crew have been working hard to get Wallace Center ready for the Industrial Design group.

We are now in the design phase for Allison, Ramsey and Parker Halls. There is an outside architect who will talk to the faculty involved and talk about the plans. Construction should begin shortly after the first of the year.

The university architect, Greg Parsons, will review applications for various architects next week regarding O.D. Smith Hall. There should be a recommendation for the Board at the November 5th meeting.

Industrial Design should be moved by winter quarter. Ramsey, Allison and Parker should be finished by next year. Hopefully faculty can be moved before the semester system begins. If not, they will move at the next break. O.D. Smith should be completed by the spring of 2001 so that the COSAM Dean’s office can move into the second floor. Then the Extension Office will move and the graduate students can move into Mell Hall. At that point, the Math Annex can be demolished by summer of 2001.

Rick Blumenthal (Chemistry): He is astonished to hear about all these moves because he is on the University Space Allocations Committee and has been for two years. The Committee has not met in two years. The placement of an art museum in the Arboretum was another issue recently and his committee was not contacted about that either. Why has this committee never met and why does appear that the faculty and staff have nothing to say about the matter? To President Muse, "Shared governance is not a facade of appointing committees that never meet. Instead it is respecting the opinions of others in your community enough to seek out their advice and counsel." He has not seen that from the University in his experience yet. His appointment is over this year, and his committee has never met. There have been serious issues over this year, and the Committee was bypassed. He expressed this concern via e-mail and it was ignored. He feels that the President should have sought the report of the Space Allocation Committee before an assignment was given to an individual to handle. This is not something that should be administratively decided for the entire university.

Dr. Curtis: She has tried to work as closely as possible with the faculty involved. The time limit for this project was very short and she assumed that is why she was given this assignment.

Cindy Brunner: What is going in the place of the Math Annex?

Dr. Curtis: It is to become a parking lot. It is the old basketball arena and it is a maze with dead-end corridors and plywood walls. From a safety viewpoint, it is very unsafe.

Richard Penaskovic: Where is the Auburn University Research Park located?

Dr. Curtis: Out Glenn Rd, past the airport, are some new brick buildings. Right before Robinson-Humphrey intersection is a road on the left and on the right is a building that used to be the old Amsouth building. Auburn University acquired it in the mid-1980’s. Behind it is a laboratory for researchers on campus. The Auburn University Research Park is a building houses some researchers, but also some offices will be moved out of that building into the new MCAT building.

Richard Penaskovic: Does the State Department of Education pay rent to use office space?

Dr. Curtis: There is an old agreement traced back to 1968 and according to that agreement the department does not pay rent. They are linked with our College of Education and do a lot of work with high school and middle school teachers.

Dr. Jo Heath: When will the new science building be completed?

Dr. Curtis: In about three or four years.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 P.M.