Auburn University Senate Minutes
February
13, 2001
Broun
Hall Auditorium
Absent: D. Hilmelrick, D. Norris, M. El-Halwagi, R.
Weigel, J. Facteau, B. Hames, R. Keith,
C. Hageman, C. Buchanan.
Absent
(Substitute): J. Harris (D. Butler), R. Jenkins (R. Hartfield), R. Zee (H.
Tippur), J. Henton (G. Pettit).
The minutes for the last meeting were approved as posted. They can be found at the Senate web page at https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.
If
there are no objections, today’s agenda will be altered to allow consideration
for some timely resolutions immediately after the announcements.
Announcements:
A. President’s
Office: President William Walker
I
have not had time to prepare any comments. I assume there may be some questions
from the Senate that I could address. With respect to the financial issues
addressing the institution, particularly in regards to 6.2% proration, the way
we will be handling this is that 75% of those dollars will be taken from the
proration reserve the institution has. I believe there is about $8 million in
the proration reserves; we will be taking about $6 million. The other 25% will
be coming from the Vice Presidents and various other schools and colleges; that
will amount to about 1% of the budget for a typical school and college. The
reserves held in those divisions are certainly capable of handling that. What
we have not had time to discuss in any great depth is how we are going to
handle the budget cut which will take effect in the next fiscal year. Those
deliberations will be taking place.
David
Sutton, Communication: How is this going to affect new hires?
Dr.
Walker: You’ll recall several years ago
when we had proration and financial problems; Samford Hall took back all open
positions and said no more travel, etc. That’s not the approach we are going to
take, at least on the business for this year. We are simply going to present
the Dean a bill for a certain number of dollars. How he or she wants to arrive
at those dollars is up to him/her.
Conner
Bailey, Ag Econ and Rural Sociology (non-voting member): I understand that you have approached the
Senate leadership in regards to naming an interim Provost. Tell us why you
think there is a need to move rapidly in this process rather than forming an
internal search and possibly having an acting Provost in the meantime? It is
entirely likely that any interim Provost is going to be in that position until
a new President is hired and on campus. So the need to move rapidly is not
apparent to me; it seems to me we could do an internal search for an interim
Provost in a timely manner, and if you could appoint an acting Provost that
meets the needs of that office as well as the needs of the faculty, that would
be more appropriate.
Dr.
Walker: I have no objections to that. I
can’t do both jobs; there are not enough hours left in the day, nor energy left
in my body for me to do both jobs. I need someone in the Provost office now;
whether you want to call them “acting” and then search for an interim, that’s
fine. There is a void right now and we
need someone to carry on those duties. Even after one and a half days I am
short-changing some things that need to be done. I asked Bruce to solicit
views, and if that is the view of most people involved, then I will do it that
way. I have a sense of urgency to get someone there to make decisions.
Marty
Olliff, Library: In regards to
proration, is there is an interest in retirement incentive packages as some
people imply? Is that a potential with
impending proration?
Dr.
Walker: Let me just say, and don’t read
anything more into this than just the words, that we’ve taken nothing off the
table.
Conner
Bailey, Ag Econ and Rural Sociology (non-voting member): With regard to the
budget cuts, is this proration reserve limited to meeting short-falls in
Division 1? What about divisions 3 and
4? There are 100’s of faculty on this campus with Division 3 and 4
appointments. Will you tell us how
proration is like to affect us?
Dr.
Walker: The proration reserve has been
established as a result of a lot of things, not the least of which is very
sound fiscal management of Dr. Large. Also, there have been things like
reallocation that have taken place within Division I. It seems to me it would be inappropriate for those Division I
funds to be applied to Division 3 or 4.
Therefore, unless I hear really compelling arguments for the contrary,
Divisions 3 and 4 are going to have to handle proration on their own. It may be
that faculty who are being paid off of those funds will have to be picked up on
Division 1. The reason I was late today is because of that very issue; I was
having a conversation with Dean Waters about that very issue. It is not our
intention for anyone to be left out in the cold, so to speak. However, unless I
hear compelling contrary arguments, Divisions 3 and 4 will have to pick up the
total proration.
Marty
Olliff, Library: Would it not be a wise
idea for us to consider not having any more consultancies unless they are
deemed absolutely necessary? Would it be a wise idea for us to cease in any
contracts that we can get out of or consultancies that have not been
implemented yet that are not absolutely essential to the central function of
the University?
Dr.
Walker: I certainly do not disagree
with that at all. Don’t read that to mean that I think all of the consultants
we’ve hired were a bad idea. I think the consultants we’ve hired to look at the
organizational structure of the facilities division as well as Alumni and
Development were right on target. The
notion that we don’t need to have expertise, particularly in the area of large
organizations, is pretty arrogant. We don’t have all the answers. Our
organizational structure has not changed for forever, almost. We still have the
organizational structures we had when our budget was $30 million a year; it is
now $500 million a year, overall. I think it is entirely appropriate that we
look at those organizational structures; neither I nor Dr. Large, nor anyone
else in the University that we know of has the expertise to advise in that
area.
Mr.
Olliff: I am not speaking of
consultancies that would help us streamline to a greater effectiveness, but I
am speaking of consultancies that seem they could be put on hold for a little
while, such as the Branding consultant idea.
Dr.
Walker: I think your point is
well-made. We certainly ought to take those into consideration. Keep in mind that we don’t hire all the
consultants. I believe the Branding consultants came from the Board of
Trustees.
Mr.
Olliff: Yes sir, but I believe some of
us have a role in suggesting what may or may not be happening.
I
have invited Dr. Bill Muse to attend today’s meeting and make any comments that
he would like to.
Dr.
Muse: I appreciate the opportunity to
visit with you for a few minutes. First I would like to congratulate Dr. Walker
on being named the interim President of the University. Bill and I have worked
very closely for nearly 10 years and I admire his capability and his devotion
to this institution; I am confident in his ability to lead this institution
during this period. I stand ready to assist Dr. Walker in every way I can.
Particularly, I want to tell each of you how much I have appreciated the
support of this body and the general faculty during my time here at Auburn.
This institution has been blessed with exceptionally good faculty leadership.
I’ve had the great experience of working with the elected members of this body
each year and have seen the contribution that they have made to the operations of
this University. Clearly, the strength and quality of an institution lies in
its faculty. The outstanding reputation that Auburn enjoys across the nation is
a direct result of the quality of people brought to this institution and have
devoted their lives to leading this institution to the heights that it as
achieved. I am very proud of what we have been able to accomplish here over the
past decade, despite the many obstacles we have had to surmount.
What
I will remember most about this institution are the relationships that I have
been able to establish here; these I know will endure throughout my lifetime. I
have enjoyed very much the experience and appreciate all of those people who
have worked for Auburn to make it the institution it is today. I extend my very
best wishes to all of you as you work through some difficult times to come, but
more importantly as you work to the future to continue this pattern of progress
and rising national stature that Auburn fully deserves.
Dr.
Gladden: This is my first opportunity to speak publicly about Pres. Muse
stepping down at the end of his contract and accepting the position as
Chancellor at East Carolina University, as well as his removal as President by
the Board of Trustees yesterday.
I
would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Muse for his many efforts on behalf
of Auburn. I believe he has done an excellent job as President and has served
Auburn well. I can quickly point to several highlights of his administration
that come to my mind:
§
The removal of Auburn from the AAUP Censure list shortly
after he arrived
§
The end of the “Old South” parade
§
His defense of Prof. Wayne Flint when ALFA criticized him so
sharply
§
Auburn is a more open and tolerant campus since his arrival
§
He has supported shared governance with the faculty
§
He always sought faculty input in my experiences with him
He
is a gentleman, and I will miss him. Auburn will miss him.
Also
noted must be Marlene Muse’s contributions. Marlene has been anything but a
figurehead in the President’s home. She has been an important and influential
member of the Auburn community. She has been a tireless worker for many good
causes. I appreciate her efforts and
she will also be sorely missed.
I
would also like to comment regarding yesterday’s Board of Trustees meeting in
which Pres. Muse was reassigned as special counsel by the Board. I am extremely
disappointed in the Board’s action, as I’m certain many of you are. While I am
sympathetic to the idea that we have to pay careful attention to proration and
the potential disaster of next year’s budget, I do not think this was the best
or appropriate way to remove a President; I believe Auburn owes President Muse
a quiet and non-confrontational exit
from Auburn. However, as I will report in a moment, I do believe that
communication between the Senate and the Board of Trustees has improved.
Yesterday’s action marks a significant failure in that regard, of course. I
should report to you that after yesterday’s meeting I spoke with several members
of the Board of Trustees and told them that the faculty should have been
consulted. I told them that had I been consulted I would have advised against
their action, and that at such time that an interim President needed to be
appointed, I would have supported Provost Walker.
I’ve
heard mixed views concerning provisions for continuing to pay President Muse
and assuring his vestment in the Alabama Retirement System. I strongly support
arrangements for him to be vested; just because similar arrangements are not
available to me as a faculty member and other faculty does not mean that I
begrudge them against those who have earned them. In that regard, I believe the
right thing is being done.
Next,
I would like to give you an update on interactions between Senate officers,
faculty, and the Board of Trustees. First, we do continue to have faculty
luncheons with individual board members. The next one is scheduled for tomorrow
with Sen. Lowell Baron. As I’ve reported before, these luncheons are arranged
by Jo Heath, Immediate Past-Chair, and Gene Clothiaux, Past-Chair. At each of
those, different groups of faculty are invited; we have casual conversation and
lunch followed by questions by each of the faculty members that are present.
Participants:
Grant
Davis Secretary,
Board of Trustees
Lynne
Hammond President’s
Office
Bruce
Gladden Senate Chair
Mary
K. Boudreaux Senate
Secretary
Jim
Bradley Senate
Chair-Elect
Isabelle
Thompson Senate
Secretary-Elect
Jo
Heath Senate
Immediate Past Chair
Gene
Clothiaux Senate Past
Chair
Richard
Jaeger Senator,
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Sridhar
Krishnamurti Senator,
Communication Disorders
Robert
Locy Senator,
Biological Sciences
Richard
Beil Senator,
Economics
Ralph
Miller Senator,
Theatre
Mike
Solomon Senator,
Consumer Affairs
Murray
Jardine Senator,
Political Science
A
second type of interaction between the board and faculty officers has been the
meeting of the Senate officers with various BOT committees. These follow the
BOT meetings. These again have been informal in nature and range from current
ongoing issues to shared or not shared visions of Auburn.
The
third type of interaction has been the two retreats between members of the BOT
Academic Affairs committee, chaired by Mr. Jack Miller, the other members being John Blackwell,
Jimmy Rane, Byron Franklin, and Dr. Ed Richardson. The most recent of these
meetings was on Jan. 25 at the home of Jimmy Rane in Abbeville, Alabama. The
list of attendees to this retreat were as follows:
Jack
Miller Chair, Academic
Affairs Committee
John
Blackwell Member, Academic
Affairs Comm.
Jimmy
Rane Member, Academic
Affairs Comm.
Grant
Davis Secretary, Board of
Trustees
Bill
Walker AU Provost
Guin
Nance AUM Chancellor
Wes
Williams Vice-President for
Student Affairs
John Fletcher Assistant Vice-President for
Enrollment Management Services
Denise
Battles 2000-2001 American
Council of Education Fellow
Bruce
Gladden AU Senate Chair
Mary
K. Boudreaux AU Senate Secretary
Jim
Bradley AU Senate
Chair-Elect
Jo
Heath AU Senate
Immediate Past-Chair
Bob
Vandervelde AUM Senate Chair
Joy
Clark AUM Senate
Chair-Elect
Discussion
at this meeting ranged from the very specific issue of the decline of the
average freshman GPA this past Fall Semester as compared to the average of
previous Fall quarters. The average
dropped from 2.61 to 2.41. We also
moved on to the issue of retention, and then the very broad conversation about
the potential effects of an increase in entry requirements. Such questions
considered were:
§
Would this improve retention, would it change the character
of Auburn in a positive or negative manner?
§
Would it represent a possible route to flagship status in
the State of Alabama?
I
would characterize a lot of that discussion as “pie in the sky,” on both sides.
Some
of these conversations continued among several groups at the dinner table, and
included the idea of tuition waivers for spouses and dependents of Auburn
University employees.
It
is reasonable to ask what has been accomplished by these interactions with the
BOT. I do think that despite some complications recently, communication is
better between the faculty and BOT. Exchanges have been cordial but extremely
candid. Any improvement in communication alone is probably worth the effort. I
do believe that this communication is one of the reasons we were able to get
in-state tuition waivers for GTA’s in the past year. I think it has also gotten
us to the point where board members are willing to give consideration to
tuition waivers to spouses and dependents. Of course this comes at a bad time,
when the money is going away. Nevertheless, I think it is an advance to have
them seriously thinking about that issue.
In
a related matter, I want to report to you that I received phone calls from both
Mr. Jimmy Samford and Jack Miller on Thursday of last week, both assuring me
that faculty would be involved in the presidential search process that would be
coming in the following days, weeks, and months. When I spoke with board
members yesterday, they continued to assure me that faculty would be involved.
Certainly I and the other Senate officers will do everything we can to make
sure this promise is honored.
None
of this excuses yesterday’s actions of the BOT, but I do hope it adds some
perspective.
In
recent weeks, there has been public mention of a “silent faculty,” a “docile
and impotent faculty,” and “intimidated faculty leaders” and faculty/faculty
leaders who are “afraid”. Your Senate officers are of course only part of the
leadership on this campus. I would like to address this from our point of view:
I
am afraid. I am afraid of my wife, sometimes I’m afraid of Mary Boudreaux (laughter
from audience). Seriously, while
some of these may apply to me, they do not apply to people like Mary, Jim
Bradley, Jo Heath, and Isabelle Thompson. They are people of highest integrity
and I have seen them firsthand vigorously voicing the concerns of the faculty
directly to the board members. Finally, I do not believe that a faculty that
proceeds with the facts in a measured and deliberate fashion is a weak faculty.
Of
course the real test is upon us. The upcoming presidential search represents
both a challenge and an opportunity for all University stake-holders. At this
point I would like to stop for questions.
Conner
Bailey, Ag Econ and Rural Sociology (non-voting member): Don’t you feel betrayed, Bruce, that you
have made efforts to reach out to the Board peacefully and quietly, amicably,
collegially and then that action occurred yesterday? Saying that the action
yesterday is unexcusable strikes me as not quite enough.
Dr.
Gladden: Well, that may be. I do not
anger easily, that’s either good or bad. I certainly was not happy with it. I
think we all have the same goals (we being the faculty) however we approach it.
I think we are all trying to move Auburn ahead.
Conner
Bailey: I certainly would say I’m on that side, but I look without any evidence
that when the really important decisions are made that this approach makes a
difference. I feel that this approach you have taken should be called into
question. I think the Board should be aware that some of us call into question
a collegial approach to the Board when they refuse to accept our legitimate and
appropriate role in making a decision, not only about firing a sitting
President, but also immediately selecting a new interim President with
absolutely no faculty input.
Dr.
Gladden: I do not disagree that we are both upset. The question is what do we
do about it. I know we have some resolutions coming today that we may very well
agree on.
Marcia
Boosinger, Library (not a senator): How
are you going to get faculty input on the hiring of a new Provost?
Dr.
Gladden: My first attempt in the past
few days, which have been very busy as I know has been the case for everyone,
was to begin to get some feedback. I would say, based on Conner’s question,
that we will have an internal search. In this case, the Rules Committee will
appoint a search committee; typically we nominate more members than needed and
the Provost would select from that group, then we’ll have a search. No one
should have the idea that anything has happened already; all that happened was
that the Provost said that he would like to move quickly.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I wonder about the
Presidential search. I am always
concerned when I hear that a Headhunting firm is hired and “oh yeah, by the
way, we’ll have some input from a committee”.
I am concerned about the search for President. It seems to me that true
shared governance would allow a committee to be formed, then that committee
would choose the Search firm; I see a real danger in the committee doing the
bidding of the firm. What steps have we
taken now that we know there will be a search and there will be a committee
since yesterday noon? What steps have
we taken to insure maximum stakeholder input, particularly faculty input, on
this very delicate question?
Dr.
Gladden: Since yesterday noon, not
much.
Herb
Rotfeld, Steering Committee: Following
up on Marty’s question, you mentioned earlier that you had talked to two Board
members who had assured you that faculty would be involved in the search for
President. How did they say faculty would be involved? Secondly, do you have
reason to believe what they said?
Dr.
Gladden: I will not answer the second
question. I did share with one of the Board members the AAUP guidelines as well
as two or three articles from Academe regarding recommendations for involvement
of faculty in the search. Certainly that Board member knows what we mean when
we say “faculty input.” Will it happen? I don’t know. Despite my optimistic
viewpoint and others’ not-so-optimistic viewpoint, we all know we are trying to
catch a runaway train.
Larry
Gerber, History (not a senator):
Following up on the issue Marty raised about search consultants, in the
experience of Universities across the country, some have used consultants that
do not specialize in higher education, and have produced results that have
appeared at best dubious. I think it would be very important that the Senate
leadership communicate to the Board that before selecting the search
consultant, there be some opportunity for Senate leadership and other leaders
on campus to have input into the selection of an appropriate sort of
consultant.
Dr.
Gladden: I think that is an excellent idea and I would certainly wish to have the
assistance of the AAUP.
Bob
Locy, Biological Sciences: With all due
respect to Dr. Muse and his personal situation, I think the greatest damage
done by the Board reflects the fact that it makes it almost impossible to hire
a quality President at this point, based on the way the past situations have
gone. I think the Senate officers in dealing with the Board ought to express
their willingness to patch up this situation and become more actively involved
in this process, to at least allow them to demonstrate that they do have some
respect of faculty, and possibly improve the prospects of having the kind of
quality of President we’ve had in the past.
Dr.
Gladden: I agree.
Gene
Clothiaux, Past-Chair: Bruce, did you
ask the Board if they will pick a committee like they did the last time? Will they leave that committee alone and let
it do what it needs to do?
Dr.
Gladden: Yes, I will ask. Next we will move to nominations for Senate
officers. The nominating committee for
nominating Senate officers consists of:
Marcia Boosinger, Larry Gerber, Jo Heath, Jenny Raymond, Dennis Rygiel,
and Susan Villaume. They have found
some candidates. The candidates, as
submitted by the nominating committee are:
Chair-elect Barbara Streumpler, Nutrition
and Food Science
Chair-elect Michael Watkins, Philosophy
Secretary-elect Donna Bohanan, History
Secretary-elect Renee Middleton, Counseling/Counseling
Psychology
Elections
will be held at the General Faculty meeting in March.
(Alteration
to original agenda)
There
have been resolutions put forward. The
first one is from Jo Heath.
Jo
Heath, Immediate Past-Chair: I move
that we adopt this resolution and forward it to the Board of Trustees and
President Muse.
The
motion was seconded.
Dr.
Gladden: In order to deal with this resolution we will need a motion to suspend
the rules of the Senate to allow it to be acted upon today. Do I hear a motion
to that effect?
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: Motion to suspend
the rules of the Senate.
The
motion was seconded by Marty Olliff, Library.
Dr.
Gladden: Is there any discussion?
Brian
Bowman, Civil Engineering: I don’t
think we should support any resolution like this unless we have input from all
of the faculty members.
Marty
Olliff, Library: We are the elected
representatives of the faculty, and although I agree in principle, the
timeliness of speaking out now requires us to take the power before us and act
after appropriate discussion on this resolution.
Dr.
Gladden: All in favor of suspending the rules of the Senate to allow vote on
this resolution please signify by saying “aye.”
The
motion was passed by a majority voice vote.
Dr.
Gladden: This motion to approve the
resolution and forward it to President Muse and the Board is now open for
discussion.
Carl
Hudson, Finance: When I spoke with my
department, the feeling was that this resolution should be split in two. We
should pass one containing the parts that support President Muse and another
one that expresses our displeasure with the Board’s action.
Dr.
Gladden: Are you moving to divide the
motion?
Dr.
Hudson: I am moving to amend it.
Dr.
Gladden: Our parliamentarian says that
you could move to divide the resolution, specifying clearly where it is to be
divided, or you could move to amend, specifying clearly where the wording is to
be altered.
Dr.
Hudson: You have my proposed change in
the wording.
Dr.
Gladden: You are moving to amend?
Dr.
Hudson: Yes
The
motion was seconded.
Renee
Middleton, Counseling/Counseling Psychology:
I think that as a faculty we have expressed several times to Dr. Muse
our appreciation for what he has done for us as our president. I’m not saying
this is not something we should wish to do; I am saying that as a faculty the
more pressing issue is to express our disappointment in the Board’s action in
moving forward without consulting the faculty. Adding the positives only
enhances or supports our reasons why we are more disappointed with them; to me
it underscores the strength of those last few lines.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I passed this
resolution to my faculty via email and found great support particularly for the
parts praising Dr. Muse. We found
support for stronger wording in reference to the Board, at which point I worked
on (but have not had time to pass around) a much more strongly-worded
condemnation of the Board, which would substitute for the second half of this
resolution, should we sever these parts. I suggest that a number of these
resolutions, at least mine will, address the issues specifically with the
action of the Board; we might consider that in our deliberations on this
particular resolution. On the other hand, the spice may be too strong in our
condemnation of the Board; we need to also consider taking half a load to get
the job done. I don’t know where I sit because I haven’t had the opportunity to
poll Senators on this resolution, nor have I had the chance to view other
resolutions.
I
do believe that paragraphs 6,7, and 12 are critical to this resolution.
Carl
Hudson, Finance: Our purpose in this
resolution, as I read it, is two-fold. I am not against having strong wording
against the trustees, I just felt that if we wanted to express our appreciation
to Dr. Muse, why pollute it with condemnation of the Board? If you want to
express appreciation, express appreciation; if you want to condemn the Board,
condemn the Board.
Renee
Middleton, CCP: I am not opposed to
separating them, I just think that the pre-eminent action lies in paragraphs
6,7, and 12 (actually 6,7, and 9).
Roy
Broughton, Textile Engineering: I think
the two parts should stay together.
Dr.
Gladden: To clarify, you are suggesting
this amended resolution to be followed by a second resolution condemning the
Board of Trustees?
Dr.
Hudson: Yes.
A
voice vote was taken on the amended resolution, then a hand count called. The
amended resolution was rejected with 22 for and 30 against.
Dr.
Gladden: We are back to the original
resolution, which has been presented and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Marty
Olliff, Library: If we pass this
amendment, does it prevent us from passing separate condemnation resolutions or
amendments? Does it prevent us from revisiting this amendment should we pass an
amendment that basically severs the two?
Herb
Rotfeld, Steering Committee: Passing
this resolution does not stop you from having another resolution. This is a
resolution, a statement from the Senate.
The
resolution was passed by a majority voice vote. A division and hand-count was
called by Marty Olliff, Library. The
vote was 50 in favor and 3 opposed.
Jim
Bradley, Chair-elect and Steering Committee: This resolution I bring to you
from the Steering Committee. The members of the Steering committee are:
Bruce
Gladden, Mary K. Boudreaux, Jim Bradley, Isabelle Thompson, Renee Middleton,
Judy Sheppard, Donna Sollie, Herb Rotfeld, and William Walker.
Board of Trustees Appointments Resolution
This
was a group effort in crafting the resolution; however, Dr. Walker was not
involved in crafting this resolution.
This
resolution deals with the two new positions that remain to be filled on the
Board of Trustees. We thought a statement on this would be appropriate as soon
as possible. We wish not to wait until next month, thinking that if we did that
the position would already be filled. For this, we ask for the rules to be
suspended so we can vote on this resolution.
I
move that the Senate approve this resolution and that it be sent to the Governor
and copies be sent to each BOT member.
The
motion was seconded.
Dr.
Gladden: In order to vote on this resolution, we will need a motion to suspend
the rules of the Senate. Do I hear such a motion?
The
motion was made by Bob Locy, Biological Sciences.
The
motion was seconded by Alex Dunlop, English.
The
motion was passed by a majority voice vote.
Dr.
Gladden: Is there any discussion on the
resolution before you?
Ralph
Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Sciences: I’d like to offer a more positively-worded
amendment, possibly for the reasons that were offered for the last amendment.
I’ve made copies to distribute.
Dr.
Gladden: You are moving to amend?
Dr.
Henderson: I am moving to amend.
The
motion was seconded.
Dr.
Gladden: I assume this includes everything the other one did except for the
marked parts.
Dr.
Henderson: Yes.
Dr.
Gladden: So the third “whereas” is stricken; the fourth “whereas” is new or in
addition; the next whereas is an addition;
Dr.
Henderson: The differences are substantive, but I think if we are going to
speak to the Governor we should keep it on an upright and positive note. If we
want to express concerns about the BOT’s actions, that can be done otherwise.
The
motion was seconded.
Mike
Watkins, Philosophy: The parts that are
being taken out, I would prefer to leave in.
I prefer to have the original document.
Judy
Sheppard, Journalism and Steering Committee:
I would be really opposed to these additions, although I wouldn’t
usually be opposed to positive statements, but after yesterday, I just couldn’t
handle putting this in there. I’m
sorry, but it’s fantasy as far as I’m concerned. I have a strong objection to adding a statement that the BOT
desires visionary thinking and critical analysis.
Steve
Knowlton, Physics: I am opposed to both
of these; neither one of them addresses the fundamental problem with the Board
of Trustees. Getting people outside the
state or people with diversity, that’s not the fundamental problem we have with
the Board. Board members who are clever
can figure ways around these resolutions or conditions that we ask. Both of these resolutions are too weak.
The
amendment failed by a majority voice vote.
Ralph
Paxton, Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology: I’m not sure what “diversity of
ethnic and professional background” means in this case, or how this will
improve our relationship with the Board of Trustees. Does that mean Yankees? (laughter
from audience)
Marty
Olliff, Library: I think that part is
obviously clear. We have a single gene pool on the Board.
Ruth
Crocker, History: I think the only
type of diversity that is important in this case is a diversity of allegiance
among the Board members. That and the
politics.
Roy
Broughton, Textile Engineering: I move to take out the second “whereas.”
The
motion was seconded.
John
Bello-Ogunu, Multicultural Affairs: If we are serious about the importance of
diversity at Auburn University we must support the inclusion of that
paragraph. (most of what was said by
Dr. Bello-Ogunu was not audible enough to hear on the tape)
Roy
Broughton, Textile Engineering: I
wouldn’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I actually wonder if
including the second paragraph does any damage to the two names currently on
the desk. The Governor is going to appoint whomever he wants to, regardless of
the “roar” of the Faculty Senate. I think Dr. Bello-Ogunu’s remarks are
correct; we have to realize as a University we are under a court order to
increase racial diversity among our student body. We are not anywhere near the
racial diversity of the population of Alabama; our Board does not reflect that
diversity – in gender, race, etc. – of the people that even attend Auburn
University.
Renee
Middleton, CCP: I would support this
paragraph but not because of the court order. I think it’s not going to hurt
whomever’s names are on there. To me, this statement is more about what we as a
faculty stand for, what we believe in. Whether they are going to do what they
want or not, I think it’s important that we state what we as a faculty believe
in. I like that second paragraph and I’d like for it to stay.
Dr.
Gladden: The issue is if you support the motion to amend the resolution by
striking the second whereas.
The
amendment was rejected by majority voice vote.
Ted
McMurtrie, Navy ROTC: Does the
out-of-state representative wording limit the representation to be out of
state?
Dr.
Gladden: Are you asking the intent to
limit the appointee to out-of-state?
CPT
McMurtrie: I read it as limiting the
person as having to be out-of-state.
Dr.
Bradley: The intent in my mind is that
the candidate not be limited to those in-state. The intention was that the two positions taken together would
reflect out-of-state representation, which could be accomplished by having just
one of the two from out-of-state.
CPT
McMurtrie: I understand the intent and
I agree with the intent.
The
resolution as presented was passed by a majority voice vote.
Dr.
Gladden: It is time for committee
volunteers. The method for volunteering is
on the web: https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/faculty.htm.
You can reach it through the Senate home page.
You may volunteer for up to four committees; provide a rank order for
the committees you volunteer for. Indicate the choice, 1-4, 1 being the
committee you most prefer to be on, 4 being the committee you least prefer to
be on. You may also nominate as many
people as you wish for committees; however, you are asked to contact those
individuals you nominate and assure their permission before nominating them.
You have to fill out the form once for each different person you nominate.
There
are descriptions of the committees and the number of people needed for the
committees on this form. It is very
important for you volunteer and nominate for these committees, as well as for
you to encourage your faculty to sign up for these committees. This is where a
lot of university governance takes place, so it is extremely important for you
to volunteer and get others to volunteer.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I rise to present a
resolution condemning the Board of Trustees actions on February 12, 2001.
Resolution to condemn Board of Trustees
(Marty
Olliff read the resolution aloud to the Senate)
I
propose this resolution in such bold language because we have not spoken boldly
before. We need to speak more boldly now. If we do not speak boldly, we will
find ourselves like a kicked cur, sitting in the corner, cowering and wretched.
We have almost become that at this point. It is time now for us not to turn on
the Board of Trustees, but to get them never to say, as Mr. Samford did when
asked why he did not consult the faculty in this matter, “I forgot. It was an
oversight.” Is this Home Alone? Did we
forget the kids when we went off to the airport? Not hardly. Though they are
not our parents, it is well past time for that to be an acceptable excuse for
the conditions under which we find ourselves. If we do not speak boldly at this
point in this or a similar resolution, then we deserve what we get. With that,
I move for the adoption of this resolution.
The
motion was seconded.
A
motion to suspend the rules of the Senate was made and seconded.
The
motion to suspend the rules of the Senate was passed by a majority voice vote.
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: I recommend a
small amendment to this because I’m not sure what it is to “mildly” or
“moderately” condemn. I would have after “resolve:” The University Senate
condemns the board of trustees…. (take out “strongly”)
Charlotte
Skelton, Nursing: Sounds to me if you
take “strongly” out, then you lower the impact than if it were at the top.
Barry
Burkhart, Psychology (not a senator): I
would like to suggest that the Senate consider voting “no-confidence” in the
Board of Trustees. This is the only way that the faculty body can assert, in an
unambiguous way, its opinion and judgment of the administration in this
situation. Once before we’ve done that to a sitting President, and it resulted
in that President’s removal. My hope is that such an occurrence would be
repeated with the Board. I do think that it is far more powerful for a faculty
body to vote ‘no confidence’ than it is for them to strongly condemn actions.
So I would like to suggest that we amend that to say “The University Senate votes
no-confidence in the leadership of the Board of Trustees.”
Sridhar
Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders:
The BOT needs to show up in person here and defend themselves, instead
of us just passing papers. They need to
stand where you are standing and defend their case.
Jesse
LaPrade, Extension: Why can’t we do all of those things?
Sridhar
Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders:
I move that the Board of Trustees be present in person to explain this
decision and to defend this decision.
Dr.
Gladden: Is that fitting in this
resolution? So, “further resolved” at the bottom “that the Board of Trustees
appear before the University Senate and defend its action on February 12, 2001. This is the motion to amend.
The
motion was not seconded.
Renee
Middleton, CCP: I am wondering about
our search for a President now if we pass a vote of no-confidence. Right now I
am more comfortable with “condemn” or “strongly condemn” if we are doing this
because we really want to try to work with the BOT, particularly if we want to
work together in a search for a new President.
I am supporting this and not certain about the vote for no-confidence.
Jim
Bradley, Chair-elect and Steering committee: I support this resolution. I was
particularly interested in the last paragraph, with the Board’s response to
call for a Senate committee to advise it. I think that is worthwhile seeing how
or if they respond.
Dr.
Gladden: Marty, have you specified what
is to be done with this resolution?
Marty
Olliff: This is meant for public consumption; I would like it sent to the
Board. I don’t know what is appropriate for distribution.
Dr.
Gladden: It will be for public
distribution.
Charlotte
Skelton, Nursing: I support what Barry
is saying and also what Jim is saying.
I think somewhere in the minutes it should be stated that if we get no
response from the BOT whatsoever I think a vote of no-confidence would be in
order.
Bruce
Smith, Pathobiology (not a Senator): I
would support that and I will suggest to you as a non-member that a vote of
no-confidence would be better put by the full University faculty. This action
coming quickly from this body is appropriate; if we don’t see appropriate
action, then you need to go back to your department and see if there is support
for a University-wide ballot measure of confidence or no-confidence.
Mike
Reinke, Pharmacy Practice: I agree with that absolutely. Speaking as an
individual faculty member, tax-payer, and not as a representative of my
department, I feel disgraced by yesterday’s actions by the BOT. I think there
will be ample opportunity to vote “no-confidence” if they fail to respond to
this resolution. I feel most comfortable conferring with the members of my
department, so that we can vote ‘no-confidence’ collectively.
The
resolution was passed by a majority voice vote.
Alex
Dunlop, English: I would like to
re-raise the question about inviting the trustees to attend the Senate meeting.
I’m not sure that’s a good idea; I’m not sure about the right time for it.
Virginia
O’Leary, Psychology (not a senator): I would like to raise the question of the
timeline involved in a possible condemnation of the Board by the faculty of the
University. The reason I’m saying that
is because we are about to receive a great deal of National coverage and it’s
not going to be positive in my view. I
think that if we do not act quickly while the focus of the nation or at least
the focus of the representatives of higher education are upon us, that we will
lose an opportunity to collectively make our views known in such a way that we
have a chance to affect the outcome of the Presidential search that is about to
commence. Because I think otherwise
that there is almost no chance that anyone with vision and integrity would
place his or her hat in the ring and I think that the faculty’s response will
be a critical component as people try to think through whether they might be
effective in creating the kind of change that is clearly so sorely needed at
this institution. So I’m just wondering
about a timeline because if this is something that is going to maybe happen
several months from now we’ve lost our opportunity to be as public as I think
we must be in making our views clear.
Paula
Backscheider, English (not a Senator):
I’d like Virginia to clarify whether she is saying that it would be very
good to ask the faculty to condemn the Board’s actions immediately but wait on
the vote of no confidence until we see some sort of response?
Dr.
O’Leary: Yes to the first and no to the
second. The Senate is condemning,
that’s my understanding of what just occurred.
It has been suggested that the entire faculty be involved in a vote of
no confidence on the Board. If we wait
to see if the Board responds or whether they’ll work nicely with us, I’ve been
here for 7 years, I’ve seen no indication in those 7 years that they’ve worked
nicely in the spirit of faculty governance.
Many of you have been here a lot longer than that and from what I
understand from talking with my colleagues, my experience is a common one, back
more years than I can remember. So what
I am suggesting is to not allow much more time to elapse before we move to
querying the entire faculty in a vote of no confidence in the Board of Trustees
of Auburn University.
Gary
Mullen, Entomology and Plant Pathology:
I share very much the same sympathies and the sentiments expressed a few
moments ago. I do think it would be
appropriate to have a special called session of the Senate, perhaps one week
from today. I think the stage should be
set for preparation of the agenda for the Spring General Faculty meeting. And I think there should be opportunities to
present resolutions either prepared by the Senate or the opportunity for other
members of the general faculty to present those ahead of time I think
addressing and to set the stage for a no confidence vote in addition to calling
for the resignation of specific Board members.
That could be handled between now and the General Faculty meeting and
involve the entire faculty.
Dr.
Gladden: I have mixed feelings. I don’t think these people are going away, so
we may want to try and work with them.
So that is something to consider.
Alex
Dunlop, English: An additional
suggestion. Is there a possibility that
the Senate faculty leadership could confer with the Student Government
leadership? I think that some form of joint statement, if turned out to be
feasible, would have a lot of force, possibly with the Board of Trustees.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I support Alex’s idea.
I suggest also that the Staff Council and the A&P Assembly be included in a
joint meeting to get a sense of what everybody is thinking.
Gary
Mullen, Entomology and Plant Pathology: I would like to move that we call a
special session of the University Senate to address this important issue.
The
motion was seconded.
Gary
Mullen, Entomology and Plant Pathology: We saw a blatant exercise of raw power
this week. This resolution and no verbal condemnation as such, delivered by
mail, is going to accomplish anything. We delude ourselves if we think with
these oversights of the faculty being overlooked in this process along with
everybody else that that’s going to change the perspective of this Presidential
search. We’ve been through this,
history is repeating itself, I hate to mention specific names of former
Presidents and so forth, but we’re setting the stage for exactly what happened
15 or more years ago and I think it is time to express the sentiment we do not
have confidence in the Board as a body.
We saw it recorded unanimously the decision when it was not unanimous,
we saw Board members who publicly admitted they didn’t see the resolution until
it was being handed out and being read at the meeting. Certain members were not even aware of what
was being read, they thought something very different was going to happen, they
thought there was going to be an opportunity for discussion. That meeting, for those of you who did not
attend, and obviously most of you didn’t, you had to have been there to have
seen exactly what happened. It’s time to draw the line because we are simply
deluding ourselves if we think the faculty will be involved in the selection of
the next President, we’re fooling ourselves, it’s not going to happen. As has been demonstrated over and over
again. No we can’t fire the members of
the Board but we can call for their resignation. In the very least a no confidence vote is in order and anything
short of that is a betrayal of the University constituency.
David
Sutton, Communication: We have already
passed a resolution in which we ask them to reaffirm their commitment to shared
governance. Now we want to call a meeting to pass a vote of no-confidence. I
suggest we give them a chance to respond by waiting until the General Faculty
meeting in March; if we hear nothing by then, then bring up this “vote of
no-confidence” before the General Faculty.
Renee
Middleton, CCP: I would like to suggest
that we make this the substance of this General Faculty meeting. When we say “entire University,” does that
mean we will also include the leadership from the facilities division?
Dr.
Gladden: Well, the General Faculty meeting is a meeting of the general faculty,
so if we want to have a meeting that includes everybody we’ll have to contact
those other groups and see if they would like to have a meeting along the same
lines at the same time.
Dr.
Middleton: It sounds like we are all
thinking that we need to include the rest of the faculty and the students, but
I would like to suggest that we include the leadership in the facilities
division who deal with challenges which are based on decisions made by the BOT.
Dr.
Gladden: There will be a meeting by the
Staff Council on Feb. 27.
There
is a motion on the floor to have a called meeting of the Senate in one week to
discuss the dismissal of the President and the action of the BOT. Gary, can you restate your motion.
Gary
Mullen, Entomology and Plant Pathology:
I move that we have a called meeting of the University Senate one week from
today to discuss the dismissal of the President and further action regarding
the Board of Trustees. People need to
know what was said and a lot more information about what took place. You have to have been present at the news
conference, you have to have been present at the Board meeting, you have to
know a lot more information than what this Senate body knows has taken
place. The implications are certainly
far more than what the general faculty know.
This is the forum to discuss what took place in terms of the dismissal
of the President and further action regarding this dismissal.
The
motion was passed by hand-count, 24 in favor, 20 opposed.
Dr.
Gladden: By the way, the Steering Committee does not need Senate action to
place “review of the Board” on the agenda for the General Faculty meeting.
Dr.
Gladden: We need nominations for the
Rules committee.
Herb
Rotfeld, Steering Committee: I nominate Carl Hudson, Finance.
Jo
Heath, Immediate Past-Chair: I nominate Charlie Gross, Computer and Electrical
Engineering, and Marty Olliff, Library.
Ralph
Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Sciences: I nominate Mark Rolsma, Pathobiology.
Dr.
Gladden: There are several changes, which are relatively minor. The first
change is to say that the committee is under not only the Vice President for
Research but also the Vice President for Administrative Services. The reason
for this change is because the committee serves both research functions and
interacts with the Office of Safety and Environmental Health.
Handbook changes for the Institutional Biosafety
committee
Dr.
Gladden: The other changes regard the makeup of the committee. The changes,
which are in compliance with Federal regulations, would slightly reduce the
size of the committee, which the committee says has been a problem; will
address some administrative changes which include creation of position of a
Biological Safety Officer; would retain the Director of Safety and
Environmental Health to maintain communication and continuity between all
aspects of safety at Auburn University. Are there any questions, comments, or
discussion?
Carl
Hudson, Finance: Shouldn’t we have a quorum?
Not
enough Senators were present to take a vote on the changes to the handbook.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.