Broun Hall Auditorium
Absent: M.
El-Halwagi, D. Norris, R. Eaves, R. Paxton, S. Fuller, R. Keith, J. DeRuiter,
J. LaPrade, C. Hageman, C. Buchanan, T. McMurtrie.
Absent
(substitute): D. DeVries (R. Wright), R. Middleton (B. Liddle), J. Saye
(S. Nielsume), A. Dunlop (G. Crandell), M. Mercer (J. Sheppard), J. Facteau (V.
O’Leary), M. Jardine (C. Slaton), R. Broughton (S. Adams), R. Jenkins (D.
Crew), D. Zhang (R. Mirarchi).
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
The minutes for the General Faculty meeting on March 6, 2001
were approved as posted. They can be found on the web at https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html
March 6, 2001
Announcements
a. Announcements from the President’s Office – Dr.
William Walker
I want to talk about
budgets for just a few moments this afternoon; something the state of Alabama
is very closely associated with. At this point the situation is highly
unpredictable and there are some pretty high stakes at issue. The two issues
are the budget for next year, which is the 02 budget, and the current budget,
which is the 01 budget, which as you know is under proration. It turns out that
higher education has done a magnificent job of coming together and fighting off
some of the attempts made to impact budgets to the detriment of higher
education. You’ll recall from previous comments I’ve made that we have
succeeded in getting an agreement between higher education, the Governor, and
the AEA, and Dr. Richardson, representing K-12, saying that the budget would be
cut by 6.2%, and all new revenues above that would be split 30% for higher
education and 70% for K-12. That turned out to be an important thing to do
because some additional resources have been discovered. If that holds, it looks
like our budget reduction for 02 will only be about 3% below the current year’s
value. Again, this is not etched in stone. The legislature is still in session,
going strong, but it is relatively good news at this juncture. The bad news is
that there may be a significant possibility that even next year’s budget could
be prorated, and the issue of proration of this year’s budget could threaten the
agreement that has been worked out. The 02 budget was reported out of committee
last week, and I think it will be coming out of the House and the Senate either
today or tomorrow.
As you already know, the issue of current-year proration is
under review by the State Supreme Court. The Governor is arguing that higher
education should be prorated about 11% and K-12 about 3.5%; our view is that
everyone should be treated the same. We are trying to hold the line on that
issue. It is easy to get lost in dollars, but we are talking about people’s
jobs. That is the sad commentary about all of this. Funding for education in
this state is despicable, and there is only one thing to solve it: a rewrite of
the Constitution of the State to set up a tax structure that is fair to
education. I assure you we are pursuing these issues with all of the strength
that we have. I spent almost all of last week in Montgomery, and have had to
cancel a trip to Tuscaloosa because of a meeting scheduled from some of the
combatants in Montgomery tomorrow. I will do my best to keep you up to par on
how things are progressing.
Also, about a year ago I formed a committee to take a look
at developing a proposal for a Center for Teaching and Learning. I asked them
to do a very realistic assessment of the costs associated with such a center.
This has been on the agenda of this institution even before Ron Henry was the
VP of Academic Affairs. I believe it is also the fourth or fifth item on the
strategic plan for the organization as expressed in the report to the 21st
Century Commission. I went to a meeting of the foundation board a few weeks
ago; it turns out that Auburn has been the beneficiary of an estate that is
very generous. It is my intent to recommend to the foundation board that that
estate be placed in a permanent endowment and that the income be used for the
Center of Teaching and Learning. It is not a trivial amount of money and I
can’t give you an amount right now, but it should be enough to produce an
income annually of about half a million dollars a year. I would think that the
Center would have every opportunity of being adequately funded.
David
Sutton, Communication: Have you seen the commercials played on the air by
the AEA about the “rich universities” and our “billions of dollars in
reserves?” Are the universities planning any kind of campaign to counteract
such a message?
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences (substitute): First I
would like to commend you on the diligent and vigorous fight you are waging
against proration. I think you’ve done an excellent job in upholding our needs
to the legislature and the Governor. That said, I would like to have your
perspective on how this University can proceed with a presidential search
conducted by a proposed committee that is composed of three trustees of whom at
least nine or 10 entities of this University have voted no-confidence?
Dr. Walker: If you
want a Presidential search to take place, it will happen. If you do not want a
Presidential search to take place, it will not happen. You’re asking me to
provide some sort of visionary leadership on this issue, but this room is full
of incredibly smart people. If you can’t think of a way to do it, and also
satisfy the other folks involved, then I’m not sure I can. That may not be an
acceptable answer to your question, but that’s the way I feel. I think that
progress was made with Jim Bradley and the Senate leadership talking to members
of the Board last week. I don’t sense that the Board’s closed, but I haven’t
talked to everybody on the Board about that. It certainly doesn’t hurt to keep
asking.
Marty
Olliff, Library: Not being much of a politician, I’m not going to ask
you a question I already know the answer to. So I am really seeking information
here. Concerning the master plan, as I vaguely recall it proposed at the Board
meeting, I thought we had IDEA here to produce a master plan, and I also
thought I heard that another company was also producing a master plan for us.
Why?
Dr. Walker: IDEA is
not the master planner. What they are doing is retaining Sasaki and Associates,
who has a great deal of experience planning for universities, particularly
universities the size of Auburn. What my understanding of what we are using
IDEA for is to create some fresh approaches to the way we are viewing specific
buildings that are under consideration on campus, under which comes the issue
of the so-called student union. One of the concepts that the IDEA people are
advocating is the idea of flexibility, which seems very reasonable to me. What
Sasaki will be doing, for example, if we have a new horticulture building, is
saying, “here are the possible locations for that, here’s the way the campus
should be expanding over the course of the next 20 years.” They should be
setting some sort of plan so that future administrations can have something to
follow. If the issue is raised, what about Haley Center? We need to remodel
Haley Center and we need to expand Haley Center. Well, what direction do we go
and what do we plan to place in those locations? I think the notion of planning
is entirely appropriate. Would I have had hired the IDEA group? Probably not,
because I had never heard of them until they showed up here; but the Sasaki
group is well-known.
Dr. Olliff:
How much are we paying total for both of these groups? Is now an apropos time
to be doing this? We’ve had master plans before that have never gone through.
Dr. Walker: Actually
we have not. We had a master plan that was proposed and rejected about 10 or 12
years ago, because the first thing they proposed was that we do away with all
campus housing. This was not a direction we wanted to go in. I’m just relating
what I’ve heard. As an engineer I’m very much in favor of planning and knowing
what direction we are going in. I really don’t know how much we are paying.
Christine
Curtis, Provost Office: IDEA is about $260,000. The Sasaki is a range, and
I think $350,000 to $400,000, depending upon what we want them to do. I will be happy to send you a copy of the
Sasaki proposal so that you can see. The price depends on what you ask them to
do. Now I will also tell you that we
are doing an infrastructure master plan, and that might be why Sasaki is
less. The reason we are doing an
infrastructure master plan is because it is critical that we stay cool in the
summer and warm in the winter. In many of
our buildings we don’t have adequate heating and cooling. Our electrical substation is at its
max. We cannot put off infrastructure
changes. The infrastructure master plan
and the Sasaki comprehensive plan will be meshed so that we will have a total plan. It is our hope that when we start a new
building, we don’t go into extensive arguments about where it is. Everyone will have a chance to have input
during the master planning process so that we can save time, effort, and
psychic energy. Planning is an
investment.
Conner
Bailey, Ag Econ & Rural Sociology (not a senator): One of
the potential costs that this University faces in our current proration crisis
and crisis in confidence in our BOT is how the general public, including the
public with school-age and college-age children, will perceive Auburn
University. I heard today, I’d like to hear from an official source, that the
enrollment for Camp War Eagle is down. Is this true and do we have an
enrollment estimate for next fall?
Dr. Walker: I have
not heard that; it may well be true, though. The last I heard, however, is that
we have many more students wanting in next year than we can handle. I will find
out and send you an email.
Judy
Sheppard, Journalism: At the Board meeting you presented a list of steps
you thought the Board might take, and they did not respond to you there. Have
you gotten any response?
Dr. Walker: I think
there were four or five items I presented and I expect them to be discussed in
the future. I think some of them have already been implemented. I thought that
Mr. Samford had planned to say something about faculty on committees.
b. Announcements from the Senate Chair – Dr. Jim Bradley
I have a true story to begin. On February 14th,
the day after the Senate voted no-confidence in the BOT, I had a dream that I
had myself cloned and I told the clone that his job was to preside at these
meetings this year while I was at the Amsterdam Café. I thought I’d share that
with you; the only way you’ll know which one of us is here is if one of you
slips out and goes to the Amsterdam Café right now while this meeting is going
on.
A few procedural announcements: I’d like to call your
attention to a few of these rules dealing with procedure in order to keep our
meetings running smoothly. First, once there is a motion that has been made and
seconded and is up for discussion, only senators can speak in the discussion of
that motion. However, prior to that motion anyone can speak. Another issue
deals with friendly amendments. My understanding of a friendly amendment is
that it applies to typographical trivia, clerical issues such as pronouns being
changed to nouns, but aside from that it is considered an amendment. Another
change from what we have been doing is that it is not proper for the chair to
ask the maker of the motion if the friendly amendment is acceptable. From my
understanding in Robert’s Rules of Order, once it has been made and
seconded it belongs to the Chair. It is then the Chair’s decision as to whether
it is friendly or not; if it is not, then it is a regular amendment and must be
discussed and voted on. Since these are not ordinary times, I’ve asked to have
two parliamentarians who will not serve simultaneously at one meeting. I’ve
asked Herb Rotfeld and he has agreed to continue as parliamentarian. He will be
the parliamentarian unless he is unable to be here, in which case Marty Olliff
will be the parliamentarian. The last of these announcements has to do with
special-called meetings of the Senate. After looking into the Senate bylaws,
I’ve discovered that there are two ways to call a special meeting of the
Senate: gain 40% of the signatures of the body or at the request of the
Steering Committee, the Chair can call a special meeting.
Actually, this has already happened, and there will be a
Senate meeting in this room a week from today: April 17, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. The
purpose of this meeting is to discuss and obtain information about the
Presidential search issue and other Board-related issues. That is not to say
these things won’t come up for discussion today, but I want you to know there
will be a special meeting called for this purpose a week from today.
If there are no objections, I will postpone my last
announcement—the report of the Joint Assessment Committee—until after Dr. Lord
has made his presentation and responded to questions. He is here from Atlanta
and is here to talk about SACS. Gene Clothiaux will introduce him and talk more
about why he is here and what he has to tell us today.
Gene Clothiaux,
Physics (not a senator): As you know, we are starting our SACS self-study,
re-affirmation and accreditation. Dr. Lord is associate executive director of
SACS and is the liaison of Auburn University in this process. He came today to
speak to the Steering Committee and the University Effectiveness Committee, and
the Distance Learning Committee this afternoon. I asked him to come to the
Senate meeting and make some comments about the process so that we all
understand that this is going to happen and is happening, and that we look
forward to participation of the University community in this process.
A.
Dr. Gerald
Lord, Associate Executive Director, SACS
You are about to start a process which I genuinely think
will be helpful to the institution. I hope I can give an overview that will
encourage you to participate in a process that will benefit your institution
over the long-term and to look beyond the immediacy and see these long-term
benefits. Some of you were here for the last SACS accreditation process; some
things may have changed over the past 10 years, that’s why we ask an
institution to look at itself periodically. Every 10 years is how we ask you to
do it unless you have other significant changes in the process.
Re-accreditation is unique across the world; it is unique because we do not
have a federal administration of higher education that mandates policy,
procedure, curriculum, etc. We have chosen for over a hundred years in this
country to govern higher education by the peer review process. In this
particular region we do peer review in about five stages. The first stage is
the self-study in which you look at yourself. So we do regional accreditation
for two basic reasons: institutional improvement and demonstration to the
general public that we meet certain minimal criteria for quality. Regional
accreditation, of course, is voluntary, that is, unless you wish to receive
federal money of any kind. However, there have been about 13 federal
requirements in addition to those the College Delegate Assembly has voted on.
It is self-regulatory and is genuinely membership-driven. There are 781 member
institutions, with each individual member having a vote in the annual meetings,
at which point they decide on the criteria by which we all agree to be judged.
They also elect 77 commissioners to make accreditation decisions on their
behalf. We are in the process of accreditation review project now, and we’ve
been to the membership three times already; we are in the process of asking one
more time for comments on the new criteria drafts that will be voted on this
upcoming September. So we have something of a democratic philosophy, and if you
don’t believe we’re non-profit just look at our budget. We accredit whole
institutions, not just particular programs or academic disciplines. All that we
do comes from the purpose statement of the institution itself. We ask an
institution to say “this is who we are” in terms of the purpose statement and
“this is what we do.” Then we say we’ll look at you and you demonstrate to us
that you do what you say you do and we’ll see how well you do it. It is not a
permanent re-certification or stamp of approval. It is done every 10 years and
applies to the whole institution. If you look at the criteria for
accreditation, you will see a section pertaining to every aspect of the
institution. So we ask you, therefore, to structure your self-study committees,
which indeed you have, to look at list of every functional aspect of the
institution through these criteria.
I often begin these presentations with a basic question:
what do you want to get out of the self-study? “Well,” you may say, “I want to
get our accreditation re-affirmed.” But aren’t there other issues with which
you might contend? Aren’t there other larger issues that might be profitably
gauged through this process? This is an expensive process. You have committees
already formed, hard dollar costs, time energy, psychic energy invested; so
what besides accreditation might you consider so you get maximum return on your
investment? You can take at least three approaches to this self-study: a
compliance audit to fix whatever non-compliance issues you have, but limiting
yourself to that will have robbed yourself of significant opportunities to do
more than that for the institution. I suggest that the self-study is an
opportunity to enhance the institution and go beyond compliance. It can be used
as a resource for institutional improvement and as tool to develop information
about yourself and the visiting committee when they come. A good self-study
will honor all three: a compliance audit, an enhancing tool, and a resource for
the future.
It also ought to be tailored to fit your own needs. There is
no one right way to tailor a self-study, but as you do it, we ask you to do a
genuine analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this institution.
Capitalize on the strong points and lift them up to your own attention. But
also bring out areas of weakness and find ways to improve in those areas.
You will get out of this study exactly what you put into it.
I suggest to you that the self-study is what you make of it. It ought to be a
catalyst for change and go beyond compliance, but it ought to also be a tool
for you to improve.
Two years from today you will be in this room or a similar
room hearing the exit report of a visiting committee. The dates of the
committee visit are April 7-10, 2003; at latest count I will be back here on
April 7 with a group of 24 friends from peer institutions around the region to
validate what you’ve done in the self-study, to raise questions about it, to
get to know you, and to have a continuation of the conversation about what
might be good for this institution in the long run.
If you look at Section 1.1 of the criteria for
accreditation, you’ll see that it requires two things for an institution to be
accredited: a satisfactory self-study and it must receive a visiting committee.
It goes on to give characteristics of a satisfactory self-study. It is
comprehensive and looks at the whole institution. It has some coherence as it
goes about doing that. It is broadly participatory and includes representation
of all the constituents of the institution: faculty, students, staff,
administration, board, alumni, general public. Self-studies are broadly
participatory; everyone has an idea that ought to be considered to the good of
the whole. These are analytical; they must suggest solutions to problems
identified, including a follow-up system for your own recommendations. This is
also the occasion to talk about your planning and assessment system and improve
that as well.
You have assembled an outstanding group of people to lead
this effort. I spent three hours with the Steering Committee this morning and
was very impressed. Their attitude and approach to this bordered on enthusiasm.
They have quite a sense of using this process for the good of this institution.
They also have quite a sense of going beyond the criteria even though they know
they have to look at it. They also have quite a job description; they must do
all these things (overhead), which they cannot and should not do by themselves.
They need your help and the help of everyone involved. If I had the words to
challenge you, motivate you, and ask
you to take this seriously I would use them. The words really must come from
you. So my question to you is what is your word that would involve yourselves
in this process? What is the best for the future of this institution? What is
your constructive, positive word for the future? How can you participate? What
can this faculty do? This is not a faculty self-study or an administrative
self-study; it is an institutional self-study. All of the constituents of this
institution have an appropriate role to play; if you agree with me that the
faculty is the heart of higher education, then the faculty ought to be taking
the lead at improving the quality of the institution. Administrators have
appropriate roles to play. They provide key information and resources. Trustees
also participate and are kept appraised of the progress of the self-study, as
long as that demarcation line of trustee-responsibility to formulate policy and
administrative responsibility to carry out those policies are maintained,
trustees ought to participate knowledgably and fully in the self-study process.
I do not have the words to “by-magic” lay out your
self-study. It takes your work, participation, and leadership.
Conner
Bailey, Ag Econ & Rural Soc (not a senator): I noticed
in the back of the room there was a handout with the Joint Assessment Committee
report (the committee meeting about a week ago); item 3 says the Joint
Assessment Committee is going to approach SACS with regard to possible roles
that SACS is going to play in this review. Could you comment on that?
Dr. Lord: I’m
afraid not, since we have not been approached, to the best of my knowledge.
Dr. Bailey: Is this
the kind of role that SACS might play or has played in the past?
Dr. Lord: The role
that SACS plays with any institution is to ensure compliance with the criteria
for accreditation. Pertinent to that issue, I invite you to look at section
6.1.2 of the criteria, having to do with governing boards. There is available
to member institutions and those involved with member institutions a formal
complaint policy. If a formal complaint is filed with the Commission on
Colleges and the Commission has arranged an observatory report, including not
doing anything, it can take action. It can review the complaint, ask for
another side of the story, send in a special committee to get facts for the Commission
to act on, which can open up a range of possibilities down the line, depending
on what that committee finds. It can go all the way from taking no action to
public sanction. Depending on the gravity of noncompliance that the special
committee finds, it is also the policy of the Commission on Colleges that
special committees may be authorized if information that might suggest
significant noncompliance to the criteria comes to its attention in other ways.
The Commission has a range of options available to it in responding to issues
such as this or any other one.
Rik
Blumenthal, Chemistry (not a senator): I read in the newspaper, this
may or may not be true, that the accreditation at AUM was held up for a year
due to micromanagement of the Board basically crossing that line between
administrative roles of the Board and the President. Is that a fact or are you
not aware of what happened at AUM when they came up for accreditation?
Dr. Lord: I do
remember it as being an issue. I don’t remember the specifics of the case,
however, because it is not my institution. Because there was no public action
taken, I cannot comment to you on it on any occasion. There was not a public
sanction involved, so I’m really not at liberty to talk about it. Even if I was
familiar with it I could not comment on it. I do recall it as being an issue,
though.
Dr. Bradley introduces Dr. Wilson.
Some of you are new senators since last year, so I wanted to
revisit the structure of the committee to review. The NCAA mandates that every
institution have a faculty athletics representative. The President appoints
that person to serve at the will of the President for whatever term he or she
decides. How you do the oversight and advisory capacity to athletics beyond
that is completely up to the institution; in our case, we have the CIA, or
Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. It is composed of 15 members, 11 voting
and four ex-officio; of those 11 voting members, six are faculty, four
nominated directly through your Rules Committee process, and of the ex-officio
members, the President and the Athletic Director are almost always at our
meetings because we schedule our meetings around their schedule. In every case
but once since I’ve been the chair, they have been there.
Transparency---
Chair, Vice-chair (FAC)
VP for Alum/Dev
Staff Advisory Council
A&P Assembly
SGA
Faculty (4-nominated by Senate)
President
Provost
Athletic Director
Associate AD for Compliance
The mission of the Committee on
Intercollegiate Athletics:
§
To be advisory to President and the Athletic Director
§
To promote academic integrity in intercollegiate athletics
§
To facilitate the integration of athletics and academic
components of the collegiate community
§
To promote institutional control of athletics
End of transparency---
This is accomplished
through our subcommittee structure. We have nine subcommittees, some chaired by
persons on the committee, some chaired by persons outside the committee
(faculty and other units), and some chaired by Athletic Department staff. This
is the way we work on integrating athletics and academics, overseeing academic
integrity and maintaining institutional control. We also do this through an ad
hoc committee. This group helps to oversee the various processes that lead to
having student-athletes academically qualified and qualified in other areas as
well. The manifestation of that process is the squad list, which is the list
that certifies that a student-athlete is indeed eligible to participate in a
contest because of their academic progress, financial aid situation,and other
compliance issues.
Transparency---
CIA subcomittees –
Academic standards – Jim Hansen
Life Skills – Keenan Grenall
Pro Sports Advisory – Stacy Danley
Compliance – Mark Richard
Drug Education/Drug Testing – Randall Clark
Priority and Seating – Ford Laumer
Summer Sports Camp – Shawn Asmuth
Title IX/Gender Equity – Evelyn Crayton
Ad Hoc Committee – FAR, Registrar, Financial Aid,
Admissions, Athletics Administration… (squad list)
End of transparency---
I thought since you are the University Senate that you would
be interested in some things that we do more than others. What I thought you
might be most interested in were issues related to academics, issues related to
compliance, and issues related to institutional control.
With regard to academics,
the objective criteria that we use to measure how well we are doing in our
academic progress with student-athletes is the graduation rate. I reported to
you last year that the graduation rate for the first time for student-athletes
was 66%, which was exactly equal to what the graduation rate was for all
students. This past reporting cycle it dropped slightly to 65%, but that is
still very good. The average graduation rate nationally for all students is
about 56%; for student-athletes it is even less. Having a student-athlete
graduation rate that approaches our overall student graduation rate is quite
commendable. We had some problem areas that you might expect. We had a transfer
graduation rate (that is, student-athletes who transfer to Auburn) to be less
than that. Institutional Analyses just sent in that data in the last week; I am
pleased to announce that the transfer graduation rate for this last cohort of
students was 67%, which is quite good. That is not to say that all is well.
Obviously those graduation rates have a lot of neat things inside of them in
that our graduation rate for non-revenue sports is high; graduation rate for
women is high; graduation rate for some of our high revenue sports is lower
than we would like. That continues to be an emphasis for the committee.
We also have a unique honor that deserves mention: for the
first time since the mid-80’s, we had a student-athlete, Matthew Busby, named
to the NCAA Top 8, or the top 8 scholar-athletes in the NCAA, as well as
received the highest post-graduation scholarship that the NCAA gives. We were
quite proud of that accomplishment.
Another area you might be interested in is the area of
collaboration. I think our Athletic Department is getting better at
collaborating with the different academic entities on campus. I know that the
English tutoring done now for student-athletes is done primarily through the
English Center; that is a step forward. Quite a bit of collaboration between
the Athletics Academic Support Group and the Students with Disabilities Office,
as well as with other colleges such as Counseling/Counseling Psychology. I can
explain more about those partnerships if you would like.
In the area of compliance, since the infamous Eric Ramsey
case around 1993 when we had a major violation in the Athletics Department, I
am pleased to say that we really have acculturated compliance. I don’t know of
a single time when a student-athlete or the Board of Trustees did not comply
with the NCAA rules and regulations. We have not had any major violations since
that time; those are catastrophic in nature and I think everyone agrees that we
should avoid those at all costs. We do have a number of secondary violations. A
secondary violation is when you inadvertently violate some rule (the NCAA
handbook is extremely thick and contains many, many rules, some hard to
understand). We inadvertently violate those, self-report them, suggest some
punishment that the SEC and NCAA agrees with, and move on. We have had about
eight of those per year. In the last reporting cycle from the SEC we had about
five, which is not from a full-year; the range in the conference was from
three-to-seven. This is about where we want to be. If you have too many
secondary violations, you are not paying enough attention to your processes. If
you have too few violations, you are not paying enough attention as well. You
are not looking closely enough. Having secondary violations and having a
culture that self-reports is, I think, a positive thing.
I know, based on comments from the last meeting, that you
are probably most interested in institutional control. First, institutional
control is an issue only two times: when you have a major violation in which
you violate some major NCAA rule and during any re-certification process. So,
when SACS comes, there is a section in SACS that deals with intercollegiate
athletics. A couple of years after the SACS visit there is an NCAA self-study.
One of the four components of that self-study is governance and we have to
again demonstrate that we have institutional control.
Transparency---
Key Themes from the Principles of
Institutional Control Document
An institution demonstrates
institutional control when:
1.
Formal institutional policies and procedures for compliance
are in place.
2.
Policies and procedures are being monitored and enforced,
and are established in such a way as to deter violations before they occur.
3.
Communication of compliance procedures occurs clearly and
regularly.
4.
Steps are taken to alter a compliance system when there are
indications the system is not working.
5.
After learning of a violation, the institution takes swift
action.
6.
The institution makes clear that violations of NCAA rules
will result in discipline and possible discharge.
7.
The institution makes clear that individuals have the
responsibility to self-report any NCAA rules violation without fear of negative
consequences.
8.
Meaningful compliance-education programs exist for personnel
engaged in athletically-related operations.
NCAA Regional Seminars 2001
End of transparency---
The key component of
institutional control is that the chief executive officer is in control. There
are other key “themes” related to institutional control. From the NCAA manual
that extrapolates the notion of institutional control that the registrar,
admissions, financial aid, athletic compliance office, and CIA offices are
doing these kinds of things. We are all involved in institutional control, so
it is my contention that we do not have a problem with institutional control.
When saying we do, you are saying that the admissions office, the financial aid
office, etc. are not doing their jobs; this is just not the case. There is a
good bit of effort in institutional control. This does not mean that we do
everything right. We do have a process that is somewhat faulty; that process is
that we have an athletic subcommittee of the Board that acts more in a
managerial role than an oversight role. The same complaint that faculty have
had with the Board subcommittee perhaps relates to that as well.
To that end, at our last CIA meeting, I was asked to write a
letter to the Board, which we will make available to you in some way.
Letter from Dennis Wilson to Governor
Siegelman and Board of Trustees
This letter was mailed to the Board last Thursday and I
received a call this morning from Mr. Lowder, the chair of the Athletic
Committee of the Board, and he told me they had no problems with these
recommendations. He said that the next meeting of the Athletic Committee would
be publicly announced, minutes would be kept, and the faculty representative or
his/her delegate would be invited to come.
Herb
Rotfeld, Steering Committee: That letter will be linked to the minutes on the
Senate web page, I assume?
Dr. Wilson: Yes,
that is fine with me.
Dr.
Rotfeld: As you talked of graduation rates, I had a concern as to
how students are counted. This past year when I got cards from the Athletic
Dept asking about students’ progress in courses, I got anger from the students
when giving them their cards because most of my students had quit their
respective teams a year ago and they keep getting those cards. They say they
are still counted so that their work can be counted in graduation rates, etc.
How do you keep track of these students?
Dr. Wilson: There is
a convention that the NCAA uses that is also used by every member institution.
You are right, if someone comes in here as a freshman they are counted. If
someone goes pro, they are counted; if someone fails out, they are counted; if
someone transfers to another school, they are counted. When we say 66% of the
student athletes graduated, that is in a six-year period and it is the cohort
that entered six years ago, not taking into account that people left. That
works as much against you as it does for you. If you look at the number of
students that fulfill their athletic eligibility and that graduation rate, it
is 85%. So the students who stay here and participate mostly graduate.
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: As you are well-aware, there is a possibility that
proration will affect a number of courses that we regularly teach. Are athletes
given priority at registration? What is the justification for favoring those
students over our regular students?
Dr. Wilson: I’m not
sure I can give you the exact detail. I can tell you that student-athletes do
have priority registration, but they are not the only group that does. Other
groups do have priority registration as well, but I’m not sure which groups
those are.
Jim
Bradley, Senate Chair: You made the statement that we have no major NCAA
violations. Are there any major violations that your committee would not be
aware of? How would you know that your statement is true?
Dr. Wilson: We have
no major violations that we know of. We don’t know of any, and there is a
climate in the SEC that if we make a violation someone else in the conference
is going to call it to our attention. Many of the secondary violations have
been called to our attention by some outside party. There are people looking;
we just don’t know of any major violations right now.
Larry
Gerber, History (not a senator): Do you know when the last
meeting of the Athletics Committee of the Board was?
Dr. Wilson: No, I
don’t. That was part of the reason for the letter. My sense is that I have no
clear idea of how often that committee has met because they have not announced
their meetings. So it is impossible for me to know. I will say that Dr. Muse
did inform me that he has been at every meeting of the Athletic Committee, as
far as he knows.
Dr. Gerber: You made
a comment in your introductory remarks as to whether it was inappropriate
micromanagement. What are you referring to?
Dr. Wilson: We (the
CIA) had an interview with Dr. Muse. His comment was that this Board Athletic
Committee, while he was there, he did not believe rose to the level of
institutional control, but he felt that it did exert a good bit of authority
with little accountability.
Becky
Little, Counseling and Counseling Psychology (substitute): Has that
situation been reported to the NCAA and will it be reported to the NCAA?
Dr. Wilson: The NCAA
is aware of it. I am trying to think of where I read that in the paper. I did
call the NCAA myself and they said they would not come. They only come when
there is a violation of a rule. Institutional control is not a rule; it’s a
principle. If we were to have a violation, they would have a question; when we
go through the re-certification process they would have a question.
David
Sutton, Communication: In several past meetings there has been a
perception expressed that the Athletic Department attracts revenues away from
the main campus. Would you say, based on the figures you have seen, that this
is a fair assumption?
Dr. Wilson: No. I couldn’t say that. We have Terry Windle,
the Chief Financial Officer for the Athletic Department, come once a year with
a balance sheet of revenues and expenditures. We are assured through that
process that all the monies the Athletic Department spends are revenues they
receive, that they are not using General Fund monies. If they were, I am not
aware of it, and we are generally satisfied with that report. There could be
indirect costs or indirect revenues from a football game being in Auburn that
we wouldn’t completely understand. I did suggest to Jim that Terry Windle be
invited, because he could answer that question. Our committee is generally
satisfied with the report he gives.
First I would like to make a brief comment dealing with the
difference between motions and resolutions. A motion is less complex than a
resolution. A resolution, in the complexity definition, deserves to come to the
Steering Committee before the meeting so that it can be distributed around to
the Senators who can then distribute it to their departments. A motion, on the
other hand, is simple, easy to understand; it is a statement or sentence. It
can be made on the floor and voted on. A resolution, if it comes up on the
floor, can be voted on at the next Senate meeting. Motions can be voted on at
that meeting, and they can come up in a meeting within the context of the
subject being discussed at the time. For example, during Dennis Wilson’s report
and discussion session, someone could have offered a motion having to do with
Intercollegiate Athletics and that would have been perfectly okay.
The other thing I wanted to mention was this report on the
Joint Assessment Committee.
If you recall, the Joint Assessment Committee Resolution was
passed virtually unanimously by the faculty on March 23; the resolution gave
this committee until April 6 to come up with recommendations and report those
recommendations to the Board and also to the Senate. So what I reported to the
Board on April 6 is what you have before you.
The following was a handout available to Senators at the
Senate meeting:
The JAC met Tuesday afternoon, April 3, Committee members
present were Ellyn Hix (Administrative and Professional Assembly), Debra Carey
(past-chair, Staff Council), Yvonne Kozlowski (past-chair, University Senate),
Jimmy Samford (President pro tem, Board of Trustees), Andy Hornsby (Alumni
Association), and Jim Bradley (chair, University Senate). Also attending were
President Bill Walker, Harold Cummings (Chair, Staff Council) and two reporters
from the OA News. The committee members present agreed unanimously on
the following recommendations:
1.
That an external, objective and independent assessment of
Auburn University with special attention to the performance of the Board of
Trustees, the faculty, and the administration in shared governance and other
areas be performed using SACS accreditation criteria as standards for
performance.
2.
That the JAC be responsible for identifying the assessing
individual(s)/group(s), drafting the charge to the evaluators, and defining
specific tasks for the evaluators and that this be done in consultation with
President Walker. Furthermore, the charge to the assessors shall provide for
the investigation of specific past as well as recent events/activities of
particular concern to university stakeholders.
3.
That the Executive Director of SACS be invited to Auburn to
visit with the JAC and answer questions from the committee including the
relative merits of using the SACS consultants and/or the SACS complaint process
for this assessment.
I made the point in the committee meeting to Mr. Samford
that it’s not the faculty or the administration that is experiencing
no-confidence; he understands the purpose for this assessment.
Mr. Samford suggested that in reference to 2, the President
should appoint the assessor in consultation from me. I suggested that we do it
the way that the resolution stated but with some consultation from Dr. Walker.
I felt it was important, although this was not stated specifically in the
resolution, that the charge include specific points of concern to all of the
stakeholders who expressed concern about the performance of the Board of
Trustees, and that this not be a general sort of thing. There need to be some
specific things to look into and investigate. Those can be in the past (back 15
or 18 years) as well as more recent, within the last three months. The
committee has the job to write the charge to include those things and not be
limited to just certain events.
Finally, there was discussion about having consultants,
expressly mentioned by Mr. Samford. I had, prior to the meeting, asked the
Executive Director of SACS, James Rogers, about what mechanisms SACS has for
looking at situations like we have. He was quite aware of the situation. He
explained to me that there are two arms of investigation in SACS. There is a
consulting arm that can bring people to campus and look at a particular area of
performance and make some recommendations. There is a complaint arm of SACS,
its job being to receive specific complaints of specific violations of SACS
criteria, look at the data presented in that complaint (which can come from any
person or group, etc.), and examine that complaint to determine whether it was
worthy of their investigation. Then they would talk to necessary people to investigate
the complaint, which would include interviews with all three of those groups
mentioned in 1. Then they would come up with recommendations. Mr. Rogers was
very concerned that everyone here know that he did not give me advice; he
receives requests and complaints. We are probably going to have SACS help us
with this assessment. The resolution refers to the criteria in 6.1.2. It would
make sense when the committee discussed this to do the evaluation in the
context of SACS criteria. So, without advising me, the Executive Director said
that he felt the logical way to proceed if you are going to use SACS, is to
submit a complaint in the complaint process, get the recommendations, and then
ask the evaluating arm of SACS to come and help implement the recommendations.
At the Joint Assessment Committee meeting, the suggestion
was then made, rather than make than decision right now, to invite that person
to come and speak at the committee so the committee can hear for itself.
Many of you may know about this already, but there have been
two meetings among a group of representatives of various stakeholders. It has
been organized by the leaders of the Alumni Association, the President and Vice
President. The Alumni have motivated this group, whose purpose is ill-defined,
to communicate with each other and be aware of what each of these groups are
thinking about in the context of our present interaction with the BOT. I
announce this so that you know that the Rules Committee has selected two
representatives, one to go to the meetings and a back-up person in case someone
could not attend, Barbara Struempler and Paula Sullenger as the back-up person.
Marty
Olliff, Library: I wanted to comment that even though this
particular manifestation has come about under the leadership of the Alumni
Association, who, by the way, will not direct this group, it was first proposed
by the AAUP Assembly after they voted no-confidence. They asked for summit
meeting of all the groups that had voted no-confidence up to that point and
even looked at who might be appropriate to call this. Before any of the groups
affected could call a summit, the Alumni Board voted no-confidence. This is an
idea that had popped up in two or three different places.
Dr.
Bradley: In your speaking you reminded me of one of the
stakeholders represented, which is the AAUP.
Judy Sheppard, Journalism: Don Logan is very much
involved. He is a very interested alumnus.
The group is called Coalition of University Stakeholders—or CUS.
Information/Discussion
Items (Cont.)
C. Report on Board of Trustees’ response to Senate
communications – Dr. Jim Bradley
The items I am going to mention are those that I think would
be most important for this group. It was a long meeting with many, many items
on the agenda.
The first item on the agenda that was of particular interest
to me was the passage of a resolution David Wilson introduced to allow surplus
property, including library books, to be given away to other state institutions
like schools, prisons, etc. This was especially gratifying to me because I did
spend time trying to work out something so that we wouldn’t be discarding
library books without potential users reaping the benefits from those books.
The next item I want to mention, not particularly in the
order of the meeting, was that midway through the meeting Mr. Charlie Glover
made a dramatic speech. Basically he apologized to Dr. Muse and the faculty for
not being the kind of Board member he needed to be. He promised to use the next
two years on the Board to speak up in ways that he knew were right.
He got a standing ovation, including Board members.
The Board did address some of the things in the list of
seven things that Bruce Gladden had sent requesting that the Board consider in
order to show good faith. One thing they addressed was the membership of
faculty on their committees. So far, they have decided that the Senate Chair
will be an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Academic Affairs Committee, the
Chair-elect of the Senate will be the same type member of the Planning and
Priorities Committee, and the CIA Chair will sit as a member on the
Athletics ommittee. In addition, they
agreed that even though these are not voting members, any opinions expressed by
the faculty member will be included in a report in writing, so it will be
recorded what the opinion of the faculty member was.
Let me read to you a letter faxed to me by Jimmy Samford
today because there were discussions prior to the Board meeting about
membership on the other committees. During the Board meeting there was nothing
said about the rest of the committees because it was not an official agenda
item. I called Mr. Samford and asked that he fax me the information on this
committee membership, and this is the short letter that he faxed me.
Letter from Mr. Samford (as read aloud by Dr. Bradley):
In accordance with our
previous conversation, this letter is to formally invite the Chair of the
Faculty Senate to sit as an ex-officio, non-voting member on the Academic
Affairs Committee. As discussed, the faculty member’s recommendations will be
noted on each issue coming before the BOT out of the Academic Affairs
Committee. Also, I would like the faculty representative Dennis Wilson to sit
as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Athletics Committee. His
recommendations will likewise be noted on any matter coming before the BOT
coming out of the Athletic Department. As we discussed, I have plans for
further representation of faculty on BOT committees, but it is going to take me
a little longer to formalize who those faculty members will be and how they are
selected. I will be in touch with you to discuss these issues further.
End of letter---
To let you know what this
is in response to, initially Mr. Samford had suggested that faculty members be
suggested by the deans represented by the areas of these committees. For
example, the Dean of Agriculture will submit the name of a faculty member to
sit on that committee. Bruce Gladden, Barbara Struempler, and I pointed out,
however, that the way we do things is by going through the Rules committee. The
Rules Committee will select the names and present those to someone who will in
turn make the appointment. Our recommendation at this point is for the Rules
Committee to select names and submit them to Dr. Walker; Dr. Walker will then
select the members.
Marsha Boosinger, Steering Committee: There is a third committee that seems to be left
out, Priorities and Planning. Is that in his letter?
Dr. Bradley:
I noticed that as I was talking. I thought that was in his letter, but it is
not. I don’t know where that stands. They had originally stated that the
Chair-Elect would be on that committee. My guess is that Samford forgot to put
that in this letter, but I don’t know.
Connor Bailey, Ag Econ & Rural Soc (not a
senator): We’ve heard committees,
committees, committes, but what about the Board itself?
Dr. Bradley:
Well, the answer is no. There was an answer prior to the Board meeting that we
would not be receiving a seat on the Board at this time. There was nothing at
that Board meeting about these committees. But prior to that meeting we had
been told that there would be no faculty seats on the Board. As you read
Charlie Glover’s letter, he has an opinion on that.
The Board doesn’t just say
we have a seat; the Governor has to produce some legislation that names a
faculty member as the person sitting on the Board. Thus, I asked if the Board
could write a letter, showing us a copy, requesting to do that; they said not
yet. Apparently, that is the way the students got their seat back in the 70s
when George McMillion was the Governor. The SGA had legislation put through to
receive a seat on the BOT.
Judy Sheppard,
Journalism: Who said this? Was it
one person?
Dr. Bradley:
This was in a meeting with Mr. Samford and Mr. Miller that Barbara Struempler,
myself, and Bruce had the week of the Board meeting.
In that conversation they
both indicated to us that they were in favor of the seat, but that there were
members of the Board that they had not yet convinced.
inaudible, Political Science: What is the mechanism by which they make this
decision? They say that they are in favor but others aren’t. Does this mean
they’ve had private discussions? What process did they go through to discuss
this?
Dr. Bradley:
When you ask that question, you’ve raised litigation to the point of saying
these were one-on-one conversations. This is how we’ve garnered this
information.
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: I got communications from another member of the
Steering Committee that she was told by her dean that the Board conveyed that
we would have a faculty member on the Board “in a year, but we’re not ready
yet.” Can you follow up in terms of what is going on there?
Dr. Bradley: I think the reasons are emotional rather than logical; that is my
personal opinion.
Gary Mullen, Entomology/Plant Pathology: You indicated, referring to the request you sent
forward, that there were seven requests. Can you go through those and the
response?
Transparency listing the
seven requests:
(from Letter to Mr.
Kloeti, President, Auburn Alumni Association)
1. Agree in writing by the Board of Trustees to the
presidential search process outlined in [Bruce Gladden’s] letter of February 23rd
to Mr. Jimmy Samford and Mr. Jack Miller.
2. Placement of the Chair of the University Seante on
the Board of Trustees as a nonvoting member
3. Placement of the Chair of the University Senate on
the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees as a nonvoting member.
4. Agreement of the Board to participate in a Joint
Assessment Committee and its subsequent plan of action. The rationale for this Committee [was ]
detailed [in a previous] Resolution.
5. Change the By-laws of the Board such that prior
approval of the Board is NOT required for appointment of the Provost and
Vice-Presidents by the President of the University.
6. Commitment by the Board to have public discussion of
all issues prior to Board action.
7. Commitment by the Board to oppose separation of
fund-raising efforts by the Athletics program from fund-raising efforts for
academic programs.
End
of transparency ---
Dr. Bradley:
The first one is what I’m about to get to: the presidential search. The second
one we just talked about, the next one the answer was yes, 4 has been positive
cooperation, 5,6, and 7 were not addressed.
Marsha Boosinger, Steering Committee: How will you take further action now? Are you
satisfied with this idea that we will wait a year [for the seat on the Board]?
Are you continuing discussion?
Dr. Bradley:
I am not happy with that. The BOT knows we are not happy with that. Mr. Glover
is not happy with that. I am interested to see what is going to happen in June,
whenever the Board meets next time. It would be great if there were an
announcement on June 10th that we got it.
(continuing with report)
Presidential Search Report
Transparency ----
Presidential Search
Process proposed by the Board
1. Search Committee will choose search firm; search firm
will be advisory only
2. Code of ethics for Search Committee, including
absolute confidentially
3. Search Committee will write position
description/announcement
4. Search will be closed until short list selected
5. Short-listed candidates invited to participate in an
open forum; confidentiality for candidates not chosing open forum will be
maintained
6. Board will chose no one for President who has not
been recommended by the Search Committee
7. Mr. Jack Miller will chair PSC
8. The proposed process remains open to discussion and
changes
9. Senate Rules Committee to select faculty members of
PSC
10. PSC six: sixteen members, 15 votes
Mr. Miller has been
assigned by Mr. Samford to be the point person in the presidential search
issue. This summarizes the points, but there will be a search firm chosen by
the search committee. We talked about a code of ethics and confidentiality
throughout the whole process, the punishment for breaching that being expulsion
of a member of the committee. The search committee will write the job
description which will be completely closed until the short list (approx. 3-5
people) is composed. At that point, the final agreement (this is a present
proposal) is that each of these short-list candidates will be given an
opportunity to participate in an open forum for the faculty and other
stakeholders on campus as well as the public will get a chance to get to know
them and ask questions. However, it would not be required. I don’t want to get
into the position of defending their rationale, I’m just reporting the proposal
here. There is an agreement in writing that no person will be recommended to the
Board or be selected as President by the Board if they have not come through
the search committee. Thus there will be no insertion of a candidate unless
they go through the search committee and recommended by them. Their proposal is
that Mr. Miller chair this committee. Also within this proposal is a statement
saying that what is outlined here could still be negotiated and changed if
necessary, despite the fact that the Board did vote on it and pass it. I have
been assured, however, that these are still negotiable. Mr. Miller said he was
eager to hear the thoughts of other persons; he wants to hear my rationale for
this. The size of the committee would be 16 people, 15 voting members. This is
the composition of the committee as proposed by them:
Transparency---
Proposed Search Committee
composition
4 Faculty members
3 from Auburn University
1 from AUM
3 Alumni
2 from Auburn (1, chair, Board of Directors)
1 from AUM
3 student
2 from Auburn (1 vote total)
1 from AUM
1 Administrator (e. g.
Dean)
1 Staff Council
Representative
1 Administrative and
Professional Assembly Rep.
3 Board of Trustees
representatives, including Chair
You’ll notice here that
the AU students are represented by two students, each having half a vote. We
are told in our discussion with Mr. Samford and Mr. Miller that each of them
thinks it to be more logical to have a single student with one vote; but that
the President of the SGA here at Auburn does virtually everything with a
friend, and that they both had to be on this committee, represented together.
It seemed as though both of these people agreed with our rationale, but there was some strong advocate for this duo.
That’s all I know, so that’s why each of them only has half a vote, because
they cannot be separated.
That is the proposal to be
voted on one week from today. I know that there are lots of thoughts on this
and great diversity in this group on what those thoughts and our actions ought
to be. So my decision was to make a whole meeting reserved for this issue.
Marty Olliff, Library: I suggest then since we seem to be in the process of
postponing any long-term discussion on what I see as an extremely problematic
issue that we ask our constituents to please refrain from responding to Dr.
Walker’s call for input until the Senate has an opportunity to speak to this
issue. The way that this is written on the email message soliciting all faculty
input makes it appear more benign at first reading than it might be if we start
seriously picking this thing apart. I submit that we will have some serious
issues with this and so I would suggest that any response to Dr. Walker please
wait until the news of our discussions can get out to the general faculty. So
please ask your constituents to refrain from responding until we can discuss this.
Ellyn Hix, Chair, Administrative and Professional
Assembly: Was there discussion on
how these other representatives would be selected?
Dr. Bradley: Among ourselves we realize that is extremely important, for example the
Alumni Association should be in charge of their representatives. I think these
are all points that need to be nailed down as part of negotiations. Who picks
these people is a very key thing.
Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: Is there any sort of tentative time-frame for the
search process?
Dr. Bradley:
I have heard nothing of a time table. The entire process, we are told, takes
six months.
July Sheppard,
Journalism: Another problem I have
with this composition is that Jack Miller is named chair. Given the discussion
we’ve had with him after the board meetings, we found encounters with him to be
an extremely distressing experience. When I asked him why this had to be passed
today at this Board meeting, his response was quite insulting. He asked us
repeatedly if we were able to read, would we like for him to read a specific
part of the proposal to us, were we able to understand anything? He badgered
people and belittled us by looking around at one point and saying “I assume you
people have some kind of degrees.” This is the man who would chair the
committee and is supposedly our strongest advocate. I know the leadership is
working with him and hopefully they have better luck with him. But this was my
first introduction to him and I am dismayed that this is what has happened. If
he is the one who is most on our side on this Board, I am very, very perturbed
by this situation. I ask you to consider that when you look at this search
committee and the fact that he has already been named chair.
New Business
There is one item of new
business brought forth by Rik Blumenthal having to do with the library.
Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry: We have some very big issues that are going on with
the Senate right now, but I wish for the Senate to not ignore the smaller ones
that would tend to nag and drag us down. I believe one of these issues is
library reconstruction, phase 2, particularly the consolidation of all current
periodicals onto the second floor. This means for every faculty member, if you
are reading the current periodical for your field and you want to check a
reference, you will have to walk the stairs, possibly two or three floors, to
obtain that reference. Right now all you have to do is walk across the floors
to find references. Unlike a lot of the other changes in the library, all of
the other changes have merit for or against change. But I think in particular
for this issue of consolidation, I have not been presented with one single
rational or important issue that would argue that we should all be horribly
inconvenienced by having to walk two floors every time we want to look at a
current periodical or last year’s journal. I think that the library doesn’t
understand that this is a big issue; this is a big issue to me and to every
faculty member I’ve talked to personally. If the library understands that
issue, maybe this doesn’t have to happen. I came here to ask the University
Senate for an advisory vote as to whether or not it thinks current periodicals
should be consolidated into one floor in the library or left where they are. I
would also like to remind everyone that the Library of Congress system that we
use in our library is designed to keep common areas together. Chemistry is next
to Physics, which is next to Biology, which is next to Engineering. All of
these journals overlap and people commonly use them, so we try to keep them on
the same floor. In this instance we are going to take those journals away and
out of that arrangement. Personally I do not see why and would like this body
to make a recommendation and I personally will let the library know that I am
not in support and that other faculty are not in support.
Marsha Boosinger, Library: I would like to urge the faculty to remember that
the library serves 18,000 undergraduates as well as faculty. Dr. Bradley asked
something at the last meeting about current journal arrangement and why we
couldn’t keep it as it is. Keep in mind that while we have internalized over
many years of scholarship and use of a large collection the principles behind
the Library of Congress system, 18,000 undergraduates who come from school
libraries smaller than this room have absolutely no idea where to find current
periodicals. We have discovered that this is a problem exacerbated by the use
of internet and the lack of use of a print collection until they get here. Our
efforts in the reconfiguration of the library have to do with trying to make
the experience they have with the academic library one that will encourage them
to and not discourage them from this kind of scholarship for the rest of their
lives. What I hear repeatedly is that they hate the library, they can’t find
anything, they hate coming into it; with limited resources, it is our effort to
arrange this so that they have an easier time. It is our feeling that our
faculty who has great experience using these resources and finding these
materials and knowing us personally will be less inconvenienced than an
undergraduate who has to find materials for Dr. Bradley’s class that are on
several different floors in places that he or she cannot fathom. I realize that
when you yourself are looking for your journals, it is a few more steps,
farther to go; however, quite honestly we have a group of students out there
who seem incapable of internalizing this at this point in their lives. I
understand that when it comes to you using your materials that is a pretty poor
and shallow argument, but as the library faculty and administration we have to
look at our resources and arrangement and enable the largest number of people
to use our resources and collections. That is my personal philosophy on why we
are doing this. We also think that given the fact that we have rearranged our
service points lately making those current periodicals near our service area,
we are better able to help all of you find those current periodicals and use
them.
Dr. Bentley, Library: I would like to reinforce what Marsha has said. If
you would stop and think where those current periodicals are right now, most of
you have many years of experience. You don’t need help finding them. On every
floor they are completely hidden from view; even when we had service desks on
those floors they were hidden from view of the service desks. I’ve had many
faculty say as well that they need someone near by to assist, so bringing them
where they are near the reference desk will help with that.
I hope that, Rik, you have
attended the sessions we’ve had, particularly as a Chemistry professor, because
most of your journals are online with hot links to the references to what you
need. I think you will find over time that where the current print journals are
probably becomes less important to your use because you could be sitting in
your office doing much of that research you’re talking about using hot links. I
know you may not prefer to do it that way, but that is the way much of it is
done now.
Certainly, we are open to
hearing concerns. I would like you to look at the SACS accreditation for
library; we are very much here to serve students and I think we’ve done a great
disservice if we don’t do information literacy with our students and train them
to use information. So far, our goal to get more students back in the library
is working.
Bruce Gladden, Immediate Past-Chair: What does our Library Committee say?
Dr. Bentley:
I will say that we certainly did receive their endorsement before you attended
the last meeting.
Dr. Bradley:
Rik has suggested an advisory vote from the Senate, but technically we
shouldn’t do that until the next Senate meeting. Is this about to happen, or
could we give you some recommendation in May before this goes into action?
Dr. Bentley:
The move begins when classes end; so nothing would be done until Spring
Semester has ended. I suspect you’re okay. It does pose problems for us in
terms of what we’re doing with materials.
Ms. Boosinger: With the area that you’re looking at, those areas
are scheduled to be filled with monographic materials so that we can rearrange
the collection in an order that is logical from A-Z. We also intend to make it
easier for some of those who are not familiar with the Library Congress quirks,
where BF in the middle of all the B’s is suddenly pulled out and put in the
Social Sciences. If we leave the current periodicals where they are, then the
materials for sciences may end up being divided between floors. We have some
space constraints; based on the way we are currently planning to arrange it,
the science materials will all remain together and the rest of the collection
will progress in alphabetical order. There will be a ripple effect with the
rest of the changes planned. It is not as easy as the simple up or down vote in
terms of planning.
Dr. Bentley:
I would like you to think back to other institutions you have taught at or
attended. The norm is to put current
periodicals together.
Rick Blumenthal, Chemistry: I don’t know if any of you have done this, but
Iknow that my undergraduate students do not read current journals. I never
assign reading in this month’s edition. My undergraduates are still learning
the field and do not make use of this year’s or this month’s issue. Everything
they find will be as difficult to find afterwards as it is now. I ask how many
of you have ever assigned reading in these current journals. The next thing I’d
like to point out is that we at Auburn University with a research library are
unique because we have a research program and a VP of Research. At Southern
Union they have a library, not a dean of libraries. That is adequate for
undergraduates. The fact that we have this dean and this research facility with
all the current journals we do have is because we as a faculty do research. The
purpose of the current periodicals is primarily for reference and research.
Keep in mind that the undergraduate could not find the current periodical of
such and such magazine that was logically and alphabetically placed. I don’t
think the arguments you have raised toward the issue are valid.
Dr. Bradley:
I am going to put this on the agenda for the next meeting. Dr. Heilman, do you
have a comment?
Dr. Heilman, Political Science: For 28 years I have taught an undergraduate
research course and have used the journals.
Charles Branch, Anat, Physiology, and Pharm: Less the Senate be accused of micro-management,
wouldn’t it be appropriate for the Library Committee to discuss this and bring
a recommendation?
Dr. Bradley:
That sounds logical to me.What I would like to do is call the chair of the
Library Committee and reconvene a meeting to discuss this. This will be put on
the May agenda for further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned
at 5:00 p.m.