Auburn University Senate Minutes
June
12, 2001
Broun
Hall Auditorium
Absent: D. Norris, R. Pipes, R. Ripley, R. Eaves, M.
El-Halwagi, C. Gross, M. Mercer, R. Wylie, B. Hames, R. Paxton, R. Henderson,
R. Kenworthy, S. Fuller, J. LaPrade, C. Hageman, C. Buchanan.
Absent
(substitute): C. Hudson (C.
Crutchley), S. Bannon (B. Baird), R. Jenkins (R. Gross), D. Sutton (M. Brown),
A. Dunlop (J. Bolton), R. Weigel (T. Madison), M. Jardine (C. Slaton), J.
Facteau (V. O’Leary), A. Illies (R. Blumenthal), M. Solomon (C. Warfield), R.
Keith (D. White).
The
minutes for the previous meetings of the Senate on April 17, 2001 and May 8,
2001 were approved as posted. They can viewed on the web at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/Senate/schedule.html.
Senators
marked ballots to elect a new Rules Committee member. The candidates were Ralph
Henderson (Small Animal Surgery) and Michael Watkins (Philosophy). The results
were to be announced at the end of the meeting. The election of Michael Watkins
to serve on the Rules Committee was announced the next day.
Announcements
A. Announcements from the President’s Office – Dr. William
Walker
First,
the Presidential Search. At the Board meeting on June 4, you saw one of the
Board members switch into litigious mode and make a brief and unexpected
comment that certainly did not advance the agenda we are trying to carry out in
fostering collegial communication among all the Auburn community. I am sorry
that it happened, and I wish I could promise that it won’t happen again. I do
think that it goes to show the ground we have to cover in this arena. Some have
also called me to task for not taking exception to those comments at that
meeting. Quite frankly, it seemed to me that that would have been the most
inappropriate place to raise those concerns. However, I have discussed them
with the Board members. That 15 seconds put a bad light on what I thought was a
pretty good meeting. I think, however, that this should serve to remind us that
we do have a long way to go.
In
regards to the appointment of the Presidential Search committee members and the
search process, relative to identifying faculty members to serve on that
committee, be assured that the administration feels this is a Senate process
and must be carried out by the Senate. I don’t see that position changing at
any time.
The
third issue relates to assigning Trustees to Colleges. This was an idea we
proposed two Board meetings ago and is a rather broad-based plan in which we
give Trustees the opportunity to get to know what is going on in the College,
as well as the administration, staff, and faculty. I have been requested to
delay that or not do it, but it seems to me that this is in different stages of
implementation. It is in the Deans’ hands right now, and I certainly have no
problem if the Deans and their faculty choose to delay that process.
I
have begun holding some visiting lunches with faculty; I started yesterday with
the College of Veterinary Medicine. I met with six or seven faculty and had a
very nice meeting in which I learned many things that I did not know about the
College of Veterinary Medicine. I look forward to doing that with all of the
other Schools and Colleges, and in the process, will be discussing these issues
with them as well.
Next,
I would like to talk about the Budget Committee meeting, which was held on
Sunday, June 3. Frankly, that was probably the highpoint of the month’s
activities. It has been a long time since I have attended a meeting composed of
essentially the Board of Trustees, some faculty members, and staff that was as
productive as that meeting. The Board members were very pleased with the
outcome, and they learned a lot. Gary Swanson did an outstanding job explaining
the faculty position on adhering to priorities, particularly relating to
salary. Board members actually went to the trouble to clarify their views on
the priorities; Dr. Large, Dr. Pritchett, and I were not entirely sure that
those priorities still existed, because over the past couple of years we have
kept inserting other things in addition to the priorities. You will recall that
the priorities were raising faculty salaries, increasing deferred maintenance,
O&M, Peaks of Excellence. Then,
starting a couple of years we began inserting additional funds for Pharmacy
because of the Pharm.D. program, additional funds for the College of Business
because of increased enrollments, increased funds for GTA’s because everyone
felt that was an important priority, and also funds for increased insurance
costs. One can look at what we have done in respect to the original priorities
and can question whether or not we really have a plan. So, the view of the
Board was that we should get back to the original set; however, if there were
things that we really feel like should be done, then indeed, let’s continue to
do those. Rest assured we would have to come up with a funding plan to pay for
them.
I
would also like to comment that Debra Carey, former Staff Council Chair, sent a
letter to the Chair of the Budget Committee, with respect to one of the
proposals being considered, which has to do with increasing the University
contribution to the insurance premiums for the lower-paid employees. A very
important notion, which I think should be taken very seriously, has to do with
increasing tuition, an issue raised by Brandon [Riddick-Seals, SGA President].
He said we can’t keep doing this on the backs of the students. This is a cry I
have heard from his predecessor as well. Debra Carey said in her letter that we
can’t keep doing this on the backs of the lowest paid employees.
With
respect to assessment, the complaint has gone forward to SACS, and I received
it back and have been given 30 days to respond. The issues are very unusual, in
the sense that a component of the University has issued a complaint against
another component of the University, and the University is being asked to give
its view of that. It is something that I do not have any experience with; nor does
anyone around here have any experience with it. It has occurred to us that the
one thing we need is the hard-core facts. I need to know what is the truth, not
conjecture or what I think. By the way, some of those issues are over 10 years
old. So, I have made a decision to retain someone who has some experience with
SACS in these matters; that individual is working with us and interviewing
people, trying to put together this response. One of the things that will come
from this is some recommendations that will be made to the Board of Trustees to
change their ways of doing business. I am not prepared to tell you exactly what
those are, but we are in the process of formulating those recommendations. The
bottom line is, as I’ve said to the Board in public, if errors have been made,
I want to know what they are, and I will do everything I possibly can to
correct them.
Finally,
some personal observations. I think, Dr. Bradley, that you and the Senate need
to recognize that you have, indeed, gotten the Board’s attention, and I commend
you for that. I certainly understand and share many of the concerns that you
have expressed, and I am doing everything I can to reinforce the Board’s
understanding of those concerns. Several members of the Board very much want to
open up the communication with this faculty. They need continual encouragement
to do that, and I am trying to provide that. We really need to engage these
people. It may surprise you to know that many of them know very little about
what we do at this University. I say that in the context of my meeting with the
Veterinary Medicine faculty yesterday. When it was over, I reflected on how
much they told me about what they were doing in their area of expertise that I
did not know. Here I am supposed to be serving as the President of this
institution; if I do not know these things, how can a group of lay people be
expected to know them? So, I am very much still on board with the idea of
increasing communication and trying to heal some of these very deep wounds that
have been created over the course of more than a decade. I am going to continue
to encourage people to talk to one another. I certainly cannot and will not
force them to do so; they have to make that choice themselves.
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry (substitute): I hope I heard
this correctly: in your opening comments, you indicated that the selection
process for the Presidential Search committee still resides with the
faculty. I just want to make sure that
contrary to Mr. Miller’s remarks, this decision will not be made by the
Provost.
Dr.
Walker: Well, I think
if someone held a gun to the Provost’s head, all they’re really doing is
removing the Provost from being a player in this thing. The Provost is the most
important position in this University, and he ought to be involved in working
out the issues that are confronting this University. If the Provost is forced
to do something like that, then effectively, the Provost is out of the game.
Frankly, I do not have enough people working on this right now. Losing the
Provost would be catastrophic.
Larry Gerber,
History (not a senator): When you refer
to retaining an individual, did you identify that individual?
Dr.
Walker: His name is
Peter Degnan and he is out of Atlanta. He has dealt with SACS before, understands
the language, is familiar with the criteria, etc. and knows which of those
complaints are germane and which are required.
Marty Olliff,
Library: Peter Degnan
has been hired out of Atlanta to consult with SACS issues. How much are you
paying him and out of what pot of money is this coming from?
Dr.
Walker: He is paid out
of the General Council; how much he gets paid depends on how much work he does.
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering Committee: You talked
about the Presidential Search; we have a bunch of other interims and
actings. I would like to know what you
can say about the combined Journalism/Communications Department Head and about
the search for the interim Dean of the College of Business. You keep coming up with reasons for not
having that search.
Dr. John
Pritchett, Provost: I met this past
week with Dr. Pindzola, as far as the Journalism/Communications Dept, they are
down to one candidate. As far as the search for an interim Dean for the College
of Business, and I assume this is the position taken by Dr. Walker, if we want
an outstanding Dean, then we have to have
the same atmosphere we want in order to conduct a successful
Presidential Search. It is the recommendation of the President that we do not move
forward until we establish that atmosphere.
Dr. Walker: For those of you in the Extension area, Steve
Jones has resigned effective the first of July. I appointed a search committee
to appoint an interim Director; that committee met last week and has given me
the names of two individuals. That appointment has to be made in concert with
Dr. Goodson at Alabama A&M, and he and I are in the process of getting
together on that.
Dr.
Rotfeld: The answer
requires a follow-up: We have another
Dean opening, so does that mean we are not going to search for an Education
Dean?
Dr.
Pritchett: We had another
search committee meeting this morning to talk about searching for an interim
Dean to replace Dean Kunkel. That committee has just begun that search, and
there will be complete faculty involvement. The rationale is the same as with
the other searches; we must get this atmosphere stablilized so that we can go
out and attract the very best candidates.
Gary Mullen,
Entomology/Plant Pathology: With respect
to the last Board meeting and Mr. Miller’s perception that the Senate
leadership had initiated a “gag order” on the faculty, can you tell me how the
Board came to that conclusion?
Dr. Walker: I do not know. That is a term I used in
responding to someone by email, but I think the phrase I used was “this does
not approach the level of a gag order,” but I certainly did not share my email
with anyone, much less a member of the Board of Trustees. I have no idea where
he came up with that. Now, one can speculate that he’s an attorney and has
heard it before.
Judy Sheppard,
Steering committee: He did say that
the administration composed it. When asked who he considered administration, he
said you and Dr. Pritchett, and that he had heard it from the administration.
Dr. Walker: He did not
hear it from me, and I don’t think he heard it from Dr. Pritchett.
Dr.
Pritchett: I haven’t said
anything. Let me say, though, that a lot of these email messages tend to get to the Board.
Dr. Walker: That is a good point. As a matter of fact,
one of the Board members has commented to me about one of the emails you [Ms
Sheppard] sent me. I have no idea how he got it.
First,
I would like to give you a SACS update.
Overhead
SACS UPDATE
April
24, 2001: Formal complaint from JAC sent to SACS
May
14: SACS acknowledges receipt of complaint; complaint referred to Dr. Gerald
Lord for processing.
May
14: Dr. Lord requests addendum to complaint letter attesting and documenting
that all remedies available at the institution have been exhausted
May
16-21: Addendum plus documentation sent and receipt acknowledged by Dr. Lord;
Lord email indicates addendum acceptable.
Week
of May 21: SACS mails official request to Dr. Walker for an institutional
response to complaint
Next.
. .
Week
of June 18: institutional response due to SACS
Review
of complaint, evidence, and response by SACS (no timetable)
a.
No further processing
b.
Further investigation, perhaps referral to Executive Council
“Important to the Commission
in reviewing that response is that the problems are being responsibly addressed
by the institution and will be resolved in such a manner that the difficulty is
unlikely to recur.”
Board has hired Atlanta
lawyer as a “consultant” re items in letter of complaint to SACS. (Atty. Jack
Miller represented the Board in 1998 AUM dispute with SACS over
micro-management and accreditation.)
Miller has arranged for Bill
Weary, AGB, to lead Board retreat in July.
End of overhead
What
I have here is a summary of what has transpired since the original letter of
complaint was sent back on April 24. You can see here that on May 14, SACS
acknowledged their receipt of that, but certainly they got it before then. That
is when I first heard from them that they had received that; on the same day,
Dr. Gerald Lord (the person assigned to Auburn University’s accreditation
process) requested of me an addendum to that original letter; the addendum was
to document and describe the remedies that have been attempted through
institutional procedures to solve the problems listed in the original letter of
complaint. I told him over the phone that we have no established procedures for
remedying complaints that faculty or other stakeholders might have with the
Board of Trustees. His comment was “you will think of something,” or, he will
have to have something in order to process the complaint further. So, on May 16
I sent this addendum to Dr. Lord and he emailed me that this was an acceptable
response and that the process would continue. I wanted to take just a minute to
show you what I put in the addendum. I had to list attempted remedies for the
types of complaints in the original letter.
Overhead
ATTEMPTED
REMEDIES LISTED IN ADDENDUM TO SACS
End of overhead
In
1992, Gene Clothiaux set up the faculty luncheon program. Incidentally, in the
discussion about the communication between the Board and the Senate leadership,
about three or four weeks ago the Senate officers met and discussed the
luncheon program, and we unanimously decided to ask Bruce Gladden to continue
this luncheon program at his convenience. As you know, it is the job of the
past-chair to organize on a periodic basis the luncheons with 20 or so faculty
members and one Board member. That has been going on since 1992.
We
have a number of Senate ad hoc committees set up to look into various events
that happened in the past that have been perceived as micromanagement. Other
efforts, for example, include this written report, which was a massive
undertaking and extremely well-done report headed by Joel Rendum, Poultry
Science. It documents and researches the function of the administration,
faculty, and Board of Trustees in governance. So, all of these were things
mentioned. Letters and meetings the Senate officers have had, particularly in
the past two and a half years, the Alumni Association setting up this meeting
to communicate with the Trustees that you read about in the newspaper, and even
the “no-confidence” votes themselves, were thought by Mr. Lord to be a good
means of remedying the situation with the Board of Trustees.
During
the week of May 21, SACS did mail an official request to the President’s office
asking for an institutional response. By my calculations, the 30 days will be
up next week, so the President’s office will need to send a response by that
time. After that, SACS will look at the original evidence that was presented
and the response from the institution and will make a decision to either not
process the complaint any further or investigate it. It is my understanding
that there are different kinds of investigations. There could be an
investigation where the SACS team doesn’t actually move from their offices, or
there could be an investigation where they send a team to campus. Something
that I think is crucial and interesting for us to know at this point is that in
the complaint procedure that SACS has published is this statement: “Important
to the commission in reviewing the response is that problems are being
responsibly addressed by the institution and will be resolved in such a manner
that the difficulty is unlikely to recur.” The way I read this is that if SACS
if convinced that there are ongoing activities that are likely to remedy the
problems listed in the original letter, then they may decide that investigation
is not necessary.
So,
the rest I have added for us to think about is what sorts of ongoing activities
are there that might convince SACS that a remedy is underway? We have to revise
this, because my understanding was that the Board had retained a lawyer from
Atlanta. But Dr. Walker just told us that he did that, so this is a consultant
to help the University and the Board to understand what the SACS criteria are,
where they may have gone wrong in the past, and how they can avoid going wrong
in the future. In addition, you heard last Monday Mr. Miller announce that
William Weary from the Association of Governing Boards was being invited to
campus sometime in July to advise the Board on how to be a good Board of
Trustees. A subset of that retreat then was to address the Presidential Search.
Perhaps SACS might consider this when they are trying to decide how to consider
the complaint and the response to it.
You
may remember at the last Senate meeting I had a list of four names on the
overhead that had been given to Dr. Walker by the Rules Committee as
suggestions for membership on an ad hoc committee to read the Arthur Anderson
report on the Alumni Association organization and the other report on the
re-organization of the physical plant. This is the current membership of the
committee; the names highlighted are the names the Rules Committee selected and
sent forward. If you have read that report and have thoughts on it, these are
the people to communicate your thoughts on that report to.
Overhead
PRESIDENT’S AD HOC COMMITTEE TO REVIEW REPORTS ON ALUMNI ASSOCIATION AND PHYSICAL PLANT ORGANIZATION
John
Heilman, Chair
William
Giles, Management
William
Boulton, Management
Hubert
Feild , Management
Achilles
Armenakis, Management
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy
Cindy
Brunner, Pathobiology
End
of overhead
Let
me update you on this issue of faculty members on committees of the BOT. The
Board has already approved that the chair of the Senate is a member of the
Academic Affairs committee. The plan is to combine that committee with the
Priorities and Planning committee. The chair of the Committee on
Intercollegiate Athletics (CIA), Dennis Wilson, would be a member on the
Athletics committee. The process by which faculty members on the other
committees will be selected is still in limbo. There has been communication
occurring on this issue for a while.
Overhead
FACULTY
MEMBERSHIP ON BOARD COMMITTEES
Academics
Affairs/ Priorities and Planning—Chair, University Senate
Athletics—Chair,
CIA
Other
committees—process for member selection in limbo
Original
Board proposal:
Dean
of College or School related to committee appoints faculty member from that
College or School to the committee
Request
from Bruce Gladden:
Rules
Committee submits 3 names to President
President
appoints 1
No
restrictions on member’s College or School affiliation
Next
Board proposal:
Rules
Committee submits 3 names to Deans
Deans
appoint 1
Members
must be from specific Colleges or Schools.
Request
from Bradley, letter to every Board member:
Reiterates
Bruce Gladden’s request
Next
Board proposal:
Rules
Committee submits 3 names to Deans
Deans
choose 1 and submit to President for final approval
Members
must be from specific Colleges or Schools
Second
request from Bradley
Reiterates
Bruce Gladden’s request
Final
Board action expected in July
End
of overhead
The
original proposal that Jimmy Samford and Jack Miller made at a meeting Bruce
and I had was that the Dean of each College and School would select names of
individuals in his or her College or School and would appoint the person to the
committee. Bruce Gladden very quickly suggested that we should do it
differently and let the Rules Committee choose those names, perhaps three names
for each spot, then present those names to the President and let him appoint
members (presently this is done for University committees). Also, Bruce
communicated to the Board that there should not be a restriction that, for
example, the faculty member from the Budget committee has to come from the
College of Business. It does make sense in some areas, for example, to have a
member on the Agricultural committee from the College of Agriculture, but not
across the board for every committee. For example, you just heard Dr. Walker
tell how well Gary Swanson represented the faculty at the last Budget committee
meeting. The next Board proposal we heard was that the Rules Committee could
select these names, but would then submit them to the Dean and the Dean would
make the decision, still keeping the
members coming from specific Colleges and Schools. I, at that point, wrote a
letter to Jimmy Samford (about three weeks ago) reiterating Dr. Gladden’s
proposal, stressing that this was what the faculty felt was important.
They
did not get to vote on this. I was told by Mr. Samford that they would hold off
and vote on this at their next meeting. What they said in response was that we
would still submit the names to the Dean, the Dean choose the name, submit that
name to the President, and let the President approve that name. So yesterday I
wrote a second letter to every Board member again reiterating Dr. Gladden’s
original proposal. We are all waiting to see what happens in July with this
issue.
In
case all of you haven’t read a newspaper article that listed the names of
people that Mr. Miller has already appointed to the search committee, here is
the list:
Overhead
THE MILLER
COMMITTEE
Jack
Miller, Chair and Trustee
Earlon
McWorter, Trustee
Byron
Franklin, Trustee
Buddy
Weaver, AU Foundation
Gwen
Nance, AUM Chancellor
Marty
Watson, AUM Alumni
Joy
Clark, AUM Faculty
Moon,
AUM SGA
Brandon
Riddick-Seals, Auburn SGA
Michael
Solomon, Auburn SGA
_______________, Auburn Staff Council
________________,
Auburn Administrative and Professional Assembly
________________,
Auburn Alumni Association
________________,
Auburn Faculty
________________,
Auburn Faculty
________________,
Auburn Faculty
End
of overhead
I
happen to know that the first two groups with open slots, the AU Staff Council
position and the A&P Assembly, were asked to submit names by yesterday. I
know in one case the name has not been submitted, but Mr. Miller has been
talking to those groups. That leaves three for us and one for the Alumni
Association.
At this point, I need to read you two letters
because I need some direction on this issue on how to move forward. This first
letter is from Mr. Miller, dated June 6. I received it last Friday:
Letter
read by Jim Bradley
Dear
Dr. Bradley,
This
letter will confirm my remarks at Monday’s meeting of the Auburn University
Board of Trustees concerning faculty participation on the Presidential Search
Committee (PSC).
While
I am aware that the University Senate has not in the past agreed with the
process I outlined, I would like to advise you again on two points:
My
request is that the Senate nominate nine candidates for the three main campus
faculty positions. It would be my hope that each of the nine nominees would be
fully acceptable to the Senate, which will select them by whatever process you
and the other Senate leaders choose. From those nominees, three will be chosen to serve on the PSC. As
I indicated to you at lunch, I am committed to a Presidential Search Committee
that is broadly reflective of the University as a whole in terms of gender,
ethnicity, age, and disciplinary background. By providing nine nominees—all of
whom are selected by the Senate—it will thus be possible to make certain that
the committee will be the broadly representative group that, I trust, we all
desire, while at the same time, the Senate’s ability to name its members on the
Committee will be fully protected.
Enclosed
is a page from the AGB’s Presidential Search Workshop materials, which sets our
criteria for search committee members. You and your colleagues might want to
review it.
I
have also asked Provost John Pritchett to establish a procedure to select nine
outstanding members of the faculty also broadly representative of the elements
set out above, and from that group, three will be selected to represent the
faculty.
You
ask me whether there was a deadline for this process, and as you recall, I
indicated there was not, although, as Dr. Weary’s letter points out, it is
necessary that the PSC be fully formed and briefed prior to the commencement of
fall “search season” for University presidents.
I
welcome the opportunity to discuss this again with you and I hope you and your
colleagues could reach a decision prior to the (currently unscheduled) special
Board meeting to be held in July.
Please
feel free to share this letter with anyone.
Sincerely,
John
C.H. Miller, Jr.
Yesterday
I received this letter, which was copied from Mr. Kloeti, President of the
Alumni Association. I need to read you this letter and then we will move on to
some other things. This letter was written by Mr. Kloeti to Jimmy Samford after
he heard about the Board meeting last week:
Dear
Jimmy,
Congratulations
on your election yesterday to another term as the President Pro Tem of the
Auburn University Board of Trustees. I look forward to working with you during
this vital and challenging year.
Roy
Richardson and Andy Hornsby from the Alumni Board attended the Trustee meeting
yesterday and briefed me on the meeting, including the discussion concerning
the Presidential Search Committee. I was shocked and very disappointed that
Jack Miller had totally disregarded the Alumni Board’s stated desire that individual
stakeholder groups be allowed to name their respective representatives, and
that the ultimate composition of the PSC be agreed upon by all stakeholders
before the selection process begins.
We
had been led to believe that the PSC formation was a work in progress, that the
ultimate composition had not been agreed upon and that individual members had
not been appointed. In fact, I wrote
Dr. Walker on April 9, 2001 about my concerns concerning the proposal made by Jack
Miller at your April 6, 2001 meeting. Dr. Walker indicated that he had
forwarded my letter to Mr. Miller. At the Alumni Association special meeting on
May 19, 2001,our Board felt very strongly that all stakeholders, including
Alumni, should choose their own representative to the PSC, and before
that selection process begins, all stakeholders should be in agreement with the
composition of the PSC. I was instructed to communicate our concerns to Mr.
Miller, which I did in the letter to him dated May 24. I copied you on that
letter. Other than one telephone call with Mr. Miller between the April 9th and May 24th letters, there has
been no communication about the PSC.
I
would like to clear up one thing that Mr. Miller stated at yesterday’s meeting.
He did ask if I would be willing to serve as an alumni representative. I told
him that I would be willing to serve if the Alumni Board chose me as a
representative. I never refused to
serve. Again, I feel, the Alumni Board feels strongly, that we should be able
to select our own representatives and not have Jack Miller or the Trustees
dictate who our representatives should be. Also while I have nothing but
respect for Buddy Weaver, be advised that he is not the Alumni Board’s
selection to represent our alumni on the PSC.
I
understand that Jack Miller is working closely with a consultant who has
allegedly blessed the composition of the PSC as suggested by Mr. Miller. However, I doubt very seriously that any
University has been faced with establishing a PSC after votes of no confidence
in its Board of Trustees by every major stakeholder in the University. A
standard blueprint for a Presidential search committee will not work at Auburn
at this time.
To
honor the principles of shared governance and open communication, it is
imperative that this search committee be formed so all stakeholders have
confidence in the process and that the PSC is perceived to be and actually is
an independent process. Forcing something on the various stakeholders totally
ignores these principles.
Jimmy,
I cannot express to you strongly enough the need for you and the other Trustees
to take whatever action is necessary to stop the Presidential search process
immediately, revamp Mr. Miller’s proposal, seek input from the stakeholders,
and begin the process anew. This is the first and best opportunity for the
Board of Trustees to begin the healing process with the people they govern, the
people who have expressed no confidence in you. To not immediately take the
steps above will just reinforce the opinion of many that the Board of Trustees
continue to operate as they have in the past, that shared governance and open
communication are just empty words, and that calls by every University
stakeholder for the Trustees to take immediate action to restore confidence in
them have fallen on deaf ears.
I
await your response, but let me emphasize that time is of the essence.
Sincerely,
Robert
Kloeti
I
am reading this letter to you because he did give a copy of the letter to every
member of the Board of Trustees, to all the directors of the Alumni
Association, to Dr. Walker, and to me. He even added a P.S. to me: Dr. Bradley,
please distribute this to other University stakeholders.
This
is the composition of the search committee that resulted in President Muse’s
selection. Note that there are no Trustees on the selection committee. The
President pro tem of the Board is a facilitator, but not a member of the
committee. There was also a secretary for the committee that was provided by
the Board of Trustees.
Overhead
COMPOSITION OF
LAST PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH COMMITTEE
5
Auburn Faculty
1
AUM Faculty
3
Auburn Alumni
1
AUM Alumnus
1
Auburn SGA Representative
1
AUM SGA Representative
1
Auburn Administrator
1
AUM Administrator
Total
= 14
Facilitator
(non-voting): President pro tempore of the Board
End
of overhead
At
this point, I will need some guidance on where we go from here. These are the
options as I see them.
Overhead
Option
#1: Submit 9 faculty names for 3 positions to Miller from Rules Committee by
July
Option
#2: Submit 3 faculty names to Miller by July
Option
#3: Submit no names
Option
#4: Urge Board to defer Search process
End
of overhead
One
option is to submit nine names to Mr. Miller by July for their unscheduled
meeting. Another option would be to choose our representatives and submit three
names for our three positions. Option three, because of what Dr. Walker just
told us, needs to be revised. If we submit no names at this time, there will be
no names submitted. This will put everyone in a difficult position if the Board
continues to move ahead. Either there will be a search without faculty or
extreme pressure will be put on our administrators to provide some names. Or
they may go to the Internet to solicit faculty names, as they proposed to do
for the alumni position. Option four is to urge the BOT in some way to defer
the search until a better time. So, that brings up the next item on the agenda.
Barbara
Struempler has a motion that comes from both the Steering Committee and the
Rules Committee.
Rik
Blumenthal, Chemistry: I am wondering
when you got these communications back about the faculty positions on the
various subcommittees of the Board, have they expressed any of their logic or
reasoning behind why it is so important for the Dean to choose the member as
opposed to the President. The President is the one they appoint and is under
their thumb directly. I don’t understand why they would be more comfortable
with the Deans choosing.
Dr.
Bradley: I don’t know.
I had a personal conversation with Mr. Samford and I asked him that question.
He said that’s just what they want to do.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: I want to
follow-up on the question just asked about the appointment of faculty members
to the Board subcommittees. What I see going on here is a sparring match and no
one is taking their mask off and asking the other person if they want to quit.
I am puzzled that we don’t know why the Board seems so strongly committed to
affiliating particular Colleges to their committees. That is a very important
concept, and I would like to know why we don’t know their rationale. After all
of the letters that have changed hands, why don’t we have an explanation of
that?
Dr. Bradley: So you are suggesting that I find out.
Dr. Brunner: Yes.
Dr.
Bradley: There are only
about four committees that we are talking about. What this means is that it
would automatically leave out many Colleges and Schools from even having a
chance to have a member.
I
had a dream about this motion last night, so I know how it turns out. In all
fairness, I dreamed I presented a motion and it wasn’t even this motion, so it
will be a very interesting outcome I’m sure.
Before
I present the motion, Chair, I would like to give a little history behind how
we came to this motion. You have heard a lot of the rhetoric today, but I would
like to put it in line with what I am about to say. At the April BOT meeting, a
group of us talked to Jack Miller, and he indicated that the Presidential
Search was negotiable. Then, at the April 17th Senate meeting, we as
a Senate passed a resolution saying we would not participate in a Presidential
Search until there was an external assessment that examined the BOT. We passed
that resolution. Furthermore, also in that resolution, we stated that once that
external assessment was done, we would not participate in the search until the
Board made some corrective actions, if indeed those were the recommendations.
We
really haven’t had any other communication about the Presidential Search, and
then Trustee Jack Miller, at the last Board meeting, was proceeding with the
Presidential Search, with or without us or the Alumni Board of Directors. So,
it really came as quite a shock, and when Jim was recognized from the floor, he
asked a civil question and received a 15-second verbal abuse by Trustee Jack
Miller. I think everyone at the meeting was taken aback. I was sobered by what
had happened. Obviously, we are not unified. So, the Senate Steering Committee
and the Rules committee got together with this resolution, which I will present
in a minute. I will say that it was an impromptu meeting last Friday when we
put together this motion; all of this happened within a seven-day time frame.
The members who were present at this meeting were unanimous in this resolution.
There were a couple of emails indicating that there was not total agreement
among all of the Steering and Rules Committee members.
It
has been kept very simple and short so that we could keep it as simple as
possible so it was good for everyone.
Overhead
Motion to delay Presidential Search for one year
Motion:
Because of the current University atmosphere, the University Senate calls upon
the Board of Trustees to defer activities related to a Presidential search for
a minimum period of one year from June 1, 2001.
Rationale for Motion:
At the Auburn University Board of
Trustees meeting on Monday, June 4, 2001, Trustee Jack Miller in his
presentation and in private conversations with people outside of the meeting
left no doubt that he intends for the Board to proceed with a Presidential
search with or without input from the University Senate and the Alumni Board of
Directors. If this happens, there is no good scenario for the University or the
Senate. The atmosphere of distrust and hostility between Board and
faculty is such as to make a successful Presidential Search impossible to
initiate at this time.
This motion provides time for the distrusting atmosphere to change via a number
of different paths. From the faculty perspective, it provides time for
the external assessment of Board performance to be accomplished and for the
Board's response to recommendations to be observed. It even provides time for
situations to develop that could result in a reconstitution of the Board's
membership prior to initiation of a Presidential Search. Most importantly, it
leaves open the possibility of a successful Presidential Search occurring - one
with appropriate faculty representation in the search process and one in which
all stakeholders can be assured of independence in their selection of representatives
in that process. The motion does not commit the Senate to participation
in a search process at the end of one year; rather it insures that one will not
take place in the present climate.
It is important to note that this motion is not inconsistent with previous
resolutions passed by the University Senate.
Lastly, it is important that we move forward in ways that are best for
Auburn University and our future. We believe this motion moves us forward
regardless of one's opinion about who will look good or bad if the
resolution is passed. The central question remains, "Is it good for Auburn
University?"
End
of overhead
I
feel very strongly that this resolution must pass the Senate and be forwarded
to the BOT. The BOT must then adopt it, which is out of our control. However, I
feel very strongly that it needs to pass this body today.
Obviously,
we are not unified here. We need a break. We need a cool-down period. I think
this will give both sides a time to do that. If you were at the Board meeting,
you will understand what I am saying. I will also give us time to fulfill what
we voted on and adopted in our last resolution. We adopted that we would
participate in a Presidential Search once an external search had been conducted
on the Board and they had time to rectify some of the issues at hand. It will
give us that time we so badly need.
I
do not think that by passing this motion that it commits us to the search. It
doesn’t even give the time. It does give us the possibility to be involved in
the Presidential Search. I think every single person in this room must agree
that you want to be involved, regardless of what stakeholder group you are
coming in with. I certainly do as a faculty member. I want to have that input,
and I want to have good faculty, people that I trust, representing me. So,
given that, I feel very strongly that this resolution must pass. I encourage
you, when you vote, to consider one question: what is good for Auburn
University. This resolution will, we hope, move us forward in the light that we
want to.
With
that I move that the Senate adopt this resolution.
Dr. Bradley: What I would like to do is have a period of
time now where anyone here can express an opinion on this motion. Then, after a
period of time I will say it is officially on the floor and only Senators can
continue talking.
Wayne Flynt,
History (not a senator): Will you send this
motion to the head hunting firm?
Dr. Bradley: Yes, I will do that. I will have to get the
address of that head-hunter from Mr. Miller.
Marty Olliff,
Library: In light of
Dr. Pritchett’s comments on Dean searches, I hope that adoption of this and
action on this by the BOT will not stop Dean searches, but will stabilize the
atmosphere (to borrow Dr. Pritchett’s language) so that we can proceed with
Dean searches.
Bruce Gladden,
Immediate Past-Chair: I would like
to speak in support of this motion. I think the rationale is spelled out pretty
well. The question that Barb raised, “what is best for Auburn University?” is a
good way to keep the Board from moving ahead. I think it would be a disaster
for them to move ahead. I do recommend an amendment, to remove the word “minimum.” My rationale for that is that I do not want this to go to the
Board and have them think we are just putting this off forever. That would
still leave us with the option for delaying it further if we get to next spring
and the assessment hasn’t been completed. I know Earlon McWhorter spoke with me
a few days ago; he was trying to get in touch with Jim. I won’t try to speak
for him, but my interpretation was that he was in support of this kind of
concept. However, when I read the resolution to him, he was concerned about
that word “minimum” because he
was afraid it would be viewed as an indefinite. I move to amend the motion to
remove the word “minimum.”
Dr. Bradley: I would like to continue this discussion
that is open to everyone and then come back to consider your amendment when the
discussion is limited to Senators.
Paul Schmidt,
Mathematics: I support the motion. However, was it not
resolved at one time by this body that this Board of Trustees should resign and
there would be no Presidential Search until that happened?
Dr. Bradley: Yes, on April 17 that was the second
resolution that we passed.
Dr. Schmidt: I don’t see a direct contradiction with this
motion, but questions could be raised there.
Dr. Bradley: Since you brought up the issue, if you
haven’t thought of it, at some point in the future, this body is going to be
faced with a big decision. That decision is that if we have not received
resignations from the Board, and it is time to search for President, what are
we going to do? I don’t know whose term that will be during, but this is
something to start thinking about.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: Before I
decide how to vote on this motion, I would like to know what the Senate
leadership plans to do should the motion pass but the Board continue with this
search.
Dr.
Bradley: Then we go to
those options I had up here earlier. I and the others will ask for guidance, or
what does this body think we should do?
That’s also where Dr. Pritchett and Dr. Walker will be on the hot seat,
and we will see what they do.
Rik
Blumenthal, Chemistry: I am concerned
with only one thing. I support the idea of this motion, but I am concerned
about us entering into a public relations problem with this motion. We’re
stating that we are not going to reconsider participating for a full year. What
if something happens? Are we going to violate our own motion and decide to
participate? I see no way out of this if something should happen within six
months to allow others.
Dr.
Bradley: The underlying
assumption with the 12-month period is that there is a window of opportunity to
search for President. Mr. Miller mentioned that Monday; it is the fall,
somewhere between the end of August and Thanksgiving being the window. That
is why you need your committee set up
in the summertime. So, our reasoning is if we get through the next month or so
and this resolution passes, then we are automatically into the next year. In
other words, it wouldn’t make sense to start searching for a President six
months from now. We need to start right now for the fall window, or wait until
next spring to start for the next fall window. There is no rule that says you
can’t advertise for a President in the middle of August; this is just the
underlying assumption.
Marty Olliff,
Library: This may be a concern, but there is a
parliamentary way to deal with this, and it is simply to revisit this issue and
to rescind the motion at a later date. Also, this calls upon the Board to defer
activity; it doesn’t call upon us. It doesn’t commit us to not doing it. As
indicated at one of the last Senate meetings, we would invite them to join us
in a Presidential Search. This doesn’t commit us to anything; it asks them to
defer.
Dr. Bradley: In the
interest of moving on with this meeting, at this point we will officially put
this motion on the Senate floor, and the debate is restricted to only senators.
We will begin by considering Dr. Gladden’s motion to amend the motion.
Dr. Gladden: I believe a
clearer way to restate this motion is to move to defer activities related to
the Presidential Search until June 1, 2002. My rationale, again, is from being
at the last Board meeting, there are some members who are looking for a way to
get out of this search that is moving full-steam ahead. I would hate for
“minimum” to prevent that.
The
motion was seconded.
Dr. Madrigal
(substitute): Who are the Board
members who are powerful enough to go against a Presidential Search when Miller
and Lowder are in charge? Who is powerful enough to stop that search? They do
whatever they want around here.
Dr. Bradley: Another underlying assumption behind this
motion is that it will be considered on a one-vote, one-person basis. If that
isn’t the way it happens, then no one can help the way it happens.
Dr. Gladden: I want to give them every opportunity to do
the right thing.
The
amendment to the motion was passed by a unanimous voice vote.
The
amended motion was passed 49-0-0.
B. Steering committee motion to postpone Board visitation
program – Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee
This
motion has already been widely discussed, and it has been referred to by Dr.
Walker today. Still, I think it is very germane and very worthwhile voting on.
As you know, Dr. Walker brought up this plan for a Board visitation program in
which Board members would rotate Colleges, and he announced it at the April
Board meeting. Right after that there was a joint meeting of the Steering and
Rules Committees, AAUP leadership, and the Senate leadership; we decided pretty
much unanimously that this was not a good idea. Jim announced that at the May 8
meeting. Since then, a number of us became aware that the Deans were moving
forward with this and it was moving ahead. A number of us were alarmed by this.
This historical context for this motion sums up reasons for this.
First,
it violates a belief of shared governance, because the faculty leadership had
very much disapproved of this being forced upon us. Another reason we opposed
this was because we had made some serious calls upon this Board and had
received no response. In my email to Dr. Walker that he referred to earlier, I
said we asked this Board to resign and we weren’t kidding. To work with the
Board in this way and pretend that nothing has been said or done and no
feelings or reservations had been expressed was to make a mockery of some very
painful decisions that constituents have had to come to. The wording here is
that is simply not a logical move to continue with the visitation of the Board.
One obvious reason that we hope this will pass is because I think we are all
looking for less interference in our classrooms and departments by the Board.
There is some fear of the Board moving into situations in which they do not
know much about, since they don’t know much about what we do even though they
often times make decisions about things they don’t know much about. We don’t
want to offer them the opportunity to move in and make hasty decisions that in
any way interfere with programs. The last reason is that this is not, in any
way, interference with free speech even though Dr. Walker did respond by email
to me that my opposition and the AAUP’s opposition to this program somehow
interferes with free-speech of faculty, I emailed him back and said I didn’t
see how this could be true. This is so near and dear to my heart, and it looked
much more like forced speech than free speech. Ralph emailed him and this is why
I believe Dr. Walker mentioned the gag order that, hence, Mr. Miller, has
claimed that we imposed. These are some of the reasons why we feel that it
would be a very bad time to pair Colleges and Schools with Board members when
the feeling of distrust and deep hostilities on both sides are obvious. We are
already working very hard and doing much more at all times. It doesn’t seem
like this is a very good time to educate Board members on the things they do or
should do.
MOTION TO POSTPONE IMPLEMENTATION OF BOARD VISITATION
PROGRAM
Due
to its lack of confidence in the existing Board of Trustees' governance
of
the University, the University Senate urges the upper administration and
Deans
to postpone implementing the visitation program for Board members in
Colleges
and Schools at least until the external assessment recommended by the Senate's
Joint Assessment Committee has been completed and the resulting recommendations
been verifiably adopted by the Board of Trustees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND RATIONALE FOR
MOTION
This
motion addresses the Board visitation program (BVP) proposed by Interim
President Walker on April 6, 2001, whereby Board members assigned to specific
Colleges/Schools would interact with Deans, faculty and students to increase
their knowledge about the University.
The motion represents the consensus opinion expressed by faculty members
of the Senate Steering and Rules Committees at a joint meeting of the two
committees held on April 20, 2001. This
opinion was announced by the Senate chair at the May 8, 2001, meeting of the
Senate. At the same meeting, Acting
Provost Pritchett announced that his office had made the assignments of Board
members to specific Colleges/Schools.
The
motion is based on the premise that dramatic, verifiable changes in the style
of governance by the Board of Trustees are necessary for the University to
succeed in its missions and that moving into the indefinite future with the
present Board of Trustees and their style of governance is not in the best
interest of the University or in the best interest of the next President's
administration. The Steering Committee
views the motion as being consistent with the "no confidence" votes
by the Senate, faculty, and other University stakeholding groups and also with
the Senate's vote calling for the resignation of the present Board. It views immediate implementation of the BVP
as inconsistent with these votes.
The
motion is not an attempt to prevent communication between the Board and any
faculty member or administrator, and it is not proposed because the Senate
leadership distrusts faculty colleagues to speak for themselves in the presence
of Trustees. Rather, the Steering
Committee members oppose implementation of the BVP at this time because they
believe it 1) would endanger the University by opening new avenues of
micro-management for a Board that has demonstrated repeatedly over many years
that it has no qualms about inappropriate involvement in the administration and
implementation of policy within the University, 2) is an inappropriate
initiative for an interim administration to undertake now due to its potential
long-range, negative consequences for the next President, and 3) is not logical
in the context of the Senate's "no confidence" vote and call for the
Board's resignation.
The
Steering Committee appreciates the value of communication in resolving
differences of opinion and recognizes the Herculean efforts of the faculty in
this area over the past two decades.
Faculty efforts have included organized luncheons with individual Board
members beginning in January, 1993, the Renden Report on University Governance
that was summarily ignored by the Board, numerous ad hoc Senate committees established to investigate perceived
misbehavior by the Board and to recommend remedies or request explanations,
many meetings between Board members and Senate officers during the past two
years, many letters from Senate officers suggesting ways of improving
Board-faculty relationships, our perennial, unhonored request for a voice at
Board meetings, and even the votes of "no confidence." The Steering
Committee feels that the outcomes of these attempts at communication argue
strongly against implementation now of a new communication initiative that
would put present Board members in much closer contact with the "nuts and
bolts" of the academic programs of the University. Ideally, such a communication initiative
would be convened with a reconstituted Board.
Minimally, it should be postponed until dramatic, verifiable changes in
the Board's style of governance are assured.
I move that this motion be
adopted.
Dr. Bradley:
We will have an open discussion before the Senate considers the motion.
Richard Kunkel, Dean, College of Education: I looked forward to that program. I thought it was
proposed in good faith by the President and was supported by Dr. Pritchett. I
don’t see the logic behind cutting out information because someone might turn
it to a wrong use. It is wrong for the Senate as a whole to make that choice
for me. Our leadership ought to decide if we are ready to deal with Trustees. I
think it is really inappropriate for the University Senate as a whole to tell
my unit that we can’t meet with the BoT. Some of our advisory councils already
have Trustees on them.
Marty Olliff, Library: This motion in no way
restricts anyone’s rights to invite anyone anywhere they care to. What it does
is ask the upper administration to scale back a programmatic, systematic
specific visitation program, a formal visitation program that was indeed, in my
opinion, a good idea when it was proposed. But in this poisoned political
atmosphere, we are exposing ourselves to misuse. If Dr. Kunkel or the Dean of
any other School cares to ask the BOT members to please come and visit, that is
entirely different. We are asking that Dr. Walker postpone this program. Also,
to say that no one is going to force faculty to talk to BOT members when there
is a programmatic attempt to encourage exactly that and to twist the situation
in which a particular faculty member might be faced with a decision to be made
on the spot on whether to speak or not to speak. That is a situation that could
occur in this program systematic visitation. The timing is wrong. Is the idea
wrong? Not necessarily. The timing stinks, but if Dr. Kunkel or any other Dean
cares to ask BOT members to visit, the motion does not prohibit that.
I strongly support this
motion and resolution and hope that others do too.
Judy Sheppard, Steering committee: I don’t
understand the reasoning, and I am not sure I understand why so many Deans are
in favor of this and every faculty member I talk to, which I admit is a
significantly small number, is opposed to it. I think there is a strong sense
of “you will do this and it doesn’t matter if you like it.” I am the one who
asked that the word “Deans” be
placed there so that what Dr. Walker has said now is “it’s okay with me now,
and you don’t have to do this if you don’t want to, but it is in motion.” How
many Deans, even if they are apprehensive about their faculty and want their
faculty to do something their faculty may not want to do, are going to feel
free to back off now. It has been set in motion; stopping it would make a
statement. I would ask Dr. Walker to be even stronger in what he said today, to
advise the Deans that this is not a good time, and that we do this but not
right now. We all know that all good intentions may be said, but in any work
environment when you refuse an assignment, it has a possibility of impacting
you in the future. We are talking about a good bit of work on a faculty that
wants to do its job but is not being allowed to because of the situation here.
I think the forcing is completely the opposite. We are not forcing anyone; this
is the program, and if your Dean has heard the message from the President and
the Board, accept your consequences.
John Pritchett, Provost: I would like to clear
up a couple of things. Dr. Walker has already indicated today that no one is
going to be forced to communicate, unless that is their choice. When I visited
with the Deans, I made it very clear that no one is going to be forced to
participate in this program if they did not want to. That message went out very
clearly. This program does not just involve faculty. It involves the external
evaluative groups, administration, and students. There is a lot that has to
develop and go on in many areas before we even get to faculty interaction and
participation. As I understand, this summer Deans are going to be working
primarily on these other points as far as communication goes. If there is any
concern that anyone is going to be forced into this, I would like to know it
because if someone does not want to participate, they don’t have to.
Dr. Bradley: Let’s put the motion on the Senate floor at
this time.
Bruce Gladden, Immediate Past-Chair: I
am not a member of the Steering Committee, so I obviously was not a part of
writing this. However, I am going to part ways with my fellow officers here. I
think we should not pass this motion. I think we should communicate with this
Board. We
can stand back and not participate and let the decisions be made, or we can
provide information. We can communicate our displeasure at every opportunity
and influence decisions that will be made in the meantime. So I am against the
motion. I am always in favor of communication; they ought to be doing it in the
Middle East, and we ought to be doing it in Auburn.
Tony Madrigal,
Foreign Languages (substitute): I think the
whole idea of the members of the Board being assigned to different Colleges is
an excellent idea. I sent a letter to every one of them when I became chair to
invite them to visit my department and see how it functions, meet faculty, etc.
None of them showed up. So, if they come it is for politics, and not because
they are really interested.
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: There is also
part of the rationale for this that strikes me as false. Perhaps you want to
speak to this and let me know what I am missing. In the second paragraph of the
rationale, about half-way down, it says “the Steering committee views the
motion as being consistent with the ‘no confidence’ votes by the Senate,
faculty, and other University stakeholding groups and also with the Senate’s
vote for the resignation of the present Board.” That is certainly right and
consistent. The next sentence says “it views immediate implementation of the
BVP as inconsistent with these votes.” Not by any logic that I’ve ever learned.
It is certainly not logically inconsistent. Someone could have voted “no
confidence” and still think this is a good idea. I see a logical inconsistency.
So, this part of the rationale I do not understand.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: I can’t help
you with it a bit, because I need to speak strongly against this motion. I see
my Dean is sitting over there. I want to reflect on a couple of things Judy
said in her introduction. She said the faculty leadership very strongly opposed
having this forced upon us. This is the first time I imagined that this was
being forced on anyone, much less the faculty.
We were looking forward to this as an opportunity to bring in two Board
members who happen to have a fairly senior status on the Board and show them
our College. We’ve been strategizing earlier this week about what we might do
and how we might show them our needs in the Colleges, communicate our successes
and failures to them, etc. Another comment that Judy made, “most of us are
looking for less interference in our classrooms by the Board.” Frankly, I don’t
remember in my 18 years at Auburn ever seeing a Board member in my classroom. I
don’t ever remember seeing a Board member in my research lab. in fact, we
rarely see Board members unless they are there to honor some event at the
College or some individual has given us a request to build a new building,
establish a new center, or buy new equipment. That aside, what I am looking
forward is not less interference by the Board, but it is less animosity, less
hostility, and for those reasons, I welcome the opportunity to communicate with
Board members and to try to subdue some of the anger and impasse that has
developed between this faculty and the Board of Trustees. Passage of this
motion does exactly the opposite.
Dr.
Sheppard: No, I am sure
you have not seen them in your classrooms, but many of us have felt the impact
of them in our classrooms when our departments have been merged, budgets have
been cut, etc. Obviously, I was speaking metaphorically. It would be nice to do
away with the animosity: is this going to do it? What will do it? I don’t see
that this is going to be useful. Fifteen years ago it would have been useful
because they would have been making decisions as if they were in the classrooms
and knew something about programs. Theoretically, no one can argue that it
would be better if a Board is going to act better than this Board acts if it
has more information. However, I do feel forced. When I emailed Dr. Walker and
said the AAUP urges you to reconsider this and he says no, and I email my Dean
and she says she thinks it is great and we are going ahead with it, that says
to me that it doesn’t matter what I think and that bothers me. Plus, there is
the idea that anyone can refuse to participate, anyone can say anything they
want to, and theoretically this is a wonderful community and there is no
retaliation and no vindictiveness on the part of the Board of Trustees. I think
it is disingenuous to say that faculty forced into bad positions with this is
not a possibility.
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry (substitute): Just to make
sure that I was not misrepresenting my faculty. I forwarded it to all of the
faculty in my department. I think we are missing a point here. I don’t think
anyone here thinks this is a bad program. It is a very good program that is
being implemented at a very bad time and a wrong list of Board members. If you
have a whole new set of Board members, I would be in favor of it. These people
are not people who can be trusted to engage in intellectual enterprises such as
this and do something positive with it. They have already made up their minds
about all kinds of things before we even go in. I rise to speak in favor of the
motion, and I think it is possibly a good program being implemented at the
wrong time.
Barbara
Struempler, Chair-Elect: Just to follow-up
on timing, what we are asking is to postpone real tight communication until the
JAC has made some recommendations, and that is in line with the previous
proposal we just passed. A lot of it has to do with the timing. I am a very
open person and I believe in communication, but the timing is wrong with this
one. I would vote in favor of the motion and wait to see what the JAC
recommends. The other point that has not been mentioned is that according to
the last Board meeting, they are bringing in a consultant to help them learn
how to be a better Board. So perhaps, after those meetings, and after we get
the recommendations from the JAC, all of this can come together and we can be a
happy University.
Steve Taylor,
Biosystems Engineering: What about the BoT lunches.
Dr.
Bradley: Yes, the
officers told Dr. Gladden that we were willing to go ahead and do that. You may
wonder how that fits with the present motion. Our reasoning is that the lunches
would give faculty and way to communicate to Board members on what action they
think would be the best for the University. The purpose of this motion is to
postpone the Board visitation program until the assessment has been done, and
the recommendations have been implemented by the Board and also to protect the
University from the Board.
Bill Baird,
Curriculum and Teaching (substitute): I respect the
feelings being expressed here and I understand that some people have
experiences that go back even further than my 17 years here. But I will probably vote “no,” based on the
views of my department, for two reasons. First, we are undergoing a divorce
between the Board of Trustees and nine other constituency groups on this
campus. Undergoing a divorce, we are stuck with “joint custody” of the
University. If they are not going to resign, then I have to have some faith
that all the 14 members of the Board are not equally impervious to human
interaction and that maybe our College will be fortunate enough to have someone
come who is actually interested. I wish this action had been taken 20 years ago
and had been initiated by the Board of Trustees. But since it does come from
the two people that currently have the most voice with the BOT, I come to my
second reason. Since it was the President and Acting Provost’s idea, I find it
very difficult to oppose that idea on the basis of my hurt feelings and based
on the fact that some members of the BOT are just very bad people.
Paul Schmidt,
Mathematics: I think we all
agree that the visitation program in itself is not a bad idea. It is the timing
and current state of our Trustees that cause us problems. The fact that we do
not like them and want them to go away does not mean that we should not talk.
We should take any and every opportunity to talk to them, and on the basis of
that idea I think we should not pass this resolution.
Rik
Blumenthal, Chemistry: I am in
between. I think as a process, the visitation is wonderful and a great idea.
But in light of the fact that this body has voted for the resignation of the
Trustees and has passed and sent a letter that could remove our own
accreditation based on the behavior of this Board of Trustees, I ask the
question: could this program make it easier for these Trustees to come down as
a group of micromanagers than need to somehow be disciplined by SACS? I see
this is contradicting our two previous votes.
Bruce Gladden,
Immediate Past Chair: I wasn’t going
to speak again, but I really think this would minimize micromanagement. The
more you talk, the more you can quote what they say. I actually think, as far
as consistency within the Senate, the vote for resignations was inconsistent
with the Joint Assessment in the first place. I don’t hold the Senate to
consistency.
Gary Mullen,
Entomology and Plant Pathology: I would speak
for the motion. The feedback I get from my colleagues is that this is a
calculated diversion. This would not have come about were it not for the call
for resignation of the Board. It is a response rather than dealing with the
issue. I don’t think it is going to work and I think it will be
counterproductive. If any of you are familiar with animal behavior, you know
the term “displacement activity.” It is diverting attention from the real
issues and is deceiving the appearances. I support this motion.
Marsha
Boosinger, Steering Committee: Having been a
Senate officer two years ago, this idea was proposed to the Senate officers two
years ago. I guess it is only the fact that at that time Provost Walker did not
have the opportunity to move it forward. I would like to counter the idea that
the timing of this was wrong. Dr. Walker has had this on his mind for a long
time now and Bruce and Jo and Mary Boudreaux will agree that this has been the
first opportunity for it to rise to the top.
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering committee: I am not
speaking for or against this motion, but I would like to say that I am at a
College where we have had Board members in our classrooms for many years. Some
people who are now on the Board visited our classes before they were on the
Board. I have in the past received a notice telling me that a Trustee would be
visiting my classroom. I found it interesting that when this program was
proposed, remembering one of Dr. Muse’s complaints about the Board direct
contact and bypassing the Deans and others. I was thinking of that because
several years ago a member of the Board was visiting our College and had a
meeting with the Dean. He told the Dean he really didn’t like the way he was
scheduling classes and he gave him a plan to schedule classes. So, our schedule
for classes was changed in accordance with his wishes. It was only changed back
several years later when the same Board member commented that he really liked
that class schedule that they used at AUM, which happened to be the one that he
told us to stop using several years sooner.
So, this is an opportunity for different types of contact with Board
members bypassing the President. When we talk about them coming in, this is a
program for Board members to come in and meet with the Deans. I have not heard
that this is being proposed by the Deans to their faculty.
The
motion failed with a hand-counted vote of 16-30-3.
C. Motions from the ad hoc Committee on Outreach Scholarship
Assessment – Dr. Charles Hendrix
At
the last faculty meeting, we presented the results of the ad hoc committee on
outreach assessment for making changes in the faculty handbook. We still have
that document and have prepared three motions relative to that document to
condense it down.
Motions to accept recommendations from ad hoc
Committee on Outreach Scholarship Assessment
Revise current areas of
“acceptable achievements” required for promotion from “1) teaching and / or
extension and 2) research / creative work” to “1) teaching, 2) research /
creative work, and/ or 3) outreach, as assigned.” [Faculty Handbook,
Chapter 3, Section 8 Promotion Criteria and Considerations]
Adopt the following
definitions of “outreach” and “service”:
Outreach
refers to the function of applying academic expertise to the direct benefit of
external audiences in support of University and unit missions. A faculty endeavor may be regarded as
outreach if (1) there is a substantive link with significant human needs and
societal problems, issues, or concerns; (2) there is a direct application of
knowledge to significant human needs and societal problems, issues, or
concerns; (3) there is a utilization of the faculty member’s academic and
professional expertise; (4) the ultimate purpose is for the public or common
good; (5) new knowledge is generated for the discipline and/or the audience or
clientele; and (6) there is a clear
link between the program / activities and an appropriate academic unit’s
mission.
Refer motions 1 and 2 to the
Handbook Committee for implementation.
Dr. Bradley: We will
consider these motions separately. Is there
discussion?
Rik
Blumenthal, Chemistry: I just wanted
to know if what I am reading in the new wording is correct. Outreach can be the
only criterion in other “acceptable achievements” in the new wording, in the
“and/or” implies “teaching, research, and outreach/teaching/research.”
Dr. Hendrix: That is not how it is intended to read.
“Teaching, research/creative work, and/or outreach” is how it should read.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: Does anyone
have a Handbook so we can see that phrase in context. It might make more
sense in context.
Dennis Rygiel,
English:
It says “Promotion is based on merit. A candidate for promotion must have
acceptable achievements in the areas of 1) teaching and/or extension 2) research/creative
work. He or she is further expected to demonstrate over an extended period
distinctive achievement in both areas.”
Dr. Hendrix: This is a condensed version. It was much
longer, but I was advised to cut it down for the Senate. But it did include
that second portion to make it more succinct. That is why the other information
is not in there.
Dr. Bradley: The rationale for these short motions is to
have the Faculty Handbook Committee implement ideas, so the first idea is to
change the work list from two things to three things and have the Faculty
Handbook Committee work it into the Handbook in the proper fashion. The
same is with the definitions that come next. This is the rationale rather than
having pages and pages for each motion and going through Handbook
revisions; Dr. Hendrix’s committee did recommend those.
Marsha
Boosinger, Steering Committee: If I recall,
all we were trying to do in cutting down Charlie’s motion is make them votable
and also parallel. I did not recognize this as what we prepared. I thought it
read “teaching and/or extension and research/creative work.” I do not remember
the separate things.
Dr.
Bradley: Originally, in
the present handbook, it is “1) teaching and/or extension and 2)
research/creative work.”
Ms Boosinger: Isn’t the intention to take “outreach” to
replace “extension.” ”Outreach”
replaces “extension” everywhere it is found. Is that not correct?
Dr.
Hendrix: Extension is a
form of outreach, but not all outreach is extension.
Ms
Boosinger: Right. So in
this case, in terms of evaluating for promotion and tenure, you are replacing
“extension” with “outreach” as the broader concept. Therefore, we need to
simply change this to “1) teaching and/or outreach and 2) research and creative
work.” Then that solves the problem with the second sentence that is not here.
That is what I recommended last month when we discussed this.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: Actually, what
this does, if we bring it back down to three units, that takes us back to what
the Handbook used to say. The old handbook said
“teaching/research/creative work and/or extension.” So, I too thought the goal of the committee was to replace the
word “extension” with
“outreach” and not to carry us back to the previous Handbook.
Marty Olliff,
Library: Do we have a quorum?
Dr. Bradley: Yes.
Dr. Brunner: I move to refer this back to the committee
until a later time.
The
motion to refer the motion back to the committee to be discussed at a later
time was passed by a voice vote.
Marty Olliff,
Library: I move to
adjourn this meeting.
The
motion was seconded and passed by a voice vote. The meeting was adjourned at
5:15 p.m.