Auburn University Senate Minutes
July
10, 2001
Broun
Hall Auditorium
Absent: S. Taylor, D. Bransby, R. Beil, C. Hudson, R.
Ripley, R. Middleton, R. Jenkins, M. El-Halwagi, C. Gross, R. Zee, R.
Broughton, J. Gluhman, S. Keishnamurti, R. Weigel, M. Mercer, R. Wylie, M.
Watkins, R. Locy, B. Hames, R. Paxton, R. Kenworthy, S. Fuller, D. Zhang, M.
Reinke, J. DeRuiter, K. Kreuger, J. LaPrade, C. Buchanan, T. McMurtrie.
Absent
(substitute): J. Facteau (V.
O’Leary), S. Knowlton (J. Hanson), R. Britnell (T. Lau), R. Keith, C. Skelton
(J. Hamner), C. Hageman (D. Bonn).
The
minutes for the last Senate meeting were approved as posted on the web. They
can be viewed at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html
July 10, 2001.
Announcements
A. Announcements from the President’s Office – Dr. William
Walker
I
have several announcements and general comments I would like to make. First of
all, there will be three Board committee meetings this coming Thursday, July
12. Those will be held in Room 230 Taylor Center at AUM. The first meeting,
which is the Academic Affairs Committee, will be at 2:00 p.m; the second, the
Agricultural committee is at 3:00 p.m.; and the third, the Budget committee, is
at 4:00 p.m. I am pretty certain that
those first two committees should not last an hour. I suspect if the committee
members are there they will wish to convene those following committees just as
soon as they possibly can.
My
next announcement is that upon the recommendation of the Search Committee, I
have appointed John Pritchett as Interim Provost. I wrote him an appointment
letter, and he came running downstairs saying there is no place for me to
accept or reject this offer. I said that was true. So, John is it so long as I
am here. He is doing a great job.
I
have also appointed Gaines Smith as the Interim Director of the Cooperative
Extension System.
It
gives me great pleasure to announce to you that on August 6, at the summer
graduation ceremony, Auburn University will be awarding an honorary doctorate
to Mr. Samuel L. Pettijohn, Jr. Mr.
Pettijohn was the first African-American graduate of Auburn University. He
graduated in 1967 with a B.S. in Applied Physics. He is currently with the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. You will recall that we awarded an honorary
doctorate to the first black student at Auburn, Dr. Harold Franklin, at the
recent spring graduation.
On
a much more serious matter, over the past few months there have been three
instances of sexual assault against women on this campus. The physical safety
of everyone involved with Auburn University is of paramont importance.
Obviously, attacks of this kind are a very serious matter, and must thus be
resolved. I want to make sure you are aware of what I am doing about this and
what you can do as well. I have met with chief of campus police Mr. Bill Nevin,
and have also met with the City of Auburn chief of police and several
detectives. I have impressed upon them the importance of solving these crimes
with the intent of preventing their recurrence. Within the next 24 hours I will be sending an email to the campus
on this matter in an effort to reach those who may not be aware that these
events have transpired.
I
want to commend the Office of Student Affairs, particularly Wes Williams and
Dr. McDaniel, for the significant actions they have taken. They have been
briefing parents and students at Camp War Eagle. They have been making
counselors available and have been working closely with crisis centers and rape
counselors of East Alabama. They have been disseminating information about the
various precautions that can be taken.
So,
what can you do? If you have any suggestions concerning programmatic, facility,
or infrastructure improvements, please let me or Vice President Jim Ferguson
know. These are very serious issues that we simply must address to the fullest
extent possible.
With
respect to funding, the Alabama Supreme Court has decided that neither K-12 nor
higher education should have priority in state funding in times of proration.
Now, they did not rule that was the case when there were not times of
proration. You will recall that the fiscal 01 budget had been prorated, but we
did not know how much. The Governor said that higher education was going to
have to take a 9 or 10% cut and K-12 a 3%. That is what we contested in court
and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in our favor, and I want you
to see what the dollar figures amount to. There was a bond issue involved that
I will not go into detail about, but I have asked Don Large to give you a
summary as soon as I am finished with my remarks. You should be able to get
some idea of what in terms of funding and proration the fiscal year looks like.
I
think one of the issues you need to be aware of is the following: what would
have happened if we had lost. You may think that all we are worrying about is a
few millions of dollars, and in the grand scheme of things that is not really
that important, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the
matter is, whether we like it or not, the education budget in the state of
Alabama is written by a labor union boss. Paul Hubbard writes the education
budget. He has been doing it for years. If, in fact, the Supreme Court had
ruled when there is proration, then it can be applied in a disproportionate
fashion, the strategy would clearly have been to always write a budget that is
going to go under proration, because then the disproportionate removal of funds
from higher education can take place. That is not something any of us in higher
education really wanted to discuss; it was just too horrendous to contemplate.
But that was the fear all of us had, and it drove us to cooperate as fully and
energetically as we did. The battle was won because all of us worked together
and because of the great support we got from this institution, the alumni, all
of you, and the entire Auburn community. I think it is a great victory for
Auburn and for higher education.
The
bad news for funding is that funding will continue to be inadequate for all
public education. The Supreme Court in another ruling, which they mailed to all
of the litigants in the previous case, has also suggested that it may revisit
Judge Reese’s 1993 ruling requiring equitable funding for K-12 schools. That
is, whether that issue is appealable or
not. It is believed that the court may feel that it is appealable, which would
reopen that entire case. My concern here is more morally based. I am concerned
that if higher education comes across as challenging Judge Reese’s decision,
the tendency is for us to be tarred with the brush of reactionary politics and
racism, which is obviously not something we want to see happen.
In
summary, we cannot continue the kind of battle we’ve seen this past year
between the various elements of education. Therefore, I have been and continue
to urge all the sections of education to work together to achieve a stable base
of funding for public education in this state.
As
far as the future funding of Auburn goes, I will be very honest with you. If
one looks at the vision statement of Auburn University that says “we will
emerge as one of the leading land-grant institutions in the 21st
century,” there is no way the current funding will ever provide the resources
we need to do that. I think, therefore, we will have to decide (we are in the
process of deciding) as an institution that we must take Auburn’s financial
destiny into our own hands. Our public funding here at Auburn is well below
average in the region and even in the state. You might be interested to know
that in the past four or five years, higher education in the state has already
lost about $700 million. That supposedly was going to K-12; in fact, it went
for salary and benefits for AEA. So simply put, we are going to have to find
new revenue streams. We can, of course, raise tuition, but, as we do that (by
the way, we are raising tuition 6.9% next year) every time there will be more
and more students who are adversely affected. We need to have in place a
scholarship and endowment system that can accommodate those increases in
tuition. That is what I think we need to be focusing our attention on in the
months and years ahead. I have the personal belief that Auburn must and will
move into the front ranks of what I refer to as privately supported public
universities.
To
do this, we are going to have to address some of the issues we have here on
campus. You will recall that last November Dr. Muse and Dr. Large appointed some
consultants to look at three areas of activity: the Alumni and Development,
facilities, and university relations. The Arthur Anderson Higher Education
Consulting Group has done the alumni and development, and I have asked Dr.
Heilman to chair a committee to get input from the faculty concerning that
issue as well as the issues in facilities and university relations. He is in
the process of doing that. In fact, I think he will be reporting on that to you
today.
Finally,
let me report to you on SACS. The University response to the SACS complaint was
submitted on June 25. We had requested an extension of 30 days in order to give
us time to respond, but that request was denied. I will make that response
public at the July 23 meeting of the Board of Trustees. There is a bit of
protocol issue here, a complaint of one or more groups of the University
against another group. The latter group, or the Board, needs to have time to
review the response before we begin to debate those issues that are presented.
However, interestingly enough, on Monday, June 25, before that report was
submitted on Wednesday, June 27, SACS informed me by phone that even before
they had received our response they had decided to constitute a special
commission to visit the campus. That visit will be October 1-3. Interestingly,
they also suggested in their phone call that the visit should be kept secret.
So don’t tell anyone. I have no idea what that was about.
So,
where are we going? My conclusion to all of this is that we have received some
good news and bad news in respect to funding. I believe that we are going to
have to begin to focus our view on the long-term financial interest of this
University. It is going to be a long and arduous trip that is going to outlast
most of us. But, I think it is proper direction for the University to embark
on. I would suggest that the proration litigation should offer us guidance
about how we make political progress. We were successful in that litigation in
part because four-year schools and universities that have a lot of suspicion
and distrust of one another overcame those differences and worked together for
a common cause. I suggest to you that that should be a model we should follow
on campus with respect to our own financial future.
Marsha
Boosinger, Steering Committee: Has the Arthur
Anderson report on facilities been posted to the web?
Dr. Walker: No, it has not. The name of the consulting
group is not Arthur Anderson. But it does need to be put on the web. I’m sorry
we have not done that.
Don Large, VP
for Business/Finance: I will try to
make this brief. It is, as Dr. Walker said, relatively good news in terms of
proration.
Overhead—
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
2000-2001 STATE APPROPRIATIONS
|
2000-2001 State Approp |
6.2% Proration |
AMT from State Bond Issue |
New Prorated Total |
% Reduction 2000-2001 |
Actual Reduction 2000-2001 |
Main
Campus |
$135,387,903* |
$8,394,050 |
$3,327,721 |
$130,321,574 |
3.74% |
$5,066,329 |
AUM |
$19,329,950** |
$1,198,457 |
$475,114 |
$18,606,607 |
3.74% |
$723,343 |
AAES |
$24,186,448 |
$1,499,560 |
$594,483 |
$23,281,371 |
3.74% |
$905,077 |
ACES |
$27,067,675 |
$1,678,196 |
$665,301 |
$26,054,780 |
3.74% |
$1,012,895 |
TOTAL |
$205,971,976 |
$12,770,263 |
$5,062,618 |
$198,264,331 |
|
$7,707,645 |
*Excludes AL Tech Network totals; includes Teacher Inservice
Center
**Includes $60,000 (AUM Comm Outreach) & Aux FICA
Possible Funding Sources for the 6.2% Proration w/State Bond
Issue of $5,062,618:
Academic Departments |
$0 |
Bond Refunding (Present Value
Savings) |
$1,700,00 |
Unbudgeted Tuition (Budgeted
Conservatively) |
$1,099,800 |
Additional Administrative Reductions |
$266,500 |
Current Year Budgeted Proration
Reserve |
$2,000,000 |
Main
Campus – Division I |
$5,066,300 |
End
of Overhead—
If you look at the first column, and
some of you have served on the Budget Advisory Committee and know this, you see
we budget in four separate divisions, each having its own separate book and
receiving its own state appropriations. Some even have their own additional
resources or revenues that go into the budget. So, when we built the budget for
the year that we are in about this time last year, we thought we would have
$135,000,000 of state funds. Then,the proration has ranged from numbers of
6.2%, which is what the trust fund of the state was prorated to numbers as high
as 18%, then finally settled at 11.7%. After that, through Dr. Walker’s and
other’s efforts, the fight began and the Supreme Court ruled that you cannot
differentiate the Trust Fund when you allocate for proration. So, we are back
to the 6.2%. That cost the main campus $8.4 or $8.3 million; the University as
a whole $12,770,000. The bad news is
the bond issue, which is a terrible way to fund education. It is simply
addressing the symptom, not the problem. The money will be borrowed to relieve
the proration of K-12 and higher education for this year, and the trust fund
will pay for it over the next 20 years. But from a budget standpoint, when we
issue the bonds we will get a little over $5 milliion in total. Had we lost the
Supreme Court ruling, we would have gotten about $15 million in bond moneys to
reduce us down to 3.74%. The problem was how do you take bond money, which is
to be capital money, and get it into your operating budget quickly to help
relieve the shortfalls you built into your operating budget, like raises and
things we made allocations for.
So,
when you go across [see overhead] the new prorated total, we are down to a
3.74% proration. You see on the far right for “main campus” we lost over $5
million that we thought we had this time last year when we were making
allocations for raises, etc. This is
much better than the 11%, but it is still a problem. When you total up the
other divisions, we are at 70 and 7.
What
we will present on July 12th to the Budget Committee of the Board
includes a proration update as well as a presentation of proposed budget
guidelines for next year. However, on this, in particular, we will suggest for
the main campus that academic departments not be prorated at all to make up for
the $5 million we lost. So, you will not be prorated at 3.74%; you will keep your
full budget.
We
did a bond refunding around June 1. That saved us about $1.7 million. We would
have had to make a debt “service” payment June 30 that we did not have to make
this year. So, that covers $1.7 million.
We
have unbudgeted tuition with the semester transition. We tried to be careful
and conservative with our budget with the transition because other schools have
seen loss in revenues in that transition. I am comfortable releasing that money
as well. We will continue to prorate the administrative areas and we will use
$2 million of our proration reserve. Let me explain that. The budget that we
are still operating in had a $2.5 million proration reserve built in. We have
built up from prior years a little over $6 million. We do not have to go and use any of the prior years build up and
with this plan we do not even have to use all of the proration reserve that we
set up for this budget. So, hopefully we could roll over $500,000 more in case
something should happen next year or the following years.
Additionally,
the budget we will be proposing on and discussing Thursday will have a
proration reserve of $2.5 million built in to
its operating budget. So, we are going to continue trying to keep some
type of reasonable reserve. It is very helpful when the proration levels are
lower, but if they ever start reaching 11 or 12%, then it is hard to reserve
that kind of money.
I
am reasonably comfortable with this plan and I hope the Board will accept this
as a plan to continue our operations this year and complete the year. I think
this is as good news as we could have hoped for considering all that has
happened this year.
One
thing that we are going to do (and I do not think this needs a Board
resolution) deals with bond issues. Technically, the money that we get has to
be used for capital-related expenditures, and most of the capital-related
expenditures are up here on main campus. So, what we will do is transfer main
campus funds to the other three divisions equivalent to that to get their
proration reduction to 3.74% and then utilize that $5 million in the main
campus budget because we can wipe that out very quickly with one debt “service”
payment. We can quickly substitute that and relieve some funds that were going
to debt “service” and put them back in our operations. It will probably take
AUM, AAES, and ACES a little bit longer.
Curtis Jolly,
Ag Economics: I did not see
where the tuition increase would come in.
Dr.
Large: This is just
state appropriations and is just for the budget year we are in. The 6.9%
increase in tuition is for next year. I have another presentation that is not for today that presents budget
guidelines for next year’s budget that
does have that reflection. This is just the budget for the year we are in.
I
had three announcements, but now that is down to two. The first was a SACS
update, but I do not have a more recent report than what Dr. Walker told us, so
I will move on to my second announcement.
My
second announcement has to do with faculty assignments to Board committees. You
remember at the last meeting I reported that there had been negotiations as to
the process by which the faculty would be appointed to the Board committees
between the Senate leadership and certain Board members for over six months.
From what I showed you last month, we know that the Board was very interested
in having the Deans make the selection from groups of nominees who would be appointed to the committee. At
that point, Dr. Brunner asked me to ask them why it was that the Deans were so
important in their plan for these appointments. So, I asked them again, and
Jimmy Samford called me yesterday with this answer. They thought the Deans
would simply be closer to knowing the people who would be good to serve on the
Board. However, he said he understood the argument that Bruce and I had put
forth several times, that the decision should really be made by the President
perhaps in consultation with the Deans. He said he didn’t have any problem with
that any longer and that he would support that. He also said he didn’t think
the Board would act on this until their September meeting. He did not comment
on the other question related to this, which was the source of the nominees. If
you remember, the Board had proposed that nominees come from selected colleges,
for example the Budget Committee representative come from the College of
Business and the Agricultural Committee representative come from the College of
Agriculture. Some of these make good sense, but we thought others should be
more flexible. So, Jimmy Samford has gotten several letters expressing our
views on the source of the committee nominees. As I said, he had no comment,
but it does appear he will support the President making those appointments.
The
last announcement I have is a letter to read. This is the shortest of all the
letters, and it is the most enjoyable to listen to. It was just faxed to me
today from Ted Little’s secretary. It has to do with the meeting that Wayne
Flynt, Malcolm Crocker, Judy Sheppard and I had with Gov. Siegelman in April.
This is written from Ted Little to Gov. Siegelman and it is dated July 9, 2001.
Dear
Governor,
This
letter is written in reference to a meeting held on April 25, 2001, when I met
in your office with a number of professors from Auburn University, and we
discussed matters related to higher education. One particular matter that was
discussed was putting faculty members from both Auburn University and Auburn
University-Montgomery on the Board of Trustees by Executive Order. Of course,
the Board members would serve ex-officio and non-voting, all subject to the
research that Ted Hosp, who was also in attendance with you, would do.
I
urge you to meet and confer with your legal council, Ted Hosp, and if this
matter can be accomplished from a legal point of view, then I am in hopes that
the appointments will be made within the next ten days.
Thank
you for your support of this measure, and I will be happy to meet with you in
your office if this matter needs to be further discussed.
Governor,
in my opinion, this would be a positive step in bringing more accountability
and communications between the Board of Trustees and the academic faculty.
Sincerely,
Ted
Little
(copy
to Ted Hosp)
[end
of letter]
Dr. Bradley: The next
items on the agenda are action items, and I would like to switch the two items
if there are no objections. The rationale here is to consider the simplest
first and then move on to the more complex.
Dr. Bradley: During the past two months, you have had
before you on the Senate web pages three motions from the Academic Standards
Committee and the rationale for each one of them. Since the recommendations
originate from a Senate committee, each one comes as a motion with a second.
Now, the Senate leadership considers these motions non-controversial and the
rationale clear, so therefore the leadership suggests that the Senate consider
these expeditiously and without formal presentations for each one. So, we will
give that a try.
Motion
#1 and Rationale
Modify
the existing criteria for the School of Nursing Dean's List eligibility to
state "School of Nursing: 3.75 average, only if S/U graded courses are
required in the student's curriculum and an S grade is earned in those
courses.”
Rationale
The
conversion to semesters has placed nursing students in the professional
curriculum tracks in an unusual position. Due to credit hour restrictions on
undergraduate programs and the demands of professional nursing preparation,
each semester in the professional nursing curriculum has between 12 and 14
credit hours. In addition, a
10-12 hour summer term is required. Because of the clinical experiences
required by a practice-based discipline, each semester includes clinical
courses that are graded on an S/U basis and carry a one credit hour to three
clinical-contact hour ratio. Though these clinical courses are graded S/U, they
are very demanding courses. Evaluation in these courses commonly includes at
least 3 detailed assessments and care plans, client
teaching projects, clinical rotation evaluation tools, and selected papers on
appropriate clinical topics. Evaluation criteria for each of these activities
are delineated in the course syllabi and must be met in order for the student
to receive a satisfactory grade and a 70% is the bar that students must meet to
obtain an S on any one assignment. An S is required on all assignments for an S
in the course. SON faculty agree that the assignments in these courses would be
difficult to grade on a letter-grade scale. During review of the semester
curriculum, the University Curriculum Committee concurred with the decision to
grade
clinical courses on an S/U basis. This has resulted in semesters where full-time
students in the rigorous nursing curriculum are taking a course load that, for
the most part, is about one-third S/U graded. As a result, students are not
eligible for Dean's List status. Therefore, SON is requesting an exception to
the rule requiring 12 hours of
letter-graded course work in order to be considered for the Dean's List. The
SON has suggested that School of Nursing criteria for the Dean's List be
modified as stated in the above motion.
If
there are no objections, the recommended actions will be taken. Are there any
objections.
Hearing
no objections, this recommendation stands approved.
Motion
#2 and Rationale
Institute
the following retention policy for the Interior Design (INDS) program:
Effective Fall Semester 2001, incoming Interior Design (INDS) students who
receive a failing grade (F) in a required Interior Design course will be
automatically expelled from the INDS program. Students receiving one D in a
required Interior Design course will be required to retake the course and earn
at least a C before being allowed to advance in the required Interior Design
course sequence. Students receiving a second D in a required Interior Design
course will be expelled from the INDS program. Students may not invoke the
Grade Adjustment Policy (GAP) to retain a place in the Interior Design program.
Rationale
The
Interior Design program is accredited by FIDER (Foundation for Interior Design
Education Research). Accreditation of a program is determined, in large part,
by the performance of the students in the required Interior Design courses,
i.e., the quality of student work is a major factor in evaluation of program
quality. Furthermore, FIDER guidelines stipulate a maximum studio size of 18
students. Because of limitations of studio space (only two studios) and
qualified faculty, the INDS program can only accommodate 144 students (i.e.,
two sections of 18 students each for each of the four classes, i.e., freshmen,
sophomores, juniors and seniors). Therefore, enrollment in the INDS program is
capped. Freshmen and transfer students are admitted to the program only by
application, with the most qualified students admitted to the limited number of
spaces available. These quality-related factors make it essential that the
students admitted into the INDS program maintain high quality standards-or they
must get out of the program to free up spaces for other qualified and dedicated
students.
So,
again, if there are no objections, this motion will stand approved.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I am assuming that in this case, as in
the case of Motion #1, these proposals have been offered by the respective
programs to the academic standards committee.
Dr. Bradley: Yes, that is
correct. Each of these programs came to the committee and offered these. The committee
sends the recommendation to the Senate.
Are
there any objections to this recommendation?
Hearing
none, this recommendation stands approved by the Senate.
Motion
#3 and Rationale
Approve
the recommendation of the Academic Affairs Committee that the policy for
Readmission to Auburn University state
"Students who have previously attended Auburn and who wish to
re-enter must secure permission to register from the Registrar's Office "
(p.10, 2000-2001 Bulletin).
Rationale
On
a regular basis, students return to Auburn after a hiatus in their academic
careers and wish to complete their degree. Currently, there is no policy that
addresses the issue of which set of degree requirements that the student should
follow to complete the degree. Given the switch to the semester, Auburn may
face a greater increase in
this situation.
Bulletin will read as follows:
Readmission
Students who have previously attended Auburn University and who wish to
re-enter must notify their Dean's Office of their intent to return and must
secure permission to register from the Registrar's Office. Undergraduate
students who have not been enrolled at Auburn University for a period of five
years or more and who are returning to the same
curriculum may be subject to different University, college, school, or
departmental requirements than those which existed at the time of their initial
entry, as well as those which existed at the program level when continuous
enrollment ceased. The University, college, school, or department reserves the
right to review a former student's completed
work, and if deemed appropriate, may require any readmitted student to meet
graduation requirements as listed in the catalog and in effect at the time of
re-entry. In addition, each college/school may have more specific requirements
for readmitted students
Are
there any objections to this recommendation?
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Point of
order. Herb, does it actually stipulate in Robert Rules that we can approve
motions this way?
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering Committee: This is what
is called “unanimous consent” and can be used for a motion that is
non-controversial.
Dr. Brunner: But it has
been the Chair’s decision that it is noncontroversial.
Dr. Rotfeld: No, he
discussed this with the leadership and the Steering Committee three or four
different times, and they all felt that discussion on this issue was not
necessary and we could move in this fashion. We have been approving minutes in
this fashion since the current person became Parliamentarian. “”Unanimous
consent” does not mean that absolutely no one has objections; it just means
that no one feels that arguing over minutes is worth it and it’s really not
that a big of a deal. If someone objects and feels we should debate it, have
discussion, and vote on it, then we can, but with this he is just saying if
there are no objections, let’s approve it. Since it comes out of a Senate
committee and doesn’t require a second, then there is no need for someone to
second it.
Marsha
Boosinger, Steering Committee: One option
that the Senate leadership might consider is for items like this to say
“consent agenda.” This would give the
Senators warning about items we might consider by unanimous consent. The agenda for this meeting was not a
consent agenda.
Jim Hanson,
Physics (substitute): I recommend that we
just take a vote on it. Votes don’t take long.
Dr. Bradley: All in favor of the recommendations signify
by saying “Aye.”
The
motion was approved by a voice vote.
B. Motions
from the ad hoc Committee on Outreach Scholarship Assessment – Drs. David
Wilson and Wayne Flynt
Dr.
Bradley: If you
remember, it was recommended last month that three motions be sent back to the
committee, so we now have one motion.
Motion
Adopt
the following definitions of “outreach” and “service” and refer them to the
Handbook Committee for implementation:
a.Outreach
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.
b. Service, as expected of all faculty, refers to
contributions to the University not related to research, teaching, or outreach.
Rationale
Many
universities throughout the United States are struggling with the question of
how to maintain relevance to the society that supports them. Faculty often have expertise that is of
direct benefit to external constituencies, and many faculty can gain knowledge
and insights from external involvement. Cooperative Extension in land-grant
universities has long been the most visible example of direct service to
society, but others play important roles as well. Yet such involvement is
frequently not recognized in the university’s plans or rewards. As a result, faculty may waste resources on
efforts that are not valued by the institution or they may fail to engage in
valued projects for fear that they will not be rewarded.
A
sustained dialogue on this problem by faculty and administrators at a number of
universities has raised and offered answers to several important
questions. Exactly what should be
counted in tenure and promotion decisions?
Scholarship, but the scholarship of application and integration can
count as well as the scholarship of discovery and instruction. Is all service to society scholarship? No, only that which applies a faculty
member’s disciplinary or professional expertise, serves an appropriate unit
mission, and meets quality standards.
For purposes of evaluation, does it matter whether an activity is
performed under the aegis of Cooperative Extension or some other
organization? No, the function is the
same although the amount of time involved and the continuing nature of the
commitment may be quite different.
A
number of universities have adopted “outreach” as a generic term to avoid
confusion. Auburn University adopted
the term in 1994. There is now a
substantial literature on the outreach roles of universities and their
faculties. Many institutions have
implemented policies to guide, assess, and reward faculty participation in
outreach.
Auburn
began a review of its policies and procedures for planning and assessing
outreach in 1995. Dr. David Wilson, Auburn Vice President and
Associate Provost for University Outreach, commissioned the University Outreach
Strategic Planning Committee, chaired by Dr.
John Heilman, then Associate Dean of Liberal Arts. In 1996 the committee issued a report, Strategic Planning for University Outreach
at Auburn University, subsequently referred to as the Heilman report. The committee concluded that, although
outreach is an integral part of the university’s land-grant mission, it is not
well defined or well rewarded. They
offered a definition as “instruction or research...applied to the direct
benefit of external audiences...and directly relevant to mission.” As such, outreach is broader than extension
and different from service. The
committee also concluded that the university would need a clearly understood
method of assessing outreach in order to promote and reward it.
Pursuant
to the recommendations of the Heilman committee, Dr. Wilson appointed a Committee on Assessment of Outreach, chaired
by Distinguished University Professor Wayne Flynt. The Flynt committee report Faculty
Participation in Outreach Scholarship further defined outreach and
recommended a model for assessment. The
report was submitted to the University Senate and accepted after discussion on
July 8, 1997.
Since
that time some departments and schools have developed more explicit outreach
policies. Yet they are still operating
within the framework of the Faculty Handbook, which deals only with the related
concepts of extension and service. In
the spring of 2000 Senate chair Bruce Gladden appointed an ad-hoc committee to
“review the Flynt report on Outreach Scholarship and suggest how the
recommendations of that report might be integrated into the Handbook and into
Promotion and Tenure policy at Auburn University.”
The
ad-hoc committee focused on Chapter 3, “Faculty Personnel Policies and
Procedures,” and developed recommendations to:
·
Provide an operational
definition of outreach, recognizing that it is broader than extension,
different from service, based in academic disciplines, and connected to unit
missions
·
Give consistent
treatment to outreach as a distinct mission area.
·
Establish a system for
planning, assessing, and rewarding outreach throughout the University,
beginning at the departmental level.
·
Provide guidelines,
with examples, for reporting outreach accomplishments emphasizing their
appropriate use of discipline-based knowledge and their impacts on the target
audience in accordance with unit missions.
Dr.
Flynt: Dr. Wilson
regrets that he had a travel conflict overseas and could not be here. If you
have questions for him, you can relay them to him at a different time.
I
am in the rather unusual position of not having been a member of the University
Senate ad hoc Committee on Outreach Scholarship, but I was a member of the
University committee that was appointed to draft an assessment document. Just
for background. Perhaps it will help some of you to hear a little background,
since you may not have been here when this all began.
In
1995, based on concerns that a handful of land-grant universities had about
losing contact with their constituencies, President Muse appointed a committee
on outreach, which was chaired by John Heilman. That committee looked at a very
disconcerting issue, which we have already heard a lot about today, of the
disconnection between the people who pay our salaries and vote taxes for us and
the universities that perform different types of service. To make this
relevant, all you have to do is look at the advertisements K-12 used, keeping
in mind that roughly 25% of Alabamians have a baccalaureate degree. Virtually
all of them are touched by K-12, but only about 25% are touched by higher
education. Not only that, but keep in mind the demographic change in the state.
In 1940, about 1.5 million of our 2.8 million Alabamians were farmers. Today it
is about 80,000. So, if extension means outreach, and the only people who do
outreach are those in extension, then we have to account for about 3.3 million
Alabamians who are not touched by extension as we traditionally conceived
it. However, thankfully extension is no
longer just concerned with farm issues but with a much broader range of issues.
The
point is that Michigan State, Washington State University, Purdue, University
of Florida, and other land-grant universities have been deeply concerned about
reconnecting with their constituencies that pay their salaries, and we in
Alabama should be particularly concerned about that. So, Professor Heilman’s
committee looked at the issue of outreach. Many of you remember or even
attended meetings with presidents here at Auburn; we carried on extensive
dialogue looking at what happened at Michigan State and other places. Actually,
we were at the front end of that “new curve” in land-grant education. There
were only about a half dozen universities as far along in this process in 1995
as we were. I suspect a lot of them are further along than we are now.
My
committee’s responsibility was the second part. That is, if we assume that
outreach is critically important to the University, how do we measure it? For
that purpose, all you have do is put a sort of paradigm in your mind starting
with those things we in academics think we best know how to measure. For
example, research. Not all of us would agree on how to measure research, but we
have a fairly general consensus about how we measure research for tenure and
promotion. There would probably be more debate on how you measure quality
teaching for tenure and promotion. The other three categories are terribly
confusing and we have no consensus at all: “service,” “extension,” and
“outreach,” which unfortunately many people put into one category. Let me try
to define the difference between the three categories.
People
are employed at Auburn regularly with the understanding that they do
“extension.” Not “service,” not “outreach,” but “extension.” They get paid to
work with commodity groups and use their expertise in service to those
commodity groups and other citizens in the state in forms that are reflective
of their employment. The second is the
“service” function, which most of you know about. For example, serving on the
assessment of outreach committee was a “service” to the University. I do not
consider it teaching, research, but it certainly was service, and the longer
I’m involved with it, the more service I think it becomes. Six years is
probably long enough for such service. If we, then, try to distinguish between
“service,” “outreach,” and “extension,” I think the easiest thing to do is to
draw a couple of analogies.
Let
me draw an example from agriculture: Let’s say you are employed to do
extension.That is your primary job description. But let’s say, based on your
academic work you become interested in the problem of chicken litter. I know
this may sound funny, but it is not funny to the Alabama. There are problems
with water pollution, disposal of waste, and huge economic ramifications of
this problem. You read the literature, does the research, and comes up with a
hypothesis about how to get rid of chicken litter in a way that does not
contaminate the state, but even benefits an important producer, perhaps the
rose garden industry of the state. You can take chicken litter and use it to
fertilize roses, getting rid of chicken litter and chemical fertilizer at the
same time. Based on the hypothesis and your extensive reading, you take this to
consumer groups in rose production and poultry producers. You go around the
state and you take this information to these commodity groups, and the result
is a large number of articles in newspapers, and product users, consumer
groups, and poultry producers praise the kind of work you do. Based on this
tremendously successful effort in Alabama, you are able to write articles in
both rose producer journals and poultry journals, and soon 30 other states are
copying the plan you devised here in the state of Alabama. It has a
hypothetical component based on your expertise within a discipline, a service
function in terms of going out and serving the needs of the state and solving
problems, a publication element in that you are publishing in journals, and all
of this is documentable by the fact that national attention is drawn to the
work you have been doing.
Now,
if I could differentiate “service” from
that sort of paradigm. Last week I spoke to the Alabama POW’s of World War II
on the experience of various Alabamians during the Second World War. This is
not an area of expertise for me; it is not an area in which I did extensive
research, and is not an area in which I plan ever to return or publish anything
at all. I was asked by a friend at my church to do this, and I routinely do
this if the meeting is here in Auburn as a “service” obligation I have to the
University. I do not consider it “outreach,” nor do I think it should be
considered for tenure and promotion in my case. On the other hand, I also do a
huge number of presentations every year
on the 1901 constitution. But then I published an article in the University of Alabama Law Review on that
subject and I am publishing an article in an anthology on the subject that is
coming out next year. I do about 20-25 speeches a year on this subject and they
are documentable in all kinds of press sources in the state. Therefore, I do
consider that “outreach,” which has a publication component, a hypothesis at
the front of it, and should be considered for tenure and promotion.
So,
we have “service,” we have “extension” and we have “outreach.” These are not
collapsible into the same category. If I could just mention a syllogism I heard
at the last couple of Senate meetings that bothered me: “outreach is important
and the basis for tenure and promotion (major premise); minor premise –
“extension” is outreach; conclusion - therefore, all people in extension will
be promoted and tenured based on this new definition.” Wrong. That is
absolutely flawed. Some extension is wonderful outreach, and some extension is
not outreach at all. A more important consideration of my committee was that
every unit of the University will be expected to do outreach, and that outreach
will be rewarded just as fully as if it were in History or English as if it is
in Poultry Science. By no means should you assume that just because you did
outreach, extension, or service that it is going to be tenurable or promotable
as “outreach”, because we have a whole new definition of “outreach” that is
included in the material you have already seen.
Based
on that background, if there are questions you have regarding the first motion,
the outreach motion, since I spent about two years with a committee looking at
this, I can respond to any questions you have about the difference between
these.
Jim Hanson,
Physics (substitute): I am puzzled by
some of the little words. In the second sentence, “a faculty endeavor may be
regarded…” I don’t know what to do with the word may. Does it mean “will be
regarded” Second, there are six items
listed there with no “and’s” or “or’s” between them and an “and” at the very
end. If I read it carefully I have to conclude that each and every one of those
six items must be included for one of those activities to be considered
outreach. If that’s what meant it’s fine, but if that’s not what is meant, it
needs to be reworded. You have six criteria and a whole lot of possiblities for
“and’s” and “or’s,” but the way it is written with just one “and” at the end
indicates that they are all “and’s.” You have to have all six of those items.
Dr. Flynt: I feel fairly confident from the committee’s
deliberations that they really meant those six components do constitute outreach.
If you would like to decouple it, that’s fine, but our assumption was that
these are stages in a process of holistic outreach. You break it down into what
I think is extension and service but not outreach.
Dr.
Hanson: Are all six
required?
Dr. Flynt: Yes. I really don’t see us lowering the bar
of scholarship. I see us broadening the bar of scholarship to include an
absolutely imperative component that is not just designed for agricultural
extension, as I perceive some Senators and others to conclude the other two
synonyms. I view this as a way of broadening outreach to include every single
unit and rewarding outreach more fully and completely for those in extension
who are really doing it.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Number 5 I think is the key to your
point about empiricism, and to me that distinguishes this definition and this
whole approach from what we’ve done in the previous duration of the Handbook,
which was to lump extension with teaching. When you lump it with teaching, then
the scholarly work, the investigative effort, the generation of new knowledge,
is not a part of that definition. It may be a part for one individual, but it
isn’t a requirement. Am I correct in interpreting that that is now required for
us to call the activity outreach?
Dr. Flynt: That is absolutely correct. I think where we
might quibble and disagree is where is how is “new knowledge” defined. Some
would define new knowledge as something that consists of empirical research and
primary sources that no one has ever seen before. Some of us would assume that
when you look at secondary literature in ways that no one else has ever looked
at that secondary literature and derive from it hypotheses no one has ever
tested, and apply those new hypotheses in ways that revolutionize a state and
its public life, then I would argue that is new knowledge. But I absolutely
agree with you, and I think the committee agreed that new knowledge should be
generated if, in fact, it is outreach. That is one of the critical criteria
that determine for us the difference between service, extension, and outreach.
Jim Hanson,
Physics (substitute): Reading this now with all of the requirements, on page 17
there is a little footnote that says “Community service related to a faculty
member’s academic role is now classified as ‘outreach.’” How does community
service generate new knowledge?
Dr. Flynt: That is the route I am going with that. Let
me give you a concrete example. I am often asked to speak to Rotary Clubs
around the state. They may suggest a whole range of topics, all the way from
country music to literary culture in Alabama. I go make the speech; there is no
hypothesis, no control, no publication resulting. I do not consider that
outreach in any way. I consider that to be service. But let’s assume a Rotary
Club asked me to speak on the 1901 Constitution, a subject in which I have done
primary research and in which I have a controlling hypothesis and which has led
me to involvement on the Board of Directors of the Alabama Citizens for Constitutional
Reform. All of that put together, plus the publications, suggests that one
speech to a Rotary Club may be service and another speech may be part of a
holistic approach to outreach. Does that help any?
Dr. Hanson: Yes, thank
you.
June Henton, Human
Sciences: [inaudible]
Dr.
Flynt: I think there is going to be some real
massaging to go on in this process, and this has nothing to do with formal
action the Senate takes. Rather, it has to do with the way in which the
academic culture penetrates the tenure and promotion process. I would argue the same thing happens every
time the Tenure and Promotion Committee meets in both research and teaching.
That is, you start off with hypotheses about what tenure ought to mean and what
promotion ought to mean in terms of research and teaching, but you all know
that the end result has evolved over time and standards change because members
of the Tenure and Promotion Committee and faculty at the University change. I
think there probably still needs to be some massaging, because from the debate
at the last Senate meetings, which I think has been extremely healthy and
informative to me about things we should have done and how we should have tied
some things down. I think we tied them down in our own minds, but I’m not sure
they’ve been tied down sufficiently for your understanding of the difference
between extension, service, and outreach. So, when you get this back from your
final committee to go in the Faculty Handbook, perhaps we will want to
massage it some more.
I
presume we are ready for action.
Marsha
Boosinger, Steering Committee: Point of clarification. Am I correct
in that what we are voting is strictly this first paragraph that says “motion,”
and nothing we received by email that has anything to do with highlighted
portions of the Handbook is being approved today.
Dr. Bradley: That is correct. This is all we are voting
on. There is just one motion, not three.
No specific Handbook changes; they have to be done by the
Handbook Committee, if this motion is approved.
Jim Hanson,
Physics (substitute): If you look
down at part D (p.18) under “service,” it says that we can serve other
constituencies besides the University?
Dr. Flynt: When I read that I also noticed that it was
ambiguous. The way I interpret it is that it refers to contributions to the
University, but contributions to the University do not have to be made within
the University community. I think we would all agree that service on a
committee is service to the University. I would assume that speaking to a
Rotary Club as a representative of Auburn University when asked is also
service. I do think you are right; there is ambiguity there. I assume, though,
as I hope you do, that service to the University does not just mean service
within the University, but for the University.
Marty Olliff,
Library: I wonder if
this is yet ready, if it is ripe, to vote to create this as a definition that
may or may not be further massaged. I am going to propose at this point that
this yet again be referred back to the committee in order to be hammered out a
little more thoroughly, based on what we have discussed here. I hope that this
transcription will be made available to the committee should my motion to refer
back to the committee pass.
Dr. Bradley: So, we have a
motion to refer this motion back to the committee for clarification. Would you
like to stipulate which parts need to be clarified?
Dr. Olliff: For
clarification of various parts pointed to by Dr. Hanson and alluded to be Dr.
Flynt, and possibly alluded to be discussions before this meeting and within
the Steering Committee.
Dr.
Flynt: I don’t think
I was clear. By massage, I did not mean that you should get together some more
and define this more accurately, because I think we have had this for six
years, and it is probably time to get on with it. By massage, I mean I think by
being on the Tenure and Promotion Committee there is going to be a lot of
massaging of this in terms of how it functions. Some of you are going to have a
benchmark for extension, outreach, and service that is going to be very
different from some of the rest of you. So, I think the massaging that I was
thinking about is going to occur in tenure and promotion. I do not really see
much more you can do with this in terms of the committee process. I think you
have been down every road you can go down, but I could be wrong and if a
majority of you feel that way, then we’ll go back to committee. I think it
should be gotten out of the way and see what happens on the tenure and promotion
process. Then, if you don’t like it, and does violate the standards of a really
great University, you can go back. You can recall this.
Dr. Bradley: For clarification, if we do pass this
motion, what we are passing is a definition that will be passed to the Handbook
Committee. That committee then decides how the handbook needs to be changed.
Those suggestions then come back to the Senate and would need a 2/3 vote to be
adopted. So, this is not the last time we would see this.
We
still have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second?
The
motion was not seconded.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Do I understand that all we are doing is
approving Part A of this, which is a definition of “outreach”?
Dr. Bradley: Yes, A is a definition of “outreach,” and B
is, in a way, a definition of “service” in that it excludes the other three.
Dr. Brunner: Because that is a much narrower definition than is on the
handout in the back of the room in that section.
Dr. Bradley: This is what we are approving today, a definition
of “outreach.” If we approve it, it will be given to the Handbook Committee.
Marty Olliff,
Library: There are not
enough people here in July to make this kind of decision. I move to postpone
this until September. We have had a nice discussion on it now, but I move to
postpone this until September so there will be more people in the room, so that
we make a decision based on what a lot of people want.
Dr. Bradley: There is a motion to postpone. Do I hear a
second?
The
motion was seconded.
Barbara
Struempler, Chair-elect: Most of you
read Jimmy Rane’s editorial in the paper about a week or so ago. If you read
his report, his definition of a land-grant where we have national prominence
was in academics, research, and football. I was really taken aback about how he
derived his definition of a land-grant university. My definition of a
land-grant university is what is on the seal. You see it if you read Auburn
University’s seal: academics, outreach, research, extension, etc. That is a
land-grant university. This is a wonderful definition of what a person does if
you do outreach. If you do outreach, you are a faculty member with expertise in
an area of specialty. Most people have PhD’s. You look at the issues of your
state. In Alabama, a very real issue is poultry litter because Alabama is a big
poultry state. So, litter is a big issue. You take litter, you come up with
ways to solve problems, put it to use, write articles, etc. I don’t see what
the problem is with this. I consider that outreach just as significant as
teaching in the classroom or any other type of research. IT is teaching. IT is
research. This, Wayne, is a beautiful definition of what is “outreach.” I don’t
know why we would delay or postpone it again. We have been around this block, and
have been around it 17 years since I have been here. I would prefer Wayne’s
definition of the land-grant rather than Jimmy’s. Of course, we can take his on
if you want to, and do away with the land-grant entirely, and go back to
academics, research, and football. So, I am not in favor of the delay.
Marty Olliff,
Library: I think I have
just joined Wayne in being badly misunderstood. I do not in any way oppose
this, but I do think there are not enough people to join us in celebrating
this. This many people in the Senate is not enough people to move on this. That
is why I propose postponing it, bringing it back up as a privileged action item
at the next Senate meeting. I think it will pass today or in September. I agree
with it, and I agree with Barbara except that I don’t want the Senate accused
of meeting with fewer than a quorum or with passing things when only a few
people had the opportunity to show up.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Point of order. If the previous speaker
questions whether we have a quorum, maybe we should see if we have a quorum.
Dr. Olliff: That is my
next move.
A
count was taken and only 40 members of the Senate were present (45 needed for a
quorum). Therefore, the motion cannot be voted on.
Dr. Bradley: What is the
status of what we have already voted on?
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering Committee: Everything
still stands. Even if a quorum was not present, in the absence of a quorum
count, a quorum is presumed.
Information
Items
A. Revised admission procedures – Dr. John Fletcher
Wes Williams,
VP of Student Affairs: I am Wes
Williams and I am the Vice President of Student Affairs as well as the
Associate Provost. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to be with you
today. We thank the Senate leadership for allowing us to present today; we were
on the program June 12 and because of a lengthy discussion, we were at the
bottom of the list and were unable to present. We do ask that if you have
questions, please save them until the end of the presentation.
As
Jim shared with you, John Fletcher is with me and he is the Assistant VP for
Enrollment services. Mr. Joel Bickers is also with us; he is the Director of
Admissions. Van Muse has worked very hard in putting the powerpoint
presentation together. We also have Mr. Jeff Hibbert, who has gathered the data
and statistical information for us.
One
of the challenges that we have here at Auburn is that we have many more
students who would like to attend than we have seats in our freshman class. We
have listed the challenges up there when it comes to our freshman enrollment.
Quite obviously, right now we are not able to match our resources with the
demands that we have. As the President shared with you, it doesn’t look like
the state will be helping us in the future with additional resources to enlarge
significantly our freshman class.
We
also have problems in shaping our freshman class in areas like diversity,
academic areas, and academic quality. We have been admitting students on a
first-come, first-serve basis, and that has caused problems with prospective
students misunderstanding when our admissions deadline date would be. For
example, two years ago our admissions deadline date turned out to be January 1;
this past year it turned out to be December 1. Unless we make some changes as
we have recommended here, the date could become even earlier. Also, many
qualified applicants are placed on a wait list, and we are not able to offer
them admissions because with the first-come, first-serve policy, our class
fills very early.
Our
enrollment goals at the University are enrollment goals to make sure we have a
significant number of freshman and transfer students for new class, and to see
a moderate growth. We have been asked to anticipate approximately 1% growth for
the coming year. We have also been asked to improve the academic profile of the
new freshman class. We are always looking for academic quality. We believe that
students who are academically prepared should be the students we are admitting.
We have a strong community college system in the state for those students who
are not as academically prepared so they can then transfer to us as a transfer
student.
We
have also been asked to increase the diversity of our student body. We have
been asked to better manage our enrollment by academic college and school. Some
colleges and schools are over-subscribed and some are under-subscribed as far
as incoming freshman. We would like to do a better job there.
We
have had lots of meetings like this with different individuals on campus. You
can see the list there. Today we would like to add the University Senate to
this list. We will be presenting to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board
of Trustees on Thursday to share this information.
Let
me make clear that this is not a change in admission standards. We are
basically suggesting to change our procedures for managing our freshman class.
We
have two more segments we would like to share. The first segment is how we
currently admit students to the University. Mr. Bickers will share some data
with you on how we compare with other institutions, then Dr. Fletcher will
share with you our current proposal. Finally, we will stand for questions.
Joel Bickers,
Director of Admissions: For those of
you not familiar with the processes we use in reviewing applications for
admission, we currently work with what is called a “rolling admission process.”
Those students who present to us the required minimum grade point average and
test scores are admitted on a first-come, first-serve basis. When we reach what
we project to be the capacity for the class, we then go to a wait list
situation. For example, this year we
will have reached a freshman class of between 10,000 to 11,000 freshman to be
admitted this fall. As Dr. Williams pointed out, we have been very fortunate
over the past couple of years, seeing record numbers of applications and admits
to the University. Last year we did have to close out in January 1, and this
year December 15 when we reached that capacity.
I
think I have the best job on this campus because I get to go across the region
and talk to prospective students and their families about the University.
Wherever I go, whether it is in Alabama or in other states, I hear that a lot
of the reason we have this interest is because of the high-quality academic
programs and the teaching we have on this campus. So, when you leave here I
hope you will compliment your fellow faculty members.
When
we look at what has happened at Auburn University in our freshman class over
the last few years, I think the important thing you can see is that there has
been very little change in the profile of the freshman coming in. We have an
average ACT score of 23.4, an average SAT of 1108, and an average high school
GPA of 3.34. When you look at how this compares to our peers and sometimes
similar institutions, you get an idea of where we are and you can see where the
23.4 falls on the average ACT score for peer institutions. When you look at the
SAT score as well, you can see the 1108 for Auburn University. When you look at
the high school GPA for comparable institutions, you see how important that GPA
is to predicting success at Auburn University. When you look at the percentage
of freshman in the top 10% of their high school class, you see where we fall.
This
gives you a little bit of an idea of what the profile of the freshman class
looks like. At this time I am going to turn it over to Dr. Fletcher, who will
talk about where we would like to go from here.
Dr. John
Fletcher, Assistant VP for Enrollment Services: It is my opportunity to share with you our plans for the
future. Your first question might be “why change?” I think Dr. Williams
indicated that current processes do not really allow us to shape or determine
our freshman class. Really, as the students apply for admission, they shape the
class. We feel like we have to do something about that. It will give us for the
first time a chance to do something about that. It will give us a chance to have three bands of students.
The
first group I’d like to talk to you about today is the “automatic acceptance
offer group.” Essentially, the students who present credentials to us of at
least ACT 22 and a high school GPA of 3.0 (these are hypothetical) would be
admitted on a rolling basis until our enrollment goals are reached. Students
may be given additional consideration if they provide with cultural,
geographic, diversity, or possess particular or outstanding talents. We would
also give additional consideration to children of alumni and children of AU
employees. That’s first.
How
did we pick 22 and 3.0? In the research that we did over the last several
years, we found that students that score at 21 or below on the ACT retained at
a 75% rate. Students that score above a 21 are retained at around 85%. Roughly,
there is a 10% gap in students’ persistence, which is measured at the end of
their first year. The same is true with grade point average. We found that
students who present below a 3.0 are retained at approximately 70%, and
students that score a 3.0 and above are retained at approximately 84-85%. That
is a larger gap of almost 15%. I will mention also that the single best
predictor of student success on pre-enrollment variables is high school GPA.
That is why it plays such an important part in our plans. So, the first group
is the automatic acceptance group.
The
second group is the “February review group.” This would be the group of
students who meet or surpass the University’s minimum standards for
admission. Those, for in-state
students, are an ACT score of 16 or above and a 3.0, or 17 and a 2.5, or 18,
and a 2.0. Those students that meet the minimum standard for admission through
the level to which we would offer them automatic acceptance would be placed in
a February review group. Our plans would be to determine where we are in terms
of our goals for each college, for in-state and out-of-state, and other
considerations. We would review the class based on the best information we
have. Then we would review the February review group and offer them admission
based on our enrollment goals.
This
is our recommendation of the best way to shape our freshman class each year, to
take a look at this group, see where we need additional students and select the
best of those students. Applicants in the February review group would be ranked
and selected based on criteria for shaping the class. It could be any of those
things I mentioned. Also considered would be where they applied, or what school
or college they would be in. Any student that would not be admitted out of the
February review group would be put in a May review group. A final decision
would be deferred until May. We would say in May at this point we do not have
room in our class for you. We hope this would help us select the best students
for the upcoming class.
The
most straight-forward one is the “automatic denial group.” This is for students
who do not present high school test scores or GPA’s at our minimum standards.
We call it a denial, but it is a very soft denial. The letter we send actually
says something like “at the present time, the credentials you’ve presented do
not meet our minimum standards. However, if you have additional information or
additional test scores, please re-submit them and we will re-evaluate them.” We
try to make it a pretty soft denial. We do notify those students on a rolling
basis, pretty much after we receive all of their information and their file is
complete. We’ll encourage them to provide additional information as it comes
available.
Our
admissions decision timeline: We would offer the automatic acceptance for
students for those who apply as early as June 1 each year up until February 1.
Students that are admitted out of the February review group would be offered
admission around February 15 each year. We would do that until our enrollment
goals are reached.
A
few additional changes to how we process admissions offers. We are recommending
that beginning with this class we require a tuition orientation fee of $200 by
a specific deadline. Payment deadlines must be met to reserve a place in the
freshman class. We do believe that waivers for students from low-income homes
can be obtained. We believe that it is important to offer a waiver for the
tuition pre-payment for the student who would ask for their money to be
refunded by May 1. After May 1, you are committed, we are committed, and we are
going to keep your $200. We came up with the $200 by estimating a $100 deposit
for Camp War Eagle and a $100 pre-payment for tuition. This seemed to put us in
a similar position with other institutions.
We
really want to emphasize that we try to make this a cooperative university-wide
process that you are a part of today. We believe it will enable Auburn to
better manage its enrollment resources in the future. We would be happy to
entertain any questions. Thank you for your time this afternoon.
Jim Hanson,
Physics(substitute): [inaudible]
Dr. Fletcher: Yes. Basically, 2/3 of the students in the
freshman class this fall were at or above the 22 and 3.0 last fall. Where
first-come, first-serve has hurt us is that it has taken away our ability to
keep the window open for talented students to get in. We have a waiting list of
1425 students (I think) who have presented to us at least the minimum score,
but many are in this 22-25 range that I know all of you would like to have on
campus this fall and I certainly would.
Dr.
Hanson: [inaudible]
Dr.
Fletcher: Again, 2/3
were at or above, so we feel like we can shape at least a third of the class
with students at that level or higher.
Dr. Bickers: I don’t think we’ve actually applied the
formula to the current class the way you are talking about to say we would have
a 24.5 ACT average if we go to this at this point.
Dr. Fletcher: We have not
done that. But we do believe we can shape the class. Right now, the thing that
is key to this is the deposit, because how in the past we’ve estimated where
our class will be is on yield information we’ve been using for years and years.
That information is really not as strong as we like. With a deposit, we feel
like we are going to be able to tell the Deans and Department Heads that we
will have this many students in this college who have indicated to study in
this major. Hopefully we can do a better job of planning classes, etc. then.
b. Update on activities of ad hoc committee to review Arthur
Anderson Report – Dr. John Heilman
This
is a report from a committee whose work is in progress, so a detailed statement
of where we will end up may be quite preliminary. I do want to talk about
processes and address one or two issues that Jim had raised with me.
Last
Fall President Muse approved Dr. Large’s recommendations to bring in
consultants to look at the organization and operations of some of the major
non-academic areas of the University. Dr. Large retained consultants to look at
the facilities division and the office of Alumni and Development. Arthur
Anderson Higher Education division conducted this study of Alumni and
Development. The consultants’ reports and recommendations are in hand and the
Arthur Anderson report is on the web. I will make sure the facilities report
will be on the web shortly.
As
Dr. Walker began to consider the recommendations in these reports, he felt it
was important to have input, including faculty input, and he appointed a
committee to look at organizational change. Those committee members include Dr.
Cindy Brunner and Dr. Michael Watkins, whom I believe were recommended by the
Rules Committee, and four faculty who have expertise in organization and
organizational change. They include Charles Mitchell, professor and extension
specialist in Agronomy and Soils, Junior Field, Stanley Harris, and Norman Godwin, all in the College of Business. The
committee has met to discuss the Arthur Anderson report; that was a meeting
lasting about 2 ½ hours and went into some depth of consideration. I am preparing a summary of that meeting for
review by the members of the committee. We will meet within 10 days to review
that summary and discuss the report and recommendations with facilities.
Dr.
Bradley has asked me to comment on the committee’s views about the quality of
the report and a few specific recommendations. I will do this in general terms.
The
consensus of the committee, as I have sensed it so far, pending further
discussion of the Arthur Anderson report, is that the report and its
recommendations deserve to be taken seriously. As specific recommendations are
discussed and implemented, care should be taken to involve the folks who are
affected by the recommendations and to aim for shared understandings and
agreement about what is being done. Process will be important. That is one of
themes that has come through the most strongly, especially from the Management
faculty, who are, in fact, experts in organizational change. Changes that are
made have their best chance of taking root if a positive groundwork is prepared
for change. The report recommends the establishment of the Chief Advancement
Officer position to integrate public affairs, marketing, communication,
governmental affairs, alumni affairs, and development. This approach is
generally called the advancement model and it covers a range of activities and
communication that extend beyond Alumni and Development. This model is in use
at a growing number of institutions. Since the committee has yet to complete
its discussions of these recommendations, any comments I make would be
preliminary. Jim did ask me about the recommendations of the Interim President,
Dr. Walker, to be appointed Chief Advancement Officer. On this I would say that
there are conversations not only within this committee but by others who have
reviewed this report, there is an overall acceptance to the report and to the
advancement model. I can report no great enthusiasm for the Interim President
serving as CAO, the theory being that he already has a great deal on his plate.
With
that I would be happy to respond to any comments or questions that you have. I
would also like to say that I would be very happy to receive input from anyone
who would be willing to share it in respect to this report. The report is on
the web. My email address can be determined.
Marty Olliff,
Library: You have
indicated that there is overall happiness with this report.
Dr. Heilman: I did not say that. I said there was
receptiveness to the advancement model, and that is a general trend I’ve
observed in the various comments about the report I’ve seen in writing.
Dr. Olliff: Has there
been any resistance to this report and have you received any word from any
source that the alumni are not particularly happy with this report?
Dr. Heilman: I think what is most appropriate for me to
do at this time is to comment on the reactions I have heard within the
committee. I think if there are
concerns on the part of the alumni, the people who represent them can address
that.
Larry Gerber,
History (not a senator): One of the
underlying assumptions within the report is the need for coordination in and
more central direction. Is that the case?
Dr.
Heilman: My reading of
the discussion of the advancement model is that’s what it involves with respect
to the overall manner in which the University represents itself and what it is
doing to constituencies both external and internal. I think you get a sense of
how that plays out in practical terms if you look especially at some of the
appendix material, for example, there is material on Vanderbilt and the
position being created there.
Dr.
Gerber: In line with
that notion, I am wondering how the separation of athletic fundraising into a
separate category and separate organization fits in to the coordinated effort
to benefit the entire University.
Dr.
Heilman: As I said, I
think I am here to talk about what a committee is doing. That set of issues we
have discussed a little bit and we don’t have any recommendations yet, certainly
not on that one. I must defer on that.
Christa
Slaton, Political Science: I am not quite
clear on your comment, I think you said there is a political sense that the
report ought to be taken seriously. Does that mean taken seriously that it
should be examined carefully or does it mean the recommendations are to be
implemented? The follow-up question is:
what is the time-frame? The committee is looking at it now, but what
comes next, and what is the next procedure? When does the report get acted upon?
Dr.
Heilman: On your first
question, I think that means examine seriously. I am not suggesting that people
think all these recommendations should be implemented without a lot of thought
or consideration. I think the first of your two, and certainly not the latter.
Second, in terms of action, it is my intention to meet with the committee in
the next two weeks to continue and conclude our discussions of the Arthur
Anderson report and put together recommendations for the committee, which was
convened by Dr. Walker and will report to him. I think that step should be
completed fairly soon, then the issue with next steps and implementations would
be up to Dr. Walker.
Gary Mullen,
Entomology and Plant Pathology: How does the
proposed structural change differ from the present structure of the Alumni
Association.
Dr. Heilman: That is a subject we are discussing in the
committee. I think that is the fairest answer I can give you. What I would like
to ask you to do if you have thoughts on that, such as if you think there is no
difference, send me an email and let me know. I would welcome that input from
anyone.
Barbara
Struempler, Chair-elect: So, you are going to take the committee’s decision and you
are going to make some recommendations to Dr. Walker. Then he is going to look
at that report and make a decision as to what to do. Is that correct?
Dr.
Heilman: I can tell you
what my expectation is, which is to meet again with the committee and to
prepare conclusions and recommendations or a report for Dr. Walker based on
committee discussion. I think the use of that report is up to him.
Don Large, VP
for Finance: Let me add a
little more information. In addition to that committee, Dr. Walker has asked
for a meeting and feedback from the AU Foundation Board. Not this Saturday, but next Saturday we will
get feedback from the Alumni Board. The Alumni Association brought in Dr. Jim
Bufford to review the Arthur Anderson report. So, I don’t think there will be a
shortage of feedback and opinions for Dr. Walker to consider. There will be
enthusiasm on some parts and some opposite. Some will see it as an attempt to
address areas that we need to get competitive with our peers.
Dr.
Struempler:
My question needs to go back to Dr. Walker. Before you make your final decision
and recommendations, it is possible for you to come back to the University
Senate and present those to us and all the other stakeholders before any
implementation process.
Dr.
Walker: Considering
the outreach program is six years in delay, that may seem reasonable. You may
know that I am not one that likes to waste a lot of time. I certainly don’t
mind taking my deliberations to the Senate, but getting together with the
Foundation Board who meets every six months and the Alumni Board just drags it on.
At some point I have to draw together all of the information and make my
decision about what I am going to do. I certainly don’t mind coming to the
Senate, but I don’t think I would want to extend that to all the others simply
because of the time issue.
The
Senate does not meet in August. I have indicated to most people that I want my
decision to be made by the end of August, so that is problematic.
Dr. Bradley: We have procedures for calling a special
meeting of the Senate.
Dr. Walker: I bet people
would jump for joy to meet in August.
Ruth Crocker,
History: Within the
context of reading this is politics. We
have had 9 or 10 entities vote “no confidence” in the Board of Trustees. This is seen not as much as a move toward a
more elegant model but a political move.
The silence in the room is not agreement but a worry about the political
context in which this seemingly neutral move is taking place. The University has paid out a great deal of
money and to say that we don’t know what change will come from this report is
unconvincing.
Dr. Heilman: I don’t
accept that interpretation at all. What is being described to you, Ruth, is the
process by which the University, ultimately Dr. Walker, makes those
interpretations. I don’t accept the formula you just offered.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: In response to Ruth’s comment, the
committee is well-aware of the undercurrent of politics behind this proposal
and is so conscious of that, that’s why Dr. Heilman’s presentation would be
considered reserved today. We truly have not come to any conclusions. We have
not even reviewed the entire report yet. We were in the process of going down
through the recommendations and deciding whether to put them in the “action”
pile or the “wait for later” pile. We simply have not made any decisions. If it
sounds like he is being reticent or evasive, that is not it. It is simply that
we are not prepared to make any recommendations. When we are, it is my
understanding that we make those recommendations to Dr. Walker first.
Dr. Crocker: My comment was not at all to criticize
the committee but to criticize the general direction in which this seems to be
moving.
Dr. Heilman: How would you
characterize that direction?
Dr. Crocker: [inaudible]
Dr. Heilman: As I say, I
simply do not accept that interpretation.
Gary Mullen,
Entomology/Plant Pathology:
In view of what has been said, I see a conflict here in terms of the
committee, which has barely gotten started and is not in a position to comment
on the recommendations on a tremendous report. Dr. Walker is indicating that the report needs to be made in six
weeks. What is the rush or the significance in getting this done by August?
Dr. Walker: I don’t think
there is that urgent a need, but I have discovered in the academy that when you
give people an extra two weeks to complete an assignment, pretty soon they want
an extra four weeks. I think it is good to have a deadline, and let’s try to
make the deadline. If we can’t, then we will extend that, if we are making
progress.
Dr. Heilman: I think we are. I think the committee
is a good deal further along than has been described. Again, I think the word
of the committee is just that: the word of the committee. To report on progress
while we are still trying to figure out what we are going to recommend is not
something I am prepared to do. It is my expectation that we will be able to
move forward expeditiously to complete our review of this report and also the
facilities report. It has a lot of recommendations and I would certainly encourage
you to take a look at those as well and to provide a report to Dr. Walker in a
timely basis.
Larry Gerber,
History (not a senator): This is a follow-up to your response to Dr. Crocker’s
remarks. I think the point that was emphasized by what Dr. Brunner said, that
there is a context that can’t be denied. Whatever the intention behind hiring
the consultants, there is a situation at Auburn University between the Alumni
Association and the Board of Trustees and a report which calls for revamping
the relationship between fundraising activities in the Alumni Association and
other units. I don’t see how you can deny that there is context in how people
will view this in—whatever the intention is—and that context cannot be ignored.
Dr. Heilman: I don’t deny
that this context exists and I think what
Cindy was saying that the committee is fully aware of it.
Dr.
Large: I put together
these recommendations last fall. The activities you are referring to occurred a
good bit later. There was not the relationship at that point that you are
describing. Dr. Muse studied and we discussed considerably and he approved that
recommendation and also made recommendation on our communications and
university relations. I am sorry that people are trying to link decisions about
something in February to something in the fall. I don’t know how to get past
the discussion that it is about something else.
Virginia
O’Leary, Psychology: At the risk of
sounding like the socio-psychologist that I have been for 32 years, perception
is important. It seems to me that given
the context we have all been in, it would be tragic to move this so quickly to completion by, for example, the
30th of August instead of waiting a couple of more weeks given the
potential outcome of doing that. I am
very sympathetic to the perspective of Dr. Walker that six years is a bit
lengthy. There is no question about that.
On the other hand, sensitivities being what they are, I think it would
be a drastic error to move forward in a
two- or three-week gap to close something before the appropriate opportunity
arose to present this to the Senate. I don’t think it would be advisable for us
to call a special meeting in August just because of the unfortunate reality of
timing and summer graduation occurs on the 6th and school starts on
the 20th. It seems to me that an early September meeting would be
appropriate.
Dr.
Bradley: I have a
suggestion for Dr. Walker. If you move your decision date to September, that
would allow discussion by the General Faculty at our September meeting. That
would put you back only one month.
Dr. Walker: I am willing
to do that, but don’t tell the committee.
Dr. Heilman: I would like to say that the committee would
have already met, but I needed to be out of town for several days on personal
matters. Those were issues beyond my control.
Christa
Slaton, Political Science: I would reiterate what Jim Bradley is
saying. Because there is some concern about the personalities involved, a short
delay would be good so that some of these concerns could be addressed and
people don’t feel that they are shoved into something. September would be an
appropriate time. I agree that the “outreach” thing should have been passed
three weeks ago. I have been at every one and I say let’s get on record and talk
about the good things going on here and say that we support our faculty. I am
sorry that has not happened. I wish we could have done that first thing today
so that these issues about postponement would not be on the agenda for six
years. Dr. Walker, I promise you I will stand up and say that we told you we
would not drag this out.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.