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.

 

B.    Announcements from the Senate Chair – Dr. Jim Bradley

 

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]

 

Action Items

 

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.

 

A.     Motions from the Academic Standards Committee

 

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.