Auburn University General Faculty Meeting

 

March 13, 2001

 

Telfair Peat Theatre

 

The meeting was called to order at 3:10 p.m. The minutes for the last meeting were approved as posted. They can be found at the Senate web page at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html. 

 

Announcements:

 

A.     President’s Office:  President William Walker

 

Good afternoon. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today about the state of Auburn University. I stand before you fully aware and absolutely supportive of the critical role the general faculty plays in the life of the university. In preparing these remarks I have reflected very carefully on the many lessons I have learned during the 35 plus years I have served at two universities as a full time faculty member and as an academic administrator.

 

My purpose here today is to review with you some of the main issues facing our university; where we are with respect to these issues; what we are doing to resolve them; and the role of the faculty in this process. The main issues I have in mind are budgets and proration, institutional governance, and the quality which all of us have worked so hard to achieve and which we must do our best to sustain.

 

With respect to budgets and proration, the political landscape of education in the State of Alabama has changed in some dramatic and possibly irreversible ways over the past four weeks. I believe it is important for everyone to understand what has happened. Therefore, I will do my best to summarize the main developments.

 

As you probably know, Alabama law prohibits deficit spending and requires across- the-board reductions in spending when income from taxes falls below the levels reflected in legislative appropriations. A drop in receipts from sales taxes and corporate income taxes prompted Governor Siegelman in early February to order a 6.2 percent cut in education appropriations for the current fiscal year. This level of proration represents almost $13 million for Auburn University.

It is a tribute to everyone associated with Auburn that we are probably in a better financial position to absorb such a reduction than any other institution in the state. Through the efforts of many at Auburn, but notably Dr. Don Large, we have been able to build a modest proration reserve of about $8 million for just such an event as this.

 

However, following the declaration of proration, the Alabama Association of School Boards filed suit to exclude from proration those portions of K-12 budgets that fund teachers' salaries and benefits, textbooks and school supplies, and transportation. The result would be to change the level of proration to higher education to approximately 18.6 percent, amounting to about $35 million for Auburn. On February 15, Judge Tracy McCooey ruled that the governor could not constitutionally make those cuts in K-12 budgets, but stipulated that her ruling would not take effect until February 27. The delay gave the Legislature a chance to address the situation in a special session convened by Governor Siegelman.

In the meantime, we proceeded to file an appeal with the State Supreme Court seeking a stay of Judge McCooey's order. The stay was granted.

 

At the start of the special session, the governor introduced a package of bills, the effect of which would have been to increase proration for higher education, while decreasing proration for K-12. One of the bills in the package, House Bill 2, would also have provided the governor with extensive authority to apply proration selectively. House Bill 2, which the governor and the Alabama Education Association fought very hard for, would have set in motion a continuing reduction of funding for higher education in the years to come. In fact, I am deeply concerned that the current strategy of the AEA leadership will lead to further serious reductions in state support for higher education in the years ahead.

 

Passage of House Bill 2 was blocked by the combined efforts of the four-year universities, and by the courageous stand of several members of the Senate who took a position in support of higher education and in opposition to the governor and the AEA. The presidents of the four-year institutions met with the governor several times, and on each occasion we stated our strong support for equal treatment of all education budgets, and our view that university salaries should be protected to the same degree as K-12 salaries. On each occasion, the governor rejected our position, offering instead only one-time money, in the form of a bond issue, to cover our salaries and operations for the remainder of the current fiscal year. I could not support this option. I do not see that I will ever be able to support it because using one-time money for continuing funds simply contributes to the further erosion of our fiscal situation. It is irresponsible and certainly is not in Auburn University's best interest.

 

Faced with failure in the special legislative session and the stay issued by the Supreme Court, the governor called on the attorney general for an opinion concerning local school funding. The attorney general responded with what charitably could be described as an arcane opinion the arguments for which did not appear to be supported by the facts. The attorney general's opinion declared no salaries in K-12 could be cut, and the governor relied on this opinion to justify placing the majority of proration on the back of higher education. We filed a second petition with the Supreme Court last week (Monday) arguing that the governor was relying on a flawed attorney general's opinion to circumvent the intent of the earlier stay issued by the court. If the view advanced in the attorney general's opinion prevails in the courts, we will face 11.69 percent proration of our current year budget ($25 million). If our opinion prevails, proration for all of education will remain at 6.2 percent.

 

So far the Supreme Court has not issued an opinion. Therefore, the level of proration we will face for this year's budget, 6.2 percent or 11.69 percent, is unclear. I wish to emphasize that, at either level, we will do all we possibly can to manage reductions for the current year with minimum disruption to Auburn students and programs. Barring unforeseen developments, we will complete the current semester and we will have summer school.

 

The most difficult decisions will arise in relation to next year's budget, which will in all likelihood be reduced proportionately to the reduction of our current budget. Final decisions concerning reductions in next year's budgets will depend on action by the Legislature and governor during the next eight weeks or so. We therefore face multiple challenges on the budgetary front, related to the level of this year's proration, the level of next year's budget reduction, and the effects of both these cuts on our university's people and programs.

 

I hope everyone within the sound of my voice appreciates the very real and very deep concerns of not only faculty and administration, but also students and parents regarding the budget issues we face. I have received numerous letters from students and parents concerning the level of tuition increases they should expect. Obviously, I do not have any specifics at this time because we don't know the exact amount our budgets will be cut, but I can say that it is my intention to develop strategies for addressing this situation that will not place the burden entirely on our students and parents.

 

Our responses to these financial challenges have internal as well as external dimensions. Within the university, I have asked the senate leadership to work with the office of the provost to develop a process of recommending budget reductions that involves the input of all the affected groups, especially the faculty. The objective will be to incorporate this input into decision-making at both the local unit level and in the central administration.

 

I have also set up a small ad hoc committee to work with our university relations staff. I have charged this group with developing strategies to limit the damage done to higher education, and indeed to all of education, during the next few years. Our initial phase of activity relates to the coming weeks of the legislative session. We will be joining with other leaders of higher education in this state to reach out to the public, and to legislators, in support of uniform funding treatment for all of education.

 

Perhaps the saddest and sorriest aspect of the past month concerning our funding crisis has been the cynical pitting of higher education against K-12. Such a tactic defies all logic. It should be repugnant to every person who is involved in the pursuit of knowledge as well as to the rest of the electorate who expect the State of Alabama to compete in the 21st century. The principles for which we shall be working are simply expressed: first, treating all portions of public education the same in terms of state support, and second, treating all portions of public education better in terms of state support.

 

Even though budgetary issues have occupied almost all my attention in recent weeks, I want you to know that I continue to take very seriously the issues of university governance that have surfaced in this same period of time. I understand that resolutions concerning some of those issues are on this afternoon's agenda, and that other groups within the university have already voiced strong concerns and offered commentary.

 

It appears to me that you and your elected faculty representatives have already made positive and constructive contributions in this regard. My reading of some of the recent resolutions, and of the senate leadership's communications to the Board of Trustees, is that they offer constructive and promising strategies for addressing issues of governance. I have already encouraged the Board, through its president pro tem, to examine these ideas with a view toward proceeding with their implementation.

 

I am grateful for the constructive suggestions that have already been brought forward, and I hope that you will continue to employ your collective knowledge in crafting solutions to issues of governance. I will do my best to support you in this effort. Individually, the faculty represent academic disciplines that together offer important points of entry into the issues at hand. Among the concepts that frame these disciplines are the concepts of healing, organizing, building, cultivation, analysis, and design. The knowledge you collectively possess makes you one of the greatest resources available to this institution as we address issues of governance, and issues of fiscal management as well. I ask for your continued engagement and support in the weeks and months to come.

 

In more ordinary times, I would have devoted many of these remarks to evidence of the quality of the academic programs you have built, and the outstanding recognition that you, and our students and Alumni, have all earned. Perhaps our acceptance into Phi Beta Kappa best expresses the standing that Auburn has achieved in higher education. In facing the challenges at hand, we will do well to keep in mind the singular quality and character of this institution, and the profound impact it has on those who come here.

 

I thank you for your dedication to this institution, and I'll be happy to respond to any questions you have.

 

 

Conner Bailey, Ag Econ & Rural Soc:  In recent days there has been discussion about the Athletic Department and its commitment to the whole University. I understand that the University has recently purchased a jet aircraft, and that Athletic funds were used for this. I also know that the Athletic Department has rewarded its football coaches for a successful season with $15,000 salary increases while many of us face furloughs. What is the contribution that the Athletic Department makes to the General Fund at Auburn University?

 

Dr. Walker:  Very broadly, I think that figure is about half a million dollars a year. I think that issue comes up with the Budget Advisory Committee and that it is a legitimate area of inquiry. I think if they can afford to put more in the General Fund, then we should take a look at them for some funds. Someone was telling me that Clemson was having some similar problems [with proration] and one of their solutions was to place a $2 surcharge on all football tickets to help through the hard times. I have no objections to any of those initiatives, but I think we have to be careful not to be guilty of looking on one-time money as a continuous source of funding.

 

Wayne Flynt, History:  Did you approve of David Housel’s letter to the Alumni Clubs before he sent it?

 

Dr. Walker: No, I have not seen it. I have only heard of it.

 

David Sutton, Communication: It is my understanding that Auburn University will be closing its account with Compass Bank and will be moving its accounts to another financial institution. Is this true and do you know which institution those accounts will be in?

 

Dr. Walker refers the question to Dr. Large.

 

Don Large, VP for Business and Finance:  I believe at the last Board meeting this was all publicly discussed. Every five years our Board policy calls for us to put out proposals of our operating and payroll accounts to various institutions in the state. We form a committee of eight or ten people, including an internal auditor to receive the process and make sure the bids come in sealed and are opened at once. This was done five years ago and Compass Bank was the successful bidder; this was done again and Amsouth was the successful bidder. We are in the process of moving those accounts to Amsouth for the next five years, and we will go through the process again after five years.

 

Bill Sauser, Management:  I really liked the agenda you laid out in your remarks. I wonder what I can do as an individual faculty member to move that agenda forward?

 

Dr. Walker:  One of the problems that we have is that Auburn is located in Lee County and we have a finite number of Senators and legislators who all support AU and should all be applauded for their efforts this past session. I think we should branch out across the state and make sure elected officials in other areas of the state can feel the impact of what is happening here at Auburn. Most immediately feeling the effects are parents of students. We will shortly be sending a mailing to parents explaining that we are facing financial hard times, tuition will go up, and they can have an impact by contacting their local elected officials. I think that reinforcing this with your students is good and I am open to any suggestions.

 

Conner Bailey, Ag Econ & Rural Soc:  At a recent Senate meeting I asked a question about reserves set aside in Division I for covering proration’s shortfalls. My expressed concern is about faculty, many hundreds of us, with Division III Ag Experiment Station and Division IV Extension System appointments. What has been learned in recent weeks about possible reserves that have been set aside for Divisions III and IV, and what is likely to be the impact on individual units in Divisions III and IV from proration?

 

Dr. Walker:  I am very concerned about the Divisions III and IV. Like I said, we have been very careful in the main campus to create a proration reserve. To my knowledge there is no proration reserve for Divisions III and IV. I am not sure about the Extension system, but I am very concerned about those areas. I assure you I will not take action without considering all of the ramifications.

 

Phil Shevlin, Chemistry:  In view of the financial constraints we are under, some of us were wondering during this reorganization (Dr. Muse leaving and we have a number of people moving up into new positions), were you all offered a raise in salary in these tough times and did you take that raise?

 

Dr. Walker:  I was not aware of any raise until I heard a resolution read that said something to that effect. The policy across campus is when a person moves temporarily into a position, we increase their salary by 10%, which seems to me a reasonable thing to do.

 

Carol Whatley, Cooperative Extension:  Cooperative Extension likewise, has been very  fiscally responsible and has prepared for a proration cut such as the original one that was proposed. We too will have to dig much deeper, but Cooperative Extension is prepared. Also, we do have a county office that is very loyal to Auburn University as well as to our partner, Alabama A&M University, in every county of the state. We are going to be putting the word out to those county offices and trying to get support there.

 

Dr. Walker:  Thank you for that comment. I appreciate your mentioning Alabama A&M. We need to keep in mind Conner’s  question in that the Extension system is now separate from Auburn; it is in tandem with Alabama A&M. We have to avoid Auburn making a decision that is going to impact the Extension system, which would thereby impact Alabama A&M without A&M’s input in the process.

 

Chris Newland, Psychology:  Dr. Muse, in a recent interview, commented that the Board of Trustees had bypassed him in dealing with football coaches and other Athletics personnel. Your statement that you were unaware of Housel’s letter to the Alumni clubs raises concern about institutional control over the Athletics on campus. A reading of the NCAA requirements says that faculty and administration, not the Board of Trustees, should be in control of Athletics. This comment points to a violation by the Board of Trustees. Is this a concern? Are we headed for NCAA sanctions? What is being done to gain control over Athletics?

 

Dr. Walker:  First of all, my not having seen David’s letter is not a reflection of anything other than the fact that I’ve spent almost every waking hour in Montgomery, with the exception of the latter part of last week when I went to Nashville. I simply have not had a chance to talk with everyone who reports to the President of the University. It seems to me in talking to people about that letter that this is a disagreement that exists between the Athletic Department and the Alumni Association. My hope is that those tensions have been reduced by some actions recently taken place. I am very much disturbed by the fact that our Alumni Association or the faculty might be at odds with any aspect of the University. The issue of the NCAA is not really an issue at this point. I think if a violation was reported to them and they visited the campus, and the issue of institutional control came up, I think that is how they would deal with it. I am not sure that because of a letter something like that would happen. I don’t claim to be an expert in the NCAA.

 

David Bransby, Agronomy and Soils:  I ask these questions directly and I expect some direct answers. You said that you supported us in what we’ve done in the Senate leadership, but we voted no confidence in the Board. Do you support that or not? I think the faculty would like to know if the administration is for us or against us. If you are not with us, then I think you are against us.

 

Dr. Walker:  I think it is a gross oversimplification, with all due respect. My interests and devotion are to this University and what I think is the best for this University. I understand that the parties associated with this University can have differences of opinions and those can lead to tremendous tensions, which have happened. I think for me to take sides would be the greatest mistake that could be made on behalf of this University. My hope and prayer is that the faculty and the BOT can begin to communicate. If there is a problem that exists at this University, it is a lack of communication between parties, each perceiving itself to be aggrieved. Is that direct enough? I would take exception to your saying “if I am not for you, then I am against you.”

 

Dr. Bransby:  I did not say this is the view of the meeting, but it is the view of some people. I suppose we are all entitled to our view. My other question relates to fiscal matters: the hiring of the consultants on our campus at the moment. There are some people who believe the Board was very instrumental in hiring those consultants. There are also some faculty members who met with those consultants who didn’t feel these were really qualified to help us because of their lack of experience with other universities. I think you agreed with me on that when we talked about it. How come, in the face of proration, do you still have these consultants hired?

 

Dr. Walker:  Once contracts are signed, they are in effect. I assume we can break a contract, but we would still have to pay it. The consultant you are referring to, as I recall, was brought on board because the students were not satisfied (at the time) with the final decision of the proposed student union. That person has subsequently been asked to work with the campus planners who have been paid to look at issues concerning the placement of new facilities and the removal of old facilities.

 

Keith Cummins, Animal and Dairy Science:  You mentioned the effort of Auburn University to make sure proration is shared  equally by K-12 and higher education. Is there a position being supported by AU and advocated in Montgomery in terms of tax reform and stable funding for education in the state, so that we are not tied to sales taxes and proration?

 

Dr. Walker:  At this point, no. I am not entirely clear as to what the limits are for things I can advocate as an interim President of an institution. My personal opinion is that what this state is begging for is tax reform and some leadership to convince the public that it is in the best interest of the state, both present and future, to enact that reform. At this point, that is not a position that the institution has taken, but I have a feeling as this thing goes on we will probably be hearing that out of the university presidents who are meeting regularly. By the way, I noticed in the paper that there is about $1.6 billion in taxes not collected in special write-offs that could more than solve the problem in all education.

 

Herb Rotfeld, Marketing:  I’ve been waiting to hear more comments on the Athletic Association. Dr. Housel said, “The Athletic Department is part of the University as a whole. Its sole interest is the University as a whole.”  They have a $30 million budget, the pay raises of the coaches, and about 45% of the AU credit card system goes to Athletics.  Instead of talking in terms of use of tickets as a way of generating funds for Academics, I think we’d like to hear about what perks, pay increases, or other items that Athletics not only enjoys with its separate budget, but what it might be foregoing to give part of that back to the campus to serve our educational programs.

 

Dr. Walker:  You will recall when you raised the issue at the last meeting that the AU Athletic Department  and the University of Alabama Athletic Department are two unique operations in that neither of them takes state funds for their activities. This is becoming more and more unusual in the higher education world. Compared to all of the institutions in the state of Alabama, it is unusual. The question of whether the Athletic Department can contribute more money to the General Fund of this university is one I do not know the answer to. I think it is a legitimate question, one asked by the Budget Advisory Committee routinely. I don’t sense on the part of Athletic Director Housel any reluctance to be a part of this University. He considers himself and his Department to be a part of this University; the fact that he writes a letter that raises some ire seems to me to be him exercising the same right everyone in this room likes to exercise.

 

David Bransby, Agronomy and Soils:  You said that you felt the main problem between faculty and the Board was lack of communication. At one of the recent Senate meetings, we had several of the past Senate chairs indicate that each of the Senate chairs in the last ten years has asked this Board for a position on the Board. The answer was simply no. I think this indicates it is really not a problem with communication, but it is a problem with the Board. Would you like to comment on that?

 

Dr. Walker:  Yes, I do not agree. I think the easiest thing in the world is to find fault. If there is one thing we in the Academy are trying to do, it is to find fault. If you look around at problems that have developed between faculty and Board of Trustees, it is the tendency to talk “at” one another and not to talk “to” another. In fact, there has been precious little communication between these bodies. I’m not saying that any one is to blame; I’m simply saying that to expect a situation to be resolved, you must have an ability to communicate and have free and open discussion and disagreement between these two groups and within those groups. I thought that’s what the Academy was all about.

 

Barry Burkhart, Psychology:  I couldn’t agree with you more. In the earlier part of your talk, I think you did a very astute analysis of the financial difficulties facing Auburn University. In characterizing that you laid the blame directly at the feet of Governor Siegelman for his failure to provide leadership. I think what Dr. Bransby is saying is that that’s gone on with the Board. I asked the Board for a seat when I was chair. I have asked the Board things and was lied to, directly. I don’t think we can say it is just “fault-finding” or “blame-casting.” For us to say that the Board has not been responsible is accurate; it is not “fault-finding” or “blame-casting.” It is very important that you understand that because they will listen to you more than they ever have listened to the faculty.

 

Dr. Walker:  I have, in fact, said the same things to the Board that I have said here today. I do think that for the long-term benefit of this University, individuals and groups of faculty are going to have to set some goals and do their utmost to lower the level of rhetoric on this campus. It seems to me that to accomplish what it is your talking about, which I think should be accomplished and should happen, you cannot have an adversarial environment. It is going to happen in an environment of trust.

 

Gene Clothiaux, Physics:  In 1992, with Dr. Muse’s approval, we started inviting the Board to this campus for luncheons with about 12-14 faculty members. During my time as Senate chair, I invited Mr. Lowder to come and debate with me on land-grant colleges and what they were in the constitution. It was denied; he never came. We’ve held these luncheons on-and-off for nearly ten years and nothing has come of it. We’ve invited the Board to come and address the faculty in an assembly much like we have here today. They have refused. What you are saying is right; how do we get it?

 

Dr. Walker:  Based on the conversations I’ve had with some Board members lately, I think you are closer now than you ever have been, because of recent conversations. I would urge you to seize the moment. If indeed some channels of communication are opening up, take advantage of it. I think that the Board members who have come to the campus have benefited and learned some things. Perhaps you’ve learned some things about the Board members.  You realize that the reasons for some of the tensions between faculty and Board members is because what the faculty would like and I would like is a Board of Trustees that looks just like me. For example, it would be nice if I could just take 12 people out of this audience. What the constitution of this state says the people of this state want is a Board of Trustees that looks like them. So a BOT that looks more like the electorate, over half of them would not even have a college education, and that is a natural tension that exists between the faculty at Auburn and a BOT that is appointed the way this one is. There is no way this Board is going to be able to step in and recognize what academic freedom is, what faculty governance is. These are foreign concepts to these people who show up at our door, stay four years, and leave. It seems to me that you need to understand that that group represents an entirely different cross section of the state from the one you see here. I sense from talking to Board members about faculty a question of wonder: “I don’t understand these people. I don’t understand what it is they want. I don’t understand what they are saying.” This is because there is very little background from the Academy. I just ask that you understand that, and that as teachers, you teach them.

 

Renee Middleton, Counseling/Counseling Psy:  I think we do understand that; that is why as a faculty we are asking for representation on that Board. I come from an ethnic group of people who understand what it’s like to not have a seat at the table. I know as a woman what it’s like not to have a seat at the table, and there are people constantly telling me they know how to represent my best interests or have my best interests at heart. Symbolically it is important to have faculty representation on that Board. You can’t say you understand us as faculty and not want that voice at the table. So it is offensive to me and disheartening that we would have a BOT that would say “we don’t want that voice and we don’t want that representation.” I am not saying the problem is going to solved by us doing that, but I think it sends a strong symbolic message, as it has historically with issues I deal with everyday, and means a lot to have that representation and to see yourself represented at the table.

 

Wayne Flynt, History:  The Board consists of all-white males and that is not representation of all people. 52% of Alabama’s population is female and 26% is African-American; that is hardly equal.

 

Debra Carey, Staff Council Chair:  It was either at the especially called Faculty Senate meeting or the meeting on February 13 that Mr. Samford said that in a week’s time a committee with all the stakeholders would be organized to do the search for the new president.  As of this morning, the Secretary to the Board’s office indicated that there has been no movement in that direction.  Do you have any comments on that?

 

Dr. Walker:  Bruce will speak to that.

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology:  I’d like to make two comments. Several weeks ago when the Senate voted no confidence in the BOT, I was very saddened to see Jimmy Samford, president pro-tempore, leave the room before he availed himself of the important information and insight that he might have gained had he stayed to see the long discussion that went on prior to that vote. I think it is important that we understand both realistically and symbolically what that kind of exit signifies under these circumstances. Secondly, I would like to take issue with you, Dr. Walker, regarding what at least I, as a faculty member at AU, want in a Board of Trustees. I do not want some body that represents me, that looks “just like me,” a Board composed of faculty members or people who think as faculty members. Nor do I think it was the intent of the citizens of this State to have a “representative group” of people on the BoT. What I would like to see is a BOT that is doing its job as a BOT. What that means is to understand the oversight function of a Board, and not attempt to behave just like us, acting like a dean, department chair, president, or Athletic director, but rather having a vision for the future of this institution, a vision that might impel it—for example, rather than micromanage—to walk in the corridors of the State house lobbying for tax reform so that this institution was appropriately funded along with the other institutions in the state.

 

Dr. Walker:  I would not disagree with your latter comment.

 

Tony Madrigal, Foreign Languages:  I’ve read David Housel’s letter. Do you think his letter is a difference of opinion or a letter of [inaudible].

 

Dr. Walker:  Yes. It seems to me that your question is legitimate and if you want the answer, rather than us talking about David Housel, why don’t you talk to him? Why don’t you ask him? My relationship with David is that he is very forthcoming and will tell you exactly how he feels.

 

Rick Blumenthal, Chemistry:  First, I want to commend you on your sidestepping the question over here, because I understand that for you as a President of the University, it is inappropriate to take a position on this no-confidence vote. But I want to take complete disagreement that David Housel’s letter was a matter of difference of opinion. I speak to you as Rick Blumenthal, Department of Chemistry, one individual. He wrote a letter on Auburn letterhead and signed it “Athletic Director.” He spoke as the University. He used the power of the University, the whole of “us,” to try to force his opinion down other people’s throats. This is a violation of free speech and  academic freedom; in fact, if he falls under your jurisdiction, are you going to take any administrative action against this sort of action by administrators who choose to use their position to voice their personal opinion, if you believe that is what actually happened?

 

Dr. Walker: I have not read the letter from David Housel. He has the right, as every citizen does, to write and express his views. Like most of the people in this room, he uses letterhead.

 

Dr. Blumenthal:  When he does this as an administrator of the University,  as a representative of this University, he is no longer speaking as himself. Like you have done, he should have not taken sides. What you did well, he did poorly.

 

Dr. Walker:  Again, I have not read the letter, but as soon as I do I will take appropriate action. If there is a question I did not answer, I did not intend to sidestep it and I would ask the individual to re-ask the question.

 

Michael Robinson, Architecture:  I came here fairly confused and I think I’m about to leave here even more confused. With all due respect, the issue with David Housel is more than that he used Auburn letterhead. He used his position to express his personal point of view. My concern here is that you have advocated for us today to move forward in this situation by communicating, by openly and freely discussing ideas in an atmosphere of respect and concern for all parties involved. Yet I read David Housel’s letter just before the last Senate meeting, and I must say that I was concerned because he did not just use “Auburn University” and “us” as a means of expressing his opinion, he used the power of the Athletic Department in this University to silence one of the major constituencies of this University.

 

Bob Locy, Biological Sciences:  Are you doing anything or can anything be done to try to come up with a unified perspective to move forward with tax reform and solve all of our problems?

 

Dr. Walker:  The membership of the Higher Education Association’s membership has grown considerably; that may be the political arm that we ought to be using to advance the position of our education and tax reform. I heard on the steps of the State house last week, some people admit that the only way out of this dilemma was tax reform. That was the first time I’ve heard anyone mention those words, so I was encouraged. The AEA is probably the most efficient political organization in the nation, certainly in the State of Alabama. It is very powerful, having long tentacles and a long memory. That is what we are up against if we are doing a battle over a fixed number of dollars as we are right now.

 

Ralph Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences:  I would like to take issue with your statement that lowering the decibel level is how we need to communicate with the Board. After being here 23 years and seeing how they operate and how they have ignored us and our requests over and over, us finally having their attention is a direct result of us “raising the decibel level.” I think that in order to continue making progress and take steps further (and everyone here knows my opinion on what we need to do), I am at a loss to see how, when we vote no-confidence, even if they recapitulate to a certain degree and grant us a seat on the Board, how we can expect for this Board to listen to anything we say.

 

Dr. Walker:  I guess all of us are victims of our environment. I am a victim of mine. My father always told me it is easy to get into a fight, but it is hard to understand what your opponent is all about and to meet them halfway. That philosophy has stood the test of time and I certainly advocate it to you. I certainly do not deny the difficulty or the very difficult times this faculty has had interacting with the Board in the past. I don’t think that’s an issue that anyone would debate over. It does seem to me that what you need to ask is where you want this institution to be in 10,15, or 20 years. Is it going to be where it is now or beyond this? My hope is that it will have moved beyond that.

 

Dr. Mirarchi:  I think the fastest way to do that is to get a new Board of Trustees that has a lot more vision.

 

Dr. Walker:  I understand that, but it is it likely to happen?

 

 Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering:  I’ve been here for about 25 years and I’m beginning to see exactly what the Board wants, which is really discouraging. I look at the power that is so openly displayed in running this state and this University, and just imagine the benefits that we have not come near simply because that power has not been used for the benefit of the state and of the University, but instead it has been used for self-indulgence.

 

Presentation of Academic Freedom Award  by the AAUP: Dr. George Crandell (shift in order of original agenda)

 

Let me take your time to do one of the presentations now so that one of the honorees can continue doing  what he is being awarded for today. I have two presentations to make. The first is a special Meritorius Service Award; the other will be our Academic Freedom Award. The recipient of the Meritorius Service Award has long been a champion of shared governance at Auburn University. He has for many years supported the best interests of Auburn as a representative from Lee County in the Alabama State Senate.  Last fall, for example, he joined with other groups supporting legislation and finally an amendment to the Alabama State Constitution to reform the structure of the Auburn University Board of Trustees.  The amendment was intended to expand the size of the Board and bring in new members from outside of Alabama and bring diversity to the Board’s habitual ways of thinking. When  these purposes were subverted by the Governor’s most recent appointments to the Board, the same person again represented the best interests of Auburn University by opposing these nominations. By leading a filibuster on the Senate floor, he delayed the vote on the nominees, thus giving students, faculty, staff, and alumni a chance to voice their own objections and to articulate the principles of shared governance. As much as he is capable of speaking without stopping for hours, he is clinically adept at clarifying problems  in a memorable way. In the midst of the Senate that day, he alluded to The Music Man,  by saying “we got trouble in Tiger Town.” It starts with a “T,” it ends with an “E,” and it’s called “trustee.” For his championship of shared governance at Auburn University, the Auburn University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors presents this Meritorious Service award to, his first name starts with a “T” and his last name ends with an “E,” to the Board of Trustees he is nothing but trouble, please join me in honoring Senator Ted Little.

 

Senator Little:  Dr. Walker, Dr. Gladden, Dr. Crandell, ladies and gentleman, I deeply appreciate being named the recipient of AAUP’s Meritorius Public Service Award. Your trouble has raised public awareness in a significant amount. Your rightful cause, without reservation, has motivated and inspired my every act on your behalf. I thank you for this recognition and I respectfully appreciate it. Thank you so much.

 

B.    Senate Chair:  Dr. Bruce Gladden

I would like to remind you that the website for committee volunteers will be up until the end of the day Friday, March 16. We still need some volunteers for committees, so please go to the website and put down your name or someone else’s name (please ask their permission first).

 

There will be an AAUP lecture on Monday, March 19 at 2:00 p.m. in Tichenor 206.  Professor Jane Buck, President of the National AAUP, will be giving a lecture on shared governance and the current AU situation. Everyone is invited to attend that meeting of the AAUP.

 

Also, there will be a statewide rally for a new constitution on April 4 at 11:30 p.m. at the Capitol steps in Montgomery. The purpose is to come and show the Governor and legislators that comprehensive constitutional reform is important to you and to confirm that grass-roots Alabama is ready to come to a gathering and see a new constitution. There was a table out front to sign a petition favoring a new constitution; if it is still up on the way out, I encourage you to sign it.

 

I attended the Alumni Association Board meeting March 3. At that meeting I presented the viewpoint of the University Senate and faculty; Judy Sheppard made a presentation on behalf of the AAUP. Lindsey Boney was there on behalf of the SGA. Many of you know that the Alumni Association did not take a vote of no-confidence, but I don’t think we should misinterpret that. My impression after talking to a number of the board members is that they were in fact very supportive of the faculty and the students. I do have a letter of support from them, but it says that students and faculty alike are to be commended for their obvious concern for the well-being of Auburn University, as well as for their courage and commitment. More importantly is that the Alumni Board did appoint two liaison committees; one was an Athletic liaison committee to deal with matters relating to the Athletic Department. I’m sure the letter from Mr. Housel will be discussed. They also created a Board of Trustees liaison committee to work with them on that. Bob Kloeti, the President of the Alumni Association Board, has spoken with me on several occasions asking for input on steps the faculty would like to see taken by the BOT and pushing for those reforms. He and the Alumni Board are working toward concrete results. Don Logan, the new Vice President of the Alumni Board, has asked to meet with the Senate officers this Friday. That is certainly a good sign.

 

As I mentioned at last week’s Senate meeting, there will be faculty involvement in proration decisions. The Rules Committee has nominated faculty to serve on a central proration committee; there will be five faculty in addition to Mike Moriarty Assistant VP for Research, Steve MacFarland, Acting Graduate Dean, David Wilson, VP for University Outreach, and Wes Williams, VP for Student Affairs. There will be a staff representative, an AAUP representative, and a student representative. The Deans have also been encouraged by John Pritchett to include either Senators or other elected faculty in proration discussions at the college level. Faculty should also be involved at the departmental level. I encourage anyone who has suggestions on improving involvement by the faculty or examples where you think faculty aren’t being involved and should be, please contact your Senators or Senate officers to help us move forward in that area.

 

Next I would like to report on some recent interaction with the BOT that has occurred since the Senate meeting last week. As I reported to the Senate last week, after consultation with the Senate officers and Larry Gerber of the AAUP, I sent a letter on February 23rd to Mr. Samford and Mr. Miller outlining a legitimate presidential search process for the shared governance guidelines. I also asked the Board to agree to the guidelines in writing.

 

Letter to Mr. Samford and Mr. Miller

 

1. No final decision about a search-consulting firm until a Presidential Search Committee is appointed. If search consultants are used, they should be advisory to the search committee, without authority to make final decisions about the search process.

2. Search committee composition (14 total members): Members should be chosen without restrictions by the executive committees or boards of directors of the various constituent groups.

Five faculty from AU Auburn and one from AUM

One student member (SGA President?) from AU Auburn

One student member (SGA President?) from AUM

Three alumni from AU Auburn

One alumnus/alumna from AUM

One staff representative

One administrative and professional representative

One Board of Trustees member as facilitator

One person to serve as secretary to the Committee

These latter two individuals would not participate in the decision-making process.

3. Committee Chair chosen by Search Committee.

4. Charge of the Committee from the President Pro Tempore of the Board of Trustees specified in writing and includes provisions listed below:

a. The Presidential Search Committee will determine whether or not to use a search firm.

b. Search Committee will draft the advertisement for the position and will determine criteria for selection. If a search firm is used, it will assist in performing these duties, but Search Committee has final authority.

c. Search Committee will screen candidates and identify a short list of three to five candidates. Only individuals listed on the short list by the Search Committee can be considered for the position.

d. Finalists on the short list must be brought to campus to meet with various constituent groups before the Search Committee makes final recommendations to the Board of Trustees. Means that advertisement for the position must include the fact that the finalists’ names will be made public.

e. Following the interviews described in d., Search Committee will identify those candidates who are acceptable, so that the Board of Trustees may make its final selection from the list of approved candidates.

All aspects of the above search process should be agreed to in writing by way of a letter from the President Pro Tempore of the Auburn University Board of Trustees.

 

Jim Bradley and I met with Jack Miller on Thursday of last week. In general, we had a good meeting. Jimmy Samford has previously indicated to us that Jack Miller would be the point-man on the presidential search. Jack indicated to us that he is considering that role but has not made a final decision. His personal opinions seemed to coincide with most of the points we outlined, but there appeared to us to be some sticky points. First, there seems to be less-than-complete comfort with all the stakeholders appointing their own representatives to serve on the search committee. Jim and I emphasized that this was critically important. He seemed to feel that two or three Board members should serve on the search committee. I would indicate that that is not an uncommon practice. He did tell us that he had been interviewing search firms since last June. In all, he has interviewed about a dozen firms that have worked with universities. He felt very strongly that if he had his way, the Board would sign a contract with a group called Baker-Parker Associates,Inc. We made clear to him the point that process was critical in setting up the search and that the critical action was for the search committee to be set up first. It would be up to the search committee whether to use that search firm or to use another search firm. The other sticky point was that he feared that an open-interview process at the end would eliminate the very best of the candidates. Again, Jim and I emphasized that we thought it was critical for the protection of the University to make sure that person would be accepted by the faculty. On a more positive note, Mr. Miller agreed whole-heartedly that a search firm would serve a search committee and not vice-versa. He also agreed with the statement that no candidates would be considered who were not approved by the committee was a no-brainer. Mr. Miller indicated that he would talk with his colleagues and prepare a written draft of a presidential search process with his colleagues for discussion. He said the draft should be in our hands before April 6, the day of the next Board meeting.

 

Jim Bradley and I also met with Mr. Earlon McWhorter yesterday at his request. I did ask him to resign at the Alumni Board meeting Saturday, March 3, and he did not. He did meet with us yesterday. In our discussion, we again outlined this presidential search process. It is my impression that Mr. McWhorter agreed with all of the points laid out in this letter that I have shown you today. As I have said previously on more than one occasion, I believe the University Senate will have to either opt in or opt out of the presidential search process on the basis of a final written document from the BOT. It does now appear that there will be a written, clear description of the process.

 

Any questions that I can answer?

 

Peter Harzem, Psychology:  At the special Senate meeting, Mr. Samford told Dr. Burkhart that there had been no contact with any search firms. Mr. Miller either made all his contacts without anyone else knowing or there is some misinformation on this.

 

Dr. Gladden:  I don’t want to split hairs on behalf of the Board. We asked Mr. Miller specifically had there been any search going on and he said no, that he had interviewed search firms and he said no.  But he has been searching before.

 

Election of Senate Officers:

 

There were no nominations from the floor.

 

Candidates:

Chair-elect - Barbara Struempler, Nutrition and Food Science

Chair-elect – Mike Watkins, Philosophy

Secretary-elect – Donna Bohanan, History

Secretary-elect – Renee Middleton, Counseling, Counseling Psychology

 

Ballots were distributed to faculty members.

 

Resolution: Vote of No Confidence in the AU Board of Trustees

Dr. Gladden:  On the basis of action taken at the special meeting of the Senate on February 21st, this motion of no confidence is being put over by the University Senate executive committee (Chair, Chair-Elect, Secretary, Secretary-Elect). We do intend to take a voice vote today. Is there any discussion for the motion to approve this vote of no confidence?

 

John Cochran, Aerospace Engineering:  I’d like to say a few words because, even though a lot of it has been pre-empted, I feel like I need to. First, I was born in Alabama a number of years ago and came to Auburn as a freshman student-athlete. I studied aerospace engineering and I played football. I graduated in 1966 with highest honors and got a Masters degree at Auburn. I went to the University of Texas for a year, came back and finished my PhD in 1970. Since 1970 I have been on the faculty and have had a pretty long career with this University and the State of Alabama.  During my time back I also went to law school and passed the bar exam in 1977, so I am an attorney. I have also worked in the Athletic Department. For a few years I worked in the Athletic Department. I was David Housel’s boss for a few years as Information Coordinator. David has many good points; he also has some conflicts of interest and things that bring him to make some decisions that apparently don’t “sit well” with people.

 

For over 30 years I have been disappointed in the funding of higher education in the State of Alabama, and I have also been disappointed in myself because I didn’t do more about it. I think we all could have done more about it over the past few years; probably now we will be forced into the situation, not so much by the lack of tax dollars, but by the way in which they are distributed by our legislators. 

 

The Board of Trustees, along with other constituencies of the University are engaged in a controversy precipitated largely by economic forces.  As the author of a letter to the editor of our daily newspaper noted, George Bernard Shaw claimed that the root of all evil is the lack of money. At the height of this crisis, when it would seem to be logical to band together, we as a faculty instead are considering a no confidence vote in the Board of Trustees. I’d like to point out that no one told me to write this; no one told me or asked me to write this. You have to understand that considering such a vote, the BOT who have apparently been unreasonably involved in managing Auburn University, I think you would all agree that the Board needs to be involved with what happens at Auburn and what happens in the State of Alabama. Under the law of this state, the Board is ultimately the agency responsible to the citizens of the state for the well-being of this institution. Furthermore, by law the Board of Trustees has broad power to make changes in the University, to buy and sell property, to elect officers, set salaries, and so forth, also to eliminate programs, set programs, etc. In this contact, each Board has a judiciary duty to be responsible and to exercise the power of the Board as a whole for the good of the University. To be responsible, a member of the Board must be knowledgeable first of all of what the University is, what it should be, and what it can be. Secondly he is supposed to be confident so he can and will do things in the right way. At the same time the faculty, staff, students, alumni and other constituents must do the right things so that Auburn University will advance. There have been problems with doing the right things in the right ways. The Board of Trustees must take responsibility for many of these problems; however, faculty members cannot allocate all liability to the Board because for one, the Board must have adequate information. We talked about communication. You can’t have communication if people won’t listen to you. You can’t have it unless people talk to you. If this process is unsatisfactory, the decisions of the Board will not be good regardless of other factors. Each member of the Board must understand his or her responsibility. In recent times, the communication process has been unsatisfactory, and the learning process has also been unsatisfactory. How does the BOT know what  their responsibilities are? Do they go to school? Do they take a class on being a trustee? They have to learn from other trustees, the faculty, and they have to learn from the administration. They are ultimately responsible to the citizens of Alabama, so they have to learn from their constituency what they think of Auburn, what they need from Auburn, and what they need Auburn to be. They then have to balance all of this and come up with a good decision. This is not always terribly easily. Although some of their decisions may be legitimately questioned, I believe each member wants the best for Auburn University. If any does not, then they should not be a trustee. Each trustee has personal interests; we have personal interests. We would like to get raises this year, but we probably won’t. The statutory law regarding conflicts of interest is different between Auburn and the University of Alabama and some other institutions in the state. However, if personal interests are in conflict with those of Auburn University, that trustee should remove conflicts of interest or not remain a trustee. The key here is fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty can actually be enforced in a court of law. If you can prove it has been breached, then appropriate remedies may be taken. Thus, the law can be used to determine the level of confidence afforded the trustees.

 

The problem I have with a vote of no confidence is because it would mean that the majority of faculty members have no confidence in any members of the Board. I have some confidence in every member to do what is best for Auburn.

 

David Laband, Economics:  I would specifically take issue that the root of all evil is economics. The root of substantial enmity is in a bank in Montgomery. . At the BOT meeting when the Board killed the PhD degree in Economics, we had a very hard time believing that that Board had the best interest of Auburn University at heart. In making that argument, the Board of Trustees did that in direct opposition to the President and the Faculty Program Review Committee. This does not seem like it is in the best interest of Auburn University curriculum-wise, and it certainly does not seem to mean  the BOT is concerned with listening to the concerns of the faculty. I will be supporting that resolution as many times as I can vote.

 

Dr. Cochran:  I don’t know why the Board of Trustees voted to do that. I do know that at the same time we had an aviation management program even though some said we could eliminate it. I know that the program they decided to keep has some Alumni, including Mr. Kloeti, who is the President of the Alumni Association now, and has a great deal of support all over the Southeast and the nation. Because that support was shown the BOT, they decided to not eliminate that program. I’m not saying they make good decisions all the time; I know they make bad ones. But no confidence means absolutely none in my estimation. But if this is more like “lack of trust and lack of confidence,” then that isn’t no confidence. “We’ve got lots of problems with you and we don’t trust you all the time”—If you propose that, then I’ll vote for it.

 

[No name given]: Could we please have a recorded vote? You are prepared.

 

The motion was seconded.

 

[No name given]: I’d like to hear why from the maker of the motion, please.

 

[No name given]:  I think that in what I hear around here that there is more of the sense of almost a lynch mob in the house, and that a vote of this magnitude deserves to be recorded.  But I think the motion does not need discussion.

 

The motion passed by a hand count.

 

Ballots were passed out for a recorded vote on the resolution of no-confidence.

 

Resolution:  Form a Joint Assessment Committee to plan Board evaluation

 

Resolution (concerning appointment of a Joint Assessment Committee)

Preamble. Auburn University is in the midst of an overall general accreditation review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), a process that will conclude in 2003. Should Auburn fail accreditation renewal, grave consequences would result, including loss of massive amounts of federal funding, and loss of prestige. SACS Criteria for Accreditation, Section VI, and specifically Article 6.1.2 requires that, “there must (SACS’ emphasis) be a clear distinction, in writing and in practice, between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.” Should SACS find that Article 6.1.2 has been violated, the Board will have placed renewal of Auburn’s accreditation in grave jeopardy. (As an historical precedent, it should be noted that in 1941, “irregularities and incidences of outside interference into academic activities” in the Georgia University System in fact did lead to the loss of SACS accreditation.) Consequently, with genuine concern for the long-term best interests of Auburn University, in fairness, and with good will for all parties, we offer the following course of action as a constructive step forward.

 

WHEREAS there exists a widespread perceived lack of institutional leadership and inappropriate governance by the Board of Trustees of Auburn University, as demonstrated by a large majority of the Auburn stakeholders (faculty, staff, administrative and professional personnel, and students) voting “no-confidence” in the Board, this resolution hereby requests that the following actions be taken promptly by joint action of the Board of Trustees and the University Senate Officers:

 

Appointment of a Joint Assessment Committee to Study the Feasibility of an External, Objective, and Independent Assessment of the Board's Performance

 

Given the current state of the relationship between the Board and the stakeholders, an objective, independent assessment of the Board's performance by an outside agency or group is needed. The Joint Assessment Committee (JAC) will study the merits and mechanisms of such an assessment and report its conclusions and plan of action to the University Senate and the Board of Trustees by April 6th, the date of the next Board meeting. The JAC will determine suitable choices of groups or agencies to perform the assessment, draft the charge to the group or agency, and define specific tasks and deadlines. The membership of the JAC shall be composed of the University Senate Chair, a Past-Chair of the University Senate, the President of the Alumni Association, one Board of Trustees member, the Chair of the AU Staff Council, a chair of the representative assembly, and the President of the SGA.

 

We believe it vital to the SACS accreditation process for the Board to be able to show clear evidence during next year’s SACS self-study that there have been changes enacted in its present operating attitude and format. An external assessment may provide meaningful benchmarks and evidence to SACS that the Board is in compliance with SACS guidelines. Should the Board choose not to accept the procedure outlined here, the stakeholders of the university must assume a position of immense care and responsibility by bringing further national attention to the Board's governing performance by whatever means appropriate in order to bring about the necessary changes in the Board, and if necessary, its composition.

 

Dr. Gladden: Note a minor correction to the resolution as it was mailed out. Originally the resolution said “a representative of the AU administration,” under the membership of the JAC. It should have read “chair of the Administrative and Professional Assembly.”

 

There was a motion and a second to approve this resolution.

 

Wayne Flynt, History:  This is a question of clarification because I would like to offer a resolution, which could be added as an amendment to this resolution.  But actually it is not closely enough related. I think it may be better as a separate resolution. The resolution I would like to offer is:

 

WHEREAS former Auburn University President William Muse alleged to the Associated Press on March 6, 2001, the Trustees bypassed him ‘demanding athletic coaches,’

 

WHEREAS actions were taken in February 2001 by the Athletic Director to deny coaches’ participation in Auburn University alumni clubs that allow criticism of the Trustees and such action was taken without the approval of the University President,

 

WHEREAS such conditions appear to the faculty to constitute a serious lack of institutional control over Athletics at Auburn,

 

Therefore, be it resolved that the University faculty formally request an investigation into all matters of direct Trustee contact with the Athletic program by the NCAA.”

 

Dr. Gladden:  We will have to consider that after this resolution. Is there further discussion on this resolution?

 

John Cressler, Electric and Comp Engineering: A lot of effort has gone into pushing forward this resolution.  It originated with the Engineering faculty and has the unanimous support of the Engineering Faculty Council, the representative body of the College of Engineering.  I think we all agree here that changes need to be made in the BOT.  What we are attempting to do here is to put forward a reasonable, rational way to accomplish what we all desire.  And that is to bring in objective third-party assessment of the Board’s performance using SACS guidelines that many of us believe the Board has apparently violated.  So I guess the only thing I would say is there is a lot of work gone into putting this into a form which we believe will have the effect we all desire.

 

Barry Burkhart, Psychology:  I would like to speak for this resolution. It is reasonable, practical, and will have more consequence than the no-confidence resolution just passed. I would like the faculty to support  this, and I would like it to be by voice vote, and I would like it to be unanimous.

 

John Cochran, Aerospace Eng:  I will support this resolution.

 

Ralph Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: Some people on the faculty think I’m a bit unreasonable, because my approach to this whole thing may be a little more “low-roaded” than the “high-roaded” one. I would like to speak in favor of passage of this resolution and agree with Barry that we should do it unanimously. I’m in favor of it and I want to applaud Dr. Cressler in putting this together.

 

The motion was passed by a voice vote.

 

Wayne Flynt, History:  I agree with the way you handled that, to delay my resolution to be considered separately. Now I would like to present my resolution. 

 

Dr. Gladden:  We have the resolution on the floor, short form being that he is requesting an NCAA investigation.

 

Dr. Flynt:  Correct. Dr. Walker said that consideration of this would mean a letter of inquiry. This would be a letter of inquiry. The reason I asked my question of Dr. Walker was to see if yet again we had evidence of a pattern of Athletic activity without the approval of the President. Dr. Walker clearly indicated that we do. This is the second piece of information for the NCAA to consider.

 

Dennis Wilson, Chair of the University Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics:  I know of no infractions; I think the Board acted tactfully  in this regard.

 

Jim Hansen, Physics:  Point of order: My recollection from a prior meeting is that when there is a resolution at a Senate meeting, there is a Senate rule that requires that to be voted on one meeting later, purpose being to give Senators time to consult constituents and to have time to consider the resolution. My point of order is is there a similar rule for the General Faculty Meetings?

 

Dr. Gladden:  My understanding is that if it relates to items on the agenda, then it can be acted on at this meeting, which would be the first two relating to the BOT on this agenda.

 

Michael Watkins, Philosophy:  I want to speak in favor of the resolution. I agree that we are asking for trouble. It seems to me that asking questions is to be in charge of our profession, and if that means bringing trouble our  way, then so  be it.

 

John Cressler, Electric and Comp Eng:  Seems like we will be shooting ourselves in the foot by derailing the JAC process.  Not that the resolution is a bad idea.  I guess that I would see it as a last resort when we see the other is not going to work.

 

Chris Newland, Psychology:  I want to speak in favor of this motion. This is not, as I understand it,  a proposal to send a letter of inquiry to the NCAA. This is a proposal to see if our house is in order. I think we need to know whether our house is in order on this issue before things go forward too far.

 

[Inaudiable], Pharmacy:  I propose that we table this motion until our next meeting. This motion, while I don’t disagree with it, I think would be best to be tabled until our next meeting.

 

The motion to table was seconded.

 

Dr. Gladden: A motion to table would require a 2/3 vote of this body.

 

Dr. Burkhart:  I think we need a point of order because if the motion was to postpone, then it needs a majority vote; a motion to table needs a 2/3 vote. There are obviously consequences for that. I think we need to change it to postpone because that was intended.

 

The motion was changed to postpone rather than table. The motion was seconded.

 

The motion to postpone was passed by a hand count.

 

Farewell Speech –  Bruce Gladden

 

As a good friend of mine says, "It's always darkest right before it turns totally black".  Well, this isn't exactly the speech that I had hoped to give.  Despite these rather dire circumstances, I do want to begin on a brighter note.  That note is a hearty thank you to several people who have helped me mightily throughout this often smooth, but lately turbulent year.  It is so often the case that the most important things are those caring people who support you in both fair and foul weather.  First, I want to thank the Steering Committee which included appointed members Renee Middleton, Herb Rotfeld, Judy Sheppard, and Donna Sollie.  I also appreciate the strong support provided by my Department Head Dennis Wilson and my Dean, Rich Kunkel.  Both were very encouraging of my work in the University Senate.  I think it is extremely important for our administrators to value the governance work of faculty and I am proud that my two most immediate supervisors have done so.  I can't overemphasize the assistance provided to me by the Rules Committee of the Senate, beginning with the elected members of that committee:  David Bransby, Marie Kraska, Steve Knowlton, Ed Morrison, Greg Pettit, and Paula Sullenger.  There are a total of 58 standing University and Senate Committees.  The Rules Committee nominates and appoints faculty to all of these Committees and also numerous Ad Hoc Committees that arise throughout the year.  It seems that there has hardly been a single week that has gone by without the Rules Committee being involved with Committee appointments – it is a never-ending job.  Aside from nominating and appointing, this year's Rules Committee has been a major source of counsel and advice for me.  I also owe a special thanks to Larry Gerber whom I pressed out of retirement as a Past-Chair of the Senate.  Larry has been a tremendous source of sage advice over the past two weeks.  Next, I am so pleased to thank this year's Senate Officers for their constant assistance.  These folks have become true friends.  Jo Heath is quiet but firm, and wise.  Jim and Isabelle will be wonderful leaders for the next year – they are people of integrity.  Finally, I must give very special recognition to Mary Boudreaux.  Mary has been a rock throughout the year.  Mary is a wonderful person.  She has worked extremely hard; she is loyal, honest and completely trustworthy; she is unafraid.  I have great respect for her.  (Please join me in thanking her.)

 

The vast majority of the work that we do as Senators, Committee members, and Senate Officers is simply day-to-day details.  These are of course important details such as academic standards, promotion and tenure, insurance and benefits, and so on.  Nevertheless, it frequently seems that we don't have the time or resources to attack some of the big problems.  Certainly we are all dealing with big problems right now, but I'm not talking about dealing with big problems on an emergency basis – I'm talking about planning in advance and working at a more deliberate pace.  I do think we have attempted some significant steps – we have an Outreach Scholarship Assessment Committee that is very near to concluding a report that will detail recommended changes in the Handbook.  These changes are designed to integrate Outreach into the Handbook and more specifically into the Promotion & Tenure process.  Hopefully, it will ensure credit where credit is due to those faculty who participate in Outreach activities.  We have a Professional Improvement Leave Committee that is investigating ways to increase Leave opportunities and participation.  I am disappointed that the Administrator Evaluation Committee has not yet completed its work.  I think that a continuing problem for that Committee is that it is chaired by the Chair-Elect of the Senate.  I believe we should change the Handbook to have a "regular" Committee member serve as chair of that Committee.  The last several times that the Administrator Evaluation Committee has begun to resurrect the evaluation process, a major problem has taken the Chair-Elect's focus away from that Committee.  I am very proud that, for the first time this year, the Senate ranked its budgetary priorities for input to the Budget Advisory Committee.  I think this is an important first step to a coherent approach to faculty participation in the overall budget process.

 

I'd like to now move away from these "blue collar" governance issues to some broader considerations.  I'm not sure I've earned very much this year, but hopefully I have earned the right to offer some personal perceptions and opinions before I ride off into the sunset.  By the way, I will be leaving for Italy tomorrow morning.  Despite any suspicions you might have, this trip was planned well in advance of current events.  Let me hasten to add that all of my expenses are being paid by a NATO grant and Auburn will incur no costs.

 

Now, what follows are simply my opinions and perceptions and they very well may be wrong.  I suppose time will tell.  So, let's talk about some of Auburn University's problems.

 

First, with all due respect to Alabamians, Auburn University's biggest problem is that it is in Alabama.  We live in a state where the Constitution is biased towards wealthy, white men.  A state where the Constitution works against stable tax income for education.  A state where the Constitution favors regressive taxation.  A state where the education level is low and the value placed on education is low.  A state where the Education Governor says that evolution is a "controversial theory".  I've often thought that Alabama would be greatly improved by forcing all natives to move out of state, preferably out of the South for at least a year or two.  (I say this as a Southerner.  I’m from Tennessee and at least, I thought I was a Southerner.)  I think they would find out that those other people out there are nice folks too, that they do things differently but their way works just as well.

 

Auburn University's next biggest problem is the Board of Trustees.  Board members are chosen through a political process, a process in which qualifications and experience in higher education are not relevant.  As a result, even Trustees who are well-meaning are often in conflict with the University they wish to serve.  Shared governance is a foreign concept that clashes with their successful management styles in the corporate world.

 

I am proud of our Senate Officers this year, myself included, for making an honest effort to communicate with the Board of Trustees.  We took a chance on cooperation.  I believe we had some modest success.  I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again now – the process by which in-state tuition waivers were granted to GTAs shows how things could work at Auburn.  John Pritchett, as Graduate Dean, gathered information on the scope of the problem and the cost of correcting it.  Senate Officers collaborated with John, discussed it with the Provost and the President, and also with Board of Trustees members.  As a result, all parties were on the same page and the Board approved in-state tuition waivers for Graduate Teaching Assistants.  Now, make no mistake about it – as you all know perfectly well – we made some progress on communication but ultimately the Board showed conclusively that it was not prepared to make shared governance a reality.  Auburn University is the loser as a result.  More about the Board later.

 

I would like to say that, except for a few glaring exceptions, my impression is that faculty/administration relations have been quite good during my term as a Senate Officer.  I have appreciated Dr. Muse’s many efforts on behalf of Auburn.  I for one believe that he did an excellent job as President and that he served Auburn well.  I can quickly point to some highlights of his administration:  a) removal of Auburn from the AAUP censure list, b) the end of the Old South parade, and c) his defense of Professor Wayne Flynt when Dr. Flynt was sharply criticized by Alfa.  (Our Trustees need to realize that their relationship with the faculty won’t be complete until the faculty can readily assume that the Trustees will defend our rights as immediately as President Muse did.)  I believe that Auburn is a more open and tolerant campus as a result of President Muse's efforts.  Further, President Muse has encouraged shared governance with faculty and has always sought faculty input in my experience with him.  As I have said before, he is a gentleman and I will miss him.  Auburn will miss him.  I also want to make note of Ms. Marlene Muse’s contributions to Auburn.  Marlene has been anything but a figurehead in the President’s home; she has been an important and influential member of the Auburn community.  She has been a tireless worker for numerous good causes.  I appreciate her many efforts.  She will also be sorely missed.

 

I have also come to know and to like Dr. Bill Walker over the past year.  As Provost, he was vigilant about faculty inclusion in the governance process.  So far, he has continued those good habits as Interim President and I hope that those habits don’t stop.

 

Auburn does have some significant problems that don't necessarily relate directly to the Board of Trustees in my opinion.  Again, these are my perceptions.  First, I believe racism and other forms of prejudice are alive and well on the Auburn campus.  I don't believe it is necessarily institutionalized; it seems to me to be more at a subtle, individual level.  I have very little in the way of concrete incidents.  I've heard some stories from students.  I think I hear it occasionally in people's voices and see it in their glances.  I know that the Multicultural Diversity Commission is working to improve tolerance and acceptance on the campus.  I certainly have no magic solutions.  All of us need to look into the most secret parts of our hearts and make an honest assessment of our own actions and then correct those that are wrong.

 

Another significant problem in my opinion is religious insensitivity.  Prayers, prayers of a particular type, are literally thrust upon everyone on this campus.  To me, public prayers in public situations at a public institution are at best impolite and at worst, illegal.  Many, very nice, well-meaning people dismiss concerns about this behavior by saying that, "Everyone pretty much believes the same thing here".  I disagree; not everyone believes the same thing.  Only 90% or so believe the same thing, but not everyone.  I think in this situation, it is even more important to be sensitive to different beliefs or even no beliefs.  This comes back to diversity.  We need to tolerate it, welcome it, even celebrate it.  Not always easy to do, but ultimately necessary, and clearly the right thing to do.

 

Athletics is too much with us.  We're all familiar with the notion that athletics is too important to some, perhaps most, of the Trustees.  I'm saying that it is too important to all of us.  Too important to staff, administrators, students, alumni, and yes, to faculty.  How many faculty spend time in class discussing last week's game?  How many faculty refer to our well-known athletes by first names as if we really know them?  How many faculty live and die with football, basketball, baseball, swimming, or some other favorite sport?  We readily accept “top 50 among public schools” as an academic institution but we are dissatisfied if our football team is out of the top ten.

 

I have a confession to make.  I don't do "War Eagle".  I know that some people consider it sacred, and that others have to do it as part of their job around here.  But, I as a faculty member, don't do it.  To me, it's an athletic motto that crystallizes the overemphasis that our Auburn University culture places on athletics.

 

We are fortunate that our Athletics Program pays most of its way.  As far as I can tell, it doesn't pay every bit of its costs though.  And, I think we all need to remember that the East Alabama Tigers wouldn't sell very many tickets.  Maybe a trademark fee wouldn't be such a bad idea.  And in this current time of proration, perhaps an athletic event surcharge would be helpful.  It is disheartening to see Athletics going first class while academic programs are being cut back.  How many times have we read that head coaches are raising assistant’s salaries so that they will not be bought off by a higher salary at another school?  That’s tough to take when faculty salaries are well below even the regional average.  I don’t fault the Athletics program any more than I do all of the rest of us.  Again, I don’t think the East Alabama Tigers would be very successful.

 

Athletics also brings us back to diversity.  We don't seem to have very many people who are concerned about recruiting many star athletes from outside the state or outside the country for that matter.  If that kind of diversity is good for athletics, maybe it's good for the academic side as well.

 

We need to expose our students to a diversity of thoughts and ideas.  Most of them come to us saturated with provincialism.  I think we teach them, we impart knowledge to them, but I’m not sure that we really educate them.  Do we take the provincialism out of them?  I wonder perhaps if we should place a  greater emphasis on study abroad and educational exchange programs.  As Mark Twain wrote in Innocents Abroad, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.  Broad, wholesome, charitable views ....  cannot be acquired by vegetating in one’s little corner of earth.”

 

Which reminds me, that with one exception, we taught the Board of Trustees.

 

So, we’re back to the Board again.  It would profit all of us to go back and read Wayne Flynt’s article entitled “Academic Culture at Auburn” in the Fall, 1998 issue of Auburn Academe.  He wrote the article on the heels of his participation in the 21st Century Review Commission.  He provides a balanced view of faculty and Board shortcomings along with several prophetic statements.  He concludes by saying that a major problem at Auburn is “a disconnect between trustees, alumni, faculty, students, and administrators.  It is a loss of trust and mutual respect.  It is misperception and unkind attribution of sinister motives.  It is breakdown in communication.”  Less than three years later, we are proving the truth of those statements.  I do think that at the moment the major disconnect has come down to the Trustees, the other groups have become pretty well connected to each other.

 

So, where do we go from here?  I believe that we need to pursue verifiable engagement with the Board.  That means we try to get things in writing and then we ensure that all parties do what was agreed to.  I dislike the analogy of our conflict with the Board and war.  However, even enemies who have gone to war with each other, negotiate.  We need to keep the pressure on and we need to ratchet up the pressure as required.  However, I hope we don’t have to burn down the house to prove that the fire extinguisher doesn’t work.

 

In conclusion, I have another confession to make.  I don’t love Auburn University.  I believe love should be reserved for family and close friends, living beings, not institutions.  I don’t think love for an institution is a good idea.  Don’t misunderstand me; you can work hard and give your all for an institution that you value without being in love with it.  Too many people love Auburn; they love it to death.  Instead, let’s be objective.  Let’s apply the same rigor that we apply to our scholarship as we carefully evaluate what can be done to help Auburn through this crisis.  Let’s always be certain that our data are valid.  Together, surely we can make a difference.

 

It has been my honor to serve you.  Thank you.

 

 

Dr. Gladden:  The resolution of no confidence passed with a vote of 366-yes, 29-no, and 1-abstention.

 

Presentation of the Academic Freedom Award by the AAUP: George Crandell

 

Each year the Auburn Chapter of the AAUP recognizes a person who best exemplifies in word and deed the spirit and ideal of academic freedom. You have often heard that academic freedom and tenure are not free. Indeed as Jane Buck, President of the National AAUP has said, the price of tenure is a continuing and lifelong moral obligation to exercise academic freedom by speaking out against assaults on our principles. No one has spoken out more loudly and clearly than this year’s winner of AAUP’s award. He has previously served as president of the Auburn’s chapter of the AAUP. You know him as one of the few people on this campus who doesn’t mind asking the hard questions about academic freedom, shared governance, and ethics. He is good and he is persistent at it. You often heard him speak from the Senate floor, not just representing Ag Econ and Rural Soc, but all-but-fearful of speaking out. What you may not know is that he has repeatedly come to the defense of both tenured and non-tenured faculty when they have conflicts with University administrators or concerns about academic freedom. All the more remarkable is that he is often successful in resolving these disputes. There is no question that he has made a significant contribution to advocating, protecting and extending academic freedom at Auburn University. I am pleased to announce that this year’s winner of AAUP’s Academic Freedom Award is Conner Bailey.

 

Dr. Bailey:  Tenure is very important and it is a privilege that many of us have here. I think we need to recognize Ted Little, who does not have tenure as a Senator. We have to recognize the A and P Assembly for speaking out with great courage and also the Staff Advisory Council for speaking out with the faculty in opposition to the BOT and expressing no-confidence in the BOT. These are the people who really deserve our honor. Thank you very much.

 

Dr. Gladden:  Barbara Struempler got the most votes for chair-elect. Renee Middleton got the most votes for Secretary-elect.

 

Dr. Gladden passed the gavel to Jim Bradley, who then adjourned the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.