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.
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.
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
(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.
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.