Auburn
University Senate Minutes
Special
Session
Broun
Hall Auditorium
February
21, 2001
Absent
(Substitute): D. Zhang (R. Mirarchi), J Facteau (V.
O’Leary).
The
meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
The
minutes for the last meeting were approved as posted on the web. They can be
found at the Senate web page at https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.
Announcements:
I
have invited our acting Provost John Pritchett to give a few comments about
proration.
Dr.
Pritchett: Yesterday afternoon Dr. Walker sent an email
memorandum to all faculty, staff, and administration on campus; I think he did
a good job of defining the proration event we may be facing. I met with the
faculty leadership last Friday and we discussed this issue. Bruce suggested
that I come back to this meeting and summarize the events up to this point. First,
a little background: Gov. Siegelman
announced about two and a half weeks ago a 6.2% proration of the education
budget; this includes K-12, junior colleges, and higher education. In response
to that 6.2% proration figure, Dr. Large’s office got very busy. His office has
worked diligently over the past few years in creating a proration reserve in
case this kind of event happened. One week ago today the Budget Advisory
Committee met and Dr. Large passed out information and potential strategies in
addressing the 6.2% proration. The
report at that time is that the proration for this year could be eased a great
deal; however, there was a great deal of concern if the 6.2% was extended to
the upcoming budget year. However, we have simultaneous events occurring
because right after the governor declared proration, several K-12 schools
issued a suit, the basis of that suit being that K-12 education is essential to
the state of Alabama, therefore it must be exempt from proration. That suit is
being reviewed by Judge McCooey in Montgomery. If that suit is successful the
level of proration for higher education will rise from 6.2% to 18.5%. In other
words it will rise from about 12 million dollars to an excess of 38 million dollars for the Auburn University
system. If you equate that to the AU
main campus at 18.5% then it is about $26.5 million of one-time funding that we
would have to come up with out of this year’s budget.Then we would have to
build in a $26.5 million decline for the coming year’s budget. Of course that
is cataclysmic for this year but catastrophic for next year. Indications at
this time are that the judge is inclined to find for K-12 education; of course
you can see there the crisis that would occur.
Last Friday Dr. Walker asked me to initiate a process to get preliminary
information from all the deans. We did that and asked the deans to select their
base budgets and in a worse case scenario, how would they come up with an 18.5%
proration figure for this year and if necessary for next year. This was a
“what-if” exercise; I’m sure they looked at dollar figures when they did that.
Some of our units have good coverage and reserves. Other units have very small
reserves and would have to take some drastic actions. Some of those actions
include closing a large number of Ag Experiment Station substations, closing of
departments, abolition of at least one college on this campus, termination of
non-tenure faculty members, or furloughing of staff.
If
we took our entire College of Engineering and eliminated it today, we wouldn’t
have $26 million; we’d only have about $24 million. If we took our entire
College of Liberal Arts (the largest College on campus) and eliminated it, we
would not raise $26 million. There are only about $23 million in Liberal Arts.
Thus, I hope you see the gravity of this situation as far as this University is
concerned.
Today
we have started a planning process to move us toward how we are going to
address this crisis. There is no plan at this point; we have initiated the
process today. I met this morning with the Senate leadership and Dr. Walker
visited with us. He asked Bruce to begin developing a plan for complete
inclusion of all constituencies in the process we are going to be going forward
with so that all people involved can be involved with this. This is where we
are at this point. We have the potential for a very devastating position. It is
clear that if this occurs, Auburn University as we know it today has probably
reached a breaking point; we hope that the individuals in Montgomery who are
responsible for this, the legislators who are responsible, will come to
appreciate the value of this University and higher education in this state and
rectify this situation.
Steve
Knowlton, Physics: Does the University
have any plan to file or join a position?
Dr.
Walker: I’ve described this to folks as a
well-orchestrated attack on higher education.
Our attorney was told yesterday we could not file a position because the
Attorney General will speak for all state agencies. So that’s an issue we will also have to contest.
Lee
Armstrong: I am General Counsel and am responsible for
trying to coordinate our efforts. We have in fact intervened in the law
suit along with the University of
Alabama and other regional schools. We are contesting both the fact that K-12
should be afforded special status and as far as regional universities are
concerned, at the very least they should be afforded the same status. Alabama
and Auburn are also constitutional entities. They were created under the Alabama
constitution in 1901 and we are asserting that status as a constitutional
entity to get the same footing as K-12. As Dr. Walker correctly pointed out, as
of yesterday afternoon, the Attorney General was going to try to take us off
the field, claiming that only he controls litigations for Alabama, Auburn, and
other four-year schools. So we have another battle we are fighting as we speak.
I’m not going to predict how this will turn out, but rest assured that we are
vigorously playing this out in court.
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering Committee: What is the budget of the athletic association?
Don Large: The budget of the athletic
department, which is all self-generated revenue and does not participate in any
of these funds, is about $30 million. They make about $30 million and spend
about $30 million in salaries and operating costs.
Conner Bailey,
Ag Econ and Rural Soc (not a senator): Is the university considering
declaring financial exigency? I didn’t hear anything about how that process
would go in terms of making decisions according to the handbook.
Dr. Pritchett:
At this point in time, no. That is a definite possibility as we move
into this process.
Dr. Walker:
That may be a very real possibility at this time, but we just don’t
know. In fact, we’re not quite sure how you do that. It’s not a well-traveled path across the country.
(Continuing
announcements):
Dr. Gladden:
I would like to alert you on the upcoming AAUP forum. This is a forum held by the AAUP on the
topic “Stakeholders, Participation, and Selection of Institution
Administrators.” Scheduled speakers
include Jack Venable of the Board of Trustees, Larry Gerber of the AAUP, Dick
Jeager (Distinguished Professor from the College of Engineering), Gene Clothiaux
(former Senate chair), and Dr. Gladden (current Senate chair). The meeting will be on March 2 at 3:00 p.m.
in Tichenor Hall 206.
Next
I would like to personally applaud our students for their activities yesterday.
They acted on the strength of their convictions and obviously have some strong
beliefs about ongoing events; they put these beliefs into action. They were
well-organized, well-spoken, responsible, and courteous all at the same time.
Even those who disagreed with them would have to admit that they were very
impressive.
Our
interim President, Dr. Bill Walker, has appointed an Acting Provost, Dr. John
Pritchett, who just spoke moments ago. There will be an internal search for an
interim Provost; in that search the Rules Committee for the University Senate
will submit faculty nominees to serve on a search committee. Also, Dr. Rebekah
Pindzola has been appointed acting dean of the College of Liberal Arts. Once
again, an internal search for an interim dean will begin shortly. The Rules
Committee will submit faculty nominees for participation in that search
process.
As
we begin our scheduled meeting today, let’s remember the purpose of our meeting
as voted on at the last meeting and approved by the Steering Committee: to give
us information and direction for planning the next Senate meeting and General
Faculty meeting. The Steering Committee will be preparing these agendas at the
faculty meeting tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 p.m. With this in mind, I would like the Senate to consider the
following motion (the motion shown below is as amended in later discussion):
MOTION
That
a resolution of NO CONFIDENCE in the Governor and the voting members of the
Board of Trustees be placed on the agenda of the next University Faculty
meeting on March 13, 2001, and that the Senate Officers encourage the Student
Government Association, the AU Chapter of the American Association of
University Professors, Staff Council, A&P Assembly, and the Auburn
University Alumni Association to consider similar resolutions in the same time
frame.
The
motion was made and seconded.
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences (substitute for D. Zhang): I want to preface my comments with just a
few things. First, the views I’m going to express are not necessarily
represented by our school. To paraphrase some of the things that come out of
the Board of Trustees, I didn’t have time to make a complete poll of the
people. Nonetheless, I also want to apologize to Dean Brinker and my colleagues
on the building committee if my comments are going to in any way put our plans
to go forward with a new building in front of the Board of Trustees in any
danger. Nonetheless, I consider myself to be one of the more dangerous animals
on campus. I’m tenured; I’m fully promoted; I’m titled, and in a few months I
will be able to retire from Auburn University. I have my mortgage covered so
that I can at least pay it off if in case I get a mysterious call from the bank
calling my mortgage. I have no administrative aspirations here at Auburn and I
have served two terms in the Senate, one of which was in the Funderburk
administration when we had to get rid of our President back then. The second
was in the late 80s. I think it is time for someone like me to
stand up and say some things that need to be said, which may not have been said
by some of our younger Senators. Perhaps some of those folks have a lot more to
lose than I do.
First,
Mr. Samford I appreciate you coming today. I hope you appreciate the courtesy
extended to you to speak before our group, particularly because you and other
Board members have historically afforded NOT to extend the same courtesy to
some of our Senate leaders.
Enough
is enough is enough. We’ve heard this same old refrain from the Board of
Trustees for 23 years that I’ve been here. “Oh, it was an oversight. Oh, we didn’t
have time to check with the faculty. Oh, we had to go into secret session.” The
main reason it was an oversight is because the students here are an
afterthought of the Board of Trustees.
A lot of what they say is just gloss and glitter with no substance. They
do not believe in shared governance; they never have and never will at this
University. I personally lay the blame of this crisis and the problems of
proration at the feet of the Board of
Trustees. If the BOT had diversity of thought and mind and were a visionary
bunch like many other BOT’s around this country, they would have spent the
majority of their lengthy terms looking for adequate funding for AU and
lobbying the legislature on our behalf instead of micromanaging the
administration, the faculty, and the athletic program.
I
am in support of the motion, obviously. So I say “enough already.” Since we
have the faculty, students, and alumni on the same page for the first time
since I’ve been here, it is time for decisive action. I recommend that we do
adopt this resolution and perhaps suggest some friendly amendments to this
resolution. I ask that if a vote of no confidence comes out of that meeting
that the Board of Trustees be asked to resign.
If
the BOT members do not resign 24 hours after the vote, then the students,
faculty, and alumni completely shut down the University indefinitely with some
type of peaceful walk-out. Further, if the BOT members do not resign, and I
hope they would do that before it got to that point, then I respectfully ask
that Dr. Walker, Dr. Pritchett, Dr. Heilman, and any of the new administrative
appointments voluntarily resign their new positions in support of the students,
faculty, and alumni until after a new slate of trustees are appointed. I have
worked with Dr. Walker on some committees and closely with Dr. Pritchett for 23
years in our department, and frankly, as the acting Provost he is the key
individual representing the academic side of this University. We need him to
lead us; one way of leading is to say he will not work for this BOT. Not that I
am critical of Dr. Walker for accepting the position; I think he honestly thought he was doing the best thing
for Auburn in his part. In my opinion, I think Auburn and the faculty would
have been better served if he would have said “no thank-you.” I would also recommend that Gov. Sigelman
authorize a selection of completely new trustees using the new selection
process approved last year. Once we then have a Board of Visionaries on the
table, then we deal with the proration problem; these people should be people
we trust to lead us in these issues in the future.
I
hope that this motion will pass and some of the suggestions I’ve made would be
considered with this one or with like motions.
Virginia
O’Leary, Psychology (substitute for J. Facteau): I would like to offer a friendly amendment
or alternative resolution. Last week during the regularly scheduled Senate
meeting I spoke to the question of timing.
I was on the lawn of Samford Hall yesterday. I then drove to Montgomery.
I have never been prouder to be a member of this faculty than I was watching
the students as they moved from office to office speaking individually with
state senators, arguing in a reasonable and very literate fashion their
perspective. Last week I spoke to the issue of timing and suggested that this
body not wait until the next regularly scheduled Senate meeting to take action.
I rise now to urge us with even more urgency to take action today and not delay
this decision of a vote of no-confidence until March 6. Last week we discussed
the need for Senators to go back to their faculties and to solicit their input.
Having been asked by my colleague to substitute for him, I emailed every person
in the Dept of Psychology, indicating that I would be substituting for Jeff
Facteau. I further indicated that it was my intention to support a resolution
of no-confidence in the BOT, and I invited my colleagues, knowing what I
intended to do, to share their sentiments with me so I could be instructed by
them. I am confident of the support of my colleagues in the Dept of Psychology
in my intent to vote no-confidence and I don’t understand the need for delay. I
think that this issue has been before us for a sufficiently long time, a full
week of amazing and unprecedented (as far as I know) in the United States arena
of higher education, series of events. I think it would be discourteous to the
courageous actions of the students of Auburn University to delay. I would like
to offer an amendment to this vote, directing that this vote of no-confidence
be taken today and that we then consider, and I am prepared to offer, a
subsequent motion requesting that the Rules Committee work to draft yet another
resolution to be considered at the March meeting inviting the coordination of
the alumni, students and staff of the University.
Dr. Gladden:
Do you consider that a friendly amendment?
My
parliamentarian says it is too late for a friendly amendment once we have
discussion.
My
parliamentarian says that you cannot offer a resolution without suspending the
rules. This cannot be part of the motion right now. My understanding is that we have to act on this motion before we
take up your idea of a resolution today.
Alex Dunlop,
English: I have a
procedural question. My understanding was that we were gathering here to hear
all sides and then consider a possible course of action. Why is this motion
presented before the information items on the agenda?
Dr. Gladden:
This was presented by the Senate officers for possible action. Our
understanding is that this meeting was for information and possible
consideration of action later. This is a mechanism for continuing action after
this meeting.
Dr. Dunlop:
I, personally, would like to reverse that order and introduce a motion
suggesting whatever after the information items are presented.
Dr. Gladden: You can move to defer if you
wish to.
Dr. Dunlop: So moved.
The
motion to defer was seconded.
Dr. Gladden:
Is there discussion?
The
motion to defer the motion was passed by a majority voice vote with no
discussion.
Information
Items:
A. Board of Trustees:
Mr. Jimmy Samford, President Pro Tempore
There
are several issues I’d like to talk to you about; I don’t anticipate that I am
going to change many minds in this body today, but I did want to share with
each of you that there is reason behind why the trustees did what they did in
installing the interim President.
The
first matter is shared governance. For the past two years, it appears that we
have developed a line of communication between the Board and the faculty, which
has been very gratifying because we have been able to see many tangible
benefits from that. The Board feels like what we can do to make efforts for the
faculty, such as the 21st century commission where we have sought to
reach the regional average in salaries for the past two years, has been by far
in the best interest of the University. The communication has been good. We
certainly haven’t been able to do all that we wanted to do, like a graduate
systems program, which we tried for many years to implement, but I can see some
definite tangible benefits for maintaining a line of communication with the
faculty. I would like to thank your leadership for promoting that. I have some
trustees very involved in promoting that; we’ve had some meetings between
faculty members and trustees in hopes of solving some of the problems facing
this group and your colleagues.
As
for the issue of communication on the interim President decision, I’m afraid I
have been pre-empted on that. I didn’t realize you had heard this same story
for 23 years, but that issue is mine. As sensitive as I’ve tried to be with
communication, I was in charge of communication of that issue to the faculty,
senate, and student body. I didn’t do it and there is no other member of the
BOT responsible for that. That is my error, my insensitivity; all I can tell
you is that I will strive to make sure that is not the case as we move forward
in the selection of a permanent President. I will make sure that this body,
this faculty, will be fully involved in that process, that they will be
well-represented on that advisory committee. I have put Mr. Jack Miller in
charge of that process as chair of the Academic Affairs committee. Hopefully he
can communicate with your leadership in providing information on the people you
would like to have involved in the process. As far as the interim President
decision itself, that decision I came up with myself. I can appreciate
everyone’s affection and loyalty to Bill Muse. Bill Muse served this University
well for nine years and I enjoyed working with him. It was my thoughts at the
time that with what the University was facing knowing of proration and the
lawsuit (which we had some advance notice of), losing that lawsuit would be
catastrophic for Auburn University. I think Auburn University might fare better
than most, but it will still be catastrophic. I determined at that time that we
needed a person to devote one hundred percent of their time, all day every day,
to the problems that would be facing AU. As I said before, I don’t intend to
change a lot of people’s minds here today, but this was not done in any
vindictive or mean-spirited manner towards Bill Muse. Bill Muse was not the
issue; the issue was Auburn University. We had been having ongoing
communications with Dr. Muse for about a year now. I talked to him last August
after his interview at Florida about what his intentions were with the
University; he assured me that his intentions were to serve out his contract
and then continue teaching, as he is a tenured professor. I told him that I was
concerned that Auburn University could be caught without a President at a
crucial time; I certainly was not trying to affect his interviews with anyone
he was trying to interview with, but I had to concern myself with Auburn
University. With the meeting we had and communications I received, we went
forward from there. We learned shortly after the first of the year that he was
in the interview process with Iowa State at the time and our concerns were
raised again. I told him at that time I needed to start a process to see that a
permanent President would be in place shortly. At that point in time we had
been told by those who are head-hunters in the education arena that we are
looking at a 6- to an 18-month time period. So we needed to start the process
moving. At that point and prior to that point, we did have conversations with
various head-hunting firms. When the East Carolina job came up, of course we
were unaware of that; we found that out the Thursday before our Friday meeting.
When we found that out, it wasn’t a long time after that Dr. Muse accepted the
job to begin August 1. I tell you this to tell you that communication with Dr.
Muse had been ongoing for a period of time. He had hired an attorney to
negotiate his contract and I was on my way back from Birmingham the Friday
before the called meeting on Monday to discuss these issues with him, and I was
informed that his attorney had a problem with me meeting with him and
discussing those issues with him at that time. I don’t say that with any
detriment to Dr. Muse; I certainly understand that. I am just trying to
communicate to you that this was an ongoing process and was not something that
just sprang up over the weekend before the Monday meeting. I did have good
information that things were going to be very tough for higher education for
the coming six months and possibly twelve to eighteen months. It was my thought
that we were just delaying the inevitable and we would be better off putting
Dr. Walker in charge now as opposed to some indefinite point down the
road.
Again,
I don’t anticipate that this changes anyone’s mind. I understand that
reasonable minds can differ, and I understand that you do differ with this
situation, but I want you to know that the efforts made were not done towards
anybody. It was done for the good of Auburn University, or for what was thought
to be the good of Auburn University. Dr. Muse may have very well been able to
serve through August 1 and done a worthy job, but as a reasonable person I have
a hard time believing that you can take a job to begin in six months and still
devote all your time to the University you are in control of at that point in
time and still worry about the issues facing you in the coming months. Again,
we tried to be as sensitive as
possible, realizing that of paramount importance to Dr. Muse was to be vested
in the retirement system. In doing that we created a position as a special
counsel in hopes of gleaning some of the ability that he has and in helping Dr.
Walker make the transition. That’s basically the thought process I went through
in determining an interim President; it was the proper procedure in this point
in time. Again, Dr. Muse gave us 9 good years, and this University is better
off today than it was when he came 9 years ago. That is a great deal of
responsibility. But that is the reason I determined we needed a leader at this
point in time who had Auburn University only on their mind.
There
are probably a couple of other issues you would like to talk about, one of
those which has already been talked about extensively. That is proration. I
think Dr. Walker has sufficiently described at his press conference what that
situation is. It is an unusual lawsuit and one that I can tell you I do not
feel too good about from the standpoint of higher education at this point in
time. I’d be happy to discuss any other issues that you have or any questions
that you have about the issues I have raised.
Isabelle
Thompson, Secretary-Elect: A week ago the 4 senate leaders met with you
and we talked about the situation and also we asked about the principles of
shared governance. At that time, we
asked you to consider some things. One
was that the Senate Chair or some faculty member have a seat on the Board as a
non-voting member. Secondly, that the
search committee for the President be formed first and be involved in
identifying the search firm.
Mr. Samford:
The Board has not considered these yet. We have not had a board meeting.
I have talked to Mr. Miller, who is assisting me in this process, but he has
been out of the country. I think he has had some conversations with the
leadership. I talked to him about the concerns and sent him a copy of the
letter. We would like to involve the faculty as much as we can in this process,
and we will endeavor to do that. I think there are certain things that we can
do to help elevate the faculty involvement in the process. I would encourage
you to talk Dr. Gladden about that; I’m not certain what transpired, but I do
know that a conversation has taken place in that regard.
Gene
Clothiaux, Former Senate Chair: The last time we had a search committee, one
of the things that occurred was that at the end of the search the finalists
were not brought to campus. So the faculty never knew who the finalists were. I
know we’ve talked about this before, but I’d like to ask you this again: Will
you bring the finalists to campus so the faculty can meet them?
Mr. Samford: I cannot make that commitment at this point in time. I think that the
head-hunting firm has got to advise us as to what is the best process to get
the best person to Auburn University. If that means bringing that person to
campus and having him interview with different groups on campus, then that’s
fine with me. I have not been through this process before. You obviously did a
good job in making your selection of Dr. Muse. I don’t know that we would have
gotten the two candidates that you all supplied to the Board if we would have
had the open process that you are advocating. That is not something I am going
to make a determination of because I don’t know enough about it.
Dr. Clothiaux:
Part of university governance is letting all parts of the University
have some say in the final decision. At that time circumstances were such that
you couldn’t do that; hopefully one would develop such circumstances at the
beginning so that those things could happen.
Mr. Samford:
What were the circumstances that were so different then?
Dr. Clothiaux:
When that committee met, there were many applicants who asked that it
not be said that they were applying. There was a long discussion and we finally
decided that we would honor that. We got to the last five finalists and two of
those did not wish to have it known back at home that they were finalists. So
for that reason we didn’t make the finalists known. For that reason we should have it in the advertisement to begin
with. If you feel that strongly about
it, you should not be a candidate. What
I’m suggesting is to do that early, so that people applying will know that they
will have to become public at some point.
Mr. Samford:
Do you feel like you would have gotten as good candidates in that
process?
Jim Bradley,
Chair-Elect: I originally intended to ask you about the
resolution passed last week. I understand that I can’t speak twice, so I’m
going to address my question to the issue of the President, although I do hope
you will address to the group the requests that were made in one of the 3
resolutions passed by the Senate last week.
There is broad concern that even if the faculty is allowed to approve
the head-hunting firm, and even has strong representation on the search
committee or even if a faculty member is the chair of the search committee,
that when the final set of candidates is recommended to the BOT and the
trustees’ own favorite candidate is not in that group, that he will be inserted
into that group at that point; thus the whole process that the search committee
has gone through will be for nothing. Can you promise us today that the search
committee’s recommendations will be the final lists and that there will be no
insertions by the BOT or even by a CEO of a bank at the very end of a favorite
candidate? Can you promise that today
so we can be assured that this search process will result in the best person
possible being hired?
Mr. Samford:
I can only speak for myself, Jim.
I can’t speak for the Board, just as this group is, I have a very
independent-minded group of people as well. We don’t sit around and wait on a
phone call as to which way to go. What I think would prove fruitful is for some
members of this body to sit down with the head-hunting firm we have and discuss
some of these issues that they have experienced in other institutional
searches. Then maybe a lot of these questions would be answered. I would like
to do that myself, since I have not interviewed these particular head-hunting
firms. Contrary to some rumors I’ve heard, we do not have a person selected for
this position; there is no favorite candidate at this point in time.
Nick Davis,
Emeritus Professor (not a senator): Isn’t it true, sir, that this body has the tremendous capacity to
nullify any major action that anybody’s suggested, like this lady here who
wants to get something done? Under your
dictatorship, hasn’t the office of President become an absolute zero? It’s the
office of the President that has become out-of-the-loop. I understand that he
has not participated in a decision on
this campus in a couple of years. We see this and are worried by it. You are
usurping every last function of this University and you are not qualified.
Mr. Samford:
Let me answer several questions. First, I’m not a dictator and I do not
control this Board of Trustees, nor does any other person control this
BOT. The Board acts on probably 98% of
the recommendations made from the administration. It is very rare that the
Board itself comes up with an idea itself. It may come up with an idea at a
meeting, promote it, and ask the President to have a member of his staff study
this issue and bring it back to the Board in the form of a resolution. But if
someone is saying that the President has not been involved in any decision the
past two years, then it is simply not true.
I told Dr. Walker recently that we will anxiously await his
recommendation on what we’ll do about this extremely difficult situation. You
are right: we are not qualified and we have depended on the President and his
staff to make those recommendations. You are right on the one count: we are not
qualified to do that. However, we do act on their votes and recommendations
that they bring to the Board.
Dr. Gladden: We have a lot
more speakers to go, so we can only take about two more questions.
Renee
Middleton, Counseling/Counseling Psychology: You started your
comments by saying that you took sole responsibility for the faculty not being
informed about the removal of Pres. Muse. I recall you saying at the press
statement that the resolution was your idea and you didn’t take time to talk
with any of the other Board members about it. You said you might have called a
few, but you took sole responsibility for that action. In follow-up to the
question that the Chair-Elect asked, why is it that you can’t then yourself, as
President Pro-Tempore, tell us that no other people will be added to the list
once the search process has been undergone? I didn’t really hear a response to
that question.
Mr. Samford: I can tell you how that would relate to the question that was
asked by Dr. Bradley. I proposed it; it could have not carried. Other trustees
could have had other ideas and proposed other measures, just as they could in
this particular case. That is basically the situation now. I did talk to
several trustees about the issue of an interim President. I felt comfortable
about it and I can talk to the trustees about other issues that have been
brought up. But I am not in control of what those trustees are going to do.
Dr. Middleton:
But you cannot give us a commitment that you’re going to work very hard
to see that is not going to happen? You can’t say that’s something you don’t
want to see happen?
Mr. Samford: What I did say is I wanted to sit down with
the head-hunter members who had been through these searches before because I’ve
never been through one of these before.
Judy Sheppard,
Steering Committee: I have a question in regards to the
incredible financial crisis that the University is in, yet so many of us wonder
about the money that the Board is able to spend on consultants, PR firms, on
trips to submarines; the University takes a lot of hits financially, but we
never hear of hits on your expense accounts and the things you do, the perks
you have as Board members, the trips, the skyboxes, sporting events. What will
you do to try to save money, and how can you justify the money that is spent on
the personal pleasures of the Board when we are facing such an incredible
crisis.
Mr. Samford:
I can appreciate your question. I discussed with the Board’s secretary
today that all travel for the BOT is being curtailed. If there is some
overwhelming reason, then it needs to come to me, there are other issues that
we will have to prepare to face in this cost-cutting measure and I will be
prepared to propose those cost-cutting measures. We will take a look at our own
house as well. That is a fair enough question.
Judy Sheppard,
Steering committee: As a follow-up, we kind of talked about the
Senate asking for someone to look at all these consultant contracts and ones
that we need to get out of. Do we need
to do all of those things that we do at this point?
Mr. Samford: We will
certainly look at those things; this will be one matter that will be looked at.
Wayne Flint,
History: I would like to respond because in the 21st
century commission process, Glenn Howze tried to tell the trustees that crisis and
morale at Auburn had very little to do with funding. Getting our salaries up to
regional average is not going to solve the problem. We consistently were
ignored in that process; it is all a matter of cutting programs and getting
salaries up to the average. I think the main thing that Mr. Samford needs to
hear today is that proration and salaries is not the issue at Auburn
University. It never has been the issue. We are here because we love this place
and what it should be doing for our students. Secondly, it has nothing to do
with the way Dr. Muse was treated; what happened Friday to Monday is irrelevant
in my mind. It has do with a trustee who made very large contributions to a
governor and legislators, including senators and state legislators. It has to
do with trustees who have interlocking connections financially to that one
trustee and a process of trusteeship in which we do not have any confidence. I
think the main thing you need to hear is that if this vote of no-confidence
passes, it is not about finances, and it is not about the way Dr. Muse exited
this University. If that is NOT the case, the Senators need to tell him that.
If it IS the case, then the faculty needs to make sure that what we heard from
Mr. Samford for fifteen minutes was totally irrelevant to what we are going to
vote on later.
Mr. Samford: I hear you loud and clear. I came in here
thinking that the issue was Bill Muse. I came in here thinking the issue was
pay increases. You are telling me something I didn’t know.
Ralph Mirarchi,
Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: With all due
respect, Mr. Samford, based on your use of singular personal pronouns and
listening to the history of some of the decisions that were made, you have
aptly shown why you and the rest of the trustees have no understanding of what
shared governance means. Secondly, the responses show how out of touch you are
with this faculty. I think, once again, this aptly shows that a great number of
us have no confidence in the Board of Trustees to guide this University.
Mr. Samford: We have had an unfortunate history of
communication between the faculty and the BOT; I can acknowledge that. I have
been gratified over the last coupe of years that we have opened up some lines.
I had really hoped that with opening those lines of communication that we would
be able to learn more, that the faculty would be able to share in governance,
and I think we are making progress in that regard. Some may not agree with that
opinion and I can understand why because progress is slow. The history that we’ve gotten from years
gone by makes it very difficult. I think the majority of the Board thinks that
communication with the faculty is in the best interest of the University and is
essential to the University.
Dr. Mirarchi: With all due respect, sir, if
you really believed that, we would have a member of the faculty sitting on the
Board, and the trustees would not resent such representation.
Mr. Samford: I hear what you are saying and
that is one of the issues I intend to present to the Board. We have talked to
the leadership and there are a number of issues that have been presented. This
is one of them that I intend on presenting to the Board.
Barry
Burkhart, Psychology (Ex-Chair, not a senator): A little over ten years ago the BOT ordered
the then President Martin to rescind an offer of tenure to a faculty member. In
a meeting with the BOT, several of the members of the Board looked at me and
denied that they had done that. Just a couple of years ago, Trustee Lowder, in
an interview with the Anniston Star, acknowledged that the BOT had in fact been
involved in that decision to rescind the proper offer that had been made by the
academic representatives from the University. Just now, you have said that the
process that the Board involved didn’t take place until after January. At least
two head-hunting firms were contacted by the BOT last summer and were asked to
begin to search for a President for Auburn University. What this means is that
we can’t trust you. That is what the vote of no-confidence is about because we
are not being told the truth, and we can’t count on the fact that we will be
told the truth.
Mr. Samford:
I am not aware that any head-hunting firms were contacted last summer.
Dr. Burkhart: Ask Trustee Miller if he
contacted two head-hunting firms last summer.
Mr. Samford: I would be
happy to ask him that, but I was not aware of any head-hunting firms being
contacted as far back as last summer. I am not aware of any pressure that was
put on Dr. Martin; I was not involved in that. I was on the Board but not
involved in the situation at the time. I certainly haven’t seen the Anniston
article. I would be interested in seeing that.
B. Shared Governance:
Dr. Larry Gerber, American Association of University Professors
I
am representing the AAUP but am not a
member of the executive committee of the current chapter at Auburn. I was asked
to speak more because of my position in the national AAUP as a member of the National Council and the committee on
government. I would like to give an overview as to why AAUP became involved
with this and why the local chapter has played such a prominent role because of
its concern about shared governance.
The
concept of shared governance, which is essential to AAUP’s mission, has been
reduced in this discussion to communication, that everyone should have a voice. But the principle of shared
governance is spelled out in a document formulated jointly by the AAUP and the
Association of Governing Boards of Universities in 1966. The basic principle
there is that in matters relating to academic matters of the University, the
faculty should have primary responsibility in making decisions regarding those
matters because, as Mr. Samford acknowledged, it is the faculty who have
expertise about academic matters. I think one of the problems is that there
have been instances where academic decisions are being made, or have been made
in the past by the Board. My colleague, Wayne Flint, made the comment that it
is not a matter of what happened over a couple of days with Dr. Muse, and it’s
not really just about Dr. Muse, but it does symbolize the violation of the principle of shared governance that has
occurred for many years. If you remember when Dr. Muse was first hired with a
very divided vote among the Board members, within a year there were rumors of
pressure to get rid of Dr. Muse despite
the fact that faculty, students, and alumni were highly supportive of his
efforts during his first year. I
remember Barry Burkhart chairing a “Muse Appreciation Day” as an expression to
the Board of the strong support Muse had from a variety of constituents on
campus. When Dr. Muse was being considered for the presidency at Minnesota, if
you remember there was an uprising of constituents here; I believe that from
the time that 5-year contract was signed back at the time of the Minnesota
application, Dr. Muse had a very troubled relationship with the Board (not that
it kept him from decision-making) from that time forward, and the Board had
every intention of making life very difficult for Dr. Muse in spite of the fact
that he had support from a variety of constituents here. Shared governance
would have meant that any decision about evaluating or retaining the President
would have been a collective endeavor. I do not believe there was much shared
discussion/input in terms of evaluation of the President and making every
effort to make sure Dr. Muse was welcome here and wanted to stay. I think we
all know the decision that he was going to be leaving was made long before the
weekend of those events, but that was only a matter of timing. I think that had
the principles of shared governance been in place with the support he had from
the constituents on campus, particularly the faculty, then the Board would not
have acted in a fashion that would make him have wanted to leave. I think we
have every indication that he would have been happy to stay had he had the
support from the Board that he had from the constituents on campus. I think
when we talk about academic decisions, I can remember a couple of decisions
that have taken place in fairly recent memory. Again, going back to the first
year that Dr. Muse was here, when we had the new position of Provost created.
I’m sure some of you remember that search when the search committee and Dr. Muse had a candidate, a woman from
out-of-state who had strong support on campus (keep in mind this is the
Provost, the chief academic officer under the President, a decision that should
be made primarily by constituents on campus with major input from the faculty),
the Board vetoed the selection of the faculty and the administration as to the
leading officer of academics on campus at Auburn University. The handling of
the situation with the Economics/PhD program is another academic decision for
which there is certainly disagreement; I don’t think that every single faculty
member at Auburn agreed as to whether we should or should not have a PhD
program in Economics. But it went
through a process where you had a review body and an administration agreeing
that after a review, the degree should be retained. The Board acted
unilaterally to make a decision about that program. Again, you may have heard
what the voice was, but there was no input from the faculty to make a final
decision about an academic degree program. I believe that we must emphasize
that when we’re talking about shared governance, when it comes to academic
matters, that the faculty should have primary responsibility, in concert with
the administration.
One
of the basic reasons that the AAUP upholds the principles of shared governance
is that if we are to remain an improving University with good quality programs
that is moving up in the rankings, academics has to be the first and foremost
criteria for making decisions. I don’t think that most people among the
students, faculty, or alumni right now believe that academic values are the
preeminent concern of the Board of Trustees. When we talk about shared
governance and the important role that the faculty play, I must offer my
statement to Lindsey Boney, the SGA, and the students on campus. I think they
did a wonderful thing in expressing their views. I strongly support their
active engagement in the governance of the campus; however, I still say that it
is not the students who should make the final determinations about academics.
The group that will defend academic values and has the expertise to make
decisions about academics is the faculty. So, shared governance is not just
communicating with us, it is allowing us to have primary responsibility when it
pertains to academic matters.
Marty Olliff,
Library: What could the BOT do (this Board or any
Boards that might follow it) to incorporate faculty in a true sense of shared
governance, truly making this a campus that promotes shared governance?
Dr. Gerber: Well, the level of trust with
this Board is such that it will be very difficult for this Board to take action
that is considered meaningful. Sure, I think it’s a wonderful idea and I
supported it when I was Senate Chair. Every Senate Chair for a decade or more
has supported the notion of a University Senate Chair serving as a non-voting
member of the BOT. Every single Senate Chair has raised that issue and it has
been denied. However, that is a symbolic act; that person will not have true
power to make decisions, but it would have been an important step the Board
could have and should have taken years ago to improve trust and greater
dialogue so that for example, on the occasion of the last Board meeting, only
because Lindsey Boney is a member of the Board did he have the opportunity to
stand up and express his view on what was happening. The faculty did not have
that right and privilege. That would be something, but by itself, that doesn’t
do it.
I
think there are several people in this group who have severe doubts as to the
legitimacy of the upcoming Presidential search to be conducted. Mr. Samford,
when you are unwilling or unable to make a commitment in response to very
specific questions about that process, it only intensifies the distrust and
doubt about the eventual legitimacy about the Presidential search. There is nothing more important for the
Board and the campus to do collectively than make an appropriate selection of a
new President. I have to say, and I believe we all know this, that if you
consulted the faculty or anyone about how to handle the situation with Dr.
Muse, you would have been told, “You handle it that way and you are going to
eliminate the pool of good candidates for the presidency of Auburn University”.
The choice of President should be a joint effort. Surely the Board has not only
the legal responsibility, but also the ultimate responsibility for making the
final selection. A wise Board will choose someone who will bring the campus
together. The only way that will happen is if someone is chosen who has the
confidence of the faculty. Unless a procedure is iron-clad proof that the
faculty are not going to have someone imposed upon them, then I think the
chance of restoring trust here is virtually nil.
We’ve
had the discussion about proration; I fully agree with Wayne Flint. Even in the
last couple of years when good economic planning by Don Large and Bill Muse has
helped put Auburn in a better situation than many other universities, that
faculty salaries were going up, yet morale was still bad here because of the
problems that existed. So when we talk about proration, a Board that was
carrying out its responsibility for Auburn University would have for years been
campaigning for tax reform in this state. I do believe that some Board members
do have contact with the Governor. I do believe that in getting word to the
Governor, the Governor needs to take leadership on this issue. The Board needs
to take a public position encouraging him to assume leadership; this would be a
very constructive thing to re-establish faith in the Board.
Jim Hansen
(not a Senator): Can you explain to
us what the role of a head-hunting firm should be within a proper system of
shared governance?
Dr. Gerber: I highly recommend (and would be happy to
supply copies to the Board) Academe
as the publication of the AAUP. When I was chair of the committee on government
in AAUP a couple of years ago, we made an issue specifically devoted to
governance issues. Included in that issue were two articles devoted to
presidential searches. You would find many people who would argue that
head-hunting firms are not the best way to go, but I’ve had reports of
different kinds of experiences across the country, some positive, some
negative. If a decision is made to use a head-hunting firm, it should not be
made until after a search committee is constructed. You already indicated that
that decision has already been made, that a head-hunting firm is necessary. I
think that should be a matter for a search committee that represents the
constituents on campus. That search committee should make that decision in the
first place. Given the difficulty that we will have trying to locate candidates
who will want to apply to Auburn under the current circumstances, I think a
head-hunting firm might be advisable. But it would be a head-hunting firm that
had experience with higher education and recognized its role as to facilitate
the operation of a search committee where academic values are preeminent, and
that it sees itself as serving the search committee, helping it and not taking
over the process. I think that would be the critical element in a
head-hunting firm.
Gene
Clothiaux, former Senate-chair: In the last search we decided not
to have a search firm. Nothing was done
except what that committee decided. We
decided who were the finalists. That’s
not a bad process. The only problem we
had as I mentioned before was that we couldn’t bring the finalists to campus.
Dr. Gerber: I understand the difficulty of many
candidates until you have a short list; it is very common now not to have
widespread publicity at the very beginning. But you have a process where you
choose a new President without there being a review of the constituencies on
campus in a public setting and meaningful feedback to a search committee on who
is acceptable, I shudder to think about the perception that will be encouraged
about the nature of the process. If someone doesn’t want to meet publicly with
the constituents at Auburn, I don’t want that person as President.
I
want to first tell you my view of what happened yesterday. I think what
happened yesterday was a great moment in the history of Auburn University. I’ve
only been here 3 ½ years and I love to read the annals of History. I love to
read the history of Auburn University and see what people before us have done,
how they responded, how they reacted, and what reactions were to what they did.
Judging by those things I’ve read, yesterday was a historic moment and I was
glad to have been a part of it. I don’t necessarily think I was responsible for
it; I just had the responsibility and the privilege to lead it. Many of you
were congratulating me on what I said Monday of last week at the BOT meeting. I
mentioned yesterday at the rally at Samford Hall that I don’t deserve
congratulations; I deserve condolences. I was the person who had to say what
was said that day. Hopefully everyone
of you in this room felt what I was feeling that day and if given the
opportunity, would have said exactly what I said. Some consider my actions
heroic; I consider what was done that day and yesterday to be a necessary means
of action.
Yesterday
close to 2000 people attended our rally at Samford Hall. Many of them were students;
some were faculty, alumni, and general supporters of Auburn University. We had
several remarks made; Dr. Gladden spoke, Dr. Crandell from the AAUP spoke, very
positive reactions to what we were trying to do in disapproval of the nominees
for appointment to the BOT. In Montgomery there were close to 300 students
doing the same thing, rallying behind a common cause that seems to be unifying
the faculty, staff, students, and alumni here at Auburn University. They spoke
loudly with the Governor and members of the State Senate that we did not want
those BOT members appointed. Unfortunately they did. However, we feel that
yesterday was a success; we feel like it was a first step in not only unifying
the Auburn family, but making that unifying voice one that will be heard,
heeded, and recognized in the years to come. We at least hope that.
I
had a meeting with the Governor yesterday morning. I went initially to meet
with his chief of staff. When I entered his office I was ushered into the
Governor’s office, and in the course of our conversation I asked him to
withdraw his appointments to the Board. Instead he responded (these were his
words): “Since I never come to a BOT meeting at Auburn University, I will
gladly give you my spot on the BOT. I can’t give you my vote because that is
legally binding, but I will give you my seat at the table.” I informed the
Governor that because he had not been to any Board meetings, he didn’t know
that I already have a seat on the Board. The meeting didn’t go anywhere after that,
but I was privileged to be able to meet with him. I did make known to him the
concerns of alumni, faculty and students across the state, the country, and all
around the world, that what is going on at Auburn is a very desperate
situation. These are very trying times, and unless something is done quickly we
are all in trouble.
Secondly,
there is a piece of information I believe you all need to know. I think we all
believe it to be true, but yesterday it was confirmed. In conversations with a
Senator (I won’t mention his name or the person he was talking about, because
if he wishes to come out and say it,
then he can come out and say it himself. But he said it to me and I think we
all need to know), he told me one of his constituents wished to pursue a seat
on the BOT here at Auburn University. So he
got that Senator to represent him to the Governor. He asked Governor
Siegelman if this man could be considered for a seat on the BOT at Auburn. Gov.
Siegelman then promptly directed him to a member of our Alumni Association and
Board of Trustees and said to take up his issue with him. That person said he
already had two people in mind to be Board members; “thanks for applying” but
he could tell this person to try again another time. So I believe that what we
did yesterday, regardless of the opposition of any side, was in the best
interest of Auburn University because it was an attempt to keep Auburn’s Board
from being the same way Alabama’s Board is because of self-appointments.
Keeping that power in the hands of the Governor with input from the alumni, faculty, and students, is where it
should be.
Where
we go from here is a very difficult question. I certainly appreciate and
respect the motion that was made to encourage the SGA, the Auburn Alumni
Association, and the AAUP to consider the same motion you will be considering
on March 6. I’m not sure where we will go, but I will say that yesterday’s
battle was the first skirmish in many battles that will be fought, not just
because I want them to be. I think these battles need to be fought. I hope you
know and realize that even though my administration is turning over in the next
few weeks, I pledge to continue to urge the SGA to do all they can to make AU a
better place. Many say that yesterday’s actions only divide the Auburn people,
but I stand in opposition to that. On the contrary, I say that because
students, faculty, alumni, staff, and supporters of Auburn University stood
together (even administrators were there yesterday) in strong support of what we
were doing, Auburn is making progress, not dividing, but unifying.
I
certainly appreciate all the support you have given. I’ve received many emails
and phone calls from you. It is overwhelming that I’ve been given the
opportunity to serve Auburn. We’ve worked long, hard, and tirelessly, but I
believe we are all making Auburn a better place. I appreciate your concerns and
recommendations as to where we should go from here.
There
have been rumors of a protest that will happen tonight at the Coliseum. I have
heard that tonight after the Auburn Tigers have finished warm-ups, a group of
students will storm the court and sit until Govenor Siegelman and Mr. Lowder
leave. The SGA and I are NOT in support of that protest. Some of you in this
room may be in support of this protest, but I want to publicly say that no
matter what happens tonight, I did not stand behind that nor did the SGA stand
behind that. We do not intend to make any protests or personal attacks. We
don’t think these protests should be in a vicious or vindictive nature. We
believe that yesterday’s peaceful protest was a very strong statement and a
very forward-taking step in the right direction. No matter what happens, we will
continue to follow that procedure.
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: Do you think
you could get Bruce that position on the Board of Trustees? As I told you yesterday, I salute your
efforts. You can tell us that it is not heroic, but it clearly is. I want to
read something. This is a comment from Senator Barron that many of you have
heard. He commented that “maybe 5 percent of students were present at this
protest…this means that the other 95% are pleased with what is happening at
AU.” I don’t ask you to comment on
that; that would insult you. I don’t have a student, and have not had one since
I’ve been here, that would not recognize right away that bit of reasoning is
stupendous. By parody of reasoning, if less than 5% of the citizenry of the
U.S. protested against apartheid, we must have been for it. Instead, I offer
you this: an apology. I’m sorry that a representative of this University would
make that comment about you and the students here, and about what you did. I
thank you again for all of your efforts.
Mr. Boney: I appreciate your comments and would like to
say one quick thing: if Senator Barron had been on campus yesterday he would
seen how dead the campus was, aside from the march from the Coliseum to Samford
Hall. Students did not go to class.
Whether they went to Montgomery or not, 2000 people standing on the lawn
at Samford Hall is 10% of the student body. And whether you have the
percentages or not, I agree that it is stupendous to comment in such a way.
David Martin,
Emeritus Professor, Political Science: Did the Governor express to you any intent
of attending future Board of Trustee meetings?
Mr. Boney: He didn’t, and by offering me his seat I
believe he never plans to come to one again.
Wayne Flint,
History: I find it deeply troubling that the Governor
in the paper this morning said that he had no contact with the BOT about these
two appointments, specifically not with Bobby Lowder. From what you have just
told us, I must conclude that someone is lying.
I
agree with someone I heard last week: Lindsey is a very hard act to follow.
I’ve been proud to serve with him on various committees and I know he will do
well. I was asked to come and give the staff perspective.
I
communicated with a wide variety of employees, seeking thoughts and opinions on
the recent events surrounding the BOT. I have heard things like “I would speak
up, but I only have two years until retirement and I don’t want to screw that
up.” “I’m not yet vested.” “I can speak up, I am a tenured professor.” I was
also told that what I was told was strictly off-the-record. It was not
surprising to hear this kind of fear, but it was surprising to hear so much of
it. There certainly is a fear on this campus that some of the Board of Trustees
members can and would reach into some of our human resources so far as to
affect personal lives.
I’ve
met most of the Trustees and in general I find them to be very intelligent,
congenial people. But if these fears are a reality, then we have a bigger
problem than we are really talking about today. An atmosphere exists that makes
people afraid to exercise their first amendment rights. Whatever has been asked
of the Board of Trustees, I suggest that we also ask them to assure us that
they will not behave in this way. Staff have responded with overwhelming
support of the University Senate resolutions of last week. There was also a
sense that resolutions are not enough; a vote of no-confidence in individual
Board members is the least that can be done, and there needs to at least be a
plan of action. Suggestions have ranged from another mass gathering in front of
Samford Hall demanding accountability, to calls for investigations of ethics
violations. I think we also need to look beyond these issues and demand that
our legislators tackle tax reform. There is too much at stake in higher
education to be expected to live year-to-year on uncertain funding.
Whereas
staff are supportive of some sort of punitive action against Board members, it
is generally felt that the leadership of this movement needs to come from the
faculty. The same kind of resolve that
was seen to mobilize Auburn against the year-round school needs to be seen. The Board removed our President without
consulting the faculty; the Governor nominated two candidates for at-large
positions on the Board without consulting the faculty, and in the knowledge
that one candidate had already aroused suspicions of corruption. The Governor’s
office then blocked communication between his office and this campus. Many
Senators chose to honor agreements with the Governor and other individuals
rather than with their constituents. There is an incredible amount of talent
and expertise on this campus; I can’t understand why anyone would make vital
decisions about this University without drawing from that pool.
I
think most employees believe that decisions are not made without wisdom but are
due to hidden motives. What will be the next embarassment to this University?
The question has been asked, “How much are we going to take?” We need to answer
this question definitively. I hope all groups can unite and stand to answer
that we have had enough. If ever a time was right to make that statement it was
now. If recent events cannot elicit a strong response from us, what can?
I
hope the faculty will not back down from this challenge. We are on the verge of
a budget crisis that will demand our attention, but we must not let it divert
us from these issues. Our response to these issues will either haunt or
encourage us for a long time. Inaction is consent. We hope to have a new
President in about a year; if a stand is not made at this time, what kind of
man or woman can we expect to come to this University?
Conner Bailey,
Ag Econ & Rural Soc (not a senator): The fear you have expressed on behalf of those who do not enjoy
tenure underscores the importance of tenure in an academic institution. I’m
sure you’ll find that many of my colleagues and I support the staff and will do
our best to protect the interests of the staff as they raise their voices.
Dr. Gladden: Mr. Owen Brown graduated from Auburn
University in 1964. He is past-President of Sun Microsystems.
Mr. Brown:
I came to Auburn University rather indirectly. First I metriculated at
Rice University where I had a
successful freshman year with A’s in party-attending and beer-consumption. I
showed up at Auburn University and met with Mrs. Edwards who tallied my grade
points and found that I had one more than I needed to enter Auburn as a
transfer student. It was good that it happened that way because class started
about two weeks hence, and that was the day that registration closed. I made it
in by the skin of my teeth and had an absolutely wonderful experience here.
Auburn is a special University with a history of producing strong leaders in
the business and military world. We produce astronauts, CEO’s; last year Auburn
University had the most Fortune 500
CEO’s of any land-grant University in the nation. Those are admirable
accolades. So Auburn is a special University that provides not only great
academic credentials to people, but also provides them with the basic tenant of how you operate and live
effectively in society. That history has gone on for a long time and our
achievements as a University have gone on for a long time. So I owe Auburn a
great deal; Dr. Walker and Dr. Muse and I have been discussing that some
residue of my estate ends up here at Auburn. So, it has been a long time that I
have been planning to support the University that gave so much to me. I have a
document called “The Auburn Creed.” I’m sure everyone here has been exposed to
it at some time. There are a couple of things I want to quote from it and
relate back to what I view as the performance or lack thereof of the Board of
Trustees. I’m here today representing no one but myself, but I believe that my
feelings for the University are representative because there are a lot of very
dedicated Auburn alumni out there who would agree with my thoughts on the
inadequate behavior of the BOT. I think that opinion has been adequately voiced
here.
“I
believe in education, which gives me the knowledge to work wisely, and trains
my mind and my hands to work skillfully.” I
have a memo here relating to a situation with a former football player
at Auburn University. One of my associates from California sent me a fax when
Mr. Brooks was in court in Cincinnatti claiming that he had only a third-grade
reading ability, but he graduated from Auburn University. I find that
appalling; I find it appalling that our sports program would allow that to
happen. I was assured that this is no longer the case. However, when I see a
BOT so focused on the sports program as opposed to being focused on the
educational programs of the University, I think it is wrong.
“I
believe in honesty and truthfulness, without which I cannot win the confidence
or respect of my fellow man.” I wish Jimmy were still here because if he
believed that then I don’t know what isolation booth he lives in. If he doesn’t
understand the frustration of the faculty and alumni of AU because of the
behavior of the BOT, someone is “out to lunch,” either I am or he is.
“I
believe in obedience to law because it protects the rights of all.” The sunshine law is not unique to the state
of Alabama; there are 50 of them in the United States. For people to hold
secret meetings with forums that are mandated to be public is breaking the law.
For people to stand up and say “we didn’t know” among educated people is simply
a farce.
“I
believe in the human touch, which
cultivates sympathy with my fellow man and mutual helpfulness that brings
happiness to all.” Contrary to what a couple of people in here said, I think
the way Bill Muse was treated was awful. It was not only an atrocity, but it
was inconsistent with the benefits that we reaped as a University from his
tenure. Last Monday morning when my email started lighting up and I started
seeing all that had been done with respect to Bill, I took notice. Those emails
were followed very quickly by the announcement of the two new selections for
the BOT. Three months ago the state of Alabama passed a resolution by a 65%
margin that affected future BOT appointments.
I thought the intent was to broaden the scope of the Board of Trustees
in corporate governance, exposure to
corporate Board rules, and things that a BOT should be doing for any University
or company on which they sit. Three and a half months later we named two new trustees;
as far as I know there was no consultation with the faculty or the alumni
foundation. Those were supposed to be the sources of the nominees; at least one
of those nominees was incredibly disruptive in terms of her affiliation with
the Alumni Association. We all of a sudden find that we have two new trustees,
neither one of which I have met, so none of this is personal. But if I look at
what I thought was the intent and I certainly sent some money here in support
of that resolution, I don’t think the recent two nominees met that expectation.
To me, it violated the spirit of what 65% of the population was looking for.
Politicians are the same the world over: they are all worried about the
election, and I don’t know how in the face of 65% of the electorate you do something that was completely opposite
of what was expected of you. So, I finished my emails on Monday of last week; I
had finished the arrangements to chair a presidential professorship in the
faculty engineering department and had done that through a combination of an
insurance vehicle and a commitment to fund the $100,000 per year necessary to
pay the professor plus overfund the insurance policy for 5 to 7 years to build
enough so that the cash flowing out of the insurance policy would be sufficient
at some point in the future to always have that presidential chair available to
the College of Engineering fund. I didn’t do anything Monday night. I was very
angry. I told my wife that we would probably withdraw that commitment. I came
back later and declared my decision done. I did this for a couple of reasons.
One, I am not a resident of the State of Alabama, although we are building a
home on Lake Martin and I may move my residence here so that I can vote for
Lindsey Boney for Governor. There are things going on in the alumni that just
fed me up. This ambush that occurred last year, I had a long argument with
Housel at breakfast with David telling me that I was accusing Bobby of being
the root of this, and I was just one of those alumni who didn’t know what I was
talking about and I was too quick to blame. I have a piece of paper that was
sent to a couple of people saying that Bobby thought it was time for some
changes within the alumni association. So, now that Jimmy has spoken I’m
reinforced as to why I did it. I suppose I do not understand Alabama politics
and am not exposed to it as you all are. However, being told that something is one way when I know it is the
other way offends me. So I look at the BOT (which I’m sure they are all nice
guys and are there to support Auburn University), and I consider the
appointment of Mr. Franklin to represent the Birmingham district, when Elmer
Harris is in the Birmingham district. I don’t know why you do that or how you
do that; I think there is a great benefit not only to Auburn University but to
the State of Alabama to have people on the Board of Trustees from other parts
of the country because they can make an influence on contracts, relationships,
and introductions. Don Logan can walk into any Board meeting in the United
States and be a welcome addition. Sally Jones Hilton walked into almost all of
them. Both of these are class-act people. Look at Earl Williams and Sam Ginn;
Sam Ginn just gave twenty-five million dollars to this University. Here is a class-act
guy. He founded Air-Touch Communication, did a masterful job of working that
thing through. These are people with great reach, things in my mind that are in
the self-interest of the State, not just Auburn University.
A
number of people have commented on me coming down and getting on this Board. I
am not now nor have I ever been a candidate to get on this Board, at least in
my mind. I am a startup guy. I put companies together, but I am not a company
guy. I try to help in other ways, like
being involved in the engineering council. I am not going to give my money
under the circumstances that we find the Board of Trustees. I promised Larry
that I would not try to unhook anybody from giving a gift; that would be
violating my own ethics. I do know currently of some who are rewriting wills to
take Auburn out of them. This is a serious issue for you and the alumni. I
think the students did a marvelous job yesterday, and I think we need to all
pitch in for this thing together.
All
of these trustees have their own businesses to worry about. There are lots of
ways to make life a little more difficult for people who seem to be totally
self-serving as the way they are operating as Board of Trustees. Corporate
governance is something that I happen to know a little bit about, and if you
want to know what the concept of shared governance is you should try to run a
company full of first-year engineers making $150,000 a year and multiple job
offers behind yours. You learn quickly that the dictatorial process doesn’t
work. It doesn’t work any better in the corporate world than in the University
world. In the corporate world there are some who try to employ that, and if you
look at the stocks of those companies you see they typically don't do well.
They tend to see turnover in personnel. I can tell you that in the world I come
from, the role of a Board is for advice; I think you will find that to be true
in almost every corporate board room in the world. I don’t think that it is a
bit different in the University environment than it is in the corporate world.
They are there to give advice and consent and be a checkpoint for the
management. The minute a Board tries to run a company, it is basically all
over. The role, particulary in a University, of a Board of Trustees should be
to go out and get entres for the University and to the various sources of
funds. They should be out lobbying the state government to get additional
sources of property taxes in the state to be able to deal with the fact that
there is a 28% literacy rate in the state.
There have to be some alternate sources of funds.
I
haven’t heard what the reaction to my decision was. I’ve heard two comments
that the governor made; one was “it’s his money, so it’s his decision. He has
the right to do what he wants.” That is true. The other sort of blew it off as
unimportant. I don’t know which one of those is correct. I’ve never been
contacted by anyone on the Board of Trustees thanking me. Unfortunately I was
unable to be here, but it was announced on the night Sam Ginn’s contribution
was announced, so maybe it was overshadowed by the $25 million.
I
would offer one other comment. I would like to make one correction to something
printed the other day. Bobby and I were
here in school together and he was President of Sigma Nu and I was President of
Fraternity Council, so we worked together. Neither Bobby nor I would describe
the other as friends simply because we don’t know each other well enough, but
we would describe our relationship as friendly. In fact, I went down to meet
with him a couple of years ago to figure out how to take some of this
intellectual property and really turn it into some companies so that Auburn
doesn’t just get royalties but equity and is far more profitable in the
long-haul. Although our interpersonal relationship has been friendly, we are
not friends. I want to distinguish that carefully. I do look at his tenure on
the Board, and I’m sure there are some counter-balancing things he’s done to
help the University, certainly his contribution to the sports program has
allowed it to thrive. But if you look at the series of scandals associated with
our program, from the recruiting scandal when Pat Dye was here, to the Terry
Bowden incident, which in my mind was a travesty in the way it was handled, and
I am not a fan of Terry Bowden (so this doesn’t have anything to do with liking
Terry). Then I look at the way Bill
Muse’s departure was handled, for him to find out on Monday morning that he was
terminated on Friday, and I think it is a travesty. It was unprofessional for a
major University. And now we have a possible no-confidence vote coming from the faculty; this is an amazing
serious offender. This is a guy who stood up one governor and basically told
him to go pound sand, and managed to somehow block the appointment of Bill
Richardson, and has now managed to get the succession of terms that sound like
they are sequential under a Governor who seems to have no intent of paying
attention to 65% of the voters. This is an appalling record. I don’t know of a
chairperson of a Board in corporate America, that would approve of that. I
think we all know who the most powerful guy in the state of Alabama is, and I
think ought to name names and call him to his face. It is reality. I do not see
the forthright behavior that is necessary to succeed in this world coming out
of this group. I listened to Jimmy say tonight that he’s not aware of the
source of concern; if this is true then the Board really does need to operate
differently.
Dick Jaeger,
Electrical and Computer Engineering: I’m one of the faculty that would directly
benefit from your generous gift, but I support your action one hundred percent.
The micro-management and confusion in the governance of the Board has got to
stop. I don’t see any other way than for the people with financial and
political power to step in and make this change somehow. So I applaud your
action and hope you’ll take on leadership in mobilizing other alumni so that
changes will occur with the Board.
Mr. Brown: I think there are a number of alumni members
who have engaged. Once you engage in a fight like this you can’t drop it and
walk away tomorrow. It is going to be a long one. This is a challenge. I live in California , so there is nothing
that Bobby or anyone else can do to me, to my financial and banking
connections. So I have a little freedom there to operate; if you live in the
state, there may be more concern, which is probably legitimate. I think that in
most Universities there are probably around 5% of the student population who
don’t even know the BOT exists. At least 95%, if they know, don’t care. The BOT
are not the front line; they are not the people the students should be
concerned with. The students should be concerned with preparing themselves to
get the best education they can. I bet we have a significant portion of AU
students who understand that there is a BOT and it is a far more complicated
thing than once thought. I think that whatever you do in the classroom,
students should be made aware that there is a balance and that arguments are on
both sides. I wish Jimmy had stayed.
Not to jump on him, but he is here as their representative, and he needs
to be here listening to what is said and not running off to some other thing.
So, I urge you to consider whatever you think is the right balance in the
classroom, that you take into consideration that these kids need to understand
what is going on as part of the education process.
By
now you already know that the Alabama State Senate voted to confirm the
nominations of Earl McWhorter and Golda McDaniel to the Board of Trustees by
votes of 28 to 6 and 21 to 12 respectively.
What you may not know from newspaper reports is what happened on the
Senate floor yesterday and during the confirmation meeting last week. First of
all, you should know that we must give Senator Ted Little our expressions of
thanks. Even before last week’s confirmation meeting, Senator Little knew that
a vote would likely be to confirm the two nominees and by a wide margin. But by
leading a filibuster on the Senate floor last Thursday, Senator Little and his
tag-team partner Senator Albert Lipscomb opened for us, faculty, students, and
alumni, a window of opportunity to speak out in opposition and to make our
voices heard. Students seized that opportunity and faculty sluggishly at first,
as well as alumni, joined them in support. Their combined voices were loudest
yesterday on the lawn of Samford Hall and in the Senate gallery in Montgomery.
In the Senate gallery, there is a glass curtain between the spectators and the
participants on the Senate floor. The glass curtain is meant to silence the
gallery, to prevent spectators from disturbing or communicating with the decision-makers
below. But there were times yesterday, when during the debate, the spectator
uproar in the gallery was so loud that even the deaf could hear the unified
voice of outrage.
When
Senator Little spoke against tokenism on the Board, the capacity crowd in the
gallery made its presence felt. Likewise, when Senator Vivian Figures called
for diversity in color and gender on the Board, students, faculty, and alumni
let their voices be heard.
In
Auburn, there is another glass curtain separating students, faculty, and
alumni, the spectators, if you will, from the Board of Trustees. The glass
curtain in Auburn is also meant to silence the gallery, to prevent the
so-called spectators from disturbing or communicating with the decision-makers.
In
another place and time there used to be an iron curtain that took decades to
bring down. In Auburn, how long will it take, what will it take, how much more
can we take, before the glass curtain in Auburn comes down? When will the
faculty, students, and alumni again be part of the decision-making process on
the Auburn University campus. We are not and should not be spectators, but
participants in the shared governance of this institution. Now is the time, I
believe, to act, to assume our full responsibilities as faculty members and
take the first step through the looking-glass.
The
Auburn Chapter of the AAUP stands ready to act in concert with students, staff,
and alumni, and faculty as a whole.
Dr. Gladden: I believe we are back to the
motion that was deferred. Is there any discussion?
David Sutton,
Communication: Last week we had a motion to show our
displeasure with the Board with the vote of no confidence, and I argued against
it, saying we should give the BOT time to explain their actions. After hearing
Mr. Samford’s explanations and listening to the debate on the Senate floor via
the Internet, I have only left to say that I have no confidence in the Auburn
University Board of Trustees. I have no confidence that they will ever act in
the best interest of this University. I believe this University is a trough
from which they feed their own business interests. I have no confidence that
this BOT will ever honor the principle of shared governance. Their treatment of
Dr. Muse is symbolic; it shows us all too clearly that they are a band of
small-minded, mean-spirited, petty tyrants. I have no confidence that this BOT
will ever search for a President who is independent and forward-thinking. They
will find a way to appoint someone from their “good-ole-boy network,” someone
who sits in the shirt pocket of Bobby Lowder. I have no confidence that this
BOT will ever have the collective intelligence, vision, or confidence to make
decisions that will strengthen our status as a comprehensive research
University. We are well on the way to becoming little more than a community
college that supports a semi-professional football team. I urge you to support
this motion.
Virginia
O’Leary, Psychology: I would like
to make a friendly amendment to this motion so that it would be considered and
voted upon today.
The
motion was seconded.
Dr. O’Leary:
The motion on the floor, I am amending it from March 6 to February 21,
2001.
Dr.
Gladden: This is not a friendly amendment.
Dr.
O’Leary: It’s up to the Rules committee to decide.
Dr. Gladden: This motion is not from the Rules committee; it is from the Senate
officers.
Dr.
O’ Leary: All right, so
it’s up to that body to decide.
Michael
Watkins, Philosophy: First, the reason this cannot be a friendly
amendment is because the motion is asking the Rules committee to draft a
resolution. The resolution hasn’t been drafted. That is the reason it cannot be
a friendly amendment. I would like to make a friendly amendment, though: I say
insert “Governor and other members of the Board of Trustees”.
Marty Olliff,
Library: This motion
says that we will ask the Rules committee to draft a resolution on which we,
the Senate, will vote on next time. I think there is some confusion as to
whether this is a resolution for now or resolution for when we’re going to vote
or who is going to vote. I think we need to specifically note that this motion
asks the Rules Committee to write up a resolution for the Senate to
consider when we meet next time on
March 6. It says nothing about the
General Faculty. So if you want this to say something about the general
faculty, then you need to offer an amendment or substitution.
Dr. Gladden:
That would be correct.
Peter Harzem,
Psychology: If this
motion passes, so that the Rules committee drafts a resolution to be considered
by the Senate at the March 6 meeting, will
the next motion that is likely to come up, asking for a vote of no
confidence today, not be accepted?
Dr. Gladden: To suspend the rules, we would
have to have a 2/3 vote to vote today.
My understanding is this would not prevent bringing up a resolution to
vote on today.
Michael
Robinson (not a senator): Is it possible to
table this motion and then have another motion to vote no-confidence?
Dr. Gladden: You would have to vote it down.
Jim Bradley,
Senate Chair-Elect: I would like to speak in favor of this
motion. I have no confidence in the Board. I agree with Virginia O’Leary that
there is no need to wait 2 weeks to vote no-confidence on the Board of Trustees;
however, I believe there is value in escalating incrementally our outrage at
their incompetence. This incremental escalation is not all that incremental
because it will occur over a period of three weeks. There is no doubt in my
mind that this meeting will get lots of media coverage. If we do a
no-confidence vote today, that means we can’t do one two weeks from now. If we
think of Ralph’s scenario, we hope for an outcome of this is to get a new BOT.
I guess the bottom line here is let’s not shoot the whole wad today; we know
where we’re headed, it’s fine to feel this way with your limbic system. One thing that makes us different from other
primates is we have a cerebral cortex that can override the limbic system.
Isabelle
Thompson, Senate Secretary-Elect: I agree with
Jim. I think we need to get as much publicity as we can. We need to get newspaper coverage throughout
the state and Southeast supporting us and if we can wait 2 weeks on this I
think we should. I would like to offer
a friendly amendment that placement on the agenda at the next University Senate
meeting and for vote by the general faculty, so that Mr. Barron cannot say that
95% of us are content with the situation as it is. Is that a friendly
amendment?
Dr. Gladden: You want to move to amend the motion?
Dr. Thompson:
Yes, so that a resolutiion of no-confidence in the Governor and the BOT
be placed on the agenda for vote by the General Faculty and the University
Senate.
Dr. Gladden: Could you not say just
both on the agenda for the next University Senate meeting and the next
General Faculty meeting?
Dr. Thompson: For placement on the next
University Senate meeting on March 6 and for placement on the March 13 General
Faculty meeting.
Dr. Gladden: I think we have a motion to amend. Discussion on the amendment?
Virginia
O’Leary, Psychology: I’d like to urge you to vote no on this amendment and motion and the
reason is I tried very hard to take into account the relative position of my
rational mind and my limbic system and I have come prepared with not one but
two resolutions. The first resolution
requests a vote today of no confidence by the University Senate. The second resolution proposes that the
Senate instruct the Steering committee to work with the Rules committee to
prepare a resolution for consideration of the entire faculty at its March 13th
meeting calling for the resignation of the Auburn University Board of Trustees.
Point of
order: Marty Olliff, Library: Can Dr. O’Leary make her substitute motions for this motion? Can
her motions take precedent over this motion?
Dr. Gladden: My parliamentarian says no. We have a motion to amend now. Anymore
discussion? We will vote now on the motion
to amend to say, “and on the agenda of the next General Faculty meeting on
March 13th.”
The
motion passed by a majority voice vote.
Dick Jaeger,
Electrical and Computer Engineering:
I think it is better to let this motion simmer for a couple of weeks and
then have a no-confidence vote. To act on an impulse today is going to have a
tendency to rapidly die out. I think dragging it out has maximum benefits.
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: I am in support of Dr. O’Leary’s motion. I think
that if we vote no-confidence today, and then we vote with the General Faculty,
we need to get with the students and alumni before the Board comes up with some
other way of stalling things.
Ralph Miller,
Theater: I think we vote today on Dr. O’Leary’s
amendment. We have the General Faculty
meeting to vote also, which will string it out. I think we need to act immediately after hearing the people who
have stood up to talk to us today and especially let the Board know that we
have no confidence in them.
Sarge Bilgili,
Poultry Science: It is
expected that the judge will rule on the funding for K-12 tomorrow. It is
likely that we will be in proration at 18.5%. That is going to distract the
entire state and the University from the issue. I also think that we need to
have this vote of no-confidence today.
Nick Davis,
Emeritus Professor: The Board is going
to think of all kinds of ways to placate this body. We don’t want to be
placated. I feel like I have dreamed
this day. Even though I cannot vote, I will
be cheering you on and on. I hope that
we will act today.
Rhon Jenkins,
Aerospace Engineering: I think the Senate ought to vote today.
Mike Robinson
(not a senator): It seems to
me that the only group of people who haven’t spoken on Dr. Muse in the past two
weeks is the Senate and this faculty. I think to have our students and alumni
so far out in front of us and to have never said a word publicly is an
embarrassment to this faculty.
Marty Olliff,
Library: At our last meeting I introduced a resolution
that was passed by this body that was sharply worded. So I take exception to
your point, but I understand your point. I move to table this motion.
The
motion was seconded.
The
motion was passed by a majority voice vote.
Dr. Olliff called for the division.
A handcount was called, and the motion passed 40 - 7.
Dr. Gladden: So I assume your motion is to approve this resolution?
Dr.
O’Leary: Correct.
Would you like for me to read it?
Dr. O’Leary read the Resolution to the group.
The
motion was seconded.
Marty Olliff,
Library: I move to
suspend the rules of the Senate to vote on this motion.
The
motion was seconded.
The
motion was passed by a majority voice vote.
Ralph
Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences:
Will
you accept a friendly amendment in the third sentence to include “staff’?
Kem Krueger,
Pharmacy Care Systems: In the last paragraph, I think we need a “be
it resolved that…” Will you accept that as a friendly amendment?
Jim
Bradley:
Third paragraph, in place of the word educational,
put self-serving, and then make
agenda plural instead of singular.
Herb Rotfeld,
Steering Committee: In our last Senate meeting everyone was
talking about making a strong statement from the Senate. To sit here with half
our members absent is some statement.
The
motion was passed by a voice vote without dissent.
Marty Olliff,
Library: Is it appropriate to consider in the other motion,
changing some of the wording to allow this resolution to go forward at the
General Faculty meeting on March 13th? I move for reconsideration of that
original motion.
I
am moving for the Rules committee to draft a resolution of no-confidence in the
Governor and other members of the BOT for placement on the agenda of the
General Faculty meeting on March 13, 2001.
The
motion was seconded.
Jo Heath,
Immediate Past-Chair: I have an
amendment to the motion, that we use the resolution passed today rather than
write a new one.
Dr. O’Leary: I’d like to introduce a friendly amendment which is that we
request the Rules committee draft a resolution, but not of no confidence, a
resolution calling for the resignation of the Board of Trustees.
Dr.
Olliff: That’s too much of a change.
Would you like to make a substitute motion?
Dr.
O’Leary: He has my substitute motion.
David Pascoe,
Health and Human Performance: I’d like clarification. It says
other members of the BOT, does that include the SGA presidents?
Dr.
Gladden: It should probably say voting members.
Dr. George
Crandell: Friendly amendment, it should probably be limited to the Auburn Chapter
of the AAUP.
A
count was taken and enough members were present to take a vote.
The
motion was passed by a voice vote without dissent.
The
meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.