Auburn University Senate Meeting
Special meeting – April 17, 2001
3:00 p.m. Broun Hall Auditorium
Absent: L. Frobish, D. Norris, S. Krishanmurti, S.
Fuller, R. Keith, C. Skelton, J. LaPrade, C. Hageman, C. Buchanan, T.
McMurtrie.
Absent (substitute): M. Jardine (C. Slaton), J. Facteau (V. O’Leary), M.
Mercer (J. Sheppard), C. Gross (J. Cressler after 4 p.m.), R. Pipes (R.
Middleton), S. Bilgili (R. Norton).
The meeting was called to
order at 3:00 p.m.
Jim Bradley, Senate Chair: There is a
reception being planned for Dr. Muse before the next Senate meeting. As you
know we have already adopted a resolution with similar wording; however,
embedded in the wording of some of that resolution were also some whereases
about the Board of Trustees. For this certificate we wanted to present to Dr.
Muse in May, we wanted a resolution like the one you see here now.
Resolution in Support of President William V. Muse:
Whereas President William V.
Muse served Auburn University with
dedication, talent, hard
work, and high ethical standards for nearly ten
years, and
Whereas President William V.
Muse made decisions based on what was best, in his opinion, for Auburn
University and not on what was best for his
own professional career, and
Whereas President William V.
Muse brought Auburn University forward by
greatly improving
administration-faculty relations, by respecting the
faculty, and by supporting
the faculty, and
Whereas President William V.
Muse worked successfully to diversify the
student body, the faculty,
and the administration, and
Whereas President William V.
Muse traveled the state again and again to
unify the forces that might
positively affect Auburn University’s role in the state and Auburn University’s
support from the state, and
Whereas President William V.
Muse made great efforts to position Auburn University for the challenges of the
21st century thus attracting national attention to his leadership
and broad support from across Alabama,
Therefore be it resolved
that the Auburn University Senate expresses its appreciation to President Muse
for his outstanding contributions to Auburn University and expresses the hope
that his next assignment will be as productive as this one.
The motion to approve this
resolution was made and seconded. The motion was passed and the resolution
adopted with a voice vote and no discussion.
Dr. Bradley: The reason for the arrangement of the agenda
for this meeting—the information/discussion items followed by a separate set of
action items—is in an attempt to limit the debate of a resolution once it is on
the floor yet not squelch contributions by non-senators. Part of the rationale
for this organization is for the first half to be open for discussion to anyone
who wants to contribute; once finished with discussion/sharing of information
we hope to efficiently limit the discussion to senators.
Please do not feel as we
move through this meeting that there is infringement on your freedom of
expression. If you do feel this way, please let me or other senate leaders
know.
Neither of the presenters of
the first two items are present today. I will be presenting the first item for
Dr. Bruce Gladden, who had to leave town unexpectedly this afternoon. The other presenter, Mr. Jack Miller,
withdrew his acceptance to our invitation, sending me a letter asking me to
read to you. I will do that now, and we will combine a and b on the agenda. I
will preside over the discussion and not participate in the debate. Please do
not ask me my opinion or the Board’s opinion. It would be best to limit the
first item’s discussion to the presidential search process; the next item will
deal with other Board issues.
Letter from Mr. Jack
Miller:
Dear Jim,
Over the past few weeks I
have had the opportunity on several occasions to express to you my opinion that
nothing else even rivals the importance of the Board of Trustees’ duty in
selecting a new President for Auburn. That belief, for me, is fundamental and
sacrosanct.
Further, I have suggested to
you and your colleagues a framework for discussion and consultation to begin
that process which is drawn from and advised by the AGB’s, The Association of
Governing Boards, best practice’s model publication as discussed with me by the
author of that publication now, on numerous occasions. Indeed, I am convinced
that preparation for the search for a new President is as important as the
search itself.
I am confident that an
opportunity will arise in which it will be appropriate for us to continue those
discussions. I am equally confident that the environment associated with the
Senate’s meeting tomorrow—as exemplified by several of the resolutions proposed
for consideration at that meeting—is not such an opportunity.
I look forward to continuing
our discussions at an appropriate time and place, in a spirit of goodwill,
civility, and mutual respect. Assuming that such an opportunity presents
itself, perhaps we could work toward a meeting of the Senate during which I would
have a chance to hear the points of view of its members.
I hope to speak to you soon
concerning these matters.
Sincerely,
John C.H. Miller, Jr.
a.
Examples of presidential searches at other
universities – Dr. Jim Bradley (report prepared by Dr. Bruce Gladden)
I will begin by reading Dr.
Gladden’s words at the beginning of his report:
Let me clarify that I am
here by Jim’s invitation. I did not ask to give a report or be on the agenda.
Second, let me be clear that by the purposes of this report I am neither
speaking in favor of any particular action nor against any particular action.
This report is simply for informational purposes. Third, the results that I
present today are from several hours of web-searching. In the first overhead is
a list of Southern Regional Education Land-Grant Universities.
There are 16 of them,
including Auburn University.The Universities with asterisks beside their names
(9 of them) are those for which I was able to locate in a reasonable amount of
time sufficient information to get some idea about their most recent
presidential search. I think most of those for which I found little information
had presidents who had been hired more than five years ago.
As I provide this
information, please realize the limitations. First, it represents information
found at the websites of these various universities. Second, if I searched for
10-15 minutes on a site and found no information, I gave up. Also, there may be some variation depending
on whether the University is under a statewide Board of Regents or has its own
independent Board of Trustees, or Board of Visitors, as some universities call
them.
Finally, some of the
information was not entirely specific. What I present is to the best of my
knowledge and within these limitations after it.
Now I will show you the
overheads that Bruce prepared:
Southern Regional Education Board
Land-Grant Universities
Auburn University
University of Arkansas
***Clemson University
***University of Florida
***University of Georgia
***University of Kentucky
Louisiana State University
***University of Maryland
***Mississippi State University
***North Carolina State University
Oklahoma State University
***University of Tennessee
Texas A & M University
Tuskegee University
***Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
University of West Virginia
***Universities with
asterisks are those for which information was obtained.
Clemson University
Board of Trustees named a five-person Board Committee to “solicit
nominations, review candidates, and submit no fewer than 10 finalists to the
full board.”
Input was solicited from “a broad section of university constituent
groups” for candidates and a set of criteria for assessing candidates.
Search firm was used.
Final three candidates were named publicly and were interviewed by the
full Board of Trustees.
No evidence of Open Forums.
University
of Florida
Board of Regents named a 54-member Presidential Search Advisory Committee
(PSC) “equally comprised of university and community representatives.” Chaired by Dean of College of Medicine.
Search firm was used.
PSC named six finalists.
Open Forums were scheduled.
PSC would have reported on each of these candidates to the Regents
Selection Committee which would have recommended that the Chancellor of the
Florida system interview several of the candidates after which the full board
would have selected a president.
University of Georgia
Two Committees re Regents’
policy:
Special Regents Committee,
as many as five regents with the Chancellor of the state-wide system and the
Chair of the Board of Regents serving as non-voting ex-officio members. Committee and its Chair appointed by Chair
of the Regents.
Chancellor, in consultation
with Regents Chair and Chair of Special Regents Committee will appoint a
Presidential Search and Advisory Committee (PSC). Regents’ policy requires that this PSC include six faculty
members, one administrator or staff member, one student, one representative of
the UGA Foundation, one representative of the Alumni Association and three
representatives of the state-at-large.
Chancellor and members of the Special Regents Committee serve as
non-voting ex-officio members.
Chancellor appoints a Chair from among the voting members. (A faculty member who once served as
associate vice-president for academic affairs was chosen as Chair.)
Two search firms were
employed.
PSC determined short list of
not more than 25 candidates.
PSC met with search firms to
select 10-12 short list candidates which were then pre-interviewed by the
search firms.
Out of the 10-12, the PSC
selected 8-10 candidates for interview after input from search firms.
Committee forwarded five
unranked finalists to the Chancellor and the Chair of the Special Regents
Committee.
Special Regents Committee
and Chancellor conducted interviews.
According to Open Records
Law, three finalists released 14 days prior to final selection.
No evidence of Open Forums.
University of Kentucky
Thirteen-member PSC
appointed by the Board of Trustees.
Three faculty, 6 BOT members (one as Chair), 1 Alumni, 1 staff, 2
students.
Search firm was used.
PSC held town meetings
around the state before drafting job description.
Open Forums were held for
final 3 candidates.
Chancellor of the state-wide
system appointed an 18-member PSC: 4
faculty, 5 administrators (one as Chair of PSC), 2 students, 3 A&P?, 2 BOT,
2 alumni.
Search firm was used.
Search process was closed;
president was announced after five months.
Board of Trustees named a
34-member Presidential Search Local Advisory Committee (PSC). Looks like it included 9 faculty.
Search firm was used.
Apparently, the PSC
forwarded 11 names to the Board of Trustees official Presidential Search
Committee. The Board Committee narrowed
the list to 3 finalists.
Open Forums were held.
North Carolina State University
Board of Trustees appointed
a 14-member Chancellor Search Committee (PSC):
2 faculty, 4 BOT members, 1 department head, 1 graduate student, 1
undergraduate student, 1 staff, 1 alumni, 3 uncertain (one who was chair).
Search firm was used.
PSC held forums with various
constituent groups before search process began.
PSC forwarded three
finalists to the Board of Trustees.
BOT named president.
No evidence of Open Forums.
PSC composed of 7 Board of
Trustees members.
Board of Trustees selected an
Advisory Council which included faculty and others. Apparently this Advisory Council provided input to the PSC about
what the job description and search process should look like. The actual search process apparently was
conducted by the PSC.
Search firm was used.
There appeared to be two
lists of candidates. One group was made
public because of state Sunshine Laws – they had sent their names to the UT
general counsel’s office. The second
group was contacted by the search firm first and their names were kept private
because they said they didn’t want to be official candidates until they had a
better idea about their chances.
No evidence of Open Forums.
Virginia Tech
Twelve-member PSC appointed
by Board of Visitors: 4 faculty, 3
Board members (1 as Chair), 1 former Board member, 1 staff, 1 undergraduate
student, 1 graduate student, 1 Dean.
Search firm was used.
No evidence of an Open
Forum.
(end of overheads)
What I’ve done is to
highlight those areas in green that would be of special interest to us. For
example, I’ve highlighted under Clemson the fact that the BOT named a
subcommittee within themselves to solicit nominations. You can also find out if
a search firm was used; I believe one was used for all nine we’ll be looking at
here.
As you see, Florida has a
Board of Regentss rather than a Board of Trustees. They named a 54-member
committee, which was their Presidential search advisory committee. That
committee was chaired by a non-Board member, the dean of the college of
medicine. In this case, an open forum was required of the short list
candidates.
There were two committees
involved in the University of Georgia’s search, a so-called Special Regents
committee. As you see, that committee was appointed by the Chair of the
Regents. There was a second committee, appointed by the Chancellor in
consultation with the Regents chair and chair of the special committee, which
was a special advisory committee. So, the appointments were initiated by the
Board of Regents. In this case two search firms were used. There was no
indication of an open forum, but three finalists were made public three weeks
prior to the naming of the new President.
The University of Kentucky
had its Board of Trustees appoint a search committee, using a search firm with an
open forum for the last three candidates.
In Maryland, the chancellor
of the system appointed an 18-member committee (2 board members on this
committee, the chair not being a board member). The process was closed and the
president was announced after five months.
At Missisippi State, there
was a very large committee, a 34-member committee appointed by the Board of
Trustees.
At North Carolina, the Board
appointed the search committee; a search firm was used, but there is no
evidence of an open forum. As you can see there were four Board members on that
committee.
At Tennessee, the whole
committee was composed of Board members (7). The Trustees selected an advisory
council that included faculty, which was advisory to the Presidential search
committee that was composed of Board members. There are two lists of candidates
found here, one made public, the other not made public. Those found by the
search firm were kept confidential, and those found by the search committee
because of sunshine laws were made public. I don’t know from which group the
president was selected.
Finally, at Virginia Tech a
12-member committee was appointed by the Board of Visitors (which means Board
of Trustees). Three members were on the Board; a search firm was used, but
there was no open forum.
In sum, all of these
universities used a search firm. A third of them had open forums and six of the
nine had board members on their search committees.
This concludes Bruce’s
report. What I have to add is what the Board proposed and voted on at its
meeting. I have highlighted the areas that, after talking with many different
people, seem to be the most contentious points proposed: the number of faculty
members, the presence of board members on the committee, whether an open forum
exists or not, and who is chair of the committee. These seem to be crucial
things to all of us. In red, I have indicated how negotiations so far (which
began on Wednesday before the Friday board meeting) resulted in the changes. As
the initial proposal was to have only four faculty members, 3 from Auburn and 1
from AUM; by Friday they had increased it to five total faculty members. They
decreased the number of administrators from 2 to 1. Their original proposal was
to have the search process closed the entire time; by Friday they had
compromised to make the open forum optional. This is where we stand at this
point.
PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH PROCESS
PROPOSED BY BOARD
1.
SEARCH COMMITTEE WILL CHOOSE SEARCH FIRM;SEARCH FIRM WILL BE ADVISORY ONLY
2.
CODE OF ETHICS FOR SEARCH COMMITTEE, INCLUDING ABSOLUTE CONFIDENTIALITY
3.
SEARCH COMMITTEE WILL WRITE POSITION DESCRIPTION/ANNOUNCEMENT
4.
SEARCH WILL BE CLOSED UNTIL SHORT LIST SELECTED
5.
SHORT-LISTED CANDIDATES INVITED TO PARTICIPATE
IN OPEN FORUM; CONFIDENTIALITY FOR CANDIDATES NOT CHOSING OPEN FORUM WILL BE MAINTAINED.
6.
BOARD WILL CHOSE NO ONE FOR PRESIDENT THAT HAS
NOT BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE SEARCH
COMMITTEE
7.
MR. JACK MILLER WILL CHAIR PSC
8.
THE PROPOSED PROCESS REMAINS OPEN TO
DISCUSSION AND CHANGES
9.
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE TO SELECT FACULTY
MEMBERS OF PSC
10.
PSC SIZE: 16 MEMBERS, 15 VOTES
BOARD’S PROPOSED
SEARCH COMMITTEE
COMPOSITION
4
FACULTY MEMBERS
3 FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY
1 FROM AUM
3
ALUMNI
2 FROM AU (1, CHAIR, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS)
1 FROM AUM
3
STUDENTS
2 FROM AU (1 VOTE TOTAL)
1 FROM AUM (1 VOTE)
1
ADMINISTRATOR (e.g. DEAN)
1
STAFF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
1
ADMINISTRATIVE & PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY REP.
3
BOARD OF TRUSTEES REPRESENTATIVES, INCL. CHAIR
PSC COMPOSITION PROPOSED TO
BOARD
BY BRUCE GLADDEN
6
FACULTY
5 FROM AU
1 FROM AUM
2
STUDENTS
1 FROM AU
1 FROM AUM 14 MEMBERS
4
ALUMNI
14 VOTES
3 FROM AU
1 FROM AUM
1
STAFF COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
1
ADMINISTRATIVE & PROFESSIONAL ASSEMBLY REP.
------------------------------------------------------------
1
BOT MEMBER AS FACILITATOR
1
SECRETARY TO THE COMMITTEE
PSC
CHAIR CHOSEN BY PSC
Last I have some items that
I put together. From talking to people and thinking myself, I have come up with
some possible negotiations about the search process. The second one was
suggested to me by email (the 2/3 vote by the presidential search committee in
order for someone to be short-listed). If we get no more faculty members on the
committee than are there now, this could help ensure that any president hired
would have the support of both the faculty and the board. I think this is
better than a simple majority. These are areas, in my opinion, which are still
open for negotiation. I do not know the Board’s position; I do not speak for
Mr. Miller as he is not here.
SOME POSSIBLE POINTS TO
NEGOTIATE
1.
RIGHT OF REFUSAL OF CANDIDATES BY FACULTY MEMBERS?
2.
TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF PSC REQUIRED FOR CANDIDATE
TO BE ON SHORT LIST
3.
MORE FACULTY REPRESENTATION?
4.
WHO WILL CHOSE 2 NON-CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS?
5.
WHO WILL CHOSE NON-CHAIR ALUMNI?
6.
WHO WILL CHOSE ADMINISTRATOR (DEAN)?
7.
GRADUATE STUDENT REPRESENTATION?
8.
REQUIRING OPEN FORUM FOR ALL CANDIDATES
Comments or discussions?
R. Mirarchi, Forestry & Wildlife Sci (not a
senator): I would like to see more information from other schools. The
other major consideration is even though a majority of search committees have
board members on them, presumably those are normal boards. We would be
stretching it to say we have a normal board; as a result I think we have to
consider different types of criteria for selecting our President.____________.
Larry Gerber, History
(not a senator): inaudible
Michael Solomon, VP of SGA (not a senator): When we as the student body were asked
to make our recommendation on how many seats we feel we should have on this
presidential search committee, we recommended that we thought it was fair for
us to have three. The Board gave us two with one vote. It bothers me when I
look down at the resolution coming up (resolution c) before you all in a few
minutes, and I see that it has gone down even further from two seats with one
vote to one seat with one vote. I look at faculty and I see that you have five
faculty from Auburn, one from AUM, one staff from Auburn, and then one
representative from administrative professional employees at AU and AUM, which
is a total of eight people representing several thousand, and you only have one
to represent 22,000. I don’t think that is fair. I hope as a faculty senate
when this comes up for discussion you also will not think it is fair and will
reconsider this with a vote.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: The issue is
what should be done. This an argument for why there should be faculty
representation. There is also an explanation for why student representation
doesn’t have to be greater than the representation of the faculty. We forwarded
what seemed to be a reasonable argument that the search committee should not
include Board members as voting members and why it should include more faculty members. Many of those arguments
highlight the fact that members of the Board do not have appropriate expertise,
nor are they proper trustees, stakeholders in the university. Just a word about
expertise: the difficult road to becoming university president is first,
faculty member. Then there are tenure and promotions. Becoming a department
head or chair, a dean, a position in administration are all pre-requisites to
becoming a president of a university. The members of the Board have never
filled any of these positions, nor are they qualified to run a search program.
If you are not qualified to run a search for a faculty member, then you are not
qualified to run a search for the president of a university. Perhaps to
understand the argument, you would have to be qualified to run the search. But
it is offensive to have Board members tell the faculty that we have yet to
provide arguments in response. In response to the charge that we have yet to
provide an argument, I can do no better than quote Samuel Johnson: “Sir, we have found you an argument. But we
are not obliged to find you an understanding.”
Daniel Laband (Forestry): I’d like to address
the issue of student representation on the search committee. My responsibilities are to all the students
I’ve had in the past, all the students I have now, and all the students I will
have in the future. We do have student
representation on the search committee.
R. Mirarchi, Forestry & Wildlife Sci (not a
senator): I would also reiterate that question I asked with
regard to having the chair of the search committee a BOT member. I don’t
understand how we, after voting no-confidence, can have a member of the BOT
sitting as chair of that committee.
Debra Carey, Past-Chair, Staff-Council (not a
senator): I would like to suggest that among the faculty
members that someone is there on behalf
of extension and someone is there on behalf of the experiment station. The
extension service has a budget equal to that of AUM and I think that it would
be fair to those faculty and staff to have representation on this committee.
C.
General discussion of rationale for requesting Board
member resignation – Dr. Alex Dunlop
This discussion is open to everyone,
and consequently, it is not necessary to identify yourself as senator or
non-senator.
Mary Boudreaux, Pathobiology: I would
like to give my opinion on the resignation of the Board members. A couple of
words from my point of view: 1) fantasy 2) delusional. Fantasy is good some
times, but this is not a good time for it. You can believe that this is going
to happen, and say “the board is never going to resign.” I’m assuming that
along with that fantasy, the replacement of these board members with leaders
who will take Auburn University to new heights. We need to remember about the
twelve prospects selected to be board members. The new process is that new
board members can be selected by members of the Board of Trustees, the
Governor, and alumni. Based on what we’ve said about the Board members in this
room, and based on the fact that we haven’t exactly endeared ourselves to the
Governor lately, doesn’t add credibility in favor of us getting “angels from
heaven” to replace the board members. On the “delusional” side, this body over
the past few months has been moving with fairly moderate speed. We have
identified that there is major problem. We have set about to establish methods
of taking care of that problem. The administration also made recommendations
for the board members to visit colleges and schools. It has been recommended
for a faculty member to sit at the table with the Board of Trustees. All of
these things have been recommended to try to help solve the problem.
Now all of a sudden, a month
later, after all of these things have been set up, we are asking for the Board
members to resign? I don’t get it.
Either that means we paid lip service last month and set up these committees,
or the problems we have are so minor that we expect them to take care of them
alone. It is going to take many, many months to take care of this problem, and
solve the many problems that go along with it. So either take the committees
seriously and let them move forward and try to do their thing, or continue to
wallow in complaining and make fantasy statements about Board members
resigning. It is not going to happen. I don’t care how much we wish for it or
pray for it, it is not going to happen. I suggest that we move forward, try to
get along with the Board, because the only way we will get through this is by
working with the Board members.
I am not a psychologist, but
I am a veterinarian. If you want to train a Rotweiler, you might have to jerk
on the chain a few times to get its attention. But kick it in the butt repeatedly,
and it will get to the point where that Rotweiler isn’t going to pay much
attention to your training, no matter how good a trainer you are. All that
Rotweiler cares about is that you have kicked it repeatedly over and over
again. I’m trying to say, let’s not kick the dog or jerk on its chain; let’s
try and back off a little bit and see if we can’t train them.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology (substitute): I am a psychologist. I don’t find the analogy of the Rotweiler very compelling because I
think that the target of the kicks is inappropriate. It seems to me that it’s
the faculty of this university that has been repeatedly kicked in the butt by a
Board of Trustees that is not very responsive to anything other than threats of
some kind. It seems to me that to back off now is a very poor idea. I think it
is significant that one of the Trustees that is anxious to work with us is not
here today. He decided that he did not wish to continue a dialogue in a
situation that was not under his control. I sat in this room some six weeks ago
when Mr. Owen Brown was here speaking with us as an alumni having just
withdrawn a $2 million bequest to the University. I watched Jimmy Samford leave
the room when the discussion began because he was so interested in the dialogue.
I want to actually now speak
adamantly against singling out two members of the Board to call for their
resignation. In any other state in which I have ever lived where there are
public institutions of higher education, there would be a citizen-wide
expectation that under the circumstances currently before us—multiple votes of
no-confidence in a Board of Trustees from every constituent group on
campus—honor would require every member of that Board to come forward and offer
their resignation. With all due respect to some subset of the Board who may
believe that their remaining at this critical juncture is somehow protective
and also recognizing that not all of them share a particular perspective or
motivation, I still think that this situation clearly calls for the resignation
of every one of these members. I haven’t noticed them lining up to resign, of
course, but I think we should press for their resignation. To simply single out
two of them because we feel, either individually or collectively, that they
have been the most egregiously controlling is inappropriate. They are a
constitutionally “protected” body and they should be asked to resign in
totality. I would like to see that happen. I think that whether its fantasy or
not, we must continue to do what we believe is right.
Wayne Flint, History: inaudible
Marty Olliff, Library: We need to
move beyond the art of the possible. We need to move beyond “rolling over.” We
have to demand what is right. There are sins of commission, and we can name
many of those relative to this BOT. There are many of the members who are fine, decent people. But there are also sins
of omission. If you do not fight what is bad, like Martin Luther King said,
then you allow that evil to permeate everything that it touches. We need to
call for an end to that regime right now, whether the Board will resign or not
is completely immaterial. We’re not stupid. We know the Board’s not going to
resign because “the faculty said resign.” But the Board only understands power.
We have the power of the Sunshine Law. We have the power of public opinion when
we access it correctly. We need to exercise that power beginning today. We are not a hierarchical corporation. We
are a community of scholars and when the corporate model is imposed on us as it
is now, we have to say “no more.”
Ralph Mirarchi, Forestry and Wildlife Sci (not a
senator): I’m neither a psychologist
nor a veterinarian, but I do know that sooner or later somebody has to put that
Rotweiler down. I think we are at that stage. You all know my feelings pretty
well. I have stated them pretty openly at this meeting and in newspapers. I
personally would like to see all of them resign, and then have those “good”
board members considered and re-nominated at a later date. But I realize that
not everyone in this room is “on the fringe” like I am, although over the last
few weeks I’ve been amazed at how many people outside this University agree
with what I have to say, based on comments I’ve heard. At the minimum, I think
we should give consideration to adding more prospective trustees to that list.
Probably the best analogy I can draw is one having a cancer that is infecting a
healthy body. Lowder and Barron are just the most visible parts of our
malignancy here at this University. Who then, also, should be added to the
list? I think the Montgomery Advertiser did a very good job of tying the
other members of the Board to Mr. Lowder and Mr. Barron. I would say that at a
minimum you should also include on that list along with Barron and Lowder, Mr.
Blackwell, Ms. McDaniel, Mr. Miller, Mr. Rane, Mr. Samford, and Mr. Spina.
Ralph Paxton, Anatomy and Physiology: We have a
problem with University governance. This issue shouldn’t just be a matter of
personality. It should be a matter of policy. What sort of policy manual have
we given the Board to allow them to interact with us? None. We, after the fact,
challenge actions they didn’t know anything about. There is nothing written.
They are picked by the Governor and the Senate; no matter who is fired, this
process is going to generate another set of similar people. What we need to do
is use this opportunity to develop policies that will forever insure that the
faculty has a conduit to interact with the Board and will give them guidance as
to what we need.
Dr. Dunlop: May I ask you for clarification, what
mechanism do you have in mind? Are you thinking about a constitutional
amendment, for example?
Dr. Paxton: I’m thinking that we have a faculty
handbook. Why can’t we have a handbook for interaction between the faculty and
the Board of Trustees? I think they will be receptive if we give them something
to discuss. By merely firing them and bringing in new personalities, we are not
changing any problems.
Dr. Dunlop: In connection with that, let me add that there is no job description for
Trustees. The only job description for Trustees is contained in the first
sentence that I quoted. Otherwise there is absolutely nothing that says what a
trustees does or should do.
David Laband, Forestry & Wildlife Sci: I’d
like to point out that the Board of Trustees has a fairly well established
pattern of ignoring the Faculty Handbook, which they themselves
have approved as the governing document of Auburn University. They also have violated
the Sunshine Law in the State of Alabama. I think personalities do matter a
lot. I would like to add an asterisk to my comment by pointing out the last
sentence of that first paragraph. It specifies that no employee of Auburn
University shall be eligible to serve on the Board of Trustees. Note that as
far as I understand, Lowell Barron’s firm does a fair amount of contracting
with Auburn University. So, in fact, without a name, Lowell Barron’s firm being
contracted by Auburn University I find unconstitutional to say the least.
Brian McAllister, English (not a senator): I too
support the call for resignation for the Board of Trustees. I have spoken about
this at previous meetings. However, I have to agree with what was said earlier
that the names Lowder and Barron, specifically, are really a matter of
personalities, not principle. We ought to be doing what is right. Most of us
here perceive Lowder and Barron as bad apples; quite frankly, that reference is
probably correct. But it is not a matter of record. What is a matter of record
is the action of the Board. The Board consistently acts unanimously; therefore,
I think it unethical to single out individuals. We should, in fact, ask for the
entire Board to resign. In fact, all of the introductory clauses in this
resolution speak about the Board. Only in the conclusion do we give specific
persons’ names. If we are going to stand up for right principles, we need to
act on what is a matter of record. What
is a matter of record is the action of the Board, not specific individuals.
Dr. Dunlop: Since we only have a few more minutes of
general discussion, I want to particularly encourage comments from
non-senators.
Tom Sanders, Library (not a senator): I
think that calling for two of the Trustees to resign is a mistake. The thing is
that these two people control the Board because of their interlocking
interests. What is to keep them from controlling it if they are not on the
Board? I think they all have to go and then start fresh. The second thing is
that I agree with this gentleman. We do not have documentation on how the Board
of Trustees is to conduct its business and relate to faculty and
administration. I don’t think we are in
a position to give them documentation. I think that whoever is involved in this,
we need a constitutional amendment for some more specific documentation on the
Board’s participation with the faculty.
Judy Sheppard, Journalism (not a senator): There are policies for the way that the trustees are
supposed to behave.
Michael Robinson, Architecture (not a senator): When
I saw this resolution with only Lowell Barron and Bobby Lowder’s name on there,
a thought came to my mind. The one thing I can compliment Mr. Lowder on is that
he has not hidden behind the screen to manipulate things in the past. He has
been there; he’s out front. It seems to me that if we were, in fact, to adopt
this resolution, we would encourage Mr. Lowder and Mr. Barron to move behind
the screen and manipulate to avoid conflicts in interest. I don’t think I can
support a call for resignation of just two of the Trustees because I believe we
are voting on principle and not personality. Since I have never met Mr. Lowder
or Mr. Barron, it would be hard to discriminate against them. But it did occur
to me that they could meet with Board of Trustees at any time without having to
worry about Sunshine Laws if we were to take them away. I encourage the Senate
to adopt a resolution that includes all of the names of those who are trustees.
Dr. Dunlop: The opinions seem to be preponderantly in
favor of the resolution for resignation. Are there any who feel strongly in
favor of the other side?
Richard Kunkel, Dean, Education: Are
we open right now for other comments that have to do with the first topic?
Dr. Dunlop: Yes.
Dr. Kunkel: I have been weighing the power in politics of the
discussion on the second topic with some thoughts on the first topic. What’s in
the resolution that’s going to be proposed and voted on, ultimately, seems to
me just to be minor revisions of where the package ended when Jack Miller was
making a report and all of a sudden the report became a resolution. As I had
watched in weeks prior to that, I had seen what was laying on the table at that
point: the result of continued negotiation (1 person added here, etc.). I think
this action being proposed, in the first topic, is just another one of those. A
slight twist in that the students have lost a vote here, or maybe a Trustees
shouldn’t be chairing this committee
because some people believe Trustees are not the ones who hire a
president. And administrators, which, by the way, are as of today out of the
picture; in the past we had rather negotiated our way back in the picture as
that train was moving toward that Trustee meeting.
The point I want to make is
I have a feeling that Jack Miller had done some homework, had opened some
communication with some people, and that his system was about to begin to build
the kind of inter-relationship that shared governance could be built on. So, us
showing that we have to tinker with some of the pieces of that picture kind of
misses the positive that was beginning to happen prior to that Trustee meeting.
Someone speculated a moment ago about Jack Miller’s not being in this room at
this meeting; I would like to guess that he might have thought that he was
listening to a lot of people and then
all of a sudden it got on the table and a bonfire started. So, I don’t know
whether I’d be in this room if I had done the kind of things he had done the
things before this meeting either. I am not particularly a friend of Jack
Miller, having spent only about an hour with him in my entire life, but we will
have to start some alliances with those people. I thought particularly
important was the last sentence of his proposal; it said that if anyone thought
there were errors in the way that proposal was being configured, they weren’t
made in some methodical way to push some type of epistemology about governance
over another. He said they were just errors and that he would like to continue
to refine them. So that makes me caution us to be continuing to tamper with two
or three different pieces and make sure that the battle goes on. As I think John Pritchett said, I don’t see
much different between the package that Miller put on the table and the general
survey. In one place it differed in a couple of schools.
Dr. Dunlop: A follow-up question: I found his letter rather symbolically
disappointing. Did you?
Dr. Kunkel: No, I thought the man thought that he was moving
along in a negotiating fashion and something must have happened. I went out of town a couple of days after
that Trustee meeting, and when I returned, I got a feeling that there had been
some type of groundswell against that proposal. When it came out in that
Trustee meeting, I wasn’t very shocked by it. I thought there were all kinds of
signs of compromise in the two or three weeks prior to it. Maybe I’m wrong
about it, but I don’t think so; you showed that there was compromise on your
color-coded chart of which items were changing as of the last couple of days. I
didn’t find it disappointing.
Dr. Bradley: Before we begin I would like to reiterate what Isabelle Thompson wrote
in her email to AU Profs that contained all of these resolutions. That is that the
Steering Committee has looked at this carefully, and in our opinion, no member
of any pair of them are exclusive. That is, there is no wording in any of them
that makes them contradictory to one another, in our opinion. So, the way this
next portion of the meeting is organized is that there will be a person who
will come present the resolution with a brief rationale, not reading the
resolution verbatim as there are copies available. We will then initiate debate
if there is a motion and a second to accept that resolution.
a.
Resolution Calling for assessment of Board
performance before Presidential Search – Dr. Barbara Streumpler
This resolution comes from
the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is a nine-member committee,
containing eight faculty members plus the Provost. Four of the faculty members
are the Senate leadership—the chair, chair-elect, secretary, and
secretary-elect. Two of the other four positions are selected by the President
and two by the Rules Committee, as approved by the Senate. One thing this
Committee does is set the agenda for the Senate meetings. Also, we act for the
Senate on those matters requiring attention between meetings of the Senate. The
members of the Steering Committee felt that some type of resolution needed to
address our participation in the search.
I don’t think I need to talk
too much about the fact that there is distrust between the Board and the
stakeholders of Auburn University. That was one of the main reasons we were
thinking of this. At the April 10 meeting, there was a resolution coming from
the Senate that put forth the Joint Assessment Committee, which would bring in
an external organization to review the Board’s conduct in certain affairs. Jim
Bradley is chair of that committee. One thing that we feel is that between the
mistrust of the Board by faculty and other stakeholders, that it is best for
“the Auburn University faculty not participate in a presidential search until
an external assessment of Board performance as recommended by the Joint
Assessment Committee has been accomplished and compliance with the
recommendations of that assessment has been agreed to by the Board.”
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR ASSESSMENT OF BOARD
PERFORMANCE BEFORE PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH
WHEREAS the presidential search is of utmost
importance to all university stakeholders, the University Senate is committed
to full participation in the search process; and
WHEREAS the present atmosphere of contention and
distrust between the Auburn University Board of Trustees and other university
stakeholding groups make it untenable to begin a presidential search in the
near future due to faculty distrust of the search process itself, to the
improbability of attracting applicants of the caliber Auburn deserves, and to
concern about a new president’s ability to administer the university under the
style of governance practiced by the Board; and
WHEREAS this atmosphere is due largely to the
perception that the Board of Trustees has regularly, and over many years,
breached the clear separation between the policy-making function of the Board
and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to implement policy, a
“must” criterion for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools (SACS); and
WHEREAS the April 6 recommendations of the Joint
Assessment Committee offer means to ascertain the responsibility of the Board
for perceived violations of SACS criteria for accreditation, as well as the
means to obtain objective recommendations for preventing future violations,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Auburn University
faculty not participate in a presidential search until an external assessment
of Board performance as recommended by the Joint Assessment Committee has been
accomplished and compliance with the recommendations of that assessment has
been agreed to by the Board.
The Steering Committee
presents this resolution to the Senate for its consideration. On behalf of the
Steering Committee I move that we adopt this resolution.
The motion was seconded.
Renee Middleton, Counseling, Counseling Psy
(substitute): I want to speak in favor of this resolution. As a
Senator for Counseling, Counseling Psy and Secretary-elect, I think there was
negotiation going on in respect to the composition of the presidential search
committee. I think it was our understanding at the time of the last Board
meeting that Miller was going to present our recommendations in terms to be
negotiated, and we were still looking at those as tentative and there would
still be opportunities for discussion because, obviously, we wanted more
faculty involved and for the search to be opened at the end of the process.
Lowder’s calling for the vote set things stalling; that closed off the
opportunity for further debate. That’s the kind of thing that continues to
cause faculty to mistrust the process. It is the kind of thing that continues
to light fire to request for the Board’s resignation. The Board thinks they are
acting responsibly. I know it is hard for us to believe, but they do.
I think that this resolution
allows us to be able to assess the performance of the Board, and depending on
that outcome, bring to light issues that we are having difficulty helping them
understand. People have mentioned the name of Martin Luther King and the role
of the faculty. I think if we want to learn something from Martin Luther King,
we need to learn that he always fought for changes in policy and practice and
he worked with the powers that were there as evil as they were. I think he
understood that you could work with the powers that were there but that others
would come along. I agree with my colleague; I think we are being delusional if
we think we are going to get something different from the way the hierarchy of
the state of Alabama is structured. Some of us are refusing to leave this
state; I’m not running away from this state or Auburn University.
I think we need to find a
way to work with who is there and I am not ashamed of any of the things we’ve voted
on at this point, but I think we need to find a way to work with the Board of
Trustees. To me, action is called for on the part of faculty. Rather than ask
someone else to move, we continue to operate with integrity in terms of what we
are asking for. We are not backing down in terms of what we are asking
for. I think there should be a faculty
member sitting at the Board’s table, more faculty involved in processes. If we
really want to do something, take the page from our students. There is nothing
wrong with peaceful demonstration. Either we believe in what we are saying or
we don’t. Let’s start with actions we
can take to bring more pressure upon the Board, as opposed to asking for
something that I really don’t think is practical. I think this assessment of
the Board gets at what we are concerned about: their practices and policies
that have taken place that are wrong practices. Let’s bring that to light and
then move on with the presidential search in a proper fashion.
Dr. Bradley: Let’s clarify something before we move on. This
resolution does not say that an assessment is sufficient for participation in a
search. It says that a search will not occur with our participation until an
assessment is finished. Then, of course, we would have to vote again, as to
whether we were going to put this in.
David Pascoe, Health & Human Perf: I’m
confused by the resolution . The title says we are calling for an assessment of
the Board before a presidential search, but the last paragraph says we are not
going to participate. What is confusing to me is that the report from Dr.
Gladden said a Board of Trustees at one of the universities had a search that
went on conducted by the members and no one else. As far as process, the
process has not been concluded upon. So we may not participate, but the search
could go on. Is the wording suggesting that we won’t participate but that the
Board will not move on?
Dr. Bradley: All the resolution says is that we would not
participate in the search until an assessment is completed.
Dr. Pascoe: That is different from the title that says
assessment of the Board before searching for the president.
Dr. Bradley: You are right. Go by the resolution at the
bottom.
Alex Dunlop, English: Can someone
report on the status of any external assessment that’s going on or about to be
going on? Is there such an assessment going on?
Dr. Bradley: I can tell you about the Joint Assessment Committee.
This resolution doesn’t specify that the assessment would have to come from
that committee. The committee, at its last meeting, recommended the three
recommendations that you’ve probably seen. One of those was to invite the
executive director of SACS to come here and visit with the committee with the
idea being to determine the best way to get SACS involved: the complaint route
or the consultant route. At one of the last Senate meetings I mentioned my
discussions with Mr. Rodgers, the executive director; he told me it would be
more logical to issue a complaint. Have an investigative team come here and
investigate a complaint, provide recommendations, then have consultants come in
to aid in the implementation of the recommendations. To add to your original
recommendations, our plan was to wait until this meeting was over to see what
happens, then go ahead with that procedure.
David Sutton, Communication: I am very
reluctant to vote in favor of this resolution as it says we are not to
participate. What is to prevent the Board from saying, “fine, you’re not going
to participate,” then they proceed with a search anyway? I would like to offer
an amendment that the presidential search not proceed until an external
assessment has been completed by the Joint Assessment Committee, etc., etc. I
want us to be involved every step of the way; if we say we are pulling out,
then they will proceed just as they have in the past.
Dr. Bradley: There is an amendment offered. Do we have a
second?
The amendment was seconded.
Dr. Sutton: “Therefore, be it resolved that the
presidential search will not proceed” [instead of “Therefore, be it resolved that the Auburn University faculty not
participate in a presidential search”]
Dr. Bradley: Is there any discussion of this proposed
amendment?
Marty Olliff, Library: Although the gist and
spirit of this amendment is probably a good idea, we cannot tell the Board what
to do. We can only tell them what we are going to do.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: inaudible
Alex Dunlop, English: I want to speak both against
the amendment and the original proposal. I think it is a mistake to tie the
presidential search to any action that we are taking in regard to the Board. I
agree with Renee primarily that we need to work with these people. I think it
is bad to say we want more participation and then to say we are not going to
participate. Besides, I think the presidential search will be completed by the
time any external assessment is completed.
Michael Robinson, Architecture: I was wondering if the nature of this amendment has
to do with the compromise possibility of a search under the current
circumstances as much as it does doing a search after we have a performance
evaluation. I thought the spirit of this was that the performance evaluation
would create firmer ground in finding a president.
Renee Middleton, Steering Committee: To me, if you can address those issues with the
Board, it provides a more fertile
process to proceed with a more coherent search process and one in which we
would have some trust and integrity in the process as it relates to all of the
constituents related to the process.
Ralph Henderson, Small Animal Surgery: Can
anyone give me projection as to how long this joint assessment would take? Are
we talking about a six-month study, a three-month, or nine-month study? From
that point, when can a presidential search can start?
Dr. Bradley: If the assessment went through the SACS
complaint procedure as I described, it could take several months, but if you
read the description, once a complaint is lodged there is something like 90 days that SACS has to respond. Then
they have a chance to request more data, then you have a certain amount of time
to gather more data, then they have a certain amount of time to decide if they
will go ahead with it. So if you add up all of the maximum amounts of time, you
are talking about months. Whether that would actually be the case in this
situation, I personally doubt it would take that amount of time. The other
possible route is to hire an independent assessor. There is at least one of
those that has been identified. I anticipate that once one of those firms are
contacted, it could be done expediently. To answer your question, it depends on
who is doing it and the nature of the material being provided.
Ralph Zee, Mechanical Engineering: inaudible
Richard Kenworthy, Architecture: inaudible
The amendment was passed by
a voice vote.
Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering: What
are we going to be doing with Resolution B? Are we going to ask for the Board
to resign? If we are going to ask them to resign, why are we playing around
with this?
Dr. Bradley:
If this resolution is passed and the second resolution is passed, then there
are two requirements that must take place before the search process begins,
stated by each of the resolutions. If this one was not passed but the second
one was passed, then there doesn’t have to be any assessment, but there must be
a reconstitution of the Board. We will move on to the next one soon.
Christa Slaton, Political Science (substitute): It
seems to me that when we have amended this resolution, it may preclude us from
passing the resolution proposed by Marty Olliff. It seems to me that what we
have said is that the presidential
search will not proceed unless there is an external assessment and there is
compliance with the recommendation of the assessment by the Board. The Board
has not agreed to what has been recommended. Does that mean that the
presidential search doesn’t go on? Do we have any power over it? Does the Board
proceed without us? Does it really preclude us from going along with Marty’s
resolution?
Dr. Bradley:
Which resolution of Marty’s are you speaking of?
Dr. Slaton: The one in which we invite participate of the Board into
the search for the President. If we pass this and the Board does not comply
with an external assessment, are we prevented from proceeding with Marty’s
resolution?
Marty Olliff, Library: I’ll be happy to
address this. The real issue of my last resolution is to invite participation
of the Board into a search that we control. They have invited us into their
search; we invite them into ours. We, at that point, can be able to deal with
the committee. Also, regardless of whether they resign or not, there is a Board
of Trustees as a corporate entity distinct from its members. We would be
inviting the Board as a corporate entity. If that is a slump of three of four
individuals while we are waiting for others to be appointed, then so be it. My
resolution only addresses the Board as a corporate entity.
Dr. Slaton: My question is do we proceed with a
presidential search, if we pass this resolution and the Board does not comply?
Can we go and do a separate presidential search where we invite them in, or have
we precluded ourselves from doing that by passing this?
Dr. Bradley:
If you look at the words, it would be inconsistent to proceed with a search if
there was not compliance with recommendations.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: I’m
not seeing the conflict. They seem compatible.
Alex Dunlop, English: I would like
to clarify what I said before. I am very much in favor of an external
assessment. What I am against is tying it to the presidential search. I don’t
see that we gain anything by either postponing or taking ourselves out of the
presidential search process.
The resolution as amended
was adopted by a voice vote.
b.
Resolution calling for Resignation of Members of the
Auburn University Board of Trustees – Dr. Gary Mullen
I wish to introduce this resolution
as three different people: one, as a current senator, two, as a past-chair of
the University Senate, and three, as a faculty member at Auburn University for
more than 25 years. This resolution as proposed calls for resignation of
members of the Board of Trustees. I think everyone has had an opportunity to
review the particular whereases. I would like to highlight a few of these and
then move right into the issue itself. First, the concerns the resolution
addresses: the Board of Trustees has compromised the reputation and integrity
of Auburn University and has brought disrepute to the University by its
involvement in academics, governance, and athletics. Virtually every
constituent group at AU has voted no-confidence in the BOT. The bottom line is
that when a governing body loses the confidence and trust of the constituents
they represent, it is in the best interest of the institution that they step
aside. There are a couple of minor changes that I would like to make before
moving to adoption of this resolution. First, on the eighth whereas, there is
one correction: the graduate student association should be the graduate student
council. With the “Whereas the genuine reforms…” there is an error where it
originally said “continue to serve,” just strike out “continue to.” With those
corrections, I move that the Senate adopt this resolution.
The motion to adopt this
resolution was seconded.
RESOLUTION
CALLING FOR RESIGNATION OF MEMBERS OF THE AUBURN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees has compromised the reputation and integrity of
Auburn University and brought disrepute to this institution by its actions
relating to governance, academics, and athletics; and
WHEREAS the Auburn University Board of Trustees has consistently disregarded
guidelines of conduct relating to shared governance recommended by the
Southeastern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the American
Association of University Professors (AAUP), and the Association of Governing
Boards (AGB); and
WHEREAS, despite years of attempts to remind the Board of Trustees on the
proper role of a university governing body and the critical role of faculty in
the principle of shared governance, the Board of Trustees still fails to
fully appreciate or embrace the concept of shared governance; and
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees continues to defend its long-standing position of
holding secret meetings in direct violation of the spirit and intent of Alabama
Sunshine Law; and
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees continues to consider itself exempt from the
State Ethics Laws and has refused to develop or formally adopt policies
regarding conflicts of interest among its members or ethical guidelines for its
conduct; and
WHEREAS by the egregious manner in which it summarily removed William V.
Muse as President of Auburn University, the Board of Trustees showed contempt
not only for the faculty and students but also for Dr. Muse and the Office of
President itself; and
WHEREAS the Board of Trustees, by its actions, has betrayed the confidence and
trust of the faculty, students, staff, administrators, and alumni in meeting
its responsibilities to the University; and
WHEREAS virtually every constituent group of the Auburn University community
has voted no confidence in the AU Board of Trustees, representing the following
nine bodies: University Senate, General Faculty, Engineering Faculty
Council, Auburn Chapter of the American Association of University Professors,
Student Government Association, Graduate Student Council, Administrative and
Professional Assembly,
University Staff Council, and Auburn Alumni Association; and
WHEREAS 14 past chairs of the University Senate, collectively representing over
360 years of service and leadership as members of the AU faculty, and The
Auburn Plainsman have called for the resignation of the Board of Trustees; and
WHEREAS continuation of the present board and the distrust it engenders fosters
a climate that seriously impedes a search for a new president and preparation
for the upcoming SACS review; and
WHEREAS, without a major change in the membership of the Board of Trustees,
there is little or no hope of resolving the persistent conflicts relating to
the Board of Trustees that continue to disrupt Auburn University; and
WHEREAS, when a governing body loses the confidence and trust of the
constituents it purports to represent, the honorable thing to do is to step
aside in the best interest of the institution; and
WHEREAS the genuine reforms necessary to restore trust and confidence in the
Board of Trustees will not take place as long as current members remain on the
Board;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Auburn University Senate, representing both
the faculty and administration, calls for the resignation of Robert Lowder and
Lowell Barron from the Board of Trustees; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if they do not voluntarily resign, the Auburn
University Senate calls upon the Governor, the faculty, students, staff,
administration, alumni, and other Auburn supporters to use their influence in
effecting these resignations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the presidential search to select William V. Muse's
successor be suspended until Mr. Lowder and Mr. Barron have tendered their
resignations and those resignations have been accepted.
Judy Sheppard, Journalism (substitute): This
is the amendment: substitute in the “Therefore be it resolved”: “Therefore be it resolved that the Auburn
University Senate, representing both faculty and administration, recognizes
that there are Board members who act with good will and in good faith, and who
have through inexperience or some other inability allowed a pernicious faction
to direct policy to the detriment of Auburn University, and calls for the
resignation of all members of the Board of Trustees.” Then remove the last
paragraph, substitute: “Be it further resolved that the presidential search to
select William V. Muse’s successor be suspended until members of the AU Board
of Trustees have tendered their resignations and those resignations have been
accepted.”
The amendment was seconded.
Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: inaudible
The amendment was approved
by a voice vote.
Dr. Bradley:
We are now back to the resolution.
David Sutton, Communication: At the risk
of sounding like Prime Minister Chamberlain, I think we should postpone this
resolution until a later date. We first voted not to proceed with a
presidential search until we have evaluated the Board and they have complied
with the recommendations. I agree that we should do that. We should give the
Joint Assessment Committee a chance to do its work. Now we are calling upon
them to resign. I’ve never met Mr. Lowder, but I still don’t like him, nor do I
like any other members. This should be something that we consider after we have
communicated with them and made attempts to work with them and they still
refuse. I am moving to postpone this resolution.
Dr. Bradley:
There is a motion to indefinitely postpone further consideration of this
resolution until after an assessment has been made of the BOT.
The motion was seconded.
Mike Reinke, Pharmacy: inaudible
Ralph Zee, Mechanical Engineering: inaudible
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology (substitute): How
long should we wait? It seems to me that the answers are clear in terms of how
we are being regarded. Last week we heard a report listing the “no’s” that had
occurred in the negotiation process with the Board. It seems to me that that is
what this group would like to see occur. If we wait long enough , summer will come
and we won’t be paying attention, and they will just do whatever it is they
intend to do. The fact that we resolved all these various things does not
guarantee that any of them will occur. I see this as simply a statement of our
sentiment of the behavior of the Board. I don’t think that waiting an hour, a
week, or another two months is going to make any difference. If you believe
that the circumstances up unto this moment suggest that the Board should
resign, then I don’t see why we can’t vote now.
Ralph Henderson, Small Animal Surgery: I think it
does demonstrate our sentiment; our sentiment is angry. Anyone who knows any good negotiating skills knows that you
must be able to concede some aspects in order to have a win aspects. As what
I’ve seen, the Board is moving toward us and we are backing away from the
table. What I am seeing is two clusters of angry people who are selfish and
want their own way, much like children who are fighting over the same toy. This
is not a toy.
Gary Mullen, Entomology/Plant Pathology: I would
strongly speak against the postponement. I think what we see here is a
culmination of mistrust and abuse of the system. I don’t think waiting for one
more review to tell us what we already know is going to change anything. To
wait for a review doesn’t change mindsets or conflicts of interest. It doesn’t
take any step toward correcting a group that flaunts its power and says I am
not bound by any social behavior or
laws. It doesn’t say I am willing to no longer meet in secret. It says I’ll do
everything and I’ll pursue it in the courts to remain able to meet in secret if
I wish. We have lost, as the reports have repeatedly shown, complete trust in
this particular Board. When you lose trust and confidence, I don’t think
postponing is going to change anything. An outside review from SACS doesn’t
change anything, it simply tells us what we already know from past years.
Changing details about the presidential search isn’t going to change the Board.
I think if we are going to take a stand, we will vote today and not postpone.
Mike Reinke, Pharmacy: I submit to
you that if the Board is as contemptuous of the faculty as they have been for
the past 15 years, then they are going to disregard this call for resignation
just as they have disregarded everything else. On the other hand, if there are
even one or two people who have enough gumption to vote their conscious, why
not give them the opportunity to do so? What would be different, I suggest to
you, is that we hopefully have the unbiased opinion of an outside agency. I
would also suggest that the friendly leverage we as faculty have, it is not our
moral indignation, but the SACS
accreditation and the presidential search.
David Bransby, Agronomy & Soils: I would
like to draw your attention to the fact that all 14 of our past Senate-chairs
have unanimously requested resignation of the Board. Another point I’d like to
make is that through the Plainsman the
students have already expressed their sentiments. My question to the Senate is
when are we going to stop being followers and when are we going to lead?
Malcolm Crocker, Mechanical Eng: inaudible
The motion to postpone
failed.
Dr. Bradley:
Further discussion on the resolution?
Ralph Paxton, Physiology & Pharmocology: I
speak against this proposal. Getting rid of the current Board is not going to
generate any new blood on that committee. Any policy will not result in a new
set of people.
Christa Slaton, Political
Science: I would like to support this resolution. I am a “new kid on the
block” here, but I’ve been paying attention for quite a while. I keep hearing
the Board say “we’ve got a communication problem.” The faculty says “no, it is
larger than that.” But the Board that wants to simplify it and say it’s just a
communication problem won’t show up to these meetings to hear what we have to
say. They don’t participate in a dialogue. They want to make decisions
one-on-one or behind closed doors, not explaining to any of us what they do,
why they do it, and they want to have all the power. They want us to sit back
and accept from them that it’s just a communication problem. If it’s a
communication problem, why aren’t they all here talking to us? Why aren’t they
holding these issues out in public forums and answering them? I just can’t
agree more strongly with what Virginia has been saying. I hear folks in this
room say this has been going on for 16 and 23 years; I’ve been here for 7 years
and I just don’t have that kind of patience. My patience has worn then; I
support it strongly.
David Sutton, Communication: I
think this resolution is motivated by patience and anger; what separates us
from the students and other bodies is that we are the people who live the life
of the mind. We should give things thought and weigh the consequences of
situations. I did lose the postpone amendment,
but I think I could vote for something that proceeded in steps. We should first try to dissolve all their
economic links. If they refuse to dissolve their economic links, then we call
for their resignation.
Renee Middleton, Counseling/Counseling Psy: I
was voting for a postponement. I would guess that at some point, this would be
something we would want to support, but I think we have to be concerned, as
faculty, of public image as well. I would
like the public to see that we have documented what we are seeing, that we are
not just operating from emotion and anger, but that we have actually documented
from an external objective body. You have to get individuals looking on to see
that we’ve been methodical so that when this happens it happens in a way we
could be comfortable standing behind it. We’ve lived this but a lot of people
haven’t. You also have new members on the Board who, believe it or not, just
don’t see what we’re saying. The Board gives very rational responses to those
new Board members for their action.
I think that an outside body
coming to document the kinds of things that have happened in the last few
months is going to be hard to back away from. With the resolution we passed earlier,
if we don’t get the response we’re looking for, then it’s time to take action.
Where do we go from here? I don’t want to shoot our last bullet and have
nowhere to go. To me, that’s our last bullet. We’ve exhausted all other things
and we’ve been able to show that we’ve entered our negotiations, we’ve talked,
and we’ve done all the things we’ve needed to do, then it’s time to shoot that
last bullet. We shoot this bullet and we have nowhere else to go. There are
other things we could be documenting, not just for ourselves, but for the
public.
Ralph Henderson, Small
Animal Surgery: As I mentioned before, we demonstrated
anger. We have pointed out what we believe to be the perpetrator. We have
called for the circuit-riding judge, and now we are going to lynch. It doesn’t
follow. We have called for an assessment. Why, then, do we become those who
requested the assessment and then become the jury ourselves and not allow the assessment? It doesn’t follow.
David
Bransby, Agronomy & Soils: Two things have just come out: one that we are angry.
I am not angry, but I am very disappointed. I think what we are looking at here
is essentially the difference between what is right and wrong. The other point
is that as far as documentation is concerned, this resolution documents
everything we need.
Norman Godwin, Accounting: inaudible
Gary Mullen, Entomology/Plant Pathology: With
this issue of anger, it is debatable. I think I speak for 13 other past Senate
chairs who have dealt with this Board and these issues all these years. Calling
for the resignation of the Board is not out of a moment of frustration. It is a
very carefully constructed conclusion. The only way that this institution is
going to move forward is if the composition of the BOT is altered. I assure you
that those 14 chairs did not do that in haste, but it was very carefully
considered. I would not pass it off as mere anger.
Alex Dunlop, English: I want to
come back to the issue of right and wrong. There is right and there is smart. I
think we can be both. I agree with those who feel that we should proceed
judiciously in gathering evidence. I think we need to gather publicly viable
evidence so that we could legally mount a case that would be more than simply
saying, “we don’t like them and we want them to go away.”
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology (substitute): I
would like to call to question.
Richard Kenworth, Architecture: Is it possible to ask for a date for the
resignations?
Dr. Bradley: I do not have an answer for that question.
The resolution was adopted
by a voice vote.
Dr. Marty Olliff: I withdraw my three resolutions
and ask that they be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.
There were no objections and
the meeting was adjourned at 5:15.