Auburn University Senate Minutes
February 12, 2002
Broun Hall Auditorium
Absent: C. Jolly, D. Bransby, W. Bergen, R. Norton, C.
Hudson, J. Saye, K. Rabren, J. Gluhman, V. O’Leary, R. Locy, S. Knowlton, R.
Henderson, R. Britnell, M. Solomon, C. Skelton, J. DeRuiter, J. LaPrade, C. Hageman, C. Buchanan, L. Evans, J.
Jahera, M. Moriarty.
Absent (substitute):
H. Guffey (M. LaTaur), R.
Jenkins (R. Hartfield), B. Bowman (L. Crowley), R. Crocker (L. Gerber), C.
Slaton (R. Bernstein), B. Hames (J. Saunders), R. Kenworthy (B. Lindsey), F.
Kochan (B. Rowsey), H. Cummings (C. Brunson).
The meeting was called to
order at 2 p.m. The minutes for the
previous meeting were approved. They can be found at the Senate web page at www.auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/schedule.html
January 8, 2002.
Announcements
There are no specific
announcements from the President. Dr. Walker put out an email last week. He is
in California at a Council on Higher Education meeting and will be back in town
tomorrow.
I have prepared for you a
current update of known University expenses for consultants' and lawyers' fees:
$2,559,091.70. The difference here is not knowing Peter Degan’s expenses and
Dr. Weary’s bill.
Additional unknown expenses:
appeal of open meetings verdict and defense against fraternity students’
lawsuit
The Senate ad hoc Committee
to examine the feasibility of campus-wide
voting has now been formed:
Cindy Brunner, Chair
(Veterinary Medicine)
Gerry Gryski (Liberal arts)
Catherine Jannik (Library)
Sharon Oswald (Business)
They will be discussing the
issue of whether people will need to attend a Senate or General Faculty meeting
in order to vote on particular issues. Right now the only thing that can be
voted on without being at the meeting is the Senate officers at the General
Faculty meeting. We need two more volunteers for this Committee.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: We
really need someone from Extension to serve on this Committee so we can deal
with this issue of faculty being off campus.
Dr. Bradley: Barb Struempler and I have been attending
meetings of the Interim Joint Legislative Committee on higher education
governance chaired by George Landegger. Recall that this is the Committee
established last summer by a bill introduced by Ted Little and others. Among
other things, it is considering the feasibility of an overarching Board of
Regents for institutions of higher education in Alabama.
AU faculty were invited to
make a presentation to the Committee at its January 16 meeting. This meeting
was designed to allow representatives from each Board of Trustees around the
state to present views on governance of higher education in Alabama,
particularly the Board of Regents. Most sent a representative. Auburn’s BOT did
not, but it did send a statement. The Interim Joint Legislative Committee also
invited a faculty member from Auburn to speak, since we had shown so much
interest in this issue. I prepared a statement that I read to them; you may
read it on the Senate web page.
Barb Struempler, Chair-Elect: I went to a
meeting about two weeks ago, and the Chancellor of the two-year system in
Alabama gave an excellent overview of the two-year system. As best I could
figure, we have 26 two-year institutions in the state, and in the past 14 years
they have gone from 40-something down to 26. Apparently, they have a Board of
Regents already in place that is called a Board of Trustees. They are elected
locally. The chancellor comes under them, and then under him are the local
Presidents. At the end there was a presentation by the President of Troy State;
about four years ago, a group of Presidents, which Muse chaired, got together
and made a proposal to the Governor for a Board of Regents. That President of
Troy State highlighted some of the findings of that group.
Dr. Bradley: Anyone have any questions about that?
Gary Mullen, Entomology and Plant Pathology: What
is the time frame in which they are trying to give a report or make a
recommendation?
Dr. Bradley:
The bill that established the Committee set the deadline as the 15th
legislative day for submitting recommendations; that would come around the end
of February. About two meetings ago some members of the Committee discussed the
need for more time, and so at the end of that meeting it was understood that
Ted Little would go back to the legislature and ask for an extension to the end
of August. This was against George Landegger’s wishes, but the informal
discussion made the Committee agree or understand that he intended to have
recommendations out by the end of April, even though he might have an extension
to the end of August.
There was a Board of
Trustees meeting Friday, February 1. I sat as a non-voting member at the
Academic Affairs and Priorities and Planning Committee meeting. Action included
a resolution to adopt Dr. Weary’s report as a guideline for action to increase
Auburn University’s institutional capacity.
Jack Miller proposed
amending the resolution to provide for appointment of a task force to advise
Interim President Walker on implementation of recommendations passed.
I proposed amending the
resolution to read that Dr. Weary conducted an "extensive" study of
AU rather than a "thorough" study and that the Board and other
University groups develop and implement a plan "taking into
account" rather than "based upon" Dr. Weary’s recommendations. I
proposed these amendments because in studying the report myself I saw some
areas that weren’t addressed that I would like to see addressed by the task
force. I believe that the University already has some very good policies on
University governance, and that efforts
should be made to get those policies working well rather than to assume that
they all need to be rewritten. The amendments passed.
I have asked Senate Rules
Committee members to study the Weary report
carefully and put in writing
their comments. These will be gathered into a response to the Weary
report that will be presented to Dr. Walker and to the task force once it is
established.
The Board is no longer
asking to approve each new edition of the AU Bulletin. This was heralded
by some as a sign that the Board is embarking on a new policy of leaving
curriculum matters entirely up to the faculty and administration. My view on
this is different. My impression is that Mr. Miller simply wished to conserve
time and effort expended by his Committee and the Board. After determining that
any curriculum changes printed in the Bulletin would already have been
approved by the Board, he simply proposed that the Board not have to approve
them twice.
The No Tolerance Policy
statement that was under discussion at the end of the January Senate meeting
has been referred to the University Multicultural Affairs Committee chaired by
Johnny Green and Bruce Gladden. That Committee will be looking at that document
possibly rewriting, revising, editing, etc. There is a short statement on
diversity that Committee has prepared as well; I am sure it will be presented
shortly for our consideration.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: President
Walker mentioned that he was going to make the Committee on Multicultural Affairs
a standing committee. I couldn’t find anything on the Committee for
Multicultural Affairs. Has this been an ad hoc committee in the past?
Dr. Pritchett: This Committee has operated as an ad hoc committee. It is now a
University Committee. It is the Multicultural Diversity Committee. It is
currently chaired by Bruce Gladden and Johnny Green. On the next round of
Committee appointments, it will be brought up for new membership.
Dr. Brunner:
Would you mind posting the membership of that Committee on the web as one of
the University Committees?
Dr. Bradley:
We will do that. That is quite a large committee; there are 15 or so members on
it.
Next, we will have a short
report from Bruce Gladden, chair of the Nominating Committee.
Dr. Gladden: The Chair of the Nominating Committee is always the
immediate past-chair of the Senate.
We have been scouring for
candidates for secretary-elect and chair-elect, and we do have candidates to
report for secretary-elect: Paula Sullenger, Library, and Christa Slaton,
Political Science. We are still working on the chair-elect, but we need to get
it done very quickly because the deadline is coming up. Please feel free to
send any nominees you may have to me or to the Nominating Committee ASAP.
Action Items
Nominations for Rules Committee
Dr. Bradley:
Nominations for candidates for election to the Rules Committee are now accepted
from the floor of the Senate. Nominees must be current members of the
University Senate. We will have 4 positions to fill: 3 full 2-year term
positions, and 1 single-year position to complete the term of Marty Olliff. The
election will take place in March. We need at least four names. You must be a
current Senator in order to nominate someone, and you also must have that
person’s permission.
The following persons were
nominated for the Rules Committee:
Richard Beil (nominated by
Paula Sullenger)
Jacob Dane (nominated by
Judy Sheppard)
Judy Sheppard (nominated by
Herb Rotfeld)
Christa Slaton (nominated by
Judy Sheppard)
Herb Rotfeld (nominated by
Renee Middleton)
Ken Tilt (nominated by Bruce
Gladden)
Cindy Brunner (nominated by
Paula Sullenger)
Paul Sullenger, Library: I had talked to Richard Beil about running for the
one-year term. How is that being handled?
Dr. Bradley: The top three bidders will be the 2-year terms and
the fourth would be the one-year.
A motion was made for
nominations to cease. The motion was seconded and the motion passed.
Approval of the make-up exam policy – Dr. Daniel
Harris, Chair, Academic Standards Committee
Dan Harris did not arrive at
the meeting until 3 p.m. Thus Dr. Bradley moved for that Committee that the
policy be adopted.
Proposed policy on Make-Up
Exams
Arrangement to make up
missed major examinations (e.g. hour exams, mid-term exams) due to properly authorized
excused absences shall be initiated by the student within one week from the end
of the period of the excused absence. Normally, a make-up exam shall occur
within two weeks from the time that the student initiates arrangements for it.
Instructors are encouraged to refrain from giving make-up examinations during
the last three days prior to the first day of final examinations. The format of
make-up exams and opportunities for students to make up work other than major
examinations are at the discretion of the instructor whose make-up policies
should be stated in writing at the beginning of the term.
Dr. Bradley:
My understanding is that this is two or three years in the making. The last
time it was considered, the faculty objected strongly because it was very
restrictive. For example, make-up exams were required to be in the same format
as the original exams. This wording has been changed to remove that
restriction.
The motion to adopt this
policy does not need a second because it comes from a Committee. The floor is
now open for discussion on this policy, which will become part of the Handbook.
Currently, we do not have a policy on make-up exams in the handbook. Linda
Glaze is here and is familiar with the development of this. If you have
questions, you might ask her as well.
[unidentified speaker]:It says “normally, a make-up exam shall occur within
two weeks from the time that the student initiates arrangements for it.” In my
department, we have four exams and two make-up days with our classes; that
pushes the deadline past what is established here.
Dr. Bradley:
With this wording, I don’t think this presents a problem.
Linda Glaze: I think the issue would be whether students need
feedback from the first exam in order to take the second exam. That’s really
what prompted the request for this time frame. Students have the right to see
their performance on earlier work before they continue.
[unidentified speaker]: I would like to see some discussion about what is a
properly excused absence, as referred to in this wording. Does that mean
students can bring a doctor’s excuse?
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: The
policy is stated in the Tiger Cub. The problem is that there are
no guidelines for makeup work in the Tiger Cub.
Dr. Bradley: I suppose this could be reworded to refer
this back to the Tiger Cub because apparently those guidelines are
well-defined.
Linda Glaze: Those are well-defined; right now those are on page
88. What you have to provide a make-up for, as far as emergencies, etc. is very
well-defined.
[unidentified speaker]: What is the meaning of the last sentence? I never specify on my syllabus what the
format of a makeup exam will be. I have
exercised a certain amount of flexibility.
The last sentence seems restrictive of the professor.
Dr. Bradley: The way the last sentence
is worded does not require you to state your format. Just state your makeup policy.
[unidentified speaker]:Your assumption is that make-up policy does not
include anything more than just what I, as the instructor, make up.
Dr. Bradley:
That is my understanding. You have to make it clear to the students that the
format is up to your discretion.
[unidentified speaker]: Does that mean you would not have to put the makeup
policy on your syllabus? You could simply refer to the Tiger Cub?
Dr. Bradley: Dr. Pritchett or Linda, would you like to address the
question of what is required in writing for the first day of class?
Dr. Glaze: The only
thing I would say is you would want to be specific, and you can also refer the
student to the Tiger Cub. For example, we would recommend that faculty,
especially for freshmen- and sophomore-type courses, to specify where students
would find policies on plagiarism, for example.
Dr. Bradley:
I think the answer to your question is “yes.” That is, if you didn’t say
anything it would be understood that the policies in the Tiger Cub
apply.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Isn’t it
still preferable to refer to the Tiger Cub in the syllabus? It’s a
one-liner, really not a big deal.
Kem Krueger, Pharmacy: Will this new policy, if it is approved, go in the Tiger
Cub?
Dr. Glaze:
I assume you would want to put it in the Faculty Handbook in the
instruction section, in the student affairs section, and in the Tiger Cub under the class attendance
section.
Dr. Krueger: Shouldn’t we put “as defined in the Tiger Cub”
after “excused absences”?
Dr. Bradley: I think we can do that without a vote. Is there anyone here from Dan
Harris’ Committee? It is written that the student has one week.
Dr. Brunner: I think the word “normally” in the next
sentence takes care of that. I had a student Fall Semester who was in a
horrific car accident and was out the whole rest of the term except for the
last three days. He came in on a wheelchair and talked to me, but we didn’t
deal with the makeup issue until the start of Spring Semester. I think the word
“normally” is flexible enough that this requires that the student make contact
with you to acknowledge that there was an absence. Then it is between you and
the student how you work it out. Normally, you can work it out in two weeks;
however, in our case we couldn’t.
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: I
am on the Academic Standards Committee. A number of people here are confusing
the idea of this broad policy with a syntactical implementation on a
class-by-class basis. These are broad guidelines of what should be done at the
very least. The basic problem is the large number of faculty members that would
tell students they were stuck. There were also other concerns with faculty
giving no leeway. Instructors can tell students on the syllabus to let them
know they will be absent. This is giving basic guidelines. They should be able
to email you, call you, or talk to you beforehand. These are guidelines that say
you should be having a makeup exam for students so they can have equitable
treatment. Everyone is getting worried about little details, but the stated
policy is broad.
Dr. Glaze: What
it amounts to is that students have one week from the time they reappear in
their class. It doesn’t matter when the exam was. This puts the burden on the
student to make the initiative. You shouldn’t have to chase the student to find
out what happened. They should contact you, upon return, and not at the end of
the semester.
The policy was approved by a
unanimous voice vote.
New Business
Dr. Bradley:
Someone is asking about calling up the agenda for this last meeting?
Isabelle Thompson, Senate Secretary: I
apologize. I thought it was there. It was an operator error.
Ralph Henderson, Vet.
Med: About how long should be expect
between the previous meeting and the next one to get the minutes done?
Dr. Thompson: This last meeting lasted two
hours and forty-five minutes. The transcription took quite some time, but the
minutes are available. I will re-launch them. I launched them last week, but
they didn’t go.
Dr. Bradley:
That is a good question. I am not sure that it is stated in the Faculty
Handbook how much time is allowed for people to look at the minutes before
they can be approved.
Dr. Thompson: I don’t think it is possible to get the minutes up before a week in
advance when we have meetings that are two hours and forty-five minutes long.
Dr. Bradley: This could be something discussed at another time. I
remember some years ago the minutes were not published verbatim as they are
now. There is a lot of time involved in getting the exact transcript.
Michael Watkins, Philosophy: I think the moral here is that we do not have
meetings that last two hours and forty-five minutes.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I used to be secretary, so I am sympathetic to those
that have to do the minutes. We began publishing them on the web during my
year. The old policy was that the minutes had to go out with the agendas. The
agendas have to arrive in the senators’ hands about 48 hours before the next
meeting. I think Isabelle and her predecessors have been doing a fabulous job
in getting them to us on the web so we can refer back to them. I know what it
is like to transcribe a special-called meeting or an extremely long one.
[unidentified speaker]: Do we know if the summer term will be offered as a
five or six-week?
Dr. Pritchett: There are basically two kinds
of courses: ten-week and five-week courses. We also have the optional six-week courses
offered on an experimental basis.
The meeting was adjourned at
3:00 p.m.