Auburn
University Senate Meeting
May 21, 2002
Members Absent: John Mouton, Chair-Elect; Jim Bradley, Immediate Past-Chair; David Bransby, Agronomy & Soils; Werner Bergen, Animal & Dairy Science; Richard Beil, Economics; Nelson Ford, Management; Robert Ripley, Aviation Management & Logistics; John Saye, Curriculum & Teaching; Susan Bannon, Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology; David Pascoe, Health & Human Performance; Mahmoud El-Halwagi, Chemical Engineering; Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering; Joseph Gluhman, Art; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders; Steve Knowlton, Physics; Ralph Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Science; Richard Kenworthy, Architecture; Gregory Pettit, Human Development/Family Studies; James Bannon, Non-tenure Track Faculty; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; Captain Chris Hageman, Air Force ROTC; Dan Bennett, Dean, College of Architecture; John Jahera, Interim Dean, College of Business; Chad Harvey, GSO President; Ellyn Hix, A&P Assembly Chair.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by the chair, Dr. Barbara Struempler.
Dr. Barbara Struempler: The minutes of the last meeting, the April 9 meeting, have been posted. Are there any corrections? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Renée’s finding out a lot of interesting things about posting these minutes. She kept telling me she’s working on posting them, posting them, posting them, and they wouldn’t go, they wouldn’t go, they wouldn’t go; well, come to find out she can’t use any capital letters. So, just FYI for all of you that ever want to letter on that. I told Renée that by the time we have this all figured out, the ten months will just be out of here. So anyway.
President Walker is out today; I found out yesterday that he’s in a meeting in Huntsville. From the President’s Office, we’ll have Interim Provost John Pritchett to bring us the remarks.
Dr. John Pritchett, Interim Provost (for Interim President William F. Walker): Thanks so much. The announcements from the President’s Office really fall into two categories. The first deals with diversity issues, the second deals with budget. Three items under diversity issues. Of course you know we’ve been dealing with Russell Corporation over the past several months. They’ve cooperated with us as far as putting on several workshops and try to bring us all on the same page as far as the issues of diversity and how they have approached this in that institution or organization. Growing out of those discussions, however, Dr. Walker has decided that it would be best for this university to have an ongoing Diversity Leadership Council. This is really representative of all elements of this university community. Dr. Walker asked that I tell you that this Diversity Leadership Council is now complete as far as membership is concerned. The initial meeting of this Leadership Council will be held this Thursday afternoon at 1:00 p.m. at the Conference Center. There are 25 members on this Council. The charge of this Council I want to say is very simple but it’s also very complex. The first charge to this Council is that it develop a comprehensive diversity plan for this institution which will enable this institution to establish core values which relate to diversity and tolerance. This is not going to be a quick fix; this is going to be something that is systemic to this university.
The second thing Dr. Walker asked me to relate to you – of course there have been several incidents which deal with businesses in the City of Auburn and also members of the university community. And some of these incidents have caused a great deal of concern among membership of the university community. An initial meeting was held today between leaders of the university, faculty from the university, and the City leadership to initiate discussions so far as how we bring the City and the university together on these issues of common concern. Willie Larkin was at the meeting today, John Heilman. John would you like to just stand up and give your assessment of this initial meeting and how you covered it.
Dr. John Heilman, Acting Assistant to the President: John, I’ll do that and contrary to my usual practice, I’ll be very brief. Also at that meeting Bill Sauser did a wonderful job serving as a facilitator. Willie Larkin and I have just been talking and some of the words that I think describe the meeting would be among the following. Most importantly, as Bill Sauser concluded at the end, we stop here and we have not started. The initial meeting of this group focused on the business climate in the City of Auburn for minority customers. The meeting was candid and lasted for the better part of two hours. There was a frank exchange of ideas. There was also a clear consensus that we were committed to working together and continuing our meetings, one or two of the words that I heard used to describe what happened in the meeting, I think perhaps the key word was “authenticity.” I accept that; I think it is a good charter, Switch some of the times that Bill Sauser surfaced, are the importance in our discussing which was side-ranging and frank, is the importance of community, the importance of surfacing issues that divide our community, and the importance of coming up with a course of action which will achieve some results so when we look back in six months, a year, or two years – we’re further down the road that what we don’t have is a meeting that was a nice beginning but nothing followed it. So that’s my report. I think it was a good meeting and we will continue to follow up. Thank you.
Interim Provost Pritchett: Does anyone have any questions for John?
Jo Heath: What did you say this meeting was about?
Dr. Heilman: The meeting was about the fact that there was a need for follow-up after the Highlands incident which took place several months ago in which members of the minority Greek organizations here on campus fest that they had a commitment for a social event at a local establishment. That fell through that race built who questions and concerns. There was some meetings following up on that to talk about this issue. One of the upshots of those meetings was my taking it upon myself, I guess, because I’m with the university but also a member of the City Council to lead a session like the one today which is what it was, so that folks could start talking. The theme was the Business Climate in the City of Auburn, and Opelika too, but we started with just Auburn for minority customers.
Interim Provost Pritchett: Any other questions for John? Thank you, John. The third item as far as diversity issues are concerned … many of you have probably heard that John Bello Oguno, our Assistant Provost for Multicultural Affairs, will be leaving the university and taking a position in Pennsylvania commencing at the beginning of July. What we have done is establish a Search Committee and I have charged that Search Committee with doing three things: (1) we have ongoing programs there which need immediate attention so I’ve asked the Committee to identify a transitional person from within the University to serve for a limited period of time; (2) go back to that job description, to completely reevaluate that job description given the things that are going on currently at the university and also given the fact that there is a great deal of overlap between that job description and what Janet Saunders, our AAEEO Officer, does; and finally, pending completion of the revamping of that job description, initiating a national search to go out and find the absolute best person that we can to fill that position.
In the second category of remarks, this deals with budget and this is very brief. I’m looking for Don Large, he looks kind of tired of up there, but he’s the Director of Budget Advisory Committee for the past several months. The Budget Advisory Committee had today its final meeting, Don, I hope. And at the final meeting the Budget Advisory Committee has given its final blessings to the budget guidelines for this year. The process that will be followed from this step forward, the budget guidelines will be presented to the Budget Committee for the Trustees on June 3 and assuming that the Budget Committee for the Trustees accepts those guidelines, we will proceed to develop a budget for the coming year. That budget will be considered by the Board at its meeting in September. The other thing is the President will be taking to the Board at the June 3 meeting a request to increase tuition for the coming year. Don Large is here as well as other members of the Budget Advisory Committee if you have questions on this process. Are there questions Larry?
Larry Gerber, History: Can you tell us what the size of the recommended tuition increase is?
Provost Pritchett: Don, you want to respond to that?
Don Large: It’s somewhere between 10 and 12 percent.
John Pritchett: Are there any other questions on these or any other issues? Glenn?
Glenn Howze, Agriculture Economics: Yes. The Committee that’s looking at the Office of Multicultural Affairs, what Committee is that?
John Pritchett: This is the Search Committee. We went through the standing process; we have members that were recommended by the Rules Committee as well as other appointments. Daowie?
Daowei Zhang, Forestry & Wildlife Sciences: class, what’s the size of the salary increase?
Don Large: The recommended salary numbers are right now for a 2% cost of living and 3% merit for staff. For the faculty a 5% merit was recommended. Then we have some money set aside to go beyond that to address areas of merit and market equity that will be identified and documented with the goal of trying to address further the salary problems. It should be above five percent when it’s all said and done, but distribution to the Colleges and Schools will be have to be finalized.
Barb Struempler: That whole discussion is probably why so many of you are here, you thought. Any other questions for Dr. Pritchett? Yes, Herb, I’m sorry.
Herb Rotfeld, Steering Committee: Every time I have encountered efforts or concerns for hiring minority faculty members, you can correct me or whatever, I encounter instances where job descriptions or other constraints drawn on definitions to the effect of reducing the possibility of making those hires. What am I supposed to do to rectify this since I know that the situation still exists?
John Pritchett: Burt, I’m aware that you brought two such instances to Dr. Walker and he asked me to check into it and I involved the individual deans and asked for clarification. As it turns out, in those two cases the individuals did not have qualifications for the specific Colleges and Schools. One other thing that I would share with this body, though. We have been tracking very carefully the minority and female hires on this campus for this coming year and it appears that we are about to have a banner year as far as that is concerned. We are currently running about 3.7% African American faculty. The figures we have at this point in time indicate that we may have almost a full increase of 1% about that figure. So we are doing very, very well this year. Herb, do you still have a question on that?
Herb Rotfeld: No, I have a follow-up. On the qualifications, I can give you the statement of accrediting bodies, organizations, and individuals involved that they are qualified. In at least one of the instances that I brought to your attention the person has the exact same job qualifications of the faculty members in the department. I brought your attention other job qualifications that are defined more narrowly than are held on White men in those same departments and in the instance that I bought to your attention, we have I think we even have one advisory statement that it a welcome to have people of the body. I think the problem is that you consult just with the dean and you may necessarily run the definition of the job too narrowly in ways that makes it less likely to have these hires. And as I said, I can document the difference between what’s he’s telling you and what the accrediting bodies requirements are.
John Pritchett: I would be happy to visit the issue with you. Any other questions? Thank you.
Barb Struempler: This is a list up here of all the members of the Senate. This is FYI. You need to make sure you sign in in the back. Before looking for a quorum, we count you as a check mark each time. Also, please identify yourself when you’re making any type of comments. It just makes it a lot easier for the minutes to be recorded.
Well, I have some rather hard announcements, I have a rather hard announcement to make. My comments today will deal with only one issue and that is the possible removal of “Interim” from Interim President Walker’s title. Yesterday afternoon, I emailed portions of this presentation to Dr. Walker. I did that for two reasons. First, we would be talking about his position and I felt it fair to let him know what I would be talking about. And I also wanted to extend him an invitation to excuse himself, but he was already gone. So, he was in Huntsville, and that was previously scheduled. But I did take the courtesy to do that. My report though, is respectfully given as I hope any additional comments from the Senate will also be made.
On Tuesday, two weeks ago on May 7, I met with Auburn Trustee Jack Miller. Don Logan, who is CEO of AOL and Time Warner and a very powerful alumnus was also in attendance at the meeting. I perceived he was there as a listener as I was at the request of Mr. Miller. At this meeting, Mr. Miller told me that several board members were considering removing the “Interim” from Interim President Walker’s title at the June Board of Trustees meeting. He continued by saying that it would be a three-year contract, no more; and that President Walker would not apply for the Presidency within the Search. Although we had a very lengthy discussion, there was the following rationale offered. I should say that these comments will be out to you people tomorrow, so if you don't want to take copious amounts of notes, they will be up tomorrow morning — my comments, maybe not any additional comments, but mine will be. The rationale for removing the “Interim” from the President’s title, one of them was the AU Capital Campaign. It would be beginning soon, and the consultants who are searching for the VP of Development believe the Campaign will be much more successful with the least amount of turmoil and the most stability that this campus can gather. It is estimated that the Campaign will raise between $350,000,000 to $500,000,000 with a $150,000,000 directly related to the amount of instability on campus. Another rationale or another reason for wanting to remove the “Interim” was that Interim President Walker played a very … leadership role last year during the revenue shortfall, the budgeting process that was occurring. Don Logan stated that Andrew Sorenson who is the former President of the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa had called him and had told him what a great job that Dr. Walker had done. Don Logan offered that information to this conversation. So, while Jack Miller thinks that … believes that he had played a great leadership role, there were other people that felt that Dr. Walker had also played a very good leadership role. Mr. Miller … another reason that we are removing the “Interim” was that there are many other searches that need to get under way and this is a big gray area for me. I did not pursue this area with Mr. Miller. We were so intent on discussing Dr. Walker's position, I didn't follow through on this comment, so I just offer that as one of the other reasons. And one of the final reasons that Mr. Miller gave for removing the “Interim” is that it’s … we had a resolution from the Senate not to participate in a Presidential search until all the JC compliance and the JC mission findings were finalized. So those were some of the reasons.
Before I explain the events that ensured after this meeting, I would like to comment and commend Jack Miller for his actions. If you remember, last year most of us weren’t singing too many good things about Jack Miller and I was one of them who had many, many harsh dealings with Mr. Miller. However, on the May 7, I can honestly say that Mr. Miller stepped out of his traditional Trustee box and made an honest attempt for shared governance between the Board of Trustees and the faculty. I do applaud Mr. Miller’s efforts and I think that they are genuine. Now, I can see a lot of you in the audience sitting there smirking and I’ll just say that you were not at that meeting. I was at the meeting; I have spent the last 80 to 90 hours of working time listening to faculty input, trying to get your concerns, and to represent you well. You may smirk as well as I may smirk, but let’s keep this all into perspective and wait at least until the comments are done. I would appreciate that.
Mr. Miller asked of me two questions. The first one he asked is he said, ”How would faculty feel about the removal of “Interim” from Interim President Walker’s title?” That was his first question. And he also asked, “How could the turmoil on campus be lessened in the event this title change occurs?” After being contacted by Mr. Walker, I sought input from as many faculty as I could find within a given amount of time. I guess collectively I talked to about 50 people. They were all in groups; I didn't do any individuals; I wanted to make sure groups knew what other people were saying within the group. I talked to AUP, the past chairs of the Senate, the Rules and Steering Committees, and there was also another group made up from a variety of different disciplines throughout the university. And I posed exactly the same question to them that you just heard me say and I’m going to provide you in a minute some of their ideas. I can honestly say when … the questions were okay. They caused faculty to honestly think about where we are. We have been at a standstill for 12 months; we haven’t moved. I am not sure how fast we’re going to move. But it actually gave us the opportunity as faculty to talk, to dialog about where we are going, where we are, and where we’re going; how do you want to get there, how fast do you want to get there. Those were some of the issues that eventually came out of our discussions. Do you have any guesses on what I heard from the faculty? Not surprisingly, faculty had diverse opinions about removing “Interim” from the President’s title. But, again, let us remember it is our diversity of thought that truly makes us a great and unique university. We can agree to disagree and be tolerant of others’ opinions.
Let’s go back to Mr. Miller’s question. How would the faculty feel about the removal of “Interim” from the Interim President’s title. I got three main responses that I could categorize. There was the ‘yes’ group; those were the faculty that feel that removing “Interim” is acceptable with no strings attached. There was a ‘no’ group; those faculty felt that removing “Interim” is totally out of the question. Reasons for this feeling included the violation of shared governance at Auburn University for faculty, staff, A&P, alumni. They had a lot of questions on the trickle down theory — will the removal of “Interim” from the President’s title be repeated for other Interim positions? And like I say, Mr. Miller and I didn’t discuss that issue. And there were other grave concerns — the ‘no’ group who said absolutely not — is that Interim appointments usually are made with a search process. Dr. Walker’s position as it is now was made without any search process whatsoever. It was an appointed position. I do want to elaborate just a minute on the position of the ‘no’ group. I feel very strong respect for their position of shared governance and of all the other issues that surfaced during this last year on ways to run a university. And I agree with them too — it is a matter of principle. When other university personnel, beginning at an entry level clerical position up through faculty positions, must follow very stringent employment procedures, it is difficult to simply rubber-stamp a permanent position that’s at the top of the university. It is important not to loose sight of their reasons for it is through the efforts of the ‘no’ group that we have gained the ground that we have today.
However, there is one more approach that I need to talk about and this approach came out of the ‘no’ group and I call it the ‘yes, if’ group. So we’ve got the ‘yes’, the ‘nos’, and the ‘yes, ifs.’ And the ‘yes, ifs’, this group of faculty were originally in the ‘no’ group. But after discussing the issues for a while, conceded that if certain conditions were met, the removal of “Interim” would be more palatable. In essence, this group was providing the answers to Mr. Miller’s second question: “How could the turmoil on campus be evaded in the event the title change occurs?” The ‘yes, ifs’ felt that there are two primary issues that need resolution. The attention or inattention to certain issues would affect the amount of turmoil on campus. The two issues come as no surprise to anyone. Obviously, it’s the JC complaint/SACS lawsuit and also the new President based on a national search. Those were the two issues. And again, at the original meeting with Mr. Miller, we did discuss these issues. Mr. Miller led me to think that we could at least think about starting on the Presidential search in terms of putting together the Committee. You’ll remember last year, that was the big bottleneck. We couldn’t get past that point. So, it may take us a while yet to get past that point. But he did tell me that he was very amenable to faculty-selected faculty representation on the Search Committee and he would try to work to ensure shared governance for all groups. So, that’s what I spent 80 hours of my working time on campus hearing — the ‘yes’, the ‘nos’, and the ‘yes, ifs.’
And now I’d like to share with you my opinion. As Mr. Miller implied to me, the Board would be making its decision about the “Interim” issue at it June Board meeting. I, Barbara Struempler, firmly believe that the Board will vote to remove “Interim” from that title at the June Board meeting. We’ve been talking about it for several years. Well, at least for 12 months. As it was explained to me — I’m going to give you my rationale on where I’m going with this — Jack Miller’s first reasoning for wanting to remove the “Interim” was because of the Capital Campaign. The VP for Development and the President must work very close together in order to have a successful Campaign. And the VP for Development has to feel like the President is the real thing. To the outside world, to have “Interim” on the President’s title during a Capital Campaign doesn’t reflect the stability that will result in the most successful Campaign. It is estimated that there will be a difference of $350,000,000 with an Interim President as compared to $500,000,000 with a President. The difference hinges on the word “Interim” and the amount of turmoil on campus. At the time when the university is being squeezed financially, and all of us want more — we want raises, we want vacancies filled, we want laboratories, classrooms, distance learning to support our outreach efforts — money may be the name of the game. So where do we go from here? I’m a realist. Idealism is wonderful, but in the final analysis it doesn’t get the job done or pay the bills. Realism is not casting down ideals. It is understanding that in order to achieve what is actually achievable, we must be willing to give a lot to gain a lot. Earlier today I stopped a colleague in the hall and posed to her this question: “Is the worth of the University’s losing $150,000,000 to keep “Interim” in the title of the Interim President?” She said, it might be worth losing $150,000,000; look at our history. There are many of you out that that have this belief. I respect that belief, but given the current budgetary situation at Auburn University, we have little to gain by being intractable. I’d like to say that we could meet the Board half way on this issue, quiet the unrest, and let the process take place. The Board isn’t asking for our blessings. They’re asking for our understanding. So, with that I’ll open the floor for comments and, in keeping with the rules that we established last meeting, we’ll recognize Senators first. Keep your comments brief — 3 minutes or less if you can. Once Senators have used a majority of the time that they want, I will then call on visitors from the Senate. Please identify yourself, state who you are representing, and you must address the chair — don’t talk back. Questions, comments?
Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: So the University stands to lose $150,000,000 if Dr. Walker keeps the “Interim” in his title? I’m wondering what sort of analysis that figure represents.
Barb Struempler: I cannot tell you that. I will answer any questions that I can and if not, I’m not going to speculate. They have a consultant firm … we have a couple of people here who are on that search committee. Maybe they can help us out in that answer. I do know that we have a consulting firm who gives us the pulse of that process. That’s why we hired them. Is there anyone who would like to add information to that? Conner.
Conner Bailey, Steering Committee: I am on that search committee. I don’t have a copy of the consultant’s report. I understand that it’s very recently become available to some individuals, but I don’t have it yet. I, too, have no way of answering the question of “on what basis was this done?” It is fairly clear, I think, that a campus in turmoil will not attract money. Duh! My question is, if … with all due respect, Barb, I know you’ve worked very hard these last couple of weeks and I appreciate Mr. Miller coming and trying to involve the Faculty Senate Leadership in this, Mr. McWhorter who is over here to my left has been on campus the last couple of days talking with people. He’s very interested in this issue and I appreciate you being here Aaron and listening to this discussion. Mr. McWhorter is also on the search committee and I believe, has a copy of that report; maybe he can answer that question. But the question of turmoil I think is very important, and I think that that’s related to the question of this process. With all the regard to what Barb’s trying to do in consulting with various groups in the Rules and Steering Committee, the past chairs of the Senate, there is a process through which we normally operate in the question of President.
A committee is formulated and there is usually time and there is usually not a gun to the head in that regard Speaking as a member of the Search Committee, I am not yet convinced that the Board is making a decision on this very important question in the month of June serves the best interest of Auburn University. If we are looking for a campus where turmoil is not enhanced, but rather … then I think calls for a deliberative process. I don’t see the difference between June and September with regard to the removal of “Interim” status of Dr. Walker if that is indeed the decision that comes out through this process. I’m very concerned, and I’ve shared this concern with Mr. McWhorter that an action that might be regarded as precipitous, that is, moving forward in a manner … many people on this campus have not heard about this proposal, and many of our colleagues are away for the summer and I think they are going to look at the timing of this with great suspicions. They will do so because there is a history, a sad history we all want to get behind us. I’m very concerned of that. I’m sure Mr. McWhorter shares that vies. I would urge the Board not to act in June on these matters, but rather to work together with faculty and other stakeholders on this campus and let’s go forward with more of a deliberative process.
Barb Struempler: Other comments?
Christa Slaton, Political Science: You referenced your comments by saying that your meeting with Mr. Miller and also Mr. Logan was more of a listening session. Am I correct?
Barb Struempler: I think so, yes. He asked me point blank those two questions. I think Mr. Logan … he (Miller) was posing those questions necessarily to Mr. Logan. Logan was there to listen. I was there to listen too.
Christa Slaton: And you concluded your remarks by saying the Board is not asking for our blessing, they are asking for our understanding.
Barb Struempler: They may not even be asking for that. I think that at this point, they are … go on ahead, ask your question.
Christa Slaton: The question I have is, if we are to get beyond the turmoil that Conner refers to, and there is not a single faculty member that I know of that does not want us to get beyond the turmoil, we all want to get this University in a positive direction. Did you get any sense from Mr. Miller that he also … that he is willing to try and understand our perspective?
Barb Stuempler: He listened that day. Does he understand our perspective? That’s your question? It’s going to take a lot of education, but it has started. It wasn’t much of a step, it was a baby step, but he, compared to the situation last year and how volatile it was, he wasn’t at all … every encounter we had last year with him was very harsh. He wasn’t at all like that he was very willing to listen and we talked about search composition. Not a lot, but he said that he wanted faculty to elect faculty representatives, so he has heard some of our concerns. So, he understands what some of the concerns are, and you know, if you want someone to change, my philosophy is let’s try to help then and tell them what we want to change. If we don’t tell them, they’ll never figure that out, but if we truly say in a rationale way that these are some of the things we want and give them some good reasons why, I don’t know, that’s doing our job and maybe they can do their job. I don’t know Christa. By him even coming and inviting us to listen I think was a major accomplishment. Whether he can change, I don’t know. I try to get people to try and change what they eat, it’s pretty hard. I’m just telling you where I’m coming from in life. It’s very hard, but we did have a very civil conversation. I’ve had a couple of other encounters just on the phone, just briefly and they have been very civil. He’s listening. Yes?
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Barb, you mentioned that there were three main responses to the proposal. One was an acceptance of the proposal as it was being offered by Jack Miller. The second was no, it would not be acceptable under any circumstances, and a third was a group that said yes, but, and the two both involving the JAC and the Presidential search. I can see some possible resolution to the Presidential search challenge, but how would you suggest we get beyond the JAC. That whole process seems to be stagnant right now.
Barb Struempler: Well, I think if we want to start this Presidential search process, it is truly something we as faculty can control. I prefer being in control of where I am going. So that would be an option I personally would really push for. I think then we can show them, and they can show us that we can work together. We can come up with some resolution, so I’m very much in favor of starting that process, and that process is likely to take us longer than what we think. If Interim President Walker, if his term is for three years, we just might be making that cut-off point if you do a timeline, which I did, to see how fast we really could move. So, I’m very much in favor of that. When you get into the JAC complaint and the SACS lawsuit, I think that is the most bizarre thing I have every seen in my life. We are no further today than we were 12 months ago. We are at a total stand-still. No one can tell us anything about the suit. So, it may be resolved tomorrow, but it may not, and that’s my fear, and we as faculty have no control over that. We can’t pull out, we can’t jump in, we can’t talk. It’s the lawyers. The lawyers are doing their wheeling with that. To me, we’re stuck on that issue. I wouldn’t hang my hat on that issue at all. I do want JAC compliance. We have some very serious issues that were brought forward in that complaint. I definitely think and believe that those need resolution. As to how those are resolved, I don’t think it’s going to be quickly; that’s just a feeling that I get. It’s been too long. If you would have told us 12 months ago that this is where we would be, would we have said yes? So I don’t know where we are going to be a year from now. We could hear tomorrow the best news that the lawsuit has been taken care of and move on with the JAC issues with the compliant. We may hear that tomorrow. I’m not going to bank on that. I’d rather control something that I know I can control, and I would work with people to get a search committee together. Yes?
Cindy Brunner: I’d like to follow-up. One, I do disagree that you can’t control the JAC issue. It was the Senate, or perhaps the general faculty that issued the demand for the JAC investigation. That demand, I understood from what Jim Bradley told us a few months ago, could be changed. Whatever goes on with the lawsuit, the JAC proposal could be modified. Now that aside … with the proposal, but yes, is it the suggestion that we resolve the JAC before “Interim” is removed from the President’s title or is the title simultaneous? How does that work?
Barb Struempler: Now, faculty were very assured of what the issues were, there was no question on that, hands down, bar none. Those were the two main issues. How you use those as steps and where you put the removal of “Interim” into the process, what comes first, and what comes second varies. If the Senate wants to pursue some of that … I had so many diagrams it would just blow you away. There was no consensus on that. It just went to 4 or 5 different schemes.
Virginia O’Leary--Psychology: I have two questions. The first is that you said you consulted with a variety of bodies and approximately three groups emerged. What was the proportional representation and may those 50 faculty you spoke with? Was it 33%? 33%? Was it …
Barb Struempler: Well, originally I tried to write a report giving you percentages because that’s exactly how I thought. I thought, oh, I need to do this. I wouldn’t do it. I wish I could, it would have made my job a little easier, it honestly would have. I couldn’t see, however, any clear patterns. I can’t at all?
Virginia O’Leary: Why? Because everybody mentioned all three categories in the context of the discussion?
Barb Struemper: Oh, no. There was clearly a group that said no …
Virginia O’Leary: Well then, you must have some sense of vague proportions.
Barb Struempler: No, if I had that information, I would certainly give it to you.
Virginia O’Leary: Well then how can it be so clear, I guess, I’m confused. Because if there was clearly a group that said that, then you must be able to loosely question … but I see you don’t feel comfortable doing that. May second question is … and as you know, I’ve said this before, both personally and professionally as a social psychologist, I continue to be impressed with the critical importance of perceptions. There is vast literature that’s been collected across now almost 100 years, that speaks to that issue, because perception is reality at best at the individual level. So, I’m enormously concerned about the issue that Conner raised, that perception, regardless of motive, etc., the perception of people who are not on this campus, who have made decision not to make themselves available even if they are physically present because they need this time as we all so well understand in the academic world to pursue their research, etc., and what their response will be to learn of a decision made on the 3rd of June regardless of what the process of discussion around that has been. So I’m very concerned about that and I pose my question in that context. You said that the tenor of the meeting that you had with Trustee Miller was much more congenial or at least civil than had been your previous experiences, and we all heard reports last year about the tension that characterized the interactions of faculty representatives and Board representatives. From the most cynical possible perspective, it now cost nothing to be congenial if there is a clear plan to remove “Interim” on the 3rd of June, because that’s the plan and it will be carried forward and now … nothing is being negotiated because what I don’t hear, and this is my question, is that there was any kind of interactive discussion. The question was posed — what can be done to minimize the faculty disruption? I think that that question was referring to the disruption that might be cause by the perception, but I didn’t hear that there was any discussion of negotiation around those issues of the type that would have to occur based on the responses of the ‘yes, if’ group.
Barb Struempler: And I would totally agree with you. I finished meeting with the ‘yes’, ‘nos’, and ‘yes, ifs’, as of Friday of last week. The Senate meeting was scheduled for Tuesday. Now, I would not be, before I would take with you in a position to go back and talk to Jack Miller and negotiate, now would I? I think you need to tell me what you might like me to talk to Jack Miller about is you want to negotiate.
Virginia O’Leary: Well, I guess I would suggest that he needed to open the door to those negotiations at the time that this was put on the table. That was my point. Did you get a sense that he was interested in your coming back, that he would welcome a meeting between now and June 3rd? That really is the critical point as far as I’m concerned.
Barb Struempler: I really think that we could meet with Jack Miller before the June 3rd meeting. I honestly do. I think if we want to propose to Jack that other interim positions are never handled in this fashion, this is a unique situation, but most certainly, all the other ones coming down that we’ll be looking at … if we want to look at … it has to be a national search and that he will not be applying in three years … I mean, it’s all well and said it’s good, but I think we do need some assurances down the way. No I haven’t talked to Jack about any of this. We’d like to push a little harder to get us faculty representation on the Board of Trustees. Mr. McWhorter has talked about that several times and I know that he and Jack are working on that issues. So, I think if we have concerns of things that we want to take back to Jack, then we need to state them now, or you need to spend the next day or two forwarding your concerns and again, I’ll get a consensus and I’ll see what we can make of them. I think Jack will, I don’t think this is what you do with interim positions, that you just all of a sudden take is off. I don’t necessarily prescribe to that either. I certainly wouldn’t for the other interim positions at all. I think that’s very bad policy.
Mike Reinke, Clinical
Pharmacy: Is there a firm date for
kicking off the Capital Campaign?
Barb Struempler: Ah, I don’t know. Conner? Mr. McWhorter?
Erlon McWhorter,
Board Member: In every campaign
they have what you call a quiet period and I’m sure we will be there very soon.
But to start a campaign of this type in the quiet period you work on your best
people and your Best Givers so you have funds to announce when you kick-off the
public campaign. (inaudible from here)
Barb Struempler: Usually, I have heard, and correct me if I’m
wrong, that the silent period is about a two-year stretch and I don’t know if
it’s started. I don’t know the details on that.
Erlon McWhorter: In these Campaigns, timing is everything.
It’s very important that we begin to get our people together.
Eleanor Josephson,
Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology: I’m new, so pardon my ignorance. I have a three-part question. What are
the criteria for doing this? Can we apply a different title to Dr. Walker? Who
are we trying to reassure by removing the title of “Interim”?
Bob Locy, Biological
Sciences: Barb, I apologize because
I really should have said this before, but it really didn’t occur to me until
the recent moments. I hope you’ll also take this in the spirit of
constructiveness, because it has the potential of being construed some other
way.
Barb Struempler: I will.
Bob Locy, Biological
Sciences: It seems to me that the
JAC issues as well as other things that the Senate has done, including voting
‘No Confidence’ in the Board of Trustees, along with every other body on campus
taking the same action, have been directed at the conduct of the Board of
Trustees. And while Mr. Miller apparently has shown dramatic improvement, it seems
to me that in following that act by modeling another act of removal of
“Interim” runs contrary to shared governance as you pointed out, unless the
Senate reverses itself again and then seeks to ask our blessing of that. In
effect, we would be moving and reversing our vote of “No Confidence’ we’ve
taken. Quite frankly, Mr. Miller said that Senate actions were one of the
things that were on his list of concerns and if that’s a concern, I’ve never
heard virtually any member of the Board of Trustees, with the exception of
comments by Mr. McWhorter that I read in the paper at least, that they even
recognize that there was a ‘No Confidence’ vote taken. So, perhaps a change in
composition of the Board of Trustees associated with the removal of “Interim”
would constitute action that would alleviate some of the JAC key concern issues
as well as other actions of the Senate that we have taken and constitute a way
of alleviating the tension of some of this … that they would at least
acknowledge that their conduct hasn’t been what it should be and give us some
level of appreciation for the fact that they’re willing to accommodate that in
the future.
Barb Struempler: Maybe Mr. McWhorter can help us out with
that one. I’m not asking for a comment, but maybe you can remind your
colleagues of some of those issues.
Erlon McWhorter: Only 25% of Boards have a faculty member
seated, but I see faculty seated at our Board meetings as being best for Auburn
University. I attended an AGB conference five days ago. It was a good experience.
The problems we are having happen everywhere, but our problems are more severe.
After the AGB meeting it became apparent to Jack Miller and myself that having
an Interim President for three years was not acceptable — we heard at AGB that
it sends a poor perception externally, especially at the time we are seeking to
undertake a National Fund Campaign. I’m supporting this because I feel it’s for
the best for Auburn University. I can’t speak for the Trustees, I’m speaking as
an individual. Jack Miller and I are in this together. We are open, we want to
slow down and stop the turmoil on this campus. Conner and I have agreed to
disagree, we’ve talked about it; however, I feel very strongly … (inaudible).
We hired top notch search committees to help aid us in finding a Director for
Development … they told us someone would be reluctant to take the job because
of our “Interim” situation …
Paul Schmidt,
Mathematics: I appreciate Mr.
McWhorter’s … the spirit of his remarks. Suppose that this body would today
formulate a resolution against this resolution, along the lines of what Conner
Bailey put forth. Yes, there is a process of deliberation involving the faculty
and other stakeholders. Yes, but not at the June 3rd meeting. Would
such a resolution have any impact?
Barb Struempler: Well, maybe we need to ask Mr. McWhorter. I
certainly don’t have that answer.
Erlon McWhorter: We are interested in any comments from the
Faculty Senate. That’s why when Jack and I came back, we decided that the thing
to do was to take it to the Faculty Senate so that there would be discussion
and not just go on June 3rd and make a decision. So we thought that
what we were doing was putting it out here so we could get the necessary input.
We are interested in your input. I just see greater urgency than some other
people do.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: I have a resolution that I would like to offer. But before I do that, I’d like to ask Mr. McWhorter one question. During the five days that you spent in Boston learning about the process of national searchers, fundraising, etc., at any point during the discussions of the difficulties inherent in trying to raise funds with an Interim President — and I well understand that; I’ve been to university fundraising workshops, etc., so I think that’s common developmental knowledge — was there any discussion of the difficulties inherent in having a President whose term was know to be time-limited? For example, a President who was going to be in the position for a period of three years and who would not then at the end of that period be a candidate for that position?
Erlon McWhorter: Yes, we did discuss that and it is a problem. But it is not nearly as much of a problem. But, yes it is. It probably would affect some people, but we just can’t get started properly. But you are correct.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: Well, I guess one of the reasons that … obviously it’s a problem, but on the other hand the counter to that is that of course there are no guarantees. Presidents, sitting Presidents at any particular institution don’t have a long life in job. Hopefully, they have a long life, but not in the position and they move on to other places, they become ill, things happen. So there are no guarantees in any event, even under most circumstances.
Mr. McWhorter: Could I make a clarification, at least how I feel and understand it? The $150,000,000 that we’re talking about, I don’t want to sit here and, Bard did an outstanding job, but I’m not going sit here and tell you that I believe that we’re going to lose $150,000,000 if we don’t remove “Interim.” There’s $150,000,000 as I read it and I was one of the ones interviewed that is out there; it’s going to take more than removing “Interim”; it’s going to take people coming together working as a unit. One of the things I’m encouraging is Don Logan’s coming on board and being a part of this because that represents a lot of alumni. We’ve got to get … have our alumni, we have to have our Development Board, we have to have our faculty, we have to have everyone singing out of the right book to get the $500,000,000 but it’s out there. It’s ours if we go ahead and do it properly.
Barb Struempler: I’d like to make a response. I just want to clarify one point where you said Don Logan. When he was there two weeks ago, he did not interject anything but that one statement about Andy Sorensen and he gave me no promises yea or nay, so if you heard that comment, you heard it from Mr. McWhorter. You didn’t hear that from me. Because I have not personally spoken with Mr. Logan since a week ago Saturday morning when he was here for graduation. I don’t want to get him in trouble. I’m in enough trouble.
Mr. McWhorter: I do think Mr. Logan and I don’t want to misrepresent what he thinks or says either. But it is my understanding, I believe that I am correct, that he supports the removal of “Interim.” (rest is too low to understand--inaudible)
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: We now need to limit the meaning of ‘being on board.’
I’d like to introduce a resolution. I’ve had a long time to think about this. I’ll direct the question to discussion, but I thought that we might move things forward by at least having something on the floor. And what I propose is …
Barb Struempler: May I make one comment and then I’ll let you have your say. And I don’t know … I’m not opposed to this resolution. It … you know, if you want to call a Special Senate meeting, I think the handbook says that you have to call it seven days in advance. If we would want to call a Special Senate meeting within 7 days, like within a week from Wednesday, a week from tomorrow, to have us all go back, to have a little bit of time to think about it, talk to our people — Virginia, you can submit that resolution to us, we could put it out post haste, this is just an idea. And the reason I am making this suggestion, I have sat in many meeting recently where the hasty actions are the ones that come back to haunt you and I’d like you to understand what the people that you represent and what they would like to have you vote, and I’d really like a clean resolution. I’m not all opposed to the resolution, I don’t want you to hear that from me. So, …
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: But I don’t think that we can move forward in any of the discussing the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the resolution until we have one out on the floor. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that we might vote not to retain him, we might table such a vote until a Special Meeting, etc. But to suggest that the resolution not be recorded and therefore we not be able to discuss the resolution is inappropriate and it is in that spirit that I offer this.
Dr. Struempler: Okay, can we put it up on the screen?
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: Well, we can’t. I don’t know how easy it will be to … let me simply read it first, because I can well imagine that there might be people that would think that A would be fine but B would not, etc. Which is why I am offering this for discussion, Barb, and I haven’t worded it in appropriate resolution form, but here is the thrust of my suggestions. That in the spirit of attempting to move in conjunction with the interests of the Board of Trustees and moving the Capital Campaign forward and minimizing the disruption, the faculty and I would hope even other elements of the university governance, that we suggest to the Trustees the following: that — and much of this would be indicative, at least from my perspective, as a good faith gesture or gestures, actually, which you’ll see in a moment, on the part of the Board that indeed we are going to come together to deliberate and move forward on these things. That the Board seat a faculty member on the Board; that the Board wait until there’s an opportunity to consult the full faculty about the removal of “Interim” until the regular 2002–2003 semester commences, I would suggest that we even say that that be done at the first Senate meeting of the year. I do not mean to delay this unduly, but I’m tremendously concerned about the perception that things are always done quickly in the summertime when faculty are not available to consult; and point 3, that the Board will initiate the formation of a search committee during the fall of 2002 that is (a) national, (b) includes faculty representation selected by the faculty, (c) is chaired by a member of the faculty. Now I assume that that last point will be controversial and I simply am throwing it out. But I … what I am trying to do is to move the discussion forward in the spirit of your suggestion that if there was something that we wanted we ought to articulate it, and articulate it clearly.
Barb Struempler: So, there’s a motion on the floor that we suggest to the Board to seat a faculty member, wait until September so we can take a general faculty vote, and to start the search committee process beginning in ’02 in general.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: I don’t mean to start the search, I mean the process.
Barb Struempler: The process, yes. So, there’s a … that’s the motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: Well, there are two other pieces to it.
Barb Struempler: Oh, sorry.
Virginia O’Leary: There’s the seating of the member of the faculty on the Board, and the second is … yeah, you’ve got the second one — waiting until there is an opportunity for full vote of the faculty. Yes. So, there’s a three-part …
Barb Struempler: Yes. Okay. So, there’s a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Holly Stadler, Counseling & Counseling Psychology: Second.
Barb Struempler: Open it up for discussion. Yes?
Dennis DeVries, Fisheries: I do not speak to raise opposition to your comment. I find this entire situation to be incredibly frustrating and as a Senator-elect by my faculty, I come to a meeting representative of the rights my faculty and that is to discuss issues based on no prior information and without informing my faculty…. In your comments that the issue is probably going ahead without our input,, so basically we either jump on the freight train and try to gain something or we just stay out of the way. And to me the entire situation of trying to generate a resolution as quickly as we can over the Memorial Day weekend holiday, beginning of Summer Semester when faculty are scattered and in trying to come up with something within the next 13 days before the Board of Trustees meet to me is ill advised and in my personal situation, is incredibly frustrating. I don’t see any point in trying to generate a resolution as fast as we can, quickly call a meeting and vote on it just to get on the freight train.
(Someone talking in background -- unable to hear them speaking clearly.)
Glenn Howze, Ag Economics : My Senator left so I am representing the department as the substitute Senator. I would like to … I have no real problems with the resolution although I do feel like it needs to go to our various departments to discuss. And I really don’t think there should be a rush put on it. However, I would like to say that basically, I am one of the nay sayers that you talked about. I am basically opposed to any endorsement by the faculty of either providing legitimacy to the original appointment as Interim President or to removing the term “Interim.” I speak partly as a member of AAUP, I am the current president of the organization, local chapter; I’ve searched the documents and talked to people about this issues and major universities, at least good universities, do not choose presidents in this fashion. I cannot imagine this happening at the University of North Carolina, the University of Georgia, I could name a couple of hundred other institutions around the country that this sort of thing does not happen. I really don’t think that we need to do anything that provide any legitimacy or give the impression somehow that the faculty was involved …
Barb Struempler: Glenn, we need to speak to the resolution.
Glenn Howze: Okay. Just a second. The faculty involved in this issue …
Barb Struempler: In the resolution? That’s what the discussion is.
Glenn Howze: And finally, I’ll make this point that — I lost my train of thought.
Barb Struempler: Let us hold our comments at this point to the resolution on the floor. I don’t know much about these schools, but I do know that I am supposed to do that.
Bill Gale, Mechanical Engineering: In consulting with the faculty in my department, I’ve got such a diversity of views on this topic that I do not feel comfortable voting this afternoon without going back and consulting with them. So I very strongly support the suggestion from the chair that we hold off on voting without consultation and call a special meeting rather than voting this afternoon.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: We can’t vote on this resolution today anyway because this topic did not appear on the agenda. So, unless we voted to overrule our own Constitution, that’s a new issue. So it delays until next week at the very earliest. I would like to speak to the motion amendment and that is that I don’t quite understand what it accomplishes … let me rephrase that. I don’t understand what the Board of Trustees would gain from that resolution. What it says is that we would postpone any consideration of their proposal until the Fall Semester begins, and then it offers several conditions. But we’re not conceding anything in that resolution. All we’re conceding is that we’ll think about their proposal and we want three more months to do it. I am concerned about perception, too. And I’m concerned … I’m concerned as much as everybody else is about the issue of shared governance and the perception that this is violating shared governance. Even as a 12-month faculty member, I am concerned about timing. But I am also concerned about the perception of the “Interim” title — what that suggests to people outside of the university. Every time I read in the newspaper that this is “Interim” University, I am concerned about the perception of that title. I am also concerned about the perception that the Board will gain if we appear to be in transit, if we appear to be unyielding. Some of us are idealists, some of us are pragmatists, and some of us are that middle group that you referred to. I would like to listen to the pragmatists for a change. You don’t hear very much from the pragmatists except for one just a few minutes ago. And for one, I would support the proposal that’s been offered by the Board of Trustees. We talked about that in a meeting earlier this month and I do not believe that the resolution accomplishes anything except a delay in our rejection of that proposal.
Barb Struempler: Please hold your comments specifically to the resolution. And you did pretty well, Cindy. I am just trying to get out of here by 4:45. Okay, quickly please.
Deborah Carey: (Speaking very low, unable to hear words)
Barb Struempler: That’s good, but we are not talking about Virginia’s resolution right now. Okay, gang; let’s do this. We can’t vote today. We’re not allowed to. So we’ve got a resolution on the floor. I guess, well we can’t vote on that today. So, we want a special meeting, is that what I’m hearing you say? Bruce, do you have any input to help me load this complaint? You can talk. Quickly.
Bruce Gladden: I have a comment. I think the idea, like the source, tells me that Dr. Walker will be President for three years; I am troubled about the … I’d like to see the Board of Trustees hold off until the next regular meeting and have the Steering Committee come forward with this and give this body the opportunity to go through the process.
Barb Struempler: That sounds like a friendly amendment, which she just took I guess.
(Someone talking in background)
Barb Struempler: Mr. McWhorter, let me just ask you, and I know you can’t speak for the Board, do you think that they would delay their decision — a decision — until August? What sense do you have on that?
Erlon McWhorter: I really don’t have an answer for that because of the … what I would hope we would get, apparently we can’t get it today, but I would hope that we could get something of a resolution that would give us, or … either that or a request in the form of a list of things that you would want to see if we could incorporate that and in fact, wait one meeting and present it to him, but I don’t know if we have anything to deal from until we accept the wait. I don’t know what we are going to gain by waiting. If we are listening for input, maybe we have to wait for you to have another meeting for you to have an official input, is that what I’m hearing? Okay. And you next regular scheduled meeting is?
Barb Struempler: Board meeting or Senate?
Erlon McWhorter: When is the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Senate?
Barb Struempler: About the 9th or 10th of June. It’s a week after yours.
Erlon McWhorter: Do you think we could get something at that meeting?
Barb Struempler: We’ll get you something.
Erlon McWhorter: Which means we’re going to miss the June meeting. Now, I’m just looking at the possibility that … I don’t know how Jack will react to this. I’m interested in having the Senate give us something to work with. That’s why we’ve been talking to you for two weeks.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Why can’t we call a special meeting? This is an important enough issue and it’s a single focus so hopefully that meeting wouldn’t go two and one-half hours. But, why couldn’t we resolve this at a meeting a week from now?
Barb Struempler: You recall it takes seven days to call a special meeting; today is Tuesday, so we’ll probably have one next Wednesday. Let’s see what other peoples schedules are. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, somewhere around in there. I’m not going to say yea or nay on the day or the time right now. Okay. Other very quick questions on this. Virginia, we don’t have to vote on … we can’t vote on your resolution today so I guess it just, it’s out there. If you’ll send it to me and we’ll send it out. Is that in agreement with you?
Virginia O’Leary: It’s fine with me.
Barb Struempler: Okay. Christa.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: Could I ask a question of Mr. McWhorter?
Barb Struempler: Sure.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: I really appreciate your being here. I appreciate your apparent sincerity in coming and asking for input. One of the things that I would like to ask of you, if you could take this back to the Board. The faculty wants to get on board. The faculty wants to move ahead and be supportive of the university. In your meetings, was there any discussion of the fact that the university is suing its accrediting body and how that might hurt fundraising efforts. I think one thing that would be very important in terms of building faculty trust and building faculty support for Dr. Walker is if the lawsuit against our accrediting body is dropped. And if that is dropped and an independent evaluator comes in and helps us tell us what we need to do differently, I think you’ll see a big turn around in faculty momentum to look into the future and being constructive. So I would be very eager to come back to a meeting and say this is what we the faculty have to put on the table to offer the Board its support of what the Board wants to do and in support of President Walker. But one of the essential things I think we’re going to have to do is stop suing our accrediting body, stop spending money on lawyers and outside consultants, and put that money in the university into the faculty salaries, into staff salaries, into programs and so forth and let’s all work together. We’re willing to put things on the table and say we will support this but we also would like to have some other things done.
Barb Struempler: I’m going to close down the discussion because we’ve got to move. Thank you Christa for those comments. I think everyone believes that. And move rather quickly through what we can and we may put some on hold. Let’s see. So, seven days from sometime now, we will have a meeting. So if it’s called on Tuesday and you don’t get the announcement until Wednesday or Thursday to coordinate it, you have been notified that there will be a meeting. Okay. So I do know that it’s seven days, I remember reading that.
— RULES COMMITTEE NOMINATIONS —
Let’s quickly start on the Nominations for the Rules Committee. I’ll now accept nominations from the Rules Committee from the floor of the Senate. The nominees must be Senator, must be current Senators. There’s one position that’s been vacated and it will be filled for only a one-year term. You must be a current Senator in order to nominate somebody and you should have asked this person if you can nominate them. Do I have any nominations? Paula.
Kem Krueger. Yes, okay. Daowei Zhang? Yes, okay. Emmett Winn? Yes, okay. Other nominations. Okay. Is there a second? I’ve got nominations. There’s motions for the nominations; that’s all I need. You’ll vote on them at the June meeting.
— OTHER BUSINESS —
Let’s quickly hear from Christa Slaton. She’s chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee and, as you hear earlier — maybe you didn’t — from Dr. Pritchett, they’ve made recommendations to the Provost and to the Budget Advisory and they are a Senate committee. There’s a rumor that there’s faculty raises to be had soon.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: Okay. The Faculty Salaries Committee met a few times and I think that Renée’s sent out some reports out to the all the faculty so you probably read this before you came. The Faculty Salaries Committee didn’t meet at all last year because of so much capping in salaries so the Committee thought they didn’t need to meet. So this year I was chair of the Committee and I didn’t know what we were supposed to do because there was no mandate from the Senate. And then I got a call from a couple of members of the Budget Committee indicating there might be some money for faculty salaries and they wanted input from the Faculty Salaries Committee to the Budget Advisory Committee about how we think those faculty salaries ought to be distributed. So, I then went and did some research, talked to Larry Gerber who chaired the Committee in the past; then I found information to collect data about what had been recommended previously by the Senate.
The Committee met several times. We met with Don Large who’s on the Committee, John Pritchett is on the Committee. And the numbers kept changing about how much money might be available, so we we’re ever quite sure what we had to work with. So, the proposal that we came up with, what we did is that we had discussion and then we wanted to come with a unified proposal to the Budget Advisory Committee. We wanted to have a proposal that the cohorts supported, a proposal that the Senate leadership supported. Barb Struempler arranged a meeting for me, as chair of the Committee, to go to a meeting with the Provost and the Chair and Secretary of the Senate, and Chair-elect and Secretary-elect of the Senate, and we worked out the following proposal that has been unanimously supported by the Faculty Salaries Committee.
What we recommended that whatever money was available for faculty salaries it be put in three different pots, and we didn’t make the proposal about what percentage would go in each pot. But one of the things that we thought should happen, particularly since there were no salary increases last year and faculty salaries are not keeping up at all with the cost of living, that there ought to be a certain percentage of money given to all faculty. Don Large was very careful to point out to us that we could not call it “co-up” because the money would not be sufficient to keep up with the cost of living, but we believe that every faculty member who is at Auburn University and is competent at doing their job ought to get a salary increase and that percentage, some talked about it being 2%, some talked about it being 3% — we didn’t recommend any specific percentage but we thought that all faculty should get something.
The second category we thought there should be some merit money. And that should be given to people and it should be given to equal percentages to different units around campus. And those units in turn would determine how that money would be distributed based on merit. A third category we called market equity. We have a lot of data that was produced by Sam Lowther’s office that identifies every single faculty member and faculty member’s range, that faculty member’s years of service, and where that faculty member stands in relationship to the regional average. And looking at that data, it was the unanimous agreement of the Committee and also the Provost and the Senate leadership that in looking at the data — the equity money and the market money should be done not to give a certain percentage to departments or certain percentages to Colleges to be equal, but should be done by looking individuals throughout the university. The recommendation that had come out of us was that that pot of money would be centralized at the Provost’s Office or some equivalent Vice President’s Office, because that would be the one office that could have a holistic view of the whole university, could look and see to what degree the certain Colleges, certain departments, certain individuals that are being woefully underpaid. But we would identify that by looking at individual salaries and making adjustments. One of the things we wanted to make sure is that there would not be some mathematical formula that would be applied in some kind of crude fashion. What would happen is that individuals would be identified who are way off the mark. But department chairs would be given the opportunity to identify the people and departments that they thought were underpaid and they would make a case for those individuals and the Provost’s Office would look at those arguments in relationship to what their data showed and in consultation with department chairs there would be doing that. We thought that would address some of the inequities across campus. Some other material that’s in the packet that’s been handed out is looking at Auburn’s salaries in relationship to the region average and this one chart shows which Colleges are included in the list of regional averages and you can see where Auburn ranks in that it’s also broken out and some salaries will benefit.
Another chart that I think is interesting … one thing the Faculty Salaries Committee is looking at is that the Board of Trustees approved a plan that within a five year period, Auburn faculty salaries would meet the regional average. We’re in the fourth year of that five-year plan and we’re losing ground, we’re not making ground, we’re losing ground. Data, I don’t know if you can see this or not, data from Sam Lowther’s office is that if we look at the last academic year compared to the previous academic year, we’re getting even further behind. We can also see that some Colleges are closer to the regional average than other Colleges. So we did not think it was a good idea to say every College gets the same amount.
Because there is just a tremendous amount of work that we as the Faculty Salaries Committee has done, research and data and then we go and make the file a report to a larger Budget Committee and they don’t know all the time we spent delving into these issues. And it’s really frustrating to do that kind of work. And now I’ve got tons of additional data the faculty asked us to consider and I’m not sure we’re the appropriate body to do that. So that’s something I would like to be put on a future Senate meeting to talk about what really is the role of the Faculty Salaries Committee. It’s a lot of work to do and then just go make a report to another Committee and they don’t know all that we’ve been involved in and engaged in and we really made a strong effort to make sure we were on the same page with everybody. The Provost, the Senate leadership, and the Faculty Salaries Committee were all in agreement and then it looks like the Budget Advisory Committee has come up with another plan. I’m not objecting to that plan at this point in time, I just don’t know if we need the two committees.
Barb Struempler: Why don’t we have Gary come up and give us the perspective from the Budget Advisory Committee. And then we’ll open it up for both Christa and Gary to answer questions. Will that be … it might expedite it. Yes?
(someone asks question in background)
Barb Struempler: It’s just FYI. Gary Swanson with the University Budget Advisory Committee.
Gary Swanson: The Budget Advisory Committee has, probably for the first time in my memory, separated out how they dealt with faculty versus staff and A&P, recommending that for staff A&P that they have a 2% across-the-board, a 3% merit whereas the recommendations that have been forwarded now to the Trustees for their Budget Committee meeting, is that the salary for the faculty be based on 5% merit and no across-the-board floor to that. One of the things I need to say to Christa is that it is not true that all of our faculty are good faculty, trying to do a good job for the university. I know of one case where a person has tried very hard not to do a good job and has resulted in getting themselves out of having to do any work because the work that he was doing was so very bad. Not all of the people deserve anything. There are some people that if we had a possibility of giving a negative salary, there are a few people who would deserve it. Okay. At the present time the only way, if you say that some of these people need to be punished, and I really don’t like to use the word ‘punish,’ but we don’t have any way to punish these people if we are going to give them across-the-board raises. Some of these people as they image someone who nears retirement, what is the incentive to quit if you are going to continue to increase their salary every year and they just aren’t doing the work in their departments. I think that a 0% for across-the-board is occasionally appropriate. It may not be appropriate every year; last year it was 0 for everybody. There was a faint hint that for a while we might get a 3% bonus or whatever you want to call it, this summer but that turned out apparently not to fly with the Trustees. It sounded good to us but the Trustees have apparently killed that. So that is it. But I want to assure you that there are people who do not deserve anything across-the-board. It also means that if you give say 2% across-the-board and have only 3% merit, that that doesn’t give very much merit money to distinguish between the people who are doing really good work and those people who are doing absolutely the bare minimum that they can get by with. That’s a very small percentage. Two weeks ago at the Budget Advisory Committee, it stood at 2% across-the-board, 3% merit for everyone. But after hearing this, and that’s one of the differences between the Senate Salaries Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee is that on the Budget Advisory Committee we do have some department head and deans who have to deal with these cases, knowing that there are people who don’t deserve anything, whereas as faculty you don’t hear the opinions perhaps from department heads and deans. Department heads and deans definitely want to have a 0% across-the-board because they want to ??? some people and they’re stymied when you give them only a tiny bit. When it first floated, the first time that this looked like about 5% was available, it was going to be 3% across-the-board and 2% for merit. And, at least, partly at my urging at that particular time, we switched the 2% and 3% and that seemed to go. If I realized that there was sentiment on the Committee to go 0 and 5%, I probably would have posed that. I didn’t end up making that proposition, but I did vote for it on the Budget Advisory Committee. As Don Large told us a little earlier, the vote for the 0 – 5 was eight to three. And if all of the faculty representatives had switched their vote to oppose that, it still would have carried. I’m sorry, you’re right; 11 to 3. It switched 3 votes. It still passes. But we did not, all of us, vote for 2 and 3; most of us voted, I believe, for 0 and 5.
You still have the opportunity today, if you want to have a show of hands, for purposes of finding out where you stand, to give some input because you can make an independent report to the President other than the Budget Advisory Committee if you think it should be 0 and 5, 1 and 4, 2 and 3, or whatever you think is appropriate. The thing that is pretty much fixed is the total amount of the salaries, and I am a little hesitant to say this, including the equity money, exceeds 7%. So that across-the-board for the entire faculty there should be a university faculty salary should exceed a 7% increase. So that’s at least 2% for some of this equity. Some of the problems with equity, when you look at it, is that in some cases some Colleges have a hard time understanding why some Colleges are down at 88% or less of their department’s or College’s regional averages and other departments and Colleges are above 100% of the regional averages for their College’s and you’d have a hard time making the case on merit in some cases. Some of those are historical and we could give certain fixed percentages, and traditionally for the last several times that we had equity, it was typically 1/2%, so you could only deal with an occasional person. Now, again, this is the first time equity money has been above 2% We could maybe rectify it, but as far as whether you like 0 across-the-board or a 5% for merit or something across-the-board, I think that the President would like to know what you as the Senate happen to think about it. He has already heard what the Budget Advisory Committee chose. I’m very happy with what the Budget Advisory Committee said because I know some people who deserve a negative amount of money. I know that. I know who. I’m not going to tell you who. But, there are people who do not deserve. Yes?
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: There are two very minor corrections to the numbers that you’ve given us. I’m not a math major, so this may be out of line. By not giving someone a cost of living increase, you are in effect giving them a negative salary change. Now, if in fact, we issue raises that on average are 5% — they’re all merit based — and you have two people, one of whom is non-productive so gets no merit increase, the other person is going to get 10%.
Gary Swanson: Someone else is going to split that part.
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Well, do the math.
Gary Swanson: That’s only two people in your department.
Cindy Brunner: However it comes out, most … if you have a bunch of people who are not deserving of raises, everybody else should be getting more than the 5% if you’re calling it an average, and as a member of the Faculty Salaries Committee, I have to go on record objecting to that decision. And also objecting to the fact that the Budget Advisory Committee issued that recommendation and plans to take it to the Board without considering the Faculty Salaries Committee recommendation.
Gary Swanson: It’s probably not correct to say that you were not …
Larry Gerber, Senator: Also former chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee and a former member of the Budget Advisory Committee, I would like to go a little bit back in history and remind people where we came in the last 10 years. Those of you that were here when President Martin was President will remember that at that time, every year the policy was only merit money. There was no such thing as across-the-board raise at Auburn University. When Dr. Muse came and established the Budget Advisory Committee, and I think was more sensitive to input from the faculty governance mechanism, Dr. Muse did institute a policy where, generally speaking, there would be a split between across-the-board and merit and in some years, some money for equity. During my time on the Budget Advisory Committee, I can remember Don Large saying on a regular basis, during the two years that I was on it, that it would be desirable to have a University policy on this matter so that the Budget Advisory Committee every year doesn’t have the same discussion about how do we divide up whatever money might be available for salaries. And so, the Faculty Salaries Committee in 1997–98 developed a document which came before the Senate and the Senate adopted a policy in June of 1998 which basically said that new monies for salaries should be divided equally between across-the-board and merit with a minor pool left over for equity market adjustments. In fact, there was a qualification which was approved by the Senate and actually agreed to I think pretty strongly even by many administrators that in those years when there would be 3% or less of new money, that in those circumstances it was hardly worth trying to do merit raises and do across-the-board when you had very little money available. So, I mean we have had a policy that the Senate discussed, adopted in response to a request by the Vice President for Finance, and I take strong exception to this current Budget Advisory Committee adopting this perspective against the recommendation of the Salaries Committee and without consultation with the Senate.
Christa Slaton: I’d like to make a recommendation that Gary Swanson become the chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee. I would like to have the confidence that I know all the people who deserve and don’t deserve salary increases on campus, and I know all the department chairs think this way, and I know this and I know that. I spent hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours doing research, and if you know all this stuff, I gladly cede the position to you. I still say that the Faculty Salaries Committee spent hours discussing these issues, did a lot of background research. I spent hours just with Larry Gerber to discuss these issues. I talked to Don Large, I talked to John Pritchett, I talked to Senate leadership; everywhere we went we heard voices and we tried to get consensus. What I heard came out of the Budget Committee meeting is that it was like a last minute … all of a sudden the momentum is we’re going to give across-the-board and then, boom. There’s a proposal; I’ve got a radical idea, let me put it out there and whoop, it changes. That’s not how we’ve been working on the Faculty Salaries Committee. We still have a lot of questions. But I’ll tell you right now, I really don’t think we ought to do all that work and all that research if there are people who already know that information and have and can make quick decisions like that. And I don’t think we ought to keep doing the research that we’ve been doing. So I think this Faculty Senate or this University Senate ought to decide whether they want a Faculty Salaries Committee or whether they want a Budget Advisory Committee, whether they want them working together, whether they want them working independently, whether they want to have two alternative to come up. But I can tell you right now, it’s a heck of a lot of work. And nobody pays us extra money for that hard work that we do. That’s not to say that you should just embrace what we bring forward, but we certainly didn’t do it without a lot of thoughtful consideration. One of the issues that we felt is that there are couple of years in which there was money for equity increases and what happened is some department — and we discussed this in the Faculty Salaries Committee — what happened in some departments is that there have been years in which the people that were undeserving didn’t get merit increases. Then they go so far below the regional average, and when there was money for equity, that equity went to those folks. So it undid the decisions that had been made previously. And we looked at all those issues. We looked historically at the kind of things that had been happening. We didn’t just look at what happened this past year and who did what this past year, we went back years and years and years ago about what happened over several years. That takes a lot of work. And my suggestion is that put those two committees together. And let the faculty representatives on the Budget Committee do that research and then whatever decision they make they can bring to the Senate. But don’t have them working independently.
Barb Struempler: Okay. Carl.
Carl Hudson, Finance: I served on the Welfare Committee for three years. One thing we realized was that there was a lot of duplication of effort. But I think it’s important to realize the Faculty Salaries Committee reports to the Senate; it would be nice to have a resolution from the Salaries Committee that we could vote on and forward that to the President. The Budget Committee doesn’t have to report to the Senate; it reports directly to the President. They don’t have to adhere to what we think. The only way the Senate can have a voice other than making a presentation to the Budget Advisory Committee is come up with a resolution and back these percentages in addition to the President’s Special Advisory Committee. University committees report to the President, they don’t have to report to the Senate.
Barb Struempler: That is correct. And I wrote to Dr. Walker and he said that he would listen to our concerns and he would consider them very carefully. So if you have a resolution, there is plenty of information out about this issue before this meeting. So if you have a resolution, a simple one, that you want to have voted on, put it up or down now. I’ll let Carl finish.
Carl Hudson: I was just saying be reasonable or now we’ll never convince the Committee. The Salaries Committee gave that report to be resolved that we take their report and send it on as our recommendation. Maybe put in numbers for your 2% across-the-board, 3% merit and turn that into a resolution as our recommendation to the President.
(Unidentified): I second.
Barb Struempler: So there’s a motion and a second to take the salaries … we’re moving quick here now because you’re going to be able to vote …
Carl Hudson: I move that the Salaries Committee take their report, put in the numbers they feel — 2% or 3%, whatever — and turn that into a recommendation from the Senate, have that voted on at the special Senate meeting.
Barb Struempler: It’s a resolution now. Is there a second? You might want to vote today.
Paul Schmidt: Second
Barb Streumpler: Okay. There’s a second. We’ve got it as a motion. So we’re going to move and vote if we can.
Virginia O’Leary: I just want to remind us that we would therefore be … if we accept that, we would be voting in opposition to our already established policy where the numbers are, if I remember correctly, reversed.
Larry Gerber, History: I agree with everything you said Carl. And the University Senate has a policy which was not for one year, it was a policy which has not been rescinded. At least not to my knowledge. Is that correct? So we have a policy. The policy reads … it’s actually a fairly lengthy policy, I won’t read the entire thing … but point 4, and this is on the, I believe it’s on the University Senate web page, ”whatever additional monies beyond equity for salary increases each year should be divided up as follows: half of the money would go to across-the-board adjustments, half of the money will go to merit increases.” Now, it is true, I will say that it is a fact, that I do know the Budget Advisory Committee is a minor adjustment on to the ??? and not done 1/2 percent. They’ve gone, as in this case, it would have been 3% merit 2% across-the-board. They have not followed the policy literally, but in that regard, they pretty much followed the spirit of the policy for when the salary raises have been available. I don’t see the need for any resolution unless we want to adopt support for what the University Budget Advisory Committee is doing.
Cindy Brunner: Can we reaffirm that?
Barb Struempler: Well, if we have a standing policy that we had voted on several years ago, we probably don’t need Carl’s right now. So, it helped … well we need to make sure that they are aware of that policy. Let’s work on that in this next week and you may see it on the Special Senate meeting because it’s still in time for the next Board meeting. Okay. I’m going to take Gary’s last quick comment.
Gary Swanson: This is a dangerous question that was a very summary judgment we reached. As a matter of fact, the Senate recommendation of lowering the amount of across-the-board for faculty had been discussed over a many weeks period. It was only at that meeting that the members it would be feasible to separate the faculty from the policy for the staff and A&P. And when it was decided that they would not have to have exactly the same policy for faculty and for the staff A&P, then came the motion well let’s go ahead and do what we really would like to have done before because of the staff and A&P deserved a 0 across-the-board. So we all stuck together. It was only when the two got cut in two that then a motion was made for 0 across-the-board. So that discussion had been going on for many weeks. It was not a sudden judgment of the Budget Advisory Committee. We had been discussing an across-the-board. It doesn’t have to be that way all the time.
Barb Struempler: Let’s go back and revisit that resolution. Carl, are you okay with … I guess you forget that you even made that resolution. I don’t know what you have to do, but are you comfortable with that for now?
(Unable to hear response.)
Dr. Struempler: Okay. Larry, I definitely need to get a copy of that. Quick comments. Cindy.
Cindy Brunner: Can’t we vote to reaffirm the policy today? This who issue’s been on the agenda, we got the report from the Committee. I’d like to suggest a friendly amendment to Carl’s motion rephrasing it slightly to say the Senate wishes to reaffirm its standing policy on faculty salary increases as per the report that Larry just read.
Barb Struempler: Well, …
Carl Hudson: I second.
Barb Struempler: All voting Senators raise your hands. We need to have 45, 46. This list on the overhead tells you if you are eligible to vote. If your position or name is on this list you can vote. Or, if you are serving as a substitute. What do you have, Paula? Okay, not a quorum. We are officially adjourned. We will have a specially called meeting soon, within seven days. You are hereby notified now.