Auburn University “Special” Senate Meeting

May 29, 2002

2:00 p.m.

Broun Hall

 

 

Members Absent: John Mouton, Chair-Elect; Nelson Ford, Management; Robert Ripley, Aviation Management & Logistics; Randy Pipes, Counseling & Counseling Psychology; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders; Greg Weaver, Sociology, Anthrolopology, & Social Work; Steve Knowlton, Physics; Ralph Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Science; Richard Kenworthy, Architecture; Gregory Petit, Human Development/Family Studies; Charlotte Skelton, Nursing; Mike Reinke, Clinical Pharmacy; Jesse LaPrade, Coop Ext. Service; CPT Chris Hageman, Air Force ROTC; LTC Carlton Buchanan, Army ROTC; CPT Ted McMurtrie, Navy ROTC; Steve McFarland, Acting VP/Dean, Graduate School; Dan Bennett, Dean, College of Architecture; Lee Evans, Dean, School of Pharmacy; Shari Downer, University Libraries.

 

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order by the chair, Dr. Barbara Struempler.

 

Barb Struempler: The purpose of today’s meeting is to discuss the removal of “Interim” from the Interim President’s title at Auburn University. I really had not planned on discussing much of the history; it’s been well publicized, my notes and announcements from last week have been up. If there’s questions as we go through, I will answer that, but since I have a feeling it may be a long meeting anyway, we’ll move right into the meeting.

 

My job as chair of the meeting today is to remain impartial; I’ll try and provide answers but whatever the outcome is today, that is what the vote of the University Senate will stand with. I should point out that every one who is a voting member of the Senate is listed here, your position (point to overhead). And you are voting members of the University Senate. And in order to facilitate our discussion and our voting, we are asking you for this time to sit in one section so that we can make things a little bit easier. The quorum is 46 and these are the members that will be voting today.

 

I want to go over some other rules of the Senate. These are what we’ll try to follow today as best we can. All speakers when you approach the microphones — there’s a microphone there and a microphone over there — when you speak, I’d like you to stand and give your name and your affiliation, and if you’re a non-member — which is over here — please state that you are a non-member, not a member of the University Senate and that’s mainly for the record. And when items are presented for discussion, we’re going to allow the Senate members to have first permission of speaking and after the majority of the members have provided their input, providing there is enough time, we’ll go with the non-members of the Senate and friends. But we’ll all follow the same rules. I’d like you to all address the chair when you are speaking. This is going to be rather hard, limit your comments to about three (3) minutes. No one may speak a second time on an issue until everyone has had the opportunity to speak once. And no one may speak more than twice on a particular item. So, those are what we have followed in the past and we’ll try to adhere to those today too.

 

As chair, I’ve been informed that there will be a substitute amendment that will be proposed. And I thought it might be a good idea to have the Senate Parliamentarian discuss what is involved when you have an amendment by substitution. So, Paula, if you’ll give us the ground rules for that.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect/Parliamentarian: It’s a little bit complicated so I am going to quote from Robert’s Rules of Order a couple of things. When there’s a substitute amendment, the principal is we are supposed to operate in fairness to both sides. In that case, when there is a substitute amendment, someone is actually trying to replace an original amendment. When that happens, “the proponents of the original version are given the opportunity to amend their proposition into a more acceptable form, if that’s what they desire. And provisions of this original version receive appropriate consideration without impeding the free-debate of the proposal to substitute. By the requirement that internal amendment of the substitute be done before the vote on the motion to make the substitution, the members are protected from having to decide whether to reject the original version without knowing what may finally replace it.” Basically what that means is if someone does offer a substitute amendment and it is seconded, then we’re really operating on two motions at the same time and people will go ahead and make their amendments — changes to the original version — and when those changes are done, we’ll move over to the substitute resolution. People will have the opportunity to make changes to that one. So you have two final versions to look at and the Senate knows which one they want to vote on. Then when all the changes are complete … Yes, I know it is confusing, but we’ve gone over this pretty thoroughly. There’ll be a vote on the substitute resolution. If it is accepted, then the original motion goes away and that’s the one that will stand. If it is rejected, then we’re back to one motion. And there is still opportunity to debate.

 

Glenn Howze, Agriculture Economics & Rural Sociology, Substituting for Herb Rotfeld: May I ask  at what time will the chair accept the substitute resolution?

 

Paula Sullenger: It can be made at any time after the original resolution is placed before the Senate.

 

Barbara Struempler: In fact, we’ll call on whomever is doing that right … we’ll have Glenn as first comment, if they so desire to. As we go through a vote, I’ll explain to you — if you vote — where that … if the vote is taken, I’ll explain to you then what happens to the original resolution which is called the pending resolution; if there is a substitution, it gets kind of wild. I’m going to ask Dr. Middleton, the Secretary of the Senate, to come up and present the resolution from the Steering Committee.

 

Renée Middleton, Secretary of Senate: I’m assuming that …

 

Glenn Howze, Substitute for Herb Rotfeld: Point of order. Shouldn’t there be a motion made before you start characterizing or clarifying the resolution?

 

Renée Middleton: I’m not a Parliamentarian so I’m going to let whoever is answer that question.

 

Barbara Struempler: I think you should propose this, make the motion, and then give the rationale.

 

Renée Middleton: Okay, I’m being asked to propose this, I make the motion that the resolution that you see before that’s being put forward from the Steering Committee be accepted. Now may I move to the rationale? Is that appropriate? Or do you want me to read through the proposal?

 

Glenn Howze: You need a second.

 

Renée Middleton: I’m told that it came out of Committee so we don’t need a second.

 

Barbara Struempler: It came out of Steering Committee; it does not need a second.

 

Marcia Boosinger: Can we please ask individuals to identify themselves when they speak?

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. Why don’t you introduce yourself? (laughter)

 

Marcia Boosinger: Marcia Boosinger

 

Renée Middleton: And now we’re going to all begin to practice what we preach. Okay. I really didn’t want to take the time to read the whole resolution because I assume you all have, but the chair has asked me to read … the last four ‘therefore’ statements. And so, I will do that.

 

Therefore be it resolved, that the action by the Board of Trustees to remove “Interim” from Dr. Walker’s title should be accompanied by the simultaneous seating of the elected Chair of the University Senate as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Board of Trustees as a demonstration of the Board’s beliefs in the principles of shared governance;

 

And be it further resolved that the Senate calls upon the Board of Trustees and Dr. Walker to provide a written statement that the “Interim” title will not be removed from any other administrator on campus in this manner as a demonstration of their beliefs in the principles of shared governance;

 

And be it further resolved that Dr. Walker’s replacement will be selected by a Search Committee formed in accordance with the principles of shared governance and AAUP guidelines. It will consist of representatives from faculty, staff, administrative and professional staff, students, senior administrators, alumni, and members of the Board of Trustees as a demonstration of their beliefs in the principles of shared governance;

 

And be it further resolved that the Senate calls upon the Board of Trustees and Dr. Walker to provide a written statement that members of the University community will speak with representatives of SACS, whether as part of the regular reaccredidation visit or any other official SACS visit, will not be reprimanded in any way.

 

Moving to the rationale and I’m hoping that I have this placed properly on the overhead. At last week’s meeting, the chair talked about three different groups. The ‘yes’, the ‘yes, ifs’, and the ‘nos’. Now you see four different groups. The resolution that you have before you, that the Steering Committee is putting forth, that is a fourth group, the ‘no, but’ group. The ‘no, but’ comes as a result of the Committee working as hard as it could to try to gather in all the voices and all the different thoughts and views that we were hearing. And so, the ‘no, but’ carries … I don’t really want to comment too much on the ‘yes’ because I don’t really have a good feel for that. But the ‘no, but’ resolution that the Steering Committee is putting forth, I think carries the thoughts of many of those who said ‘yes, if’, it carries the sentiments put forth by the ‘nos’ and on balance to some extent it even takes in the ‘yes’ but many not as much as the ‘yes, ifs’ and the ‘nos’. You should know that when we were looking at putting together the resolution … let me say before I go on by thanking Virginia O’Leary for giving the Committee some structure. Members of the Committee came in with resolutions themselves, but she put forth something to the Committee that we also used and considered and we used that structure and that format and I want to thank her for offering that. But as we look at trying to gathering all the voices and thoughts in a way that did not, as we felt, compromise our principles, it was clear to us that the question was not ‘Will the Board take this action?’ I don’t think there’s a one of us sitting here … and I will say this even for the people that said ‘yes’,  I don’t think any of us believe that what the Board wants to do is appropriate. So that was not the question for us. We operated on the belief that the Board, for whatever reason they felt they had … they feel that they have good reason, and we didn’t even think it was worth any more of our time arguing over whether they had good reason or not. Because, if they are going to do it, that’s wasted breath. But the question that was put forward was ‘If we feel so empowered to do this as a Board, how can we do this in a way that causes the least amount of disruption to the campus? So, our resolution in the first paragraph, we are very strong on ‘We believe that the Senate views past violations of shared governance and the current standstill with SACS as obstacles.’ We’re very clear in the second paragraph that it’s imperative that the administration make good faith efforts to detangle … the SACS conflict.

 

Paragraph 6: We’re very clear that the process of removing the “Interim” title without adequate consultation and deliberation is a move that violates the principle of shared governance and implies a breach of trust. But as the University Senate, we are saying — when I say we, I’m talking about the voices that drafted the resolution  — that as a Senate, we deeply desire to move the University forward. We can look at the Middle East conflict and question do people on both sides really want to move forward. I’m not going to say what side anybody’s on, but this Senate wants to move the University forward. I believe that.

 

Whereas as the Senate also believes that good faith efforts by the Board of Trustees are paramount to moving the University forward, what this resolution is saying in it therefore, that if you insist on taking these actions as a Board, if you truly believe you’re entitled to do so, which they are and you want to do it in a way that produces — it’s going to be disruptive, no matter what — but there is a range of disruption. The least amount of disruption, we’re saying, will be ‘yes’, the ‘no, but’, these are the four things that we believe will have to happen to make minimize the disruption. There’s not going to be an absence of disruption. It’s not going to be an absence of conflict or differing ideas. But these four points, we believe, are paramount.

 

Now, nobody asked me to say this part right here. Now you’re worried, right? This is probably what one would call a moderate position. This is probably what one would call a moderate position. You have two ends of the spectrum and what the ‘no, buts’ are saying to this Board, you want to campaign. You want to raise funds. And even if we believe what you said about removing “Interim” it would clear the way for us to raise funds, so we don’t want a lot of disruption because that would be impeded if we had a lot of disruption and Auburn University can’t afford any more negative publicity. What we’re saying with our four ‘Therefores’ is that if the Board does not show good faith and follow through with those four points, you’re going to lose even the moderates. And when … if you know anything about politics, the middle ground, when you’ve lost the middle ground, you’ve lost a lot.

 

Barbara Struempler: So a motion has been made by Dr. Middleton to adopt this resolution. Discussion? And, Glenn?

 

Glenn Howze: I’d like to offer a substitute resolution.

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. Do you want me to … shall I put this up on the screen?

 

Glenn Howze: Or I can hand it out to those who don’t have it.

 

Barbara Struempler: That’s fine. And we’ll put it up here, please.

 

Glenn Howze: Thank you. Would you mind if I spoke from here?

 

Renée Middleton: You speak, we’ll hand it out.

 

Glenn Howze: While these people hand it out, I’d like to preface my remarks by saying that … well my name is Glenn Howze. I’m a professor in the College of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology. I am representing Herb Rotfeld who is a member of the Steering Committee. I’d like to … I am going to offer a substitute motion but I’d like to preface it with a couple of remarks by saying, first of all this has nothing to do with personality or individuals. Whether we’re talking about the current Interim President, talking about the Board of Trustees, or talking about the Steering Committee or the leadership of the Senate. I believe that everyone is acting in good faith, however we disagree with both the proposed action of the Board and also the current resolution that is before you. Once again, this has nothing to do with personality; I will try not to mention anyone by name. Do I need to read this or what? I ask for guidance. Do I need to read this or what?

 

Renée Middleton: You might want to give the salient points. It was sent to all Auburn University professors.

 

Glenn Howze: Okay. There are four ‘Whereas’ if I remember correctly, but the first one has to do with the concept of shared governance and the proposed selection of a President of the University without a search or without involvement by the faculty at Auburn University is a violation of shared governance. The second point has to do with the Auburn University employment policy and it is stated very clearly and for those of us who have gone through the task of trying to hire an Assistant Professor or a post-doctoral or secretary, we know that the many hurdles that must be passed in order to guarantee that we have a fair search and that any employment, any promotion is on a basis of merit rather than the ‘good old boys’ network. The third point is that this employment policy has been reaffirmed in writing, it’s published on Auburn University’s web page by the current Interim President and he makes the point over again that this policy applies to “all job classifications.” And so our feeling is that the removal of “Interim” from that title would be in violation of Auburn University policy. The next point has to do with the fact that over a year ago the Senate passed a resolution calling for an external investigation of what was occurring on the Auburn campus and there was a motion to postpone the naming of a President, the search and naming of a President, until that was complete. That has not been done. We have two ‘Therefores.’ I’ll read those if I may.

 

The first one is “Therefore be it resolved that the Auburn University Senate strongly opposes the removal of the word “Interim” from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title,” and the second is “Be it further resolved that once the SACS investigation is completed, the Board of Trustees should work openly with the faculty to conduct a search for a new president, abiding by both the letter and the spirit of the Auburn University Equal Employment Opportunity policy and the tenets of shared governance.” I think we need a second for this.

 

Barbara Struempler: Do we hear a second of the resolution? Thank you, we got it. Okay. Great.

 

Glenn Howze: Do I get to speak another moment, please?

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes, you may.

 

Glenn Howze: I’ve about said all I wanted to say about this except that … once again, this has nothing to do with personalities. I have really the utmost respect for every member of the Steering Committee, every member of the Senate leadership, and I have the utmost respect for the administration of Auburn University, but we feel like this will do irreparable damage to the image of Auburn University if we somehow give our tacit approval to this action. Now, Professor Middleton made the point that this, the original resolution was a ‘no, but.’ There is no place in that resolution or in the resolved section where it says we oppose the removal of “Interim.” It doesn’t say we approve it, but it doesn’t say we oppose it. And on faith that this needs to be done. Last week we were discussing this, one of the ‘booger bears’ that was put up that Professor Middleton mentioned was the ‘loss of donations to our fundraising campaign’ the Board Member that was here last week mentioned the figure of $150,000,000 might be lost if this is done. The chair of the Senate at that point said “sometimes”—this is not an exact quote— “sometimes you have to sacrifice principle for money,” and I personally think that is the wrong thing to do. I think that if we do that, we do it publicly. We are giving a bad, a very bad, example to our students and it, it’s not something we want to do. Another point, if you look around at our peer institutions, be it regionally or nationally, I think you’d be hard put to find another institution who would select a President in this fashion. I’ve talked to people around the country trying to find out if this is going on any place else and they laughed. If you had told me a year ago that Auburn University would select a President in this fashion, I would have said you must be crazy, we would never do that. The point made by Renée, the Board will probably do this anyway and I think they probably will. However, I don’t think we should give our support or sanction to that activity. Thank you.

 

Barbara Struempler: And let me remind you that whatever vote comes out today will be the stand of the Senate leadership. What we now need to do, we’ve had a motion that’s been seconded, so if I understand the policy correctly or Robert’s Rules of Order, we need to go back to our original resolution and you need to make comments on that. And we need to get it in a good enough condition so that we can put it to rest for a minute and you don’t vote on it. And then what we do is that we go to the substitute resolution, we work on that, get it in a form or fashion that you’d like to see it in it’s final form, and then what we do is that we vote on the substitute resolution first. We vote it up or down. And depending on how that goes depends if you ever come back to the revisit the original one. So what we’re going to do first is go back and revisit the original proposal as proposed by the Steering Committee and we will now begin discussion. I think I’ll put the ‘Therefores’ up first. That’s probably … that’s what we’re asking for, so that’s kind of the meat of it. Are there any Senators that would like to speak in favor or against this resolution? And please use the mike. Yes?

 

Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: Personally, I am on the position of “yes, if” in this matter. I thought the resolution put forth by the Steering Committee goes in that direction although I don’t think it was far enough in terms of stipulating the ‘ifs.’ I like the preamble, I like the very end spots; it’s well worded and states what needs to be stated. But I don’t like the ‘Therefores.’ I would like to use this resolution to adopt a resolution today that allows us to use the Board’s desire to implement that they get faculty support or at least tacit support. Use the Board’s desire to do that with our support as a means for us to gain leverage; to gain something out of this. And to achieve that, the ‘Therefores’ would need to be amended. If you look at the here at the request that we are making there, the first one is unrealistic and therefore easy to ignore. The last time I checked, it would require the change of the State’s constitution to seat the Chair of the Faculty Senate on the Board of Trustees. So the way the request is formulated is unrealistic and therefore easy for the Board to ignore. That’s the first one. Then with the second one, establish a precedent, that’s okay. Although it would be easy for the Board to swallow, I don’t think there is a plan to establish a precedent here so that would be acceptable to them. The other two solutions  are unspecific and are therefore easy to ignore. The third one, may I remind you, is the most important one. ‘The search for a successor should be conducted in accordance with the principles of shared governance.’ What’s the Board going to say? They’re going to say, ‘of course. Of course, we’re going to conduct a search in accordance with the principles of shared governance because we’ve always adhered to these principles.’ And the next item, reprimands for whistleblowers. Well, of course, they are going to say of course, there aren’t going to be any reprimands for whistleblowers. Plus, the issue has not been approved as a matter for discussion today. So, while I like the spirit of this resolution, I think the ‘Therefores’ need to be amended and need to be stated much more specifically. The first request that we ought to make is that the Board delay action on this matter, that they can’t act next week but instead they would have to initiate consultations with faculty members, with representatives of other stakeholder groups, and only after the process of consultations and public relations would we consider supporting the proposed change in Dr. Walker’s status. I’d be ready to make some proposals for amendments but I guess I can stop right there for now.

 

Richard Penaskovic, Substituting for Mike Watkins, Philosophy: I feel terribly uncomfortable in removing the “Interim” from the President’s title for these reasons: (1) the Weary Report which I read carefully recommends starting a Capital Campaign sometime in the next five years. That’s not beginning June 3rd. Now is not the opportune time to plan such a Campaign when the Auburn family is hopelessly divided. We might do better to wait until the SACS lawsuit is settled and we are re-accredited. (2) I see the Senate leadership interested in making small steps to accommodate the Board; however, I do not see the Board making small steps in return. Why can’t Ed Richardson step down as Trustee since there’re a real conflict of interest inasmuch as he represents K–12 and gives priority to K–12 when legislative money is handed out rather than standing up for higher ed. (3) One of the main faculty concerns is shared governance. Is the cause of shared governance furthered when the President is elected with absolutely no faculty, staff, and administrative input. And is Affirmative Action guidelines are aggregated in the search for President, does that mean they can be dispensed with in other searches? If I want to hire a faculty member, even on a temporary basis, I am required to advertise and do the search. Is not the Board and the Interim President setting a poor precedent in this matter by flaunting AAEEO guidelines? And if the Interim President really favors diversity, would he not tell the Board that the removal of “Interim” from his title is wrong? If we cannot have a national search, can we at least have an in-house search that only takes a few weeks? Would the Board consider interviewing Associate Provost for the office of President? Would not the estimation of the Board rise in the eyes of the open faculty if this Board selected its first Black President? Would this not prove to those rumors of educational racism still surfacing from the Halloween party of the Fall? And would it not make the recruitment of Black administrators, faculty, and students a lot easier? Thank you.

 

Bill Gale, Mechanical Engineering: Let me preface my remarks by saying that I got very, very few comments of any kind from the faculty in my Department on this issue. You can read into that what you will. I also would like time to make very few comments. Those I did get, however, expressed a desire to move on, they said that they thought this issue had gone on long enough, and would prefer to see a yes. So, based on their guidance, I shall be opposing both the original  and modified motions.

 

Barbara Struempler: Other comments from Senators? Or from members of the Senate, excuse me? If you are a substitute, you are considered a … if you’re on this side, you’re a member of the Senate.

 

Barbara Kemppainen, College of Veterinary Medicine: It’s hard for me to understand the last comment when I thought that he said that the people who voted in his department said they wanted to vote ‘yeah’ but he was going to vote ‘no’ for both of them. Did I misunderstand something?

 

Bill Gale: May I clarify. I’m referring to the ‘yes’, as Dr. Middleton said the ‘yes, ifs’ … they would like to see (inaudible — not speaking in the microphone).

 

Barbara Kemppainen: So you would vote in favor of the original resolution. Is that correct?

 

Bill Gale: I would probably have to oppose it.

 

Barbara Kemppainen: Okay. So you would oppose the original resolution?

 

Barbara Streumpler: Other comments from members of the Senate? How about non-members of the Senate? There’s a microphone over there. And if you want to speak, you can go to either microphone at any time.

 

Dick Jaegar, Electrical & Computer Engineering: I am not a member of the Senate. Seems to me for years we’ve been working on trying to get acceptance of the idea of shared governance and get it implemented. And my first impression of the proposal to remove the “Interim” title was that it was just thumbing their … the Trustees were simply thumbing their noses at the faculty. And I continue to hold that view. But I strongly oppose the first resolution and support the second.

 

Paul Schmidt: Point of order. May we speak to the second resolution at the same time?

 

Barbara Struempler: We’re going to in just a minute. I’m going to let Mr. Henderson have a comment and then we’re going to go to the substitute resolution, which is the second one.

 

Heath Henderson, SGA President: I think that the most important question that we need to remember here today is what’s in the best interest of Auburn? And that’s more than $150,000,000. It’s more than the title of what we address our President as, as Interim President or as President Walker. We all address him … we address him as President Walker. The answer that we have to this question is we need stability right now. And I think stability comes from the top down. And I think that stability is provided more by the person than the position, but in this case, to the outside world stability is provided by the position. And right now his position is Interim President. And that’s not providing a lot of stability that we need right now. President Walker has led this University during very, very turbulent times, providing stability with Interim President and I think that his stability will be … the stability of Auburn will be furthered by the removal of “Interim” from his name. The Board has suffered much criticism by this Faculty Senate, by the Student Senate that I served on last year, and several other groups on this campus have voted ‘No Confidence.’ And you said that they violated shared governance and that they micro-managed. And yet, still, they come back time and time again to us. You can say they are in violation of shared governance with this, but still they came back and consulted … they consulted the SGA Executive Officers. They consulted the Faculty Senate Executive and leadership officials. So I think that they are taking good faith steps here with this. I’ve spoken with Mr. Logan; his name was touted quite a bit last week. So what I did was as soon as I left this meeting, I called Mr. Don Logan, an influential alumni, and he said he is in support of this because the Board has taken good faith efforts to mend bridges. One whole thing that I just want to bring up that maybe has not been brought up this far was that we’ve had members of the Board down here; Mr. McWhorter has been down here about two days a week. He is trying to mend bridges, yet still some faculty and students, student leadership positions admittedly are not willing to take those steps back to mend the bridges. They have given; they’ve not said that Dr. Walker is their absolute wonderful choice. They’ve said Dr. Walker has done a good job right now so let’s provide stability that we need right now to further this University. The question that we need to answer … the way the problem should be viewed should be moving is forward. We must remember progress. Auburn must progress forward every day. Let’s pass this resolution, provide stability, and make progress mark Auburn’s every step. Thank you.

 

John Asmuth, Chair, A&P Assembly: We have not had a chance to meet as an Assembly. I was made aware of this last week just before the University Senate meeting last week. I had a meeting with Mr. McWhorter and some folks from A&P Assembly, some from the Staff Council, and I have since met with Mr. McWhorter again. The concept I … where my job is located on campus, news gets there by Pony Express. The money hasn’t got there yet, so I didn’t have a representative before this happened, but when I first heard the concept, I looked at this at the way to move the University forward. The perception to the world outside of Auburn is that things are not very stable here. Having to word “Interim” in front of our President’s title is … helps further that perception. I think most of us have seen the Bill Weary Report that talked about the things that need to be accomplished. Those sayings, and the University Senate agreed, are going to take a matter of about two or three years. But having an ending date on Dr. Walker’s title change … we will know when we will be getting a new President, which will be in three years. That allows Auburn University time during those three years to settle these issues with SACS, the re-accreditation, the lawsuit, the Sunshine lawsuit with involves the Board of Trustees, and those type of things that presenting more stability to the outside world. So I’ll be in favor of this resolution.

 

Barbara Struempler: There’s a line forming in the back now backed by Connor. So, okay.

 

Candace Bourne, Chair, Staff Council: Just like with the faculty, our staff have a lot of diversity and having just really just realized the situation last week, getting our staff together to poll them would have been like herding cats — we just couldn’t do it. I did call a meeting of our Steering Committee and we discussed this pretty extensively. I think that if you polled the entire staff you would probably have to add another group in their … with the ‘yes,’ and ‘yes, yes’ and that was ‘whatever,’ and other ‘buts’ and all that. But I think that some could stomach this resolution if it moved us forward. That is what is on a lot of the staff’s mind, is moving us forward. If you push me for some sort of report of consensus, I think that I would have to say that if the resolution — in its present form — would provide impetus for forward movement at Auburn University and would be to the benefit of all people here, then it is acceptable by most staff. My personal thoughts are pretty much that and I may be a little more optimistic because of past incidents. There is an atmosphere of distrust with the Board. I think that that puts us on extremely fragile ground if we are going to go through with this kind of resolution. It puts us on fragile ground from both sides — the Board and for Senate and for the campus in that we both want to work towards a good conclusion. If we can’t work towards some sort of good conclusion, neither of these resolutions are going to do us any good. Like I said, staff are very diverse in their opinions. Some do not want the “Interim” removed at all, some are fine with it, and some are just ‘whatevers.’ But I think that this resolution we would feel comfortable with it as is.

 

Conner Bailey, Steering Committee: Like the Staff Advisory Council explained, the Committee has some diversity albeit from a minority, which I represent, I do not support this resolution that came out of the Committee upon which I serve. I mean no disrespect to my colleagues; we’ve had open, frank, honest, somewhat short and heated professional discussions and I was on the short end of this particular stick. I do not support this resolution because I do not believe it serves the interest of Auburn University. Where is the real source of turmoil and unrest in this University? It is not one word. It is not the word “Interim.” The source of the turmoil and unrest and the divisiveness on this University is not in the title of Walker, it is with the Board of Trustees which has demonstrated again a willingness to move forward with all due respect, using some inadequate consultation. I will grant that very recently this issue of removing “Interim” from the title of Dr. Walker was brought forward to the SGA and to the Senate leadership, there has not been a process, as Dr. Schmidt called for, for consideration of the merits of this issue  and what it would provide for Auburn University, if anything. In the absence of any process, I certainly cannot accept that … I will support the other resolution which does point out that approximately a year ago the Senate already acted on this. If we were to approve this resolution, we are effectively abandoning principle and quid pro quo saying that, Okay, Board; we know what you want to do. We’re powerless to stop you. Give us these things instead. We’re abandoning all high ground on that basis. I think that we need to take the position of principle. If the Board is going to take the action against the principled opposition of the Senate, which I hope will be forthcoming today, then the onus is on them for creating the tone perpetuating the turmoil that exists. It is not in any of our interests, I do not believe it’s in Dr. Walker’s interest to accept a title that does not gain widespread support among faculty and other stakeholders on this campus. I speak against this current resolution which is inadequate which is accepting the Board’s willingness to take an action without adequate confrontation. And I urge the Senate to support the alternative resolution. Thank you.

 

Richard Saba, Substituting for Richard Beil, Economics: I just have two points that I want to try to make. One is I keep hearing the University needs to move forward. If we are moving in the wrong direction, going forward is taking us further from our goal. The second thing is that this whole changing of titles in order to convince perspective donors that everything is going along nicely reminds me of an Enron type of business move where they are essentially ‘cooking the books’ in order to convince people to give us some money. And I think it’s very wrong and I am strongly opposed to this resolution. I’ll support the second motion.

 

Gary Mullen, Entomology & Plant Pathology: I would direct your attention to paragraphs 6 in the resolution that is before us. Is this … the first resolution. Let me just point out that it states — I am going to bypass the ‘Whereases’ the lead in word — the Senate believes that the process of removing the “Interim” title without adequate consultation and deliberation is a move that violates the principles of shared governance and implies a breach of trust which may deepen the gulf between faculty and Trustees. And I wholly agree with that statement. And that ‘Whereas’ statement alone, I think, is reason for us wondering how you can make that observation and then turn around and say, Yes, this is violation of principles of shared governance. It does imply a breach of trust. It’s going to deepen the gulf between the faculty and Trustees. And then say, Yes, this is what we’re going to do. That’s the very reason why this resolution, I think, is inappropriate. I think it links some wrong things, one is the principle of shared governance that this University Senate has fought for years; it’s doing an end-run once again around the participation on the part of the faculty. We’re told how this is communication because a Board member has been talking with the Senate and Student leadership. I don’t see communication here at all. I think from what Renée Middleton said by way of her introductory remarks and what Barb Struempler has said, that it’s viewed as a given. In fact that was the starting point for even presenting or developing this resolution. But they’re not listening to us. They didn’t come to confer with us ahead of time. They made that decision and now give the appearances that we’re willing to talk about it. But there really isn’t any communication. What’s important here for assessing what may fall out or potential reaction may be. There are several other things that I could comment on. I don’t think the ‘Be It Resolved’ parts and what we are asking for should be linked to this issues of the “Interim” title. I do think that those are the things that we have been fighting for quite some time and these are not the circumstances under which we should just make another open plea with some expectation that these things are going to be delivered. Some of them should be givens. We shouldn’t have to be fighting for faculty and other proponents of the University to be involved in the Presidential Search Committee. That should be a given. The reason we are trying to put a faculty member on the Board of  Trustees is also symptomatic of the problem. Frankly no, Boards in the United States do not have a faculty member serving on them. They don’t need one. A Board should be able to operate without one. So I think there is a lot of emphasis placed on what that … and we’ve had some very strong Board members as full voting members that have had good influence in terms of moving things in the right direction. But I also make the observation as far as an appointment for three more years. If in February of last year when the Board provided … unceremoniously removed Bill Muse as President and appointed an Interim, there was outrage. And that even been a week, hasn’t even been a month the idea that somebody was placed in that office in that respect. What if they had said on that day in February 2001, we are appointing Mr. X as President for four and a half years. And we don’t care about your input, we don’t need your input. That’s exactly what this boils down to. Think about it. Then ask yourselves too in terms of what kind of a President do you want. How can we stand and support — especially under these circumstances — for someone who has sued our accrediting agency over the very strong objection of the faculty. Someone who espouses to want support for the principles of equal employment opportunity that is willing to suspend them even in an individual case. And the list goes on and things that are very, very disturbing, for  and “Interim” President who has to take personal responsibility for this labeling of Interim University. Those Interim positions don’t happen by themselves. They are lots of symptomatic problems. I don’t think they should be perpetuated unless that is done with fully open national search for replacement of Interim positions, it is for that purpose. Short-term, fill the gap while you proceed with the Presidential Search. We need to in order to remove that “Interim” take the right steps. And that’s with the SACS investigation on board, get away from all this litigation. These are roadblocks and removing the “Interim” title is not addressing any of those problems.

 

Barbara Struempler: If we can, I’d sure like to … I have … I welcome all your comments. But if we can, let’s try to tighten it up on time. Thank you.

 

Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering: My problem is that I agree with all the arguments that have been put forward. That means that I don’t know which way to vote. I would like to tongue-in-cheek propose another ‘Whereas.’ “Whereas, Auburn University is unlikely to attract desirable Presidential candidates.” That is the case also. So the truth of the matter is, in my opinion, the man we’ve got there is as good as we’re going to get. Any national search at this point is likely to turn up someone less desirable.

 

Barbara Struempler: Do you want to make that as an amendment?

 

Roy Broughton: Maybe go on through this process, then when you’re through …

 

Barbara Struempler: Then we could start all over?

 

Roy Broughton: Then we could start all over, I guess. I do think you need another ‘Therefore’ because this three year term is something that’s been bandied about. I haven’t heard anybody say that that’s going to be in stone. I think to send it off to call on the President of the Board to confirm in writing the three year limit to the non-Interim President’s term. It’s not in the ‘Whereas’ and it doesn’t call on the President and the Board to confirm that. And I think it ought to be in the verbiage. And the one other thing that I would like to say that hasn’t been mentioned. I do think that removal of the word “Interim” would give the new President more authority than he has now, whether he would choose to use that authority for the benefit of Auburn University is another matter. But certainly, if the Board has just voted him President and removed the “Interim”, they would not like to see him walk. So, there is some advantage in him having the power if he would choose to use it for the benefit of Auburn University. Of course, the Board has the final if they choose not to use it for the benefit of Auburn University. I don’t know whether that’s a good thing or not. It would give him some additional power with the Board if he chose to exercise it. I’ll see what the Steering Committee thinks about friendly amendments.

 

Barbara Struempler: You’d have to put … that’s not very friendly. Friendly is one thing but you can easily do it by making amendment to it. And then the amendment is voted up or down. It’s easy to do.

 

Roy Broughton: Therefore the Senate calls on Dr. Walker and the Board to confirm in writing the three-year limit to the President’s term of office. I think since that’s already in the ‘Whereas’, that could be the amendment if you want it.

 

Barbara Struempler: And you would bring that down to the ‘Therefores.’ Did you guys hear that? So this is an amendment that we would be adding, that it would be in writing … the three year commitment. No more than. Paula’s taking this down. She’s going to give me a corrected copy. Let’s take one amendment at a time. Is there a second on that amendment? (Motion seconded by member in audience.) So we’ve got a motion and a second on that amendment. Non-renewable. And I’ll read it in a minute. We can discuss that amendment and vote on that if you want to leave it here. Okay. So there’s been a motion and a second to add an additional ‘Therefore’ so it would be “Be it further resolved, that the Board of Trustees and Dr. Walker will provide a written statement that Dr. Walker’s term as President will not exceed three years and that he will not be a candidate for President at the end of that term.” That’s being added as a ‘Therefore.’ That’s the motion. Is there discussion on that motion?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Barb, I call the question on this amendment.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. So the question has been called and you will be voting if you want to add … insert this as a ‘Therefore.’ Be it further resolved that the Senate calls upon the Board of Trustees and Dr. Walker to provide a written statement that Dr. Walker’s term not exceed … it’s in a written statement that it not exceed three years and that he would not be a candidate at the end of that term.’ Is that correct? Okay. All those in favor, say ‘aye.’ All those opposed, say ‘nay.’ The ‘ayes’ have it. So this for this resolution will be included as a ‘Therefore.’

 

Roy Broughton: I’m willing to go ahead and make the second amendment and y’all can decide whether that is too confrontational. ‘Whereas, under the current situation Auburn University is unlikely to attract desirable external presidential candidates’

 

Barbara Struempler: And that’s under the ‘Whereas’? So he would want to add somewhere in this ‘Whereas’ statement that the University is not in a position … we would not attract desirable candidates at this point. And the ‘Whereas’ statements are just point of information. Is there a second? So there’s a motion and a second. Any discussion? Use the microphone please. Thank you.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: I would say to the last speaker that ‘desirable’ to the Board of Trustees or to a search committee or … I would have a big problem with that term ‘desirable’ as drafted.

 

Barbara Struempler: So it’s ‘Whereas Auburn University is not in a position to attract good Presidential candidates …’

 

Renée Middleton: That’s not what he said. It’s …

 

Paula Sullenger: Would you restate it?

 

Roy Broughton: I said ‘desirable.’

 

Ruth Crocker: It just pointed out the problems of putting in the word ‘desirable’ when actually the only groups ‘desires’ seems to have any clout are those of the Board of Trustees and certain members of the administration. So I will vote against it.

 

Barbara Struempler:  Okay. Any other discussion? On this amendment.

 

Cindy Brunner: I would like to address this one amendment and I’m not in favor of the amendment. I don’t think we need it. If anything, it tends to add some affirmation to the sense or opinion about the proposal, removing the “Interim” status suggests that maybe because of this situation, that would be okay to do. That’s not how I read the resolution. I read the resolution very differently from other people are suggesting and I think we need to address that later. At this time I think we should oppose that amendment to this resolution.

 

Barbara Struempler: Other comments on the amendment? Non-members?

 

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: How does anyone know that that is the case? That Auburn University is not in a position to attract desirable Presidential candidates unless we actually had the search. I’m on the search committee now for Head of University Relations and we’ve had some excellent candidates, despite the fact that we’re kind of floundering here. So, I don’t know how anybody would know that unless they actually began the search.

 

Barbara Struempler: I have a question. The question. You’re voting on the motion if you want to add the statement as a ‘Whereas’ that the Auburn University is not in a position to attract desirable Presidential candidates under the present circumstances. All those in favor of including this, say ‘aye.’ All those opposed, say ‘nay.’ It does not pass so it will not be included in the resolution. Okay. So. We’re still back to the original pending resolution. Are there additional comments from Senators or non-Senators of this resolution. Barry.

 

Barry Burkhart, Psychology & Former Chair of Senate: I couldn’t be more in agreement with Professor Broughton about the ambivalence that I am sure most of you feel about this circumstance. I think it was Freud who once said that the simplest definition of a neurosis is anything that follows the word ‘but’ in a sentence. I would, ‘but’ I couldn’t. And I think we are probably are more neurotic “U” than Interim “U”! Having said that, I think that at this point I do not see this as a point of principle. I think it is a point of principle, the principle is will we continue despite every evidence to the contrary that the Board wishes us to, to work with the Board or will we do what the Board has done which is to stick our fingers in our ears and thumb them down. And if we do that, I think we make a mistake. I think we ought to vote in favor of this resolution. I think we ought to vote in favor of it with the clear understanding that the Board may well not do any of this. They may well not seat a faculty at the Board; they may well not provide written assurances that they will act in honorable ways. Those of you who read the essay I wrote several years ago for the AAUP for the faculty newsletter know that I speak very clearly that the Board is the problem at Auburn University. It has been the problem at Auburn University since 1957 when the fired a professor because he rose against segregation. It has been the problem at Auburn University since they fired Robert Curran or ordered the President to do that. In the lives of the faculty investigating the Committee who knew that Martin had done it but they just looked at it and smiled. They have been the problem and they will continue to be the problem. In fact the only real solution is not a new President, and I don’t think we could hire a good President, I do understand that Enley is still looking for a job; maybe we can get him back. But I don’t look forward to that. I think we have to be in position to usher this process of political change that the Board is going to be undergoing with the new appointment process. And we have to be in a position to try to influence them if in no other, to simply make sure that everything they do is done in the light of day. When they tried the end-run around Muse to reconfigure the University a couple of summers ago, that process was thwarted because the faculty made them do it in the daylight. And accepting their bad state killing of the Economics Ph.D., they really weren’t able to do much harm to the University. So, although it is clearly something I do with distaste, I do think we should vote in favor of this resolution and I think we should once again put the Board in the position of having to demonstrate that they’re response to good faith has at least some element of good faith. And if they don’t, I don’t think anyone opinion of them will change. But if they do, there is hope that perhaps they will be a new process of engagement on the part of the Board with the faculty.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect: I’m hearing some of the comments that people have seen this resolution as saying the faculty accepts or approves. I don’t see it that way and I just want to reiterate that no one on the Steering Committee saw it that way. It was … this is probably coming … what might we be able to get out of it. And I would hope that the people who want to complete ‘yes’ or ‘no’ conditions will consider what voting this down might say. If you vote it down, no one really knows the reason why.  They’ll just take it as an absolute no. Some other people have also made the point that this might conflict or contradict some resolutions we’ve made in the past. The Senate on April 17, 2001 passed a resolution which said that the Presidential search shall not proceed until an assessment of the Board is performed. On April 17, 2001 this body passed a resolution saying that the Presidential search will be suspended until members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees have tendered their resignations. And then, now to me those resolutions weren’t realistic because power to conduct a Presidential search rests in the Board of Trustees, not in this body. And two months later, June 12, 2001, it looks like this body conceded that point when it passed a motion to call upon the Board of Trustees to defer activities related to a Presidential search for a period of one years, from June 1, 2001. So they’ve given us the year. We’ve already said that they are the ones who are able to do this. It’s not right the way they’re doing it but of all the bad alternatives out there right now, I just don’t see anything better for the University. Waiting until … leaving “Interim” hanging out for years will do no good. I don’t really accept the funding argument like anyone else, but we’ve got to have some kind of stability. Something to work from and maybe this will give us some good faith effort by the Board in return. Some way to start working if not together, at least quite so antagonistically as in the past.

 

Glenn Howze: I would like to take exception to my good friend Professor Burkhart. I do not believe that taking the effort on the part of the Board of Trustees to consult us on this issue. It is true that one or two Board members on their own, without the approval of the Board came and informally met with the leadership of the various groups on campus. They made it very clear time and time again, I went to several of the meetings, that they did not represent the Board, which is to say the Board was not consulting with the faculty on this issue. But the Board was going to do exactly what it was going to do regardless of what we do. So I don’t think there was any consultation … in reference to a comment made by Professor Sullenger and also by Professor Brunner that neither of them view this resolution as approving or endorsing the removal of “Interim” title. I would like know if  the Steering Committee — the authors of this resolution — if that is the case, would be willing to accept a friendly amendment that clearly states that the University Senate does not endorse the removal of the “Interim” title? That’s a question. If that is the case then it seems to me that that’s a friendly amendment. A friendly amendment that would say resolved that the Auburn University Senate does not endorse the removal of the “Interim” title from President Walker.

 

Barbara Struempler: That would be in a ‘Whereas’ statement? It would be in the ‘Therefore.’

 

Glenn Howze: If it isn’t in the first ‘Therefore,’ I would …

 

Barbara Struempler: Why don’t you make it as an amendment?

 

Glenn Howze: Well, I’m asking, if indeed … this was the intention of the Steering Committee. Okay, fine. ‘Be it resolved that the action of the Board of Trustees “Interim” is not approved … is not endorsed by the Auburn University Senate.’ Or we could even say that it strongly opposes the removal.

 

Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: Do you mean the second ‘Therefore,’ or the first one?

 

Glenn Howze: Yes. It means what I want to say and it should be accompanied by it. But we need to be very clear that we are opposing the removal of the “Interim.” If that is the intention of the Steering Committee.

 

Renée Middleton: I think it could be an amendment and I think that is the intention of the Steering Committee the way you phrased it. So, we probably would have to consider it as an amendment. And we could do that.

 

Barbara Struempler: I think it would be an amendment. It’s not … when you read the … friendly amendments really are, there are no … if you want to change your word from shall to has, you can do that. That’s friendly the way I read this. But that’s a major change and if we want to put it forth as an amendment …

 

Glenn Howze: Well, I will the put it forth as an amendment.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. And I’ll take it as that. How about a second? We got a second on it. So you want to include …

 

Glenn Howze: ‘Therefore be it resolved that the Auburn University Senate is strongly opposed to the removal of the word “Interim” from the title …’

 

Barbara Struempler: So, say it one more time Glenn. We’ll add .. this is … this is what’s being proposed down here at the bottom. ‘Therefore be it resolved that the Auburn University Senate strongly opposes the removal of the word “Interim” from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title.’ That being the motion and a second. Discussion?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I’d like to know if that’s what the Steering Committee really meant, that they intended for the instrument to say that we ‘strongly oppose removal’ rather than that ‘we do not endorse removal.’ I’d prefer that we say that we do not endorse it because that is consistent with the comments made by some of my colleagues who were favoring a more moderate approach in this issue because we’re looking forward to Auburn moving ahead rather than maintaining the combative atmosphere that we’ve had for the past 15 months.

 

Renée Middleton: Now, I mean I don’t want to speak for the whole Steering Committee. But I do believe that it was the intent of the Steering Committee that we did oppose the action. We don’t … we don’t think the action is right. Now if the body feels comfortable in saying we don’t endorse, I believe that’s okay … but if you want to know the intent of the Steering Committee, the intent of the Steering Committee was that it did oppose the action.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: That is exactly the way  I saw this. There are many people who have not read it that way. That was my take on it. Paula’s shaking her head. I don’t know. But that’s what I thought we were saying. That’s why I thought we had so many clauses saying this is the wrong way to do this. And maybe the words weren’t strong enough and they weren’t as strong as maybe some would like it. I would like to see it be that we strongly oppose. I don’t … how can we argue that it would okay? We’re not arguing that. We know it’s not okay.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: Bear in mind that I was on the short end of the stick, but I do believe that the Steering Committee felt a general sense of dissatisfaction, dismay, some of us verging on repugnance. But the proposed trial balloon …  we should realize of course that there are only a couple of Board members who have even addressed this matter publicly. It may only be a trial balloon much noise and nothing behind it. But I think of course that there is any meetings that have taken place that nobody knew about that brought forward in this matter. But it is very clear to me having said through the Steering Committee meeting that no member of the Steering Committee was in favor of what was being proposed, the removal of the title of “Interim.” And though there was … there were those of us who opposed it on matter of principle and there were those of us took the position that Barry Burkhart took that there was nothing that we could do about it and so we might as well get what we can from the Board on this … at this time.

 

Barbara Struempler: So, are you in favor of … are you in favor of this ‘Therefore’?

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: You’ll have to rule on this in terms of its appropriateness to put before the body. But I am doing it in the spirit of trying to accomplish what I believe to be Glenn’s goal but suggesting a different wording so that the insertion of the articulation of the sentiment would come in a different place which seems to flow, at least to my mind, more appropriately. If you’ll look at the first ‘Therefore’ in the pending resolution, I think that the insertion of ‘without the approval of the Senate’ following, from Dr. Walker’s title would capture what you’re attempting to accomplish here without interrupting the flow. Now, maybe not. But that does make it clear that the Senate is on record in opposition to that removal while at the same time acknowledging that it may well be done by the Board.

 

Renée Middleton: How would it read, Virginia?

 

Virginia O’Leary: It would then read — this would be the first ‘Whereas’ — would read “Therefore”, —excuse me, the first “Therefore” — “Therefore be it resolved that the action by the Board of Trustees to remove “Interim” from Dr. Walker’s title without the approval of the Senate be accompanied by the simultaneous seating etc.”

 

Paula Sullenger, Parliamentarian: We need to vote on Glenn’s amendment before we go on.

 

Virginia O’Leary: I was just suggesting it as a friendly amendment.

 

Barbara Struempler: She’s suggesting it as a friendly amendment to Glenn’s.

 

Virginia O’Leary: And if he’s willing to take it that way, …

 

Glenn Howze: I surely appreciate Professor O’Leary’s suggestions but I don’t think it really captures the sentiment that we are … if indeed the Steering Committee was opposed to this action, I don’t think it really captures that. So, I think we need some language in there that says we oppose or strongly oppose or refuse to endorse or what have you to make sure that it is understood that the Steering Committee was in opposition to this.

 

Paula Sullenger: As Parliamentarian, I still can’t see this as a friendly amendment because it doesn’t even address his amendment.

 

Barbara Struempler: So we’re back to the original amendment

 

Paula Sullenger: While I have the mike I would like to suggest we change  “strongly opposed” to “does not endorse.”

 

Barbara Struempler: So now we’re back to “strongly oppose does not endorse.”

 

Renée Middleton: Or, I hate to complicate it because I think what the person who just left and said may be considered as a friendly amendment. If we said ‘rather than strongly oppose’ that ‘the Senate “refuses to endorse,” would that be accepted as a friendly alternative to encompass comments that were made earlier by Cindy Brunner? That would bring in more people in agreement. I think we need to be in as much agreement as possible. Would that be considered a friendly amendment?

 

Glenn Howze: I was trying to characterize, you characterized, Paula characterized, and Cindy Brunner. Are others saying that the Steering Committee was opposed to this action?

 

Renée Middleton: Right. But we’re trying to get the wording now.

 

Glenn Howze: I understand that. I want to make sure that we capture the meaning of the what the Steering Committee had in mind. And if they did oppose it, and we all say oppose it, that was the term.

 

Renée Middleton: I would … yeah. In answer to your question Glenn, as a member of the Steering Committee, it is consistent with my thinking as a member of the Steering Committee to say we would “refuse to endorse.” That’s the same as my previous sentiment strongly … that we do oppose it and I would feel comfortable saying we “refuse to endorse” and use that as opposed to the other language so we can bring in more people under the tent.

 

Glenn Howze: I’ll take your suggestion as a friendly amendment.

 

Barbara Struempler: If I am hearing you … you will accept … instead of saying ‘University Senate refuses to endorse the removal etc.’ Is that correct? Your willingness to accept that? Other comments? So the ‘Therefore’ and this is what the motion then will be. Yes? I’m sorry. Yes, okay. ‘Therefore be it resolved that the Auburn University Senates refuses to endorse the removal of the word “Interim” from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title.’ Okay. You ready to vote? Yes?

 

(speaking too low to hear)

 

Barbara Struempler: No. I can take it as that. I took … the ‘Whereas’ would stay. This is what I thought I heard. The ‘Whereas’ would stay and we would add … this ‘Whereas’ … yeah, it’s a ‘Therefore’ down here somewhere. The first ‘Therefore.’ Okay. Is that clear?

 

This is what I think the first ‘Therefore’ says: ‘Therefore, be it resolved that the Auburn University Senate refuses to endorse the removal of the word “Interim” from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title.’ That is the first ‘Therefore.’ Then you would pick it up under ‘Therefore, be it resolved that action by the Board of Trustees to remove  “Interim” from Dr. Walker’s title should be accompanied by the simultaneous seating of the elected chair of the University Senate at an ex-officio member.’ As a friendly amendment would you accept that ‘Be it further resolved’ in that second paragraph?

 

Barbara Struempler: … this point be included in the first resolution. Okay.

 

Turner Wilson, Student Leader: Just to offer you another key point from a student point of view, Mr. Henderson spoke and obviously my sentiments will mirror his. I’m a long time skeptic of the Board of Trustees. They have given us no reason to be faithful and what they are going to do we can really place any trust in their actions. However, recently my views on that have changed a little bit. I think that we are — myself included and maybe you as faculty and the students as well—are somewhat naïve to think that the Board of Trustees is not doing things that are in the best interest of Auburn. I agree and I’ll acknowledge that they probably do have personal agendas that could be financial or political. But I feel that for the most part that they are not trying to undermine this institution. It is their job, I mean part of their job is serving and I feel that they are doing that to an extent. And I don’t agree however, with everything that they’ve done, mind you, but I do feel that we are a little naïve to think that they not working in the best interest of Auburn. The issue here is shared governance. I think that another issue that I’ve faced is that we feel possibly that the Board of Trustees is asking us to compromise to meet their standards. And I’m not convinced that it is completely impossible that they are compromising just as much as we are. Who’s to say that they aren’t completely satisfied with Dr. Walker but they know that for the most part faculty and students have enjoyed his tenure. That he has done a decent job at what he does and that they are therefore willing to go with him for three years to give him an opportunity to provide some stability to this institution. I think that’s a side of this argument that I’ve recently seen that holds some merit as far as I am concerned. I obviously support the resolution, as Mr. Henderson did. I feel that it does need to include some stipulations and those are for you to decide. But the point here is that although this may not be an idealistic solution to this problem, it is very realistic. And I think that’s what we have to consider here is that at this time for this University, this is what we need to do. I think that including these stipulations into this resolution is saying that in general we don’t necessarily agree with the way that this proceeding but we are willing to give it our thumbs up provided these things happen. I think that in itself is shared governance. Those are just some thoughts to consider just from a student. But I trust that you will do what is right for Auburn. Thank you.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. If you don’t mind, if there aren’t any more … if there are no … okay.

 

Pete Johnson, Substituting for Chris Rodger, Discrete & Statistical Sciences: Can I ask when it comes down to a vote, can we possibly have a written ballot on this? As opposed to a … you know, hands or a voice vote.

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. Is there a … you mean on the final … when we vote …

 

Pete Johnson: On both resolutions.

 

Barbara Struempler: On both resolutions? A second. Okay. Then that’s it. So it has to pass by 2/3. All those in favor say ‘aye.’ Or a majority. Okay majority vote. All those in favor say ‘aye.’ Opposed. You got it. We have them ready. I’m going to, at this point, we … we’re going to put the original resolution … we’re going to pause at that for a minute and we’re going to look at the substitute resolution that was proposed by … the substitute resolution. There will be discussion now on this resolution. Make any amendments, changes that you’d like at this point. At the end of our discussion we will vote on this resolution first. If it passes, you will never see the original resolution again. If it does not pass, then we go back to the original resolution. So, discussion on the substitute resolution. Call the question. You do want further discussion? Go for it.

 

Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: As I stated before, I fully respect and understand the ‘no’ position that was stated in the resolution that’s before us now. It’s a position of principle and I fully respect it. But on the other hand, if you pass this resolution, if you tell the Board of Trustees that you can’t do this but they would do it anyway. This is like doing what we have been doing for years now, we tell them you can’t do it, and they do it anyway. What do we stand to gain? Wouldn’t it be much better for to use the Board’s desire to change Dr. Walker’s title as a means for us to gain leverage, to gain some concessions out of the Board of Trustees, something like ‘Yes, you may consider this if you give us what we want.’ We have a long list of demands. For example, regarding the structure of the Search Committee for the subsequent search for a successor to Dr. Walker. This is the time to get concessions. And if you pass this resolution, you are slamming the door shut. And we should not do that. Thank you.

 

Larry Gerber, Substituting for Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair of Senate: Representing Jim, I am to bring his sentiment which are clear that the removal of “Interim” would be inappropriate for the reasons stated. I completely understand and in many ways sympathize with some of the arguments of Barry Burkhart and other and the Steering Committee initially made about trying to get some sense of quid pro quo is going to happen, but as we discussed this more and more, the argument that if the Senate adopts even the original Steering Committee resolution that the Board will then respond by doing some of the things that are suggested only as a quid pro quo for removal of “Interim” from Dr. Walker’s title is not a compelling argument to me. I mean, what the University Senate has asked for with regard to having the chair of the Senate be on the Board of Trustees, an open position to ending the lawsuit against SACS, the other issues are raised we believe the Board ought to do not for University’s sake or not because of faculty … to satisfy faculty, but because we think that they would make for a better University. And so, I have been torn about this issue, but in the end — and I would say that I know that this is Jim Bradley’s position as well — I will vote for the substitute resolution.

 

David LaBand, School of Forestry (non-member): Three points I’d like to make, the first one being I heard a number of people say they wanted Auburn to move forward. I think all of us probably would agree with that position. It strikes me as being a rather dubious argument at best to suggest that by abandoning the principle of shared governance that we’d be moving forward. It may well be that one or two members of the current Board have come graciously to various bodies here at Auburn and indicated that this was a move that the Board wanted to make, that it would be a tragedy to mistake that for any position regards position on the Board in favor of somehow embracing shared governance with the faculty. That is not shared governance. That’s the Board … a couple of members of the Board being gracious enough to give somebody an early heads up. Nothing that has been indicated by the Board to day suggests that suddenly — as my second point — that we’re going to be able to have any leverage to pry anything out of them. If they were prepared to come meet the faculty, any part of the distance of the gulf that lies between us, they  would have come as a Board to the faculty and suggested … to this Senate and suggested that this was something that they thought was worth, it was in the best interest of Auburn University, made their arguments out and asked us to consider those arguments. It has not been done and it puzzles me frankly that anybody in this room believes that this provides an opportunity for us to somehow gain leverage on the Board. That’s just crazy in my opinion. And finally, I would just register an observation that anybody who really understands Auburn University laughs at the notion that the word “Interim” … the purpose of removing “Interim” somehow significantly mitigates contributions to Auburn University. We’ve got the person who chaired Auburn’s last Capital Campaign in the person of Earl Williams whose an adamant and outspoken opponent of what’s going on in the Board of Trustees now. And he’s joined a number of other very major players in the Auburn University community. They’re not going to … they’re not refusing to donate to Auburn University because the word “Interim” is in front of Bill Walker’s name. They’re refusing to donate to Auburn because we’ve got a corrupt Board of Trustees. That’s not going to change. Whatever the title is that we happen to confer on our current President and whatever the identity of the next President is, we’ve got fundamental problems here and we … I think that Larry Gerber and others are actually correct that we do Auburn a disservice and we move Auburn backwards rather than forwards by abandoning a true principle of shared governance.

 

(Unable to hear name), Non-Member: I am for the substitute resolution and strongly oppose  the first one. The reason is we don’t need a standard university, we need a very strong President. A President generated by this proposed process will be a weak President. For it is not good for the university. If I can read Dr. Walker’s mind, he probably doesn’t want this hat forced on his head. On the other hand, without going through such process, we lose the opportunity of having the best possible President for the University. As for us putting a three-year term to the condition that is completely not logical because if Dr. Walker is the best person we can have, why would we want to exclude him as a candidate three years later. If we are not sure he is the best person we can have, why do we give him the title now? So, I am opposed to the first resolution.

 

Heath Henderson, SGA President: As y’all probably know from my earlier comments, I am opposed to this resolution but there are several things I want to kind of respond to what people are saying. The first thing is we need a strong President during this time; I’ll agree – we do. We say we don’t have a strong President in Dr. Walker; I disagree. Look to Engineering. Dr. Walker was Dean of Engineering. Engineering grew immeasurably during the time that he was Dean of that department. The thing that we’ve got to know here is that we’re operating off the emotion with this resolution. One of the biggest things that was told to me by some people here at this University when I assumed this position was for a year you have to take your emotions, put them in a box and throw them on the shelf and think rationally. We’ve all said that we don’t agree with the process of this, but we have to make a good faith effort to compromise with the Board of Trustees. And I think that as the Senator from Math and Science said earlier, we are not operating in any good faith effort, we are not showing any good faith effort. We’re just slamming the door on the Board of Trustees’ face and saying, ‘Sorry, we’re not going to work with you at all.’ I think that it’s time that we started mending fences and worked for the betterment of Auburn. And the betterment of Auburn is providing stability right now.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. Are there other quick comments? We’re going to vote soon, we hope.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I helped draft this particular resolution, so I’ll support it. In terms of the issue of stability, the Board has stability but it has it very long term. Senate chairs have a one-year term. The SGA President has a one-year term. And they count on that. When we get the momentum going in one direction, we get this going back and forth, going back and forth. In terms of compromising and hearing and trying to move to middle ground, it seems to me that the Senate has tried to do that. And I remember coming to my first Senate meeting a little over a year ago and being in awe of some of the  Senators at that meeting. Renée Middleton and Barry Burkhart being among the people I was in awe of. So I have complete respect for their position and I always listen when they talk. One reason I support this position is I teach a course in Mediation, and a simulation I set up every year for students and they all respond to the trap. If I have two parties come in and my party comes in and says at the outset, I really want to solve this conflict. I don’t like this fighting. I want to solve it. The other party comes in hysterical, ranting and raving, I want to get out. I am tired of this. It doesn’t look good and blah, blah, blah. What happens with the students is that over the course of hearing the parties, they hear the party that says I want to solve this conflict and the other person who rants would be unreasonable. The party that is hysterical and distraught and keeps bunching and moving, they feel is unreasonable because of the style. While the students would say they are acting out of emotion, I take exception to that comment. There are lots of us who have put lots of thought in this. We are not acting out of emotion. Now what I think the Senate did several months ago, when the joint Assessment Committee called for an outside study on the Board’s behavior, that is where I thought we took our action and we put it on hold. And we said do not leave this Board with a Presidential search until we get some of these other issues corrected. Now, there are lots of faculty that think there’s been a lot of wrongdoing by the Board of Trustees, but that request for an outside body to come in and tell us, do we have a legitimate beef here? Does an outside group say we have a legitimate beef? And so, we voted to go for that. Walker was in favor of that right at the outset, and then he turns around and slaps a lawsuit on SACS when they did exactly what the Senate requested. So where is the Senate not meeting the Board half way? Where is the President representing the interests of the faculty? We have tried to say let’s put our emotions on hold, let’s bring somebody in, and this and that. But we are spending who knows how much money right now to sue our accrediting agency. So I do support this resolution. If this resolution does not pass, I am quite comfortable with the amendment that has been offered as an alternative. But don’t tell me I’m speaking out of emotion. And don’t tell me I haven’t tried to meet people half way because I can give you lots of documentation of what’s different.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. A couple more comments and then … three minutes, let’s move. We have to be out of here by 4:30.

 

Glenn Howze: A very quick point and that is in reference to Mr. Henderson, the student representative. This has nothing to do … our resolution has nothing to do with personalities but rather with principles. Nowhere in our document did we mention anyone by name. The resolution was not formulated with anyone in mind but rather we deal in principle. And so I think we should forget about who is the current Interim President or what have you.

 

Barbara Struempler: Are we ready to vote? What … sorry … Yes?

 

Jim Hansen, History: I am not a Senator. I just have one question and that is, if the Board does name Dr. Walker as President, it’s not clear to me … I wondered if the Senate has asked for any legal advice. Is this or is this not a violation of federal employment law?

 

Barbara Struempler: I have not asked. Glenn, you asked. Didn’t you?

 

Glenn Howze: I didn’t really get a clear answer on it. But …

 

Barbara Struempler: Who are we … there’s Lee. You can help us out. We’ve got a lawyer here. We’re paying him. Please identify yourself.

 

Lee Armstrong, General Counsel: In my opinion, it is not a violation of federal law. What we’re talking about is Executive Order 11246 which is the Executive Order which corrects the general requirement to have an Affirmative Action Plan. The affirmative Action Plan generally suggests that we’ve done national searches in order to get the best qualified pool, but there are exceptions to every rule as everyone in this room recognizes. It is far from clear that there is any violation of Executive Order 11246 under these circumstances. We didn’t have … I would say regularly because we don’t want to do it regularly, but we have made exceptions … the Affirmative Action Officer has made exceptions under certain circumstances. I think it’s hard to argue that this is not an exceptional circumstance that we find ourselves in here.

 

Barbara Struempler: Does that … Question

 

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: We may not be violating the letter of the law in terms of Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity, but we’re certainly violating the spirit.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. Are we ready to vote? Okay. There are ballots that are being passed out. And again, you need to … if you’re on this list, you are a voting member of the Senate. I am going to tell you what we’re voting on. Okay. What you’re voting on right now is you’re voting on whether you want to … if you vote ‘yes,’ you’re saying that you want the second resolution to be substitution for the original resolution. If you vote ‘yes,’ that means that if ‘yes’ is carried on the vote, you will never see the first original resolution again. It cannot be dealt with. So you are now voting on whether you want to accept the second resolution as the substitute for the first resolution. If you vote ‘yes,’ you’re voting to substitute it for the first one.

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Point of information. We’re essentially voting whether or not to adopt the second resolution.

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. And then you vote for it again. What you do is you vote … Yes, either way, you’re going to vote twice. Right now we’re voting to substitute it for the original one. And then you will vote again, regardless of which one carries, you will vote on the one to see if you want to accept it. Okay? So you’re still going to have … there’s two votes that are coming up. Right now, you’re just voting to substitute it

 

Richard Penaskovic: We’re voting on the AAUP resolution?

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. You are voting whether you want to substitute the AAUP resolution, the shorter … this one. If you want this one to be … as amended. No, this one wasn’t amended. We amended the first one. This is the AAUP resolution. You are voting whether you want to substitute this and if you vote ‘yes,’ you’re saying you never want to see the original one again. This will be the one that we’ll be dealing with.

 

                        [BALLOTS BEING DISTRIBUTED AND VOTES COUNTED]

 

So. ‘Yes’ 35, ‘nos’ 25. So what that says is that we  will replace the substitute resolution for the original resolution. Now what we will be voting on  is whether to now … we can have more discussion on this resolution. As I understand it, it can’t be changed substantially. That’s 35 to 25. This is a terrible pen; sorry. So we’re now having discussion about this resolution, and at the end of our discussion, we will vote whether to accept it or whether to not accept it. Yes, please.

 

Larry Gerber: I have what I think is actually a friendly wording of it. For change. Or suggestion. In the last paragraph, the Board of Trustees … I don’t think we can say they ‘will’ work cooperatively. I think we should say they ‘should’ work cooperatively. What appears up there … it still says …

 

Glenn Howze: It’s been changed. You have the wrong copy I believe.

 

Barbara Struempler: Well why doesn’t someone give me the correct copy. So I wonder if that makes the previous vote void? Noooooo, we’re not going there. Okay. So “the Board of Trustees should work” is that correct?

 

Larry Gerber: Yes, that is correct.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. I got it. Okay. We took out the word ‘want.’ You need to leave that ‘that.’ The one here. You have wants crossed out. It needs to stay. Okay. So we’re back to this one. It says ‘Be it further resolved that once the staff investigation is completed, the Board of Trustees should work cooperatively with the faculty to conduct a search for the new President, abiding by both the letter of and the spirit of Auburn University’s equal employment opportunity policy.’ The other ‘Therefore,’ ‘that the University Senate strongly opposes the removal of the word “Interim” from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title.’ It’s got two ‘Therefores.’ Okay. We’ve got a ballot vote. This time it’s purple. What you’re voting on now is whether the Senate wants to adopt this resolution or whether we do not want to adopt it. If you vote ‘yes,’ you’re voting to adopt it. If you vote ‘no’ you’re voting not to adopt it. If the … if the ‘yes’ have it, this is the policy of the University Senate; if the ‘nos’ have it, we don’t have a policy, we don’t have a resolution. Is that correct? Okay.

 

Barbara Kemppainen: Are we allowed to ask a question?

 

Barbara Struempler: Oh, you can ask a question.

 

Barbara Kemppainen: If we don’t have a policy, we don’t have any response? I mean, if we don’t accept this …

 

Barbara Struempler: That’s what I understand.

 

[BALLOTS BEING DISTRIBUTED AGAIN]

 

Eugene Clothiaux: Concerning the SACS investigation, when will that take place?

 

Barbara Struempler: Can you maybe go to the mike.

 

Eugene Clothiaux: It’s in the courts now. It may go to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It may be petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court. When will be search for a president?

 

Barbara Struempler: Well, where your comments five minutes ago?

 

Eugene Clothiaux: No, I have nothing to do with this. I want the Senate to decide. I’m about to retire, I could care less.

 

Glenn Howze: I think a SACS investigation will happen whenever the administration and the Board of Trustees drops the legal action against the accrediting agency. I’ve talked to people around the country, they can’t believe that we are suing our accrediting agency. I don’t think that the faculty can (inaudible) …

 

Barbara Struempler: Well, whatever our vote, I’m meeting with Jimmy Sanford tomorrow morning at 8:30, so he’ll have it fresh in the morning. So. Final vote: ‘yes’ votes 40 and ‘nos’ 21. This is now the resolution. It has been voted and this is our current stand. Okay. We’ll give it to Mr. Sanford in the morning and send it on up. We have a regular Senate meeting in a couple of weeks.