Auburn University Senate Meeting
June 11, 2002
Broun Hall
Members Absent: Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair; Steve Taylor, Agriculture Engineering; Werner Bergen, Animal & Dairy Sciences; Dennis DeVries, Fisheries & Allied Aquatics; Ken Tilt, Horticulture; Robert Norton, Poultry Science; Richard Beil, Economics; Carl Hudson, Finance; Hugh Guffey, Marketing; Randy Pipes, Counseling & Counseling Psychology; David Pascoe, Health & Human Performance; Rhonald Jenkins, Aerospace Engineering; Mahmoud El-Halwagi, Chemical Engineering; Charles Gross, Electrical & Computer Engineering; Roy
Broughton, Textile Engineering; Joseph Gluhman, Art; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders; Robert Wiegel, Foreign Language & Literature; Richard Good, Music; Steve Knowlton, Physics; Ralph Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Science; Richard Kenworthy, Architecture; Scott Fuller, Building Sciences; Gregory Pettit, Human Development/Family Studies; Charlotte Skelton, Nursing; Mike Reinke, Clinical Pharmacy; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal Sciences; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; Cpt. Chris Hageman, Air Force ROTC; Ltc. Carlton Buchanan, Army ROTC; Cpt. Ted McMurtrie, Navy ROTC; Michael Moriarty, VP for Research; Wes Williams, VP for Student Affairs; Dan Bennett, Dean, College of Architecture, & Design; Lee Evans, Dean, College of Pharmacy; John Jahera, Interim Dean, College of Sciences & Mathematics; Shari Downer, University Libriarian; Heath Henderson, SGA President; Chad Harvy, GSO President.
The meeting was called to order by the chair, Dr. Barbara Struempler at 3:10 p.m.
William F. Walker, President, Auburn University: This is the first Senate since the Board of Trustees appointed me as President. I simply want to take a moment and acknowledge the numerous expressions of support of my wife and I. We are both truly grateful for that. I want to thank many of you who have sent messages of congratulations and encouragement. At the same time I’m well aware that not everyone supported those actions and I understand and respect those concerns and, to some extent, I actually share them. This was certainly not the best way or even a good way to pick a president. I think Heath Henderson, our President of the SGA probably put it best when he simply said, I hope that Auburn will never take this approach again. We have some very honest disagreements over the options that were realistically available to the Board. I think, however, that the Board felt that several more years of “Interim” administration would seriously weaken this institution and I agreed and accordingly accepted their decision. During the past 16 months a great many agendas have been dominated by internal disagreements on this campus. A lot of time has been spent on these issues, including an awful lot of my time. My agenda for the next few years — my time here — is going to be directed toward attempting to help move this university forward and I want to take a few moments and talk about some key issues in that regard.
First, I am pleased to announce that after long negotiations of about 10 months, we have resolved the outstanding issue of these fraternities that have received so much attention last fall. I just today signed one document and the … those documents will become available to the public in just a matter of a few days. The members of these fraternities, and that’s Beta Theta Pi and Delta Sigma Pi, those fraternity members are proving to be enthusiastic supporters of and participants in the ongoing educational activities that we’ve been designing to promote tolerance and appreciation for diversity on the Auburn campus. Let me dwell on that just a moment. I think a lot has taken place, not the least of which is the dedicated effort that many of you faculty have put toward advancing the notion of diversity at Auburn. I particularly would like to mention the Cultural Diversity Center that we’re funding and is under construction and I understand it, will be ready for occupancy about the first of the Fall Semester. Also a Diversity Leadership Council has been put together, a group of about 20 people. This represents probably as diverse a cross section of this campus and this University as is possible. That group has agreed to attempt by the first of October to have a plan, a Diversity Plan for the campus for me to consider.
Also, very high on the agenda for the future of Auburn is a program of institution building based upon the recommendations of Dr. Bill Weary. The Board is actively engaging in this project and is going to ask for broad participation from all sectors of the campus community. The Taskforce on Auburn’s Agenda, which has three or four faculty members on it, has met once. I was very pleased with the collegiality, the openness and frankness of the meeting. I see the project of rebuilding what Weary calls ‘The Congress’ as central to the University’s vitality over the next several years. When we engage that in thoughtful and committed fashion, then I think that process can serve as the engine for institutional renewal.
Another matter that I have supported as you are well aware is the issue of faculty representation on the Board. I was pleased that last Monday the Trustees initiated a formal review of that proposal. A Committee has been formed to look at the prospects of placing a faculty member in a non-voting capacity on the Board. Actually, it would place two faculty members, one from AUM. And I support this concept and indeed I commend the Board for taking this step and I hope the Committee that Mr. Sanford appointed, which is chaired by Eldon McWhorter, will have a positive recommendation by the August Board meeting.
Another issue I continue to assign very high priority to the goal of bringing faculty salaries over all regional averages and our staff salaries to peer group averages. The Board approved at the June 3 Board meeting a 12% tuition increase and the resulting funding is going to help us move closer to that objective. I’m not sure that 12% is the greatest tuition increase that’s ever been voted but it’s a significant tuition increase that is going to help us, I believe, considerably in achieving the goals concerning faculty salaries. Dr. Large has determined that it will probably take a 12% this year and a comparable tuition increase next year assuming that we don’t get any additional help from the State. I want to particularly thank again the SGA President Heath Henderson for his very effective support of this notion of a 12% tuition increase. He analyzed the situation, he examined it thoroughly from all aspects and realized that the student body would not be particularly happy about that but he made what he felt this was a decision that’s in the best interest of the University and I sincerely commend him for that action.
The Board also tentatively approved salary increases that will certainly exceed averages at various regional institutions. And based on what I am hearing from other presidents and Dr. Large just got back from talking to campus business officers from SEC schools; indeed, the situation is not bright at all for a number of those institutions. Now as I said in a memo Friday I understand that some of the Senate may favor a 2% across-the-board raise, a couple of 3% merit as opposed to a 5% merit that the Budget Advisory Committee recommended. I am inclined to accept that sort of approach unless someone’s got some really convincing arguments to the contrary because it seems to me that we simply have to continue to take into account the rising base, that is we are starting our Assistant Professors each year at higher and higher salaries and somehow we need to take that into account.
As for the longer term with respect to financial matters, our Capital Campaign will emphasize primarily two things: and that’s endowment for faculty salary enhancements and student scholarships. And this approach is going to fit very nicely with the needs assessment that was conducted a couple of years ago. As I’ve said repeatedly, we simply must raise substantial private funding if we are to achieve national salary averages and I think we can do that over a period of time. This is just a guess, but as I’ve stated before, in my opinion our endowment needs to be probably on the order of $1 to $2 billion. Right now it’s about $250,000 million. So the institution which supports fundraising goals has a long task ahead but we’re making the first step with this Campaign that’s just getting under way.
In regard to the Southern Association, as I said in my memo last Friday as well, there have been several calls for Auburn to withdraw the lawsuit and that’s just not an option that I have available. The judges ruled specifically denying SACS the possibility of proceeding with the Special Visiting Committee as SACS had envisioned that Committee. This is — although not entirely accurate to say this — it is essentially the law now in the 11th Circuit until such time as SACS would choose to make an appeal and will be successful in that appeal. In the meantime, please understand that Auburn has made more than one overture to SACS to try to come up with a mutually agreeable format for the visit. The purpose would be to address those issues and the JAC compliance which the judge has ruled are within SACS authority to review. SACS has repeatedly chosen not to respond to those overtures in a positive manner. Instead they issued a very formal statement most recently very, very critical of Auburn. However this goes forward, I can assure, however, as one of the Board members did in fact Monday. That is, that certainly there’s going to be no reprimand and any other retaliation against anyone for talking to SACS. And I stated before, I believe in this room, the federal court provides additional assurance in this regard, particularly since the jurist under consideration is Judge Forester who has made it very clear that he is very protective of so-called ‘whistleblowers.’
Finally, just to repeat also something that I’ve already said, we will proceed with the national searches for the positions that need to be filled, beginning with the Provost position. I have had one discussion with the Senate leadership in terms of putting together the Search Committee for the Provost and will begin to get that committee appointed. Just as soon as possibly following my appointment for the Provost Search, we will move forward with the Committees for Dean searches. And how long those will take, your guess is as good as mine. However, I intend to encourage those Committees to be as efficient time-wise as we possibly can so we can get those folks on board just as soon as we possibly can.
As I said earlier, my mission is the overall strengthening and advancing of the University. And I’ve described for you some of the steps I will take. I’m sorry that Dr. Curtis could not be here today because, based upon the e-mail I’ve gotten over the course of the past 10 days, I would say that of all the issues that have faced this University over the course of the past year and a half, probably none is going to cause more upset than the task of taking a look at game day parking. And Dr. Curtis has taken that on as a challenge and she’s addressing it. I hope that as plans are developed and we begin to discuss implementing those plans, the faculty will be actively involved in supporting what Auburn is trying to do because there are an awful lot of people out there who feel that it’s their God-given right to pull up in the grass and burn down the trees I guess, I don’t know. But that’s something that thankfully is costing our students money. That’s money that comes out of the general fund to help pay for that kind of thing.
Glenn Howze, Agriculture Economics (Substituting for Conner Bailey—Steering Committee): I have a question and a comment. The question has to do with your remarks concerning faculty salary increases. You indicated a proposal was on the table, one from the Faculty Salaries Committee and the other from the Budget Advisory. Both in your e-mail, as well as today, it’s very difficult or unclear to me exactly…You say your inclined to support it, we didn’t know whether you were referring to the Budget Committee or the Faculty Salaries Committee.
Dr. William Walker: Yes (Laughter By The Audience). What I assume you are trying to say is, yes, I am inclined to say. Yes, we need some across-the-board. And that’s because the starting salaries of our Assistant Professors continually goes up and is seems to me that that base … we need to do what we can to keep up with that.
Glenn Howze: And then I have a comment. This is in reference to your comment about the Boards action to assure the faculty that there’ll be no punishment for anyone who would dare say anything to SACS, maybe about the Board or administration. I for one am not the least bit convinced or assured by their action. I’ve been in this business long enough to know that punishment is not always dismissal. Rather, lack of promotion, lack of serious consideration for administrative positions, those sorts of things. And I don’t think anyone should take the Board’s action or any of those assurances to mean that there will not be punishment for speaking out against the Board of Trustees or the administration.
Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: I think we all focus a debt of gratitude for this the largest tuition increase since I’ve been here. On the other hand, I’m troubled and confused by this statement. Lowder speaks about “a small group of radical faculty members who have consistently resisted. . .I believe that the taxpayer, Auburn’s students and their parents should receive an honest day’s work from the faculty in return for the faculty receiving the taxpayers dollars for their salaries.” I guess I’m wondering who counts as a radical faculty member? I haven’t heard anybody say that I’m opposed to having an honest days work, so I don’t know where this is coming from. My question for you, Dr. Walker, would be how do you propose to decrease the distance between the faculty and the Board when you have statements like this?
Dr. William Walker: Well, first of all, I obviously don’t intend to speak for Bobby Lowder or any of the Board. I wish he had not said that. The fact of the matter is that it is a fact of life that everybody holds opinions and one of the opinions that he happens to hold is that the faculty don’t want their help. I think that reflects a lack of knowledge as to what faculty do. I suspect that every faculty member in this room has worked at 2 or 3:00 in morning grading papers, preparing lectures, working on their research, and writing papers. And I don’t think … that’s not the sort of thing that the people in business are accustomed to. The only way I know to get that message across is what I’ve said from the very beginning is we have to be continue to communicate with them.. I certainly don’t think ??? is going to produce that kind of communication. I thought that was an unfortunate statement and I am sorry that it was used. But if that’s his opinion, it’s his opinion.
Larry Gerber (Non-Senator): In regard to salaries, I am pleased with the likelihood that you would recommend a partial across-the-board. The senate did point out last week that that is its stated policy (unable to here the rest, inaudible…). I know that earlier in the year, there were remarks that there was a possibility the proration reserve account. . . . that it wasn’t going to be used this year. What happened to that issue? And then secondly, I have heard that this year’s budget, although the recommendation is for 5% raise pool, that there actually is more . . .
Dr. William Walker: Please let’s not mention those dollars in percents.
Larry Gerber: I will not mention other percents. Are there some other funds beyond that? One of the problems I have about not talking about that is, how would such monies be distributed? Why do they not come under a similar kind of guideline?
Dr. William Walker: There is additional money and I very much appreciate the Budget Advisory Committee not putting a percentage on it, it’d be like . . . for the newspapers. The distribution of that would rest primarily with Don Large and with the Provost. How it’s divided , I presume, will be in large part , be based on the study that Mary Baker has done. Is that true John? Would you care to discuss that?
John Pritchett: We brought on Mary Baker to do some research for us. We received an initial report from her, we still are crunching the numbers. What it does is address every faculty member on this campus by rank, by discipline, by time in rank and by special appointment. If you have a named Chair or something of that nature. It also takes into account the SREB averages and gives us percentages of every faculty member in an area based on that average. What we will attempt to do is provide that information to the Deans and the Deans will in-turn bring forward their equity recommendations based on those figures as a guide. Don, you may want to add something to this to. It’s mine and Don’s intention to divert the greatest portion of those dollars into the faculty salaries. We have asked for some equity as far as A&P and some staff are concerned, but we’re really want to make a dent as far as the faculty salaries are concerned. Don, do you want to make any comments?
Don Large: No, that covers it.
John Pritchett: So that covers it.
Dr. William Walker: Any other questions? Oh, I’m sorry Renée.
Renée Middleton, Secretary of the Senate: Dr. Walker, in your first comments you mentioned about the fraternities and the settling of the suit. And the attitude at least that you exhibited from the members. On what basis … I mean, how do you know that they are receiving this positively, etc.?
Dr. Walker: Let’s hope they continue. They are agreeing to participate in activities that are going on campus and to advance those activities. To be a part of them, at least.
Renée Middleton: So you’ve talked with their representatives personally or you’ve talked to the students?
Dr. Walker: We’ve talked to their representative and Dr. Williams has talked to the students.
Judy Sheppard (Steering Committee): You’ve mentioned some overtures that Auburn University has made to SACS. Give us some examples of that.
Dr. Walker: We’ve approached them about settling several months ago. Asked if they were interested and their first response was ‘no.’ The second after the judge’s ruling came out our attorneys approached them with a detailed list of things that we would like to see. That was followed up by that release or that statement from the press which was essentially blasting the whole notion that Auburn should have legal standing with respect to dealing with SACS.
Judy Sheppard: What are some examples of things on the list?
Dr. Walker: Clearly I can … I don’t know if I can get you a copy of that or not. If … can I release that? (Question is Directed to General Counsel)? It says ‘Confidential Attorney Comments.’
Lee Armstrong (General Counsel): Yeah, I’d like to say that I don’t think at this point in time it’s available…
Glenn Howze: Yes, President Walker. I think that it should be noted that … isn’t it true that SACS released a public statement about their response to Auburn University. But it should also be noted that prior to that time Auburn University released a statement that put Auburn University’s spin on the proceedings. So, some people might think that SACS’s public statement, which I thought you were indicating was not helpful, was indeed a response to our own statements.
Dr. Walker: Well that’s the reason you have judges. He’ll have to decide. Thanks.
Dr. Barbara Struempler: Well, I always have this list up here you guys. You are voting … you are members of the Senate who can vote. Okay. So you need to make sure that you or your representative casts a vote. We still don’t have the numbers that we should have so I’ll keep this list up here and I might even get a little message from this next month. My comments are brief and although we’ve had a lot of things going on this last month, there’s only been a couple of items that have really been addressed. Obviously the one that’s captured the most attention has been the ‘Interim’ issue. The morning following the Special Senate Meeting on May 29, I visited Trustee Jimmy Sanford. We had about a 45 minute conversation. I took him the resolution; we talked about it and I gave him the rationale. And we also talked about a faculty representative on the Board of Trustees. One of the other important issues that I’ve dealt with this last month has been … deals with the Budgeting process. And I noted a real concern for me has been the faculty salaries. And as President Walker has indicated in his e-mail of last Friday and in his announcements today, he will support the ___ across-the-board raise and the ___ pool raise rather than all of the merit raise to faculty. Unless he hears arguments from us that we suggest he needs to support only the merit. So, I really do thank you for listening to our concerns. We’re a little bit behind the eight ball on this one. He doesn’t have to. The budget has already gone forth to the Board of Trustees and they are kind of developing … they have given their go ahead to develop the budget based on what was approved last June 3, last Monday. So, I do thank you for hearing our input in supporting whatever outcome there is today.
One of the Unfinished Business items at the last Senate meeting that was on May 21 dealt with the … recommend budget priorities that we were going to discuss. And what has been decided is that we will revisit those priorities and we will have them as an item at the November Senate meeting. And this should allow us sufficient time to have input into some of the budgeting process that got so mixed up this year and we can maybe avoid some of those things next years. So, at least what we would like, we can submit our ‘wish list’ is what we are trying to do. And before I leave the money issue, I would like to add one personal comment. As Chair-Elect and as Chair of the Senate, I am blessed that I get to sit in on lots of meetings. And most of them lately have dealt with the budget process of the University. You understand … you get a pretty good handle on it if you’ve been to lots of meetings and you get to hear it for two or three years in a row. And as you aware, at the last Board of Trustees meeting on June 3, the Trustees voted a raise … tuition … in-state and out-of-state tuition raise that would begin this fall. And there were only two Trustees that did not support the 12% raise. I was very surprised that the Board passed a double digit recommendation for the next year. Usually they’re much more conservative when it comes to tuition increases. I want us to remember that the 12% tuition raise will benefit the faculty and the salary in terms of our salaries. And it will help us … bring us up to the averages that we would so much desire by the year ‘04. And this is the point of this conversation. I do feel that the Board made this decision based on Dr. … President Walker talking with them. During the last couple of months, he has met with the Senate leadership and we have talked about tuition raises. He has talked about how hard it would be to accomplish that; it’s never happened before as what was previously said or seldom. And what in fact he did was he went around and he solicited for their input and he did his homework. So I do feel when someone does a good job, he or she should be commended. So I personally would like to commend Dr. Walker for my hopeful raise that I’m going to get this Fall. But … and truly, I’ve seen an e-mail or two that said perhaps we need to thank the Board of Trustees, but the person that you probably need to really thank would be President Walker because he was the one that really took them all to task. That’s my interpretation.
The last issue that I’ve spent a lot of time with this last month has been the Rules Committee. We’re kind of a fun committee. We meet a lot. We get to find members, faculty representatives who will serve on probably 65 Senate and University committees. We’re nearing the end of completion on that and for the Senate Committees, we’ll be bringing those nominations to the University Senate in a month or two. And then for those faculty who would represent us on the University committees, they are forwarded to President Walker and he makes the final decision on that. Some months ago I talked about an Ad Hoc committee for Textbook Publishing and Course Packet Policy at Auburn University and I asked for nominations for those that would like to serve on this committee. Well, this the committee: Patricia Duffy from Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology has agreed to chair the committee and hopefully they will be coming up with a policy that they can present to the Senate sometime this Fall for our discussion and approval.
There is one housekeeping item. Renée Middleton, Secretary of the Senate, she tries real hard to get those Agendas and Minutes out there and we have last minutes changes every single month that we have been working this, but she keeps trying. Thank you, Renée. We’re always a little late, but we’re getting there. And there’s two up and coming events you need to be aware of. On June 19, you’re having the celebration of the Juneteenth. That starts at 10:00 on the Sanford lawn.
Barbara Struempler: Juneteenth. Excuse me. On the Sanford lawn at 10:00. It’s sponsored by the Office of Multicultural Affairs, the City of Auburn, the Office of the President, and the Auburn Black Caucus. And its purpose it to build a sense of community for all races, nationalities, systems, and people of faith. And it certainly would be fitting to take a little bit of time and do that. The other think that you can participate in is next Tuesday at 4:30. You are all cordially invited to a reception honoring President and Mrs. William Walker. It’s at the Conference Center starting at 4:30 to 6:00. Its sponsored by the Auburn Chamber here in the City of Auburn. So you might want to mark that on your calendars. Do you have any questions?
Yes, Glenn.
Glenn Howze: I have a resolution that I would like to … and it’s related to one of your comments. I would like to move
Barbara Struempler: I’ll accept it as ‘New Business.’
Glenn Howze: My concern about ‘New Business’ is that at that time you or someone else might say there is not a quorum.
Barbara Struempler: We are going to move very quickly and it is now 3:45. David Bransby is going to present some Handbook changes that should be a rubber stamp. It is the placement of things. We voted on it last year. We have faculty salaries and we’ve already heard about President Walker and his concerns. We do not have a talk from Dr. Curtis. So that should bring us to 4:10 and give us at least 35 minutes to have discussion on the resolution. So, as the Chair’s privilege, I would like you to wait until then and let us move quickly and keep our quorum and be out of here.
Glenn Howze: As a substitute member of the Senate, I would like some assurance from the Chair that if indeed this does not make it at this meeting, that it will be put on the Agenda for next meeting anyway.
Barbara Struempler: It will be discussed at this meeting and I am certainly hopeful that as ‘New Business’ it will be voted on at the next meeting. Thank you. Okay, let’s move quickly given that fact. Renée, we need to vote first for the election of the Rules Committee member. We have a one-year replacement. We have three candidates that were nominated last year. Kim Krueger, are you here? Kim, you’re here. Okay? But he’s still a viable candidate. Emmett Wynn. Emmett, you’re here. And Daowei? Where is he? He’s from Forestry and Wildlife. Those are the three candidates. You need to vote for one. And send your ballots to the edge of the row and David, please come up. As chair of the Handbook Committee and move us quickly through the Handbook Placements.
BALLOTS ARE BEING DISTRIBUTED FOR RULES COMMITTEE
David Bransby, : The history to what I have to present here this afternoon is important, so I am going to run through that very quickly. Some four or five years ago, there was a Committee put together and produce a report on … our output was going to be addressed by the University expanding the concept of Extension beyond the typical version of Extension serving on Agriculture. There was a report produced by that Committee commonly referred to now as the ‘Flynt Report’ because Dr. Flynt was heavily involved in writing that. Subsequently to that, a Commission was put together and in fact the Board of Trustees — this isn’t really in the Handbook — the Board of Trustees on March 20, 1997 accepted these new statements of the vision and mission of the University. In those statements, the term ‘Extension’ was eliminated and replaced with ‘Outreach’ in the vision statement as well as in the mission statement. And the intention here was to broaden the perception of ‘Extension’ to more than just Agriculture and many other activities other than just straight agricultural extension activities. So that’s already been done, it’s already in the Handbook. But the rest of the Handbook doesn’t conform to this. So I point that out, and in fact not only do those statements of the vision and mission change, but this last one also was changed to ‘Extension and Outreach’ implying … indicating that ‘Outreach’ was broader than just ‘Extension.’ Subsequent to that, an Ad Hoc Committee on Outreach Scholarship Assessment was actually appointed. Here are the members: Dr. Charlie Hendrix chaired this and Bert Bertaud (???) was on that Committee along with Robert Montjoy, Leah Stribling and Saundra Weeks. The charge to this Committee … there were a number of charges … elements of the charge, but mainly they were asked to come up with recommendations as to exactly how ‘Outreach’ is going to be evaluated for the purpose of tenure and promotion. Because, of course, that’s important to have in the Handbook, especially in view of the changes that have already been approved by the Board. So with that background, you may remember that Charlie Hendrix tried several times to get these changes approved by Senate and each time we had long Senate meetings and we didn’t have a quorum at the end of the meeting so we didn’t get to it. But essentially, what Senate approved on October 9, 2001 was the new definition of ‘Outreach’ and I believe that the only change that was made to what was written in the by that Committee at that Senate meeting was that we inserted that all the following conditions had to be met. The original recommendation just said that … ended that … is here: ‘A faculty endeavor may be regarded as outreach scholarship for the purposes of tenure and promotion if ’ and then went on to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. We inserted that all those conditions must be met because it wasn’t entirely clear. So I just reminded you about that we have already approved that and then the second motion was to refer this definition to the Faculty Handbook Review Committee which actually they’d review it and integrate these changes into the Handbook. And that’s basically what I am reporting on today.
Just for your information, the people on this Committee: I am chair of it, Dr. Pritchett is continuing on that Committee as Provost, Paula Sullenger from the Library, Michael Robinson from Architecture, Kim Walls from Curriculum and Teaching, Allison Whyte from Curriculum and Teaching, and Carol Whatley from Extension. Basically, all I asked to do is show you what our major changes have been. Most of the changes that had to be made to the Handbook just involved changing ‘Extension’ to ‘Outreach.’ And so I haven’t even … otherwise, I’ve given you copies. There are copies available for all of us at the back of the room if you want get a hold of them. And their are footnotes explaining why the changes were made, but mostly they are simply to bring all the language in the Handbook to conform with the new definition of ‘Outreach’ as it has been changed from ‘Extension.’ I am not going to … unless you insist, I’m not going to go through all of those minor changes. What I do want to point out is that where we made major changes, now this is just a general description of the new definition of ‘Outreach’ but even here it is not exactly … it kind of prepares the way for the detailed definition which is accepted by Senate which … as explained by the footnote on page 4 of this chapter of the Handbook shows up on page 8. On page 8 of the Handbook (end of this side of tape)
Senate approved on October 9 last year. So really, we this … we felt that was the obvious place to bring that in. On page 9 there’s some elaboration on that particular definition and footnotes to explain everything. I am not going to go through and read it to. It’s there and it is essentially explaining what we’ve already done. One thing that hasn’t been explained and that is we had kind of a fourth category of activity called ‘Services’ and the Handbook does make it clear that ‘Services’ do not fall under either ‘Extension’ or ‘Outreach’ or anything else; they’re separate. So some alteration was made here and I’ve found some grammatical errors here that will require a little bit more adjusting of words, but essentially ‘Services’ are activities such as serving as editor of journals, serving as reviewers, serving on committees and so on and those fall under ‘Outreach’ and it was important actually to clarify that here. Otherwise, again, we are just changing ‘Extension’ to ‘Outreach.’
When it came to the details of preparing a candidate’s dossier for tenure and promotion, we struck the entire description of what you did under the old description of ‘Extension.’ So all of that came out on page 14 and appropriate adjustments were made to deal with the ‘Outreach’ version of this section. There … in fact it’s a little bit more extensively explained than the Teaching and Research functions simply because it’s relatively new and it’s important that both members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee have access to this as well as the candidate preparing the dossiers. For that matter, department heads also are often unaware of what necessary here. So it’s a very important section for them to refer to as well while they guide people through the tenure and promotion process.
The last important insertion here was an appendix that includes two examples of dossiers that apply to people who have probably Outreach appointments. And I think these will be very useful in helping again both the Tenure and Promotion Committee as well as people in the Outreach area that are going up for tenure and promotion. So, having just given you that summary, what I’d like to do is move that these revision to the Handbook be made in relation to the motions that were approved on October 9 by the Faculty Senate.
Barbara Struempler: So there’s a motion. It does not require a second to accept what David has presented as changes to the Handbook that were previously approved last year. Is there any discussion.
Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: On page 10 under ‘Service’ the last line. I think that ‘and’ before ( unable to hear) . . . is superfluous and should be left out.
David Bransby: Yes. Yes.
Barbara Struemplee: Are there other comments? Marcia.
Marcia Boosinger: If we pass this today, will this have to go before the Board of Trustees? Will it be used this cycle?
David Bransby: I believe that it has to be approved by the Board. Once it’s been approved by the Senate, it needs to be approved by the Board. Any changes in the Handbook.
David Wilson (Associate Provost for University Outreach): (Unable to hear all)…We are not necessarily intending for it to be used this cycle. We actually want to train Deans, Department Heads and faculty on how to use the document and how to review materials. We certainly hope that if the Senate passes this today, that we can get it to the Board for passage and begin implementing.
Barbara Struempler: So we’re saying a year from now. . .that would give time to make it through the Board of Trustees, enough time for Deans. . . We need clarification. . . President Walker?
Fran Kochan (Dean, College of Education): I sure would have to wait a year for this. I hope we can move quickly on putting this in place for faculty to proceed. We have cases of faculty now who really could benefit by having this in place for this next cycle.
Barb Struempler: You said that we need it now? Renée?
Renée Middleton: Just for clarification, we keep saying when this passes the Senate. We’ve already passed the substance of this. All we’re approving now is just the placement of this in the Handbook and those kind of grammatical things. But, we’ve already passed this. So all we’re doing now is passing where it’s found in the Handbook. Correct? Essentially.
Barbara Struempler: That’s correct. That is correct.
David Bransby: It is my understanding that you know, even if it wasn’t formally incorporated into the Handbook on the web by the time of the next round of promotions and tenure, that the Promotion and Tenure Committee are going to get a copy of this and they are going to refer to it … I know that I even … I was on the Promotion and Tenure Appeals Committee this year and I used this material in working on that Committee. So I really do think that even if we don’t manage to get it officially incorporated, that it will be used in the next go around.
Barbara Struempler: Let Virginia speak next, Marcia. Virginia.
Virginia O’leary (Psychology): I was just going to ask to call for the question.
Marcia Boosinger: I just want some clarification. Are you saying that the Promotion and Tenure Committee used this without it being approved in assessing dossiers?
David Bransby: I don’t know whether they used it Marcia or not. It’s up to individuals … the Promotion and Tenure Committee has a lot flexibility. They can … each individual can do whatever they want to get information to help them. What I’m saying is that the members on that Committee who really know very little about Outreach, they are entitled to go and find out information about Outreach from any source they wish, whether it’s official or not. They are bound by what’s in the Handbook when they are evaluating people, but they are entitled to keep in touch with where the University is heading and while they won’t use these rules strictly, they serve as guides especially for people who know little about Outreach.
John Prichett (Acting Provost): Marcia, we did not officially use this in the last year. The Committee is well aware of the spirit of this and we were guided by that.
John Mouton (Chair-Elect): (Unable to understand his comments)
Marsha Boosinger: (unable to hear speaker’s questions/comments)
John Pritchett: (unable to hear speaker’s questions/comments
Dr. Walker: I will get it on the agenda for the August Board Meeting.
Barbara Struempler: Dr. Walker says if we pass it, he can get it on the August Board meeting. Virginia, did you call for the question? All those in favor in accepting the changes that have been implemented into the Handbook, say ‘aye.’ All opposed say ‘no.’ So the motion carries. Thank you for a thankless job.
Larry Gerber (Non-member): Just a quick comment that really doesn’t require a response. As a member of the Senate Steering Committee, will it this in the Handbook? As you know, there are lots of changes that are yet to be made in the handbook. The information is outdated, so I would encourage the Handbook Review Committee to actually go through the Handbook and update it. It has not been done in a number of years.
David Bransby: Larry, I’ve got a few months left as chair of the Committee. We’ll do the best we can.
Barbara Struempler: And I passed if off to David and I gave him a list so I felt that pressure too. And I think Dr. Pritchett and I are going to discuss how we can try keep that moving a little bit better. Dr. Slaton, faculty salaries, please.
Christa Slaton, Political Science: Okay, I’d like to have a bit of a presentation from the report that was made last month. The University Senate does have a current policy on faculty salaries. And this policy has been passed and that’s what ??? is handing out right now. This policy was passed in June of 1998 as a five-year plan for how faculty salaries would be distributed over that five-year period. When the Committee met for the first time this year, we looked at the policy. We collected a lot of data from Larry Gerber who had been a previous chair of the Committee and we also collected a lot of data from Sam Lowther. The Committee unanimously agreed with the policy as it stand now. We’re considering, after the end of this five-year period, we’re considering adjustments to the percentages that might be given and what we’re doing is trying to look at this data in terms of when this policy has been implemented or when it’s not been implemented and try to see where we stand on equity, where we stand on some of these other issues. After evaluation, then we hope it will become a proposal that will replace this proposal in the future if we feel it necessary. But there is currently a Senate proposal, a past resolution on this, and I’ll point out sections 3 and section 14 on this. The Senate Faculty Salaries Committee made the recommendation that was approved that if there’s money for salary increases, that one-half of 1% be used for equity and that be put in a central pool and that be given out by looking at individual salaries and comparing their salaries to the regional average and try to identify adjustments by looking at individuals not by looking at departments and not looking at colleges. Then whatever money might be available would be divided equally in two different categories: one category would be across-the-board and the other category would be for merit. The Committee did not feel we had enough information about how the policy had been implemented over the years or not been implemented. And also, there have been some periods where we have not had salary increases at all to make any recommendations about changing the percentages. What I did is when I went to the Budget Committee is to say that we want to keep those three categories. We don’t want … we want that across-the-board in there, we want equity in there, and we want … but I didn’t make any recommendations about percentages. So, what the Committee is asking the Senate to reaffirm is the existing policy that we have. And what we’re going to be doing, and I’m hoping that Dr. Pritchett will share with us Merritt Baker’s (???) most recent report because that’s some of the data that we’re looking at to determine how are we proceeding with the equity issues on campus. We’ve taken … done a lot of research about salaries compared to regional average. I did point out at the last meeting that we are getting further behind so hopefully this year we won’t get further behind; we’ll make some progress towards reaching regional average.
That’s basically all I have to say. One thing I also would request is that when the Budget Committee is going to consider some of these issues, is if we could somehow be on your e-mail list. And Dr. Pritchett when there are consultants that are brought in, by ??? reports if we could get copies of those reports. Then that way we can be pro-active. We don’t always react to things. So that’s one of the things that we are trying to do right now. Making sure that the Faculty Salaries Committee is in the loop of getting accurate information and evaluating that information.
Barbara Struempler: Again, President Walker said that he would support a cross-the-board marriage rather than all merit for faculty. Is there any discussion on that. Larry? Thank you.
Larry Gerber: Just the one. Christa you just said that you had not seen what Mary Baker sent.
Christa Slaton: I just found out about it.
John Pritchett: It just came out this week. We are still crunching the numbers to make sure it’s correct.
Larry Gerber: We have Dr. Walker to thank for this, because when I served as Chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee the last year, I worked very closely with Mary Baker and revised the original formula she was using which…So, I’m somewhat troubled that there wasn’t input form the Faculty Salaries Committee as to how she developed the formula in the first place so that…
John Pritchett: Actually Larry, the Committee hasn’t operated any differently but Christa’s Committee was activated considerably late in the process. We started working with Mary Baker in December.
Larry Gerber: Well, I would urge, henceforth, since we have a Standing Salaries Committee, that whenever, there’s a consultant on salaries, that we involve the Salaries Committee at the outset. I do believe that Mary Baker’s last formulas were questioned. . .
Christa Slaton: One thing that I want to point out is that the Faculty Salaries Committee did meet Thursday for us to go over the study. And we did ask for her to share with us her criteria that she was using and she said yes, she would. So I’m assuming that they’re still going to be available to us. One thing that we heard from faculty is that they had a lot of problems with her original formula when she was preparing the study. And after working with her Committee, members of faculty felt a lot of the issues had been addressed.
Glenn Howze: This is just a comment. I also worked with Mary Baker. . . In fact, I sat down with her and mathematically explained to her why she was getting results that didn’t sound quite right. It is important to get people to look at that and don’t just assume that her output is correct. There is a new publication out called “PAYCHECK”. It provides a step by step guideline on how to deal with issues concerning equity in salaries. I’ll make sure your Committee has access to that.
Christa Slaton: I think it was very good to encourage interest in the faculty because Renée Middleton’s been on the Committee and Cindy Brunner, and others also have been on the Committee. I relied a lot on Renée and Cindy but their tenure’s up. So I’m hoping we’ll have a meeting this summer and be able to review Mary Bakers work.. That is one thing the Committee’s been very concerned about because we heard that from faculty a lot. But that we also heard that Mary Baker was very open to working with the faculty. So I’m assuming that process is going to continue and hopefully the new committee will come on and they’ll have all their data ready. When I took over chair, I had to start from scratch basically. Due to Larry Gerber’s record keeping that I stood up.
Barbara Struempler: Thank you. We had a tie on the … for the Rules Committee. You now need to vote once again for one of the two individuals that I have shown. Vote for one. I’m ready now for New Business. No, I am ready.
[BALLOTS BEING PASSED OUT]
Glenn Howze (Representing Connor Bailey, Steering Committee): I have a resolution that I would like to present.
Barbara Struempler: Do you have copies of it?
Glenn Howze: Yes, I do.
Barbara Struempler: We can distribute them?
Barbara Struempler: Just come on down and we’ll start you talking and the Secretary can distribute those.
Glenn Howze: This particular resolution was put forward to the Steering Committee last week with the hope that it would be an agenda item at this meeting. There’s some reason that’s not clear to anyone, certainly not to Professor Bailey. This was not included as an agenda item for this meeting. So what I’d like to do today is I’m going to move this resolution. Assuming it gets a second, then it will be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Let me read the resolution. This resolution is called “Resolution to Censure the Auburn University Board of Trustees.”
Whereas, on May 29, 2002, the Auburn University Senate passed a resolution strongly opposing the removal of the word ‘Interim’ from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title;
And Whereas, on June 3, 2002, the Auburn University Board of Trustees removed the designation of ‘Interim’ from the current Chief Administrative Officer’s title, effectively naming a President without a national search;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Auburn University Senate censures the Auburn University Board of Trustees for violating the standards of shared university governance and the University’s own Affirmative Action used to inform the officer of this policy.
(Seconded)
Glenn Howze: I don’t really see the Senate getting into debate about this resolution today since we cannot vote on it. What I would like to do is urge you to go back to departments, discuss this resolution with your colleagues, and come back to the next meeting ready to discuss it. I would like to make the point that I felt this resolution should have been on today’s agenda because of its currency. Our Auburn University Senate passed a very strong resolution last time, urging the Board not to remove the ‘Interim’ and the Board did so. And I feel that it requires a response from the Senate. I also would like to make the point if I might and one of the reasons I think it is very important is that at the Board meeting which some of you attended, and I hope I don’t mischaracterize what happened there, but the President Pro-Tem of the Board, Mr. Jimmy Sanford, and a Board member, Mr. Jack Miller, both took the opportunity to characterize the view of the faculty and let me say that the characterization by Mr. Sanford and Mr. Miller, at least from my point of view, did not represent the view of the faculty. I think the view of the faculty was stated at the last Senate with a vote of 40 to 21 against removing ‘Interim.’ For them to characterize …as far as all the faculty having been consulted by the Board was wrong, And secondly to say that some faculty members oppose the ‘Interim’ removal and others agreed with it and even characterizing the leadership as being divided on this issue and being in support of the removal. So I think it’s very important that we speak out on this with this resolution. Unfortunately, at the Board meeting when given the opportunity to state the faculty’s position on this issue, our leadership remained silent on that matter. Thank you.
Barbara Struempler: Anyone who wanted to can submit a resolution to the Steering Committee. Last Wednesday, I think, was … this resolution that you just saw was submitted through the Steering Committee of the Senate. This is the Committee that helps set the agenda for your meeting today. They were voted … we were asked if we wanted the members to be sent an e-mail by the Secretary; we were asked if we would like to see this on the agenda for the June meeting. It was voted down by the members of the Steering Committee. So that’s how it was not on the Committee … not on the agenda, Glenn. And you know that procedure too. That’s how it didn’t make it. Any resolution can be brought forth as New Business; usually it cannot be voted on until the next meeting unless there’s an agenda item that it can be tied to. So, that is the resolution; that’s why it was not. We can have discussion. Or we can … I guess you have it presented it so it’s just Unfinished Business for the next meeting in July. Is there discussion? Did we have a second on this? No. We did. Good. We’ve got a motion and second to accept this as a resolution to be voted on in July. Gary.
Gary Mullen, Entomology & Plant Pathology: If you could, Barb can you clarify. I like what I’ve observed at faculty that was not placed on the agenda when he says was requested to make provisions for this meeting in response to the Board’s action on June 3. Within minutes of the Board meeting I personally approached the Senate Secretary and asked her had the agenda gone out and could we not place this on the agenda as a response to the Board’s action, recognizing that it would likely be one more resolution that would be put forth. That same afternoon the Senate Secretary received an e-mail communication from Connor Bailey as a member of the Steering Committee, a member of the Senate, likewise requesting in writing that it be placed on the agenda which was eight days before this meeting was to be held and before the agenda had gone out. At that time Dr. Bailey also indicated to the Senate Secretary that a resolution would be forthcoming, that it was being drafted, and that it was sent first thing Wednesday morning and before the Senate agenda went out.
Barbara Struempler: We know we were asked specifically about receiving a resolution as Dr. Bailey had asked. And then it was presented to the Steering Committee to see if they wanted to place it on the agenda. I mean that is Robert’s Rule of Order, as I understand the policy.
Gary Mullen: If I may finish my question.
Barbara Struempler: Yes. Please.
Gary Mullen: Why did the Steering Committee choose not to place this on the agenda recognizing the timely importance given the magnitude of what was taking place on June 3.
Renée Middleton (Secretary of the Senate): The rationale from those serving on the Steering Committee was that this action was similar to the action taken when we voted ‘No Confidence’ in the Board of Trustees. It’s not that we don’t think the resolution should come forward. It is. It will come forward in July. The majority of us felt that it should be something voted on by the Senate when all of our faculty are back and it should again be voted on at the General Faculty Meeting. In other words, a regular Senate meeting — not that this is not a regular Senate meeting — but we argued heavily for the Board taking it’s action in the summer. And the only reason why we put forward the resolution in the summer is because we were forced to because we knew the Board was going to take that action in June. It wasn’t our preference. As faculty, we led the charge in the argument that this is not the kind of decision that we should be making while the majority of our faculty are away. And so the majority of the people on the Steering Committee held to that position at that point and that philosophy that if the Senate was going to do this, we prefer to do this in the Fall when all of our faculty are in place where we can discuss it with them, and again at the General Faculty meeting.
Well, it will be on the July meeting. The agreement was that we would have it for discussion at the July meeting. This is something that we need to take time to go back to our faculty and ask them what they think. But the Steering Committee obviously, and the chair has just agreed, that it will be on the July agenda.
Ruth Crocker (History): Barb it seems to me that if we can vote on the changes we made today for the faculty handbook in the Summer, how is this any different?
Barbara Struempler: We spent quite a bit of time discussing this issue last week. Originally, the … when it came in, what we had wanted to do was put it out immediately to the general faculty in September. But we were told by her that that was not allowed. So then we had to backtrack and change gears in what we were doing. So, that’s really how it played down and that’s you know … anyone can submit a resolution. It’s voted on by the Steering Committee. That was the vote. It’s here. It’s on the agenda for July. Paula.
Paula Sullenger (Secretary-Elect): I am one of the Steering Committee members that voted against it. For me, it’s just an issue of timing. The people who strongly wanted it out this time felt that the strongest statement was if the faculty said something immediately. I felt that we would get the strongest statement by waiting for the Fall meeting when we had more time for deliberation and more people would be there. That was a judgement call.
Renée Middleton: To my good colleague Ruth Crocker. If what we passed with the Outreach proposal today had just been coming before the faculty at this meeting, I would oppose that. But the faculty deliberated what you passed today over and over again. We had plenty of input and plenty of discussion on that. All we voted on today was where it’s placed in the Handbook. So this was not a new discussion. It’s not a new … it’s not a new … it’s a totally different situation.
Barbara Struempler: The Handbook discussion I think took four, six, seven years. I don’t know Dr. Wilson. How long did that take? So there was quite a lengthy discussion on that. Yes. Anyone else before those that have previously spoken? Yes. Virginia. Yes.
Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: Any number of times in the last year and a half, I’ve commented that perception is everything. And so it is the position that I take, both personally and professionally, as a social psychologist. It upsets me to see the Senate engaged in this kind of debate when I think there are perhaps other alternatives to the handling of the issue. I really would much prefer to see the Steering Committee report this out prefaced with your strong rationale and the suggestion for the consideration of this filing, that consideration on the resolution needs to be deferred for the reasons that have just now been articulated which would have allowed us to, I think, have a more productive discussion than we’re currently having.
Glenn Howze: In response to Professor Middleton and that is that we didn’t choose the time. The Board of Trustees chose to remove the ‘Ìnterim’ during the summer when there were no faculty around. Our … my position and I think Professor Bailey’s position is that their actions need to be stopped. We didn’t choose the timing for this. It would be nice fore the Board to be considerate of that…
Bob Locy (Biological Sciences): Being unfamiliar with the wily ways of the senate, I’m sure I’ll be asked a lot of questions when I take this back to our faculty. What exactly is the consequence of the Senate passing this resolution of censure against the Board of Trustees other than that we gon on record opposing the activity that took place. Is there any other real consequence?
Barbara Struempler: Anyone other than Glenn? Well, …
Glenn Howze: (unable to hear clearly…) I don’t think there are any consequences, but I think it is an important action for us to take . . .
Barbara Struempler: And Herb, you have a comment?
Herb Rotfeld (Steering Committee): On the agenda for the next meeting this will be placed as unfinished business? That would allow the membership to discuss and vote on the resolution at the next meeting. Since my name was invoked as a member of the Steering Committee, I did point out that you couldn’t have it at the Senate meeting and then vote on it at a General Faculty meeting. They are different entities and bodies.
Barbara Struempler: Yes, we wanted to present it in June, the original rationale for the general faculty, to have it postponed for them. Other comments? So this will be the first order of business at the July meeting. Let me announce the new Rules Committee member. Daowei Zhang. He’s from Forestry and Wildlife. Congratulations (applause)! Is there any other New Business. Hearing none, we stand adjourned.