Auburn University Fall Meeting

of the University Faculty

September 10, 2002

Broun Auditorium

3:00 p.m.

A welcome to everyone was extended and the meeting was called to order by the Chair, Barbara Struempler.

The minutes of the September 3, 2002 Meeting of the University Faculty have been posted on the Senate web site. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, they stand as approved.

Our first item of business is the State of the University Address from President William F. Walker.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS:

Good afternoon:

Thank you for the invitation to speak with you about the state of our university, a state which I consider -- with a few exceptions -- to be on the rise at this point in the institution's 146-year history.

When I spoke to you on this occasion about a year ago, our thoughts were very much consumed with the terrible events of September 11th. The shock, the pain and the turmoil of that day created a terrible uncertainty about the future of our world, our country and even our university.

Two Auburn alumni were killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center, and Auburn alumnus Johnny Micheal Spann later became the first U.S. combat death in the war on terrorism. Tomorrow we mark the first anniversary of that horrible September day that changed our lives forever. As much heartache and destruction as September 11th wrought, its immediate and lasting effect was to bring the nation together such as no event has done since the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Tomorrow, Auburn University and the city of Auburn are coming together for a day of events that will honor the memory of those who lost their lives a year ago. I urge you to participate in these events, especially the evening memorial ceremony beginning at 7 p.m. on the Samford Lawn. The full schedule of events can be found on the Auburn website.

As our nation has rallied together over the past year, I have also begun to see some healing and a coming together of the Auburn Family. This progress -- although slow and sometimes painful -- has been the result of hard work and compromise by well-intentioned people on different sides of the issues affecting Auburn.

It is my fondest hope that this trend will continue in the future. Auburn University is an outstanding institution, but its future can be brightened 100-fold if all of us – the faculty, students, staff, administration, alumni and Board of Trustees – can agree to put the institution ahead of any personal agendas.

The best news of the fall, of course, is that effective at the start of October, faculty at Auburn will receive salary increases averaging more than 10 percent. Not only are these increases well deserved, they are unprecedented given the economic times in which higher education exists these days. Peer institutions in the Southeast have been unable to match our salary increases. And some are facing budget cuts. I understand, for example, that the University of Virginia is preparing for a 7% budget reduction and that Virginia Tech has already laid off more than 200 people.

The fact that we were able to propose and the Board of Trustees approved these raises is testament to the way Auburn University has been managed financially -- and that is a direct reflection on Vice President Don Large and his staff. Also the trustees deserve credit for recognizing the need to make faculty salaries a priority and for approving the increase in these turbulent economic times. While the salary increase probably still will not

get us to the regional average, it is a major step toward the goal. Hopefully, next year we will make further progress.

Interestingly, the state teachers' union has recently been critical of the raises that Auburn faculty members have earned. The suggestion is that Auburn has excessive resources, presumably I suppose from excessive state funding. The fact is that we were able to grant those raises, not because Auburn has the political clout in Montgomery that the AEA has or that it receives more funding per student than other institutions in Alabama, but because of the hard work, sacrifice and dedication of our faculty, staff, trustees and administration.

On another matter, I was very pleased that at the August 9th meeting of the Board of Trustees, the trustees voted unanimously to seat a faculty representative from Auburn and AUM as non-voting advisors. This action, coupled with other efforts that have been made over the past year, is important for our faculty and the decision-making processes at Auburn University.

I commend Professors Barbara Struempler from Auburn and Rosine Hall from AUM for accepting the role of advising the Board for the next year, and I want to thank our Board of Trustees for taking this action. Barbara and Rosine will be able to provide a much needed faculty perspective on issues that come before the board.

And I agree with the trustees that this action sends a strong and powerful message that the faculty’s hard work and dedication is recognized and appreciated. I truly believe that the board wants to hear the faculty's voice; that sentiment has been expressed to me repeatedly in private conversations with board members.

With respect to the issue of the Southern Association, I know that some disagreed strongly when I authorized a lawsuit to be filed in August of last year. Many felt we were treading on dangerous ground in challenging our accrediting agency. It is indeed dangerous ground; but it was a decision I felt had to be made in order to receive a fair and impartial review by an accrediting agency that serves as the gatekeeper of federal funds. As I have stated many times, I have never been opposed to a visit by a SACS review team.

However, I have always been opposed to a visit by a SACS team that had a clear and biased agenda. I believe the federal court in Atlanta justified my concerns in its ruling last January that Auburn is entitled to due process and is entitled to a review conducted on a level playing field.

Now, we are hopefully at the end of that legal process and have reached a mutually agreeable accord with SACS. An independent investigator -- appointed by and answerable to the court -- will come to the Auburn campus and conduct a review.

I am pleased with the outcome of this case, and I sincerely hope the faculty will be satisfied with the results as well. A review of our standards and practices will be conducted, but by someone who has not already prejudged this university. Personally, based on what I have seen over the past year and a half, I am optimistic that the outcome of this review will be a positive one for Auburn. However, as I have said on previous occasions, if we are found to be in violation of accreditation criteria, we will make the necessary changes to correct whatever deficiencies have been found.

Now, as we enter a new academic year at Auburn, let me review with you some of what I see as our strengths and also note some areas where I believe we need improvement.

Diversity is an issue that we will continue to work on, but I believe we have made considerable progress over the past 10 months.

Each of this summer's sessions of Camp War Eagle featured a presentation where students were introduced to the concept of diversity. They were encouraged to understand that cultural, religious, racial and other differences should be welcomed and embraced as we journey to become educated people. Leaders of these sessions emphasized Auburn's commitment to diversity.

I am also pleased to report that last Thursday evening the SGA held a convocation for freshmen that was devoted to diversity. It was a most successful event that was attended by about 1200 students. I particularly appreciate the leadership of SGA president Heath Henderson in planning and carrying out this event.

In addition, work is progressing on the construction of a new Center for Diversity in the Foy Student Union. Keenan Grenell was hired in August as our new interim assistant provost for diversity and multicultural affairs. Keenan brings an energy and commitment to the office we've not had at Auburn previously. He is focusing on student-related diversity initiatives and is working closely with the Office of Student Affairs in the development of such programs.

The Multicultural Diversity Commission, a select group of some 30 students, faculty, staff and administrators, is developing a strategic plan to establish diversity as one of Auburn's core values. This group is examining every aspect of university and community life and will present its initial findings to me next month. The group has also been instrumental in planning a town hall meeting on diversity set for later this fall.

The Samuel Ginn College of Engineering continues to be one of the nation's leaders in the graduation of African-American engineers.

Auburn's success in this regard has resulted in a new scholarship endowment -- the Seeds of Love/Willie T. Grant Scholarship. Grant, a retired engineer living in Birmingham, endowed the scholarship after reviewing programs at many universities. He was particularly impressed with Auburn's BellSouth Minority Engineering Program, which uses student mentors in preparing underclassmen for the demanding engineering curriculum.

I applaud our BellSouth program director, Dr. Dennis Weatherby as well as Dean Larry Benefield for helping make this program one of Auburn's most notable success stories in encouraging young African-American students in engineering.

And speaking of students, as you are certainly aware, we have an abundance of them. And it seems as if each one has a new car. Everyday traffic congestion around campus reminds me of game day traffic.

Students obviously want to come to Auburn. Normally, we aim for a freshman class of no more than 3,800, and our Office of Enrollment Management has several models by which it tries to hit those projections. Those models are based on assumptions; usually several. In a nutshell, the assumptions did not hold and the models failed.

The result is that a larger-than-expected proportion of the students that we admitted decided to enroll at Auburn. That swelled our freshman enrollment to a record 4,153 and total enrollment to more than 23,000.

On one hand, this is good news because it demonstrates that Auburn is an attractive university that continues to draw students while other schools in the state and region are begging for students. And remember -- this occurred in the face of a 12 percent tuition increase.

Of course, the downside is that we had to take emergency measures to make sure we could provide classes for all these new students, since we had projected a class of no more than 3,800. I want to thank interim Provost John Pritchett for working closely with the deans to increase the numbers of class sections we are offering, especially in the Core Curriculum, to accommodate these additional students. And I also want to thank the faculty both at Auburn and AUM who agreed to accept increased teaching loads in order to help meet the demand.

But we have now stretched this university almost beyond its capacity and that simply is not acceptable. We will therefore make every effort to insure that enrollments in the next few years are sufficiently contained that we can be sure we can accommodate the students we have.

And despite the problems that we faced last fall with diversity issues, I am pleased that our African-American enrollment rose this fall by 1.6 percent. This, of course, is below what we have been experiencing in the past. I am confident however that with Wes Williams' leadership in Student Affairs combined with our campus-wide diversity efforts, this number will rebound significantly in the future.

I was also happy to see that the number of Hispanic students who have enrolled at Auburn has increased by nearly 13 percent. The growth in the Hispanic population in Alabama -- like the rest of the nation -- is rising rapidly, and we need to bear that in mind in both our student enrollment as well as our faculty hiring.

I am pleased to announce that 123 new fulltime faculty members have joined us this semester. Of the total number, 56 are women and 39 (32%) are minorities. We are making progress in adding minority faculty, but it is obviously an area at which we must constantly continue to work.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Auburn is the best university in the state. It is an outstanding Land-Grant institution with a storied history and a bright future. Auburn is unique and is a leader in research, instruction and outreach in the region.

In sum, there is much that is good to report, even though public higher education in this country -- Auburn included -- has been shaken and transformed over the past decade by intense political and financial pressures. Auburn, like many of its peer institutions, has had to make some very difficult decisions to retain control of its destiny. But we have, indeed, retained that control.

I am concerned, however, that in doing so we have lost our sense of what Bill Weary has called "the commons," meaning those shared values and experiences that have made Auburn unique. Restoring our sense of the commons, and our institutional capacity, must continue to be our first order of business.

There is a solid foundation on which to build our institutional strength. The steps and initiatives we will be undertaking represent the agenda of this university, and I am going to outline them for you.

As you listen to this agenda for the university, I ask you to keep in mind my hope that you will be among those who provide active and unambiguous support for the initiatives that are involved.

First, I will be initiating national searches to fill positions, at the level of provost and deans, which are currently served by interim leaders. These searches should help to resolve many problems associated with multiple interim appointments at the senior level.

Second, we will be addressing Auburn's image of itself and the manner in which we project that image to the outside world. These matters are the responsibility of the Office of University Relations.

I am pleased to announce that Mr. John Hachtel has joined our senior staff to serve as director of that office. He comes to us from the State University of New York at Binghamton, where he served in a similar position.

He is charged with coordinating university publications, communications and marketing, and with developing university-wide strategies in these areas. This charge reflects very real concerns I have about the image, or lack thereof, that we as a university are communicating to the world.

Third, we have in hand a very good set of recommendations -- prepared by Dr. Bill Weary -- for strengthening the university. The Board of Trustees has approved these recommendations in principle and work is now underway to consider their implementation.

Fourth, a successful capital campaign should be at or near the top of the priority list for the university, and supporting that campaign needs to be a very high priority for all of us. I spoke earlier of the tremendous funding challenges that face all of higher education, and the capital campaign is one of the ways in which we can address them.

Along those lines, I want to remind you of what I have stated before regarding higher education funding. There seems to be a notion subscribed to by some people that the funding problems faced by higher education first, are unique to Alabama and second, will be resolved as soon as we revise the constitution or close some other institutions or take whatever action is necessary to increase significantly the flow of state dollars to Auburn. Now I certainly agree that we need constitutional revision and I will continue to work to secure more state funding for this university. However, the rate of increase of state funding for higher education is declining all across the country; and that is not a trend that I see being reversed in our lifetimes. Major research universities more and more are going to be forced to develop revenue streams other than the state. Tuition, grants and contracts, patents and royalties and the private sector are all going to be looked to for additional revenues. For Auburn University, the most immediate source of new monies therefore appears to be the private sector; i.e. charitable giving. I therefore feel that a capital campaign is both appropriate as well as feasible at this time.

Accordingly, I am pleased to announce that Dr. Robert McGinnis has agreed to serve as our Vice President for Development. Bob comes to us from a similar position at Georgia State University, and brings with him a highly successful record in fundraising.

Fifth, we badly need scholarship funding. The Board of Trustees, of course, approved the 12 percent tuition increase for the coming year, and we are looking for a similar increase next year. These increases are the key to competitive salaries for our faculty. But as our tuition goes up, so does the need for financial aid to ensure access for our best applicants.

We must turn our attention toward obtaining more scholarship money. That is an area where Auburn is woefully behind its peer institutions, not only in the Southeastern region but right here in the state of Alabama. We have proved that we can attract great numbers of students to Auburn, but we must attract the best and the brightest students.

At this time, we are simply unable to offer the kind of scholarship packages that our competitors -- even at the University of Alabama -- use to attract top students to their campuses. This is an area that is a top priority as far as I am concerned. It will also be an important part of our capital campaign.

Sixth, as we all know, the state of Alabama puts precious little money into Auburn University, yet we are still able to have a substantial economic impact on the state. Auburn returns $8 to the state economy for every $1 the state appropriates to this university. There are more than 74,000 Auburn and AUM alumni living in Alabama who contribute to this economic engine.

One of my goals as president is to see Auburn University play a more prominent role in helping this state economically. I believe that a research university, such as Auburn, can serve as a hub from which spokes of economic development can grow.

I envision an "I-85 Corridor" that someday will link the city of Montgomery and possibly Atlanta with a series of high-tech industries that are attracted by the presence of research at Auburn. I have asked Vice Presidents Moriarty and Wilson to take a leadership role in developing this issue.

Auburn University truly has the record of accomplishment, and the financial and human resources, to emerge as a pre-eminent land grant university in the 21^st century. We are well positioned in a highly competitive environment, we understand the challenges we face in moving to the next level of recognition, and we have an agenda for meeting those challenges.

The role of the faculty in carrying out this agenda is critical. The strength of Auburn depends heavily on your passion for her mission. In these remarks I have outlined an agenda that I believe will serve our mission well. I ask you to join me in working toward the preeminent status that I believe is within Auburn’s reach.

Now thus far this afternoon, I have spent most of my time reporting to you about the state of the university – where we are and where I think we are headed. But I am also mindful that this is my report to the faculty. So, in concluding, I would like to take just a moment to talk about the role of the faculty and what the president can do to be supportive of that role.

In my view the heart of the academic enterprise is the competition of ideas. It is the faculty who give birth to these ideas and who therefore play the central role in energizing this competition.

As faculty, we argue passionately for the ideas that we originate and feel strongly are deserving of acceptance. The debate can be intense. The debate should be intense! But we need to understand that the debate can also seem trivial and endless to outsiders.

But this is a university, and as all of us know, heated disagreement is what has characterized the academy since the time of Plato. That passionate competition of ideas is all about the search for truth.

Unfortunately, the outside world does not understand this faculty role very well, if at all. Our passion for ideas is often seen as petulance, anger and even hatred for those who may disagree with us.

I believe that one of my responsibilities is to try to help people outside the university understand that what goes on here is a matter of passionate commitment to ideas and therefore represents a significant commitment to the institution. I believe that the effort to do this is one of the important ways in which the president can support the faculty. And I want you to know that I will do all I can to this end. Thank you, and I will be happy to take some questions.

Barbara Struempler: If you’ll go up to the microphone and state your name, your affiliation, this will help us capture your comments for the minutes.

Larry Gerber, History: Dr. Walker, you made reference to the initiation of searches to fill interim positions. Could you be a little more specific? Will that include all University Interim positions or just some?

Dr. Walker: That will include all except one; that’s my plan and that’s for the Dean of the Graduate School. And that’s because I’ve not even talked to John Pritchett and see if he’s going to be a candidate for the Provost job and so that one will depend on him … and so the rest of them will be open.

Herb Rotfeld, Marketing: I think I can be heard without the microphone. Under the heading of … several years ago the Senate approved a report on getting social security numbers out of student ID numbers. As Provost, Mr. President, I liked him for the idea and taking the first step where we got them off the ID card, but they’re still the ID numbers and I have every little clerk sending them to me. If I want to request a Visitor’s Pass, I have to stand in the middle of the Police Station and say it out loud myself. I just saw a report from a researcher sending something to the journal I edit noting Auburn University as a “freaking” one, one of the “freaking bodies” of State universities that still have ID cards and ID numbers setting the way to facilitate identity theft. Can you get rid of this?

Dr. Walker: Senator, that’s about how long it took the Senate to get the policy on the Outreach Program. The … Herb, I don’t know what the deal is with that. I agree with you completely. I don’t like seeing my social security on things that have come along. Don, do you, why do we do that? You’ve just discovered the great secret of this place. Let’s fix it.

Don Large: I don’t know all the specifics. I’m sure that there must be some ways you can get it out. I don’t know what report Herb is talking about.

Herb Rotfeld: There was a report to the Senate several years ago with the recommendation that we put forth in terms of doing all these things and it has sat.

Dr. Walker: I will look into that. This is one of those infinite seeming punching bags; I mean, I’ll see what we can do about it, everything that comes out, including the social security number, even personnel when you review a staff member’s performance, it’s got your social security number on that and I just don’t understand why.

Don Large: I’ll be happy to follow up.

Dr. Walker: Thank you Herb.

Steve McFarland, Provost Office/Graduate School: Dr. Walker, I can answer part of his question. I can’t answer as far as faculty or staff, Herb, but as far as students, we’ve taken two different major steps. One was taken about a year, year-and-a-half ago in which Auburn reports that you not give out your student’s social security numbers and have the social security stripped. If you look at your class rolls, for example, and your grade sheet, the social security numbers are no longer there. That was the first step that we took. The second step, which was a little bit tougher because as you know, OASIS — our student information system — something we buy from a public corporation is a set package which in fact goes to hundreds of universities across the nation. It’s all based on the idea that databases use the social security number as a key. And it would be very difficult and extremely expensive for us to change. The corporation — SET — that produces that software is now making that change. Literally within a matter of months, we’ll have them using a general user ID to identify students as a unique value and the social security number will disappear. The social security number will stay for business purposes and for government reporting purposes, but it will be a privileged and confidential number that will not be available to any except for a few offices for reporting to the INS, and of course the IRS, and so on and so on. So again, I can’t say anything about staff and faculty, but as far as students I think within a couple of weeks … maybe even the next several months, you’ll see a major change in the way we do business as far as social security numbers.

Dr. Walker: Thank you.

Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair—University Senate: Dr. Walker, you mentioned something about the Weary Report and that it was in an implementation phase. So my question, I’m a little bit confused because there is, as you know, a task force that you have established to look at Dr. Weary’s Report that has met once last June. And at that meeting it was decided to set up working groups, nine different working groups that would discuss the recommendations over a period of months. And those groups have not yet even been established. So my question is are we indeed in an implementation stage or …to your knowledge are we still …

Dr. Walker: We are considering implementation and I was reporting on that Committee. You’re right, that Committee has not met again. We are trying to figure out a way to get that thing energized and probably what we’re going to be doing is asking the faculty members to essentially take charge of that and provide a budget to make sure that that Committee as well as the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees becomes a more viable activity.

Jim Bradley: Thank you.

Barbara Struempler, Chair of the University Senate: It’s nice to see so many faculty here. There’s a lot of new faces in the crowd. So, you’re welcome to become involved in the Senate; your voices are welcome at any time. It’s an exciting time to represent the faculty at Auburn University. For several years, many faculty have been working on issues and finally several of the logjams have begun to move. Here is a snapshot of some of these positive events.

The most recent event is the soon-to-begin investigation of issues regarding the SACS review. The process was faculty-initiated and has been at a stalemate for more than one year. It is necessary for this complaint process to occur. For many years, there have been issues within the university community that need examination. The Consent Order will provide a process to move these issues toward conclusion. This is especially important for the Senate since it has in-place resolutions with actions dependent upon the completion of the investigation.

Another example of positive movement deals with the search for a provost. The Rules and Steering Committees, in concert with the Senate officers, have been working with President Walker to ensure comprehensive faculty participation in the provost search process. The Rules Committee has forwarded to President Walker the two names of elected faculty members from each school and college. We also have requested that President Walker give careful consideration to the committee composition in terms of diversity.

Another positive sign of progress is the invitation by the Board of Trustees for a faculty member from AU main campus, as well AUM, to sit at the table as an advisor. The university faculty has strived for years to have a seat at the Board table. Granted this advisory position is in its infancy stage, but the window of opportunity is now open for faculty to provide valuable input into the decision-making process in a more cooperative environment.

As a side note, since we started … we do have two resolutions on the floor today and one of the resolutions when we start the discussion, I as chair do not enter into those discussions. So I will just make one special comment about the resolution that we have that is extending our appreciation to the Board of Trustees for establishing a faculty advisor position to the Board. There has been a suggestion that we make an amendment to that the resolution to state that we feel the faculty advisor should be the Chair of the University Senate. Although I agree with this recommendation, I would not like to have it be an amendment at this time. The Senate leaders have prepared draft questions that we are going to poll other universities that have the same time of system that we have to find out how the system works, who sits on it, how the person was put on there. So until we’ve done our homework, we would just like to have the opportunity to not add that amendment at this time. And we’ll probably maybe see it at another time. But I guess what we are asking for is some time to do our homework on that issue.

There is another issue that each of you as faculty have the opportunity to participate in that deals with the Board of Trustees. As of last year, there is faculty representation on all of the Board of Trustees committees. There are two new board committees that require faculty representation. If you would like to nominate yourself or another faculty member for the following committees, please send an email to Renée Middleton, the Secretary of the University Senate. The committees are:

Student Affairs Committee, non-voting faculty representative. Deals with student needs to include enrollment management, counseling, financial aid, etc.

Advancement Committee, non-voting faculty representative. Deals with fund-raising issues.

So if you have an interest in those or know someone who would, make sure you let Renée Middleton know their names.

There is one other resolution being presented today on the floor on the agenda and it expresses our appreciation to the Administration and the Board of Trustees for supporting the salary increases. I have heard some opposition to that resolution. Mainly, people don’t think that you should tell someone that they did a good job, and I guess I just disagree with that. I, as an instructor, if I do a really good dynamic factual presentation, if the students think that it’s okay and I appreciation it, that’s a form of saying “thank you” and I don’t see anything wrong with that. If you write a grant proposal, I don’t see anything wrong with someway thanking you for that. I think that sometimes, given our history with the Board, if all they hear from us is negative, and we pick on that, then they’ll turn a deaf ear to perhaps everything that we say. So those are just my thoughts on that and we’ll take the vote shortly.

There are many signs of positive movement within our administration and our dealings with faculty. Communication is a two-way street that eventually forms a foundation for trust. The Senate leadership are working very, very hard with the administration to try to bridge that communication gap. Some of the ways that President Walker … he has done several things:

He has invited me as Chair of the University Senate to be included in his Administrative Council that meets on a weekly basis on Monday.

Another good example of a ways that we are working cooperatively with the administration is when President Walker recently encouraged the Senate leadership to call Peter Degnan, the university attorney, and talk with him concerning the Consent Order, which we did.

The Senate leadership meets every other week with President Walker. In addition, we continue to hold the long-standing weekly meetings with Interim Provost Pritchett. And at these private meetings we do talk about faculty concerns and issues.

So, we are representing you. We listen to your concerns. So, please give us what you would like for us to take to them. So there has been a tremendous amount of groundwork that is being worked on at the University. Many people worked on them before me but a lot of the logjams are just breaking at this time. Things do change at Auburn, but at an incredibly slow rate. Although it is just a start, we are making progress.

I would like to add this one final comment. I am enormously proud of the faculty at Auburn University. As faculty, we do make a difference in the trifold mission of our great land grant university. We are totally committed to educating the next generations. We create excellent students as we strive for creative methods to engage our students in the most up-to-date theories that expand their thinking in terms of subject matter as well as diversity. We strive too for excellence in research. I don’t think that there’s ever been a grant that’s been written here that hasn’t see a lot of midnight oil. Then, more midnight oil is used to conduct the research and prepare the manuscripts for that gain visibility for our institution. Furthermore, we excel in outreach activities. Alabama will be more economically stable as we take research-based information to Alabamians to help them learn how to solve their problems. And as faculty, we truly are the lucky ones. We see firsthand the rewards of our high quality educational efforts. We see firsthand when our undergraduates make their initial contributions to society, we see our graduate students go out and expand the minds of others, and as our citizenry improve the quality of their lives.

So, we are very dedicated in the three missions of the land grant, but we do get to reap the rewards too firsthand. Yes, we do give unselfishly of ourselves. Our successes come with the cooperation of every single stakeholder of the university, but I firmly believe that the faculty is the backbone of the university.

So, are there questions or are there any announcements? Cindy. Please go to the microphone.

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Barb, this is just a simple question. You mentioned in your address that two candidates from each college have been … the names have been forwarded to President Walker, but we all received email today telling us that there were still three or four colleges that had not submitted names yet. Would you comment?

Barbara Struempler: Yes, those were the announcements Cindy, from the last Senate meeting that was a week ago. I should have given them to Renée a little earlier but they just made it to you today. So, they have been finalized. They all came in on time, so when we met last Friday, everyone was represented. And there’s a nice slate of candidates. Yes?

Larry Gerber, History: This is just a brief comment about that and then I have a short announcement. With regard to a system of election, I do know that I had an opportunity to cast an email vote to my Department Chair for my college’s representative, but I think it would be appropriate to formalize the procedure because my guess is that it was not consistently done with every college seeking nominations, adding nominations, present these electronically for a vote, for those who wished to cast a vote even electronically. I think these are probably — my guess, from previous experience — a pretty haphazard, though well-intentioned, system. So, I would suggest when such situations arise in the future, there be a more regularized method. And I would think that every School and College should have an email system for communicating with the faculty just in that manner.

Barbara Struempler: Point well taken, Larry. We’ve talked about that at length in the Senate. The Senate officers have talked, at length about this.

Larry Gerber: And my announcement is that this coming Friday, at 3:30 at Telefair Peet Theater, the campus chapter of the AAUP and the Auburn Trustees Improvement Pact are jointly sponsoring a forum entitled “What Makes a Good Trustee.?” It will be a discussion of criteria for the selection of the upcoming new Trustee nominations. The panelists will include John Denson who is a former Trustee, Bill Porter who is the Immediate Past President of the Alumni Association, Earl Williams who is the President-elect of the AU Foundation Board of Directors, Taylor Littleton who is a former Vice-President for Academic Affairs, and Jim Bradley who is Past Chair of the Senate. So I hope everyone will come, 3:30 Friday at Telefair Peet Theater.

Barbara Struempler: Sounds like an excellent forum. Other comments? Announcements? Okay. Yes?

Glenn Howze: I may have missed it, was there consideration of the Agenda or approval given for order of events?

Barbara Struempler: For what, Glenn?

Glenn Howze: I was interested in the possibility of reversing the order of some of the items. I wasn’t sure (inaudible) …

Barbara Struempler: There was, but I didn’t know that we needed one. What would you like to suggest?

Glenn Howze: I suggest that the JAC report be presented prior to the resolutions.

Barbara Struempler: Well, that’s the suggestion. Is there a second? It will have to be passed by two-thirds of the faculty. We’ll try it by voice vote to reverse the order to have the JAC Committee Report come first. Before we vote, we can have discussion. But we’re discussing whether the JAC Complaint item should be put ahead of the resolutions. Is there any discussion before we take the vote that must pass by two-thirds? Cindy, please.

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: What’s the rationale?

Barbara Struempler: A rationale has been called for.

Glenn Howze: In response to Professor Brunner from Pathobiology, the rationale is that I think that some of the discussion about the JAC might be pertinent to hear before we vote. That’s why I thought that it would be a good idea. By the way, where do you get this two-thirds approval business from?

Barbara Struempler: From the Parliamentarian. Paula.

Paula Sullenger, Parliamentarian: According to Roberts Rules, an agenda can only be changed by a two-thirds vote.

Glenn Howze: That’s news to me.

Barbara Struempler: Okay. Any more discussion?

All those in favor of putting the JAC Update before the voting of the two resolutions, signify by saying “aye.” [LARGE RESPONSE] All those opposed say “no.” [LARGE RESPONSE]. Okay, let’s take a hand vote. All those, please raise your right hand if you’re in favor of reversing the order. [VOTES COUNTED] If you are a faculty … okay, if you are a faculty, you can vote. Okay, we’ve got that count. All those that are opposed to changing the order, raise your right hand. [VOTES COUNTED] If you are a faculty member, you can vote.

[Senate Secretary reports: Vote count: 69 = No, 46 = Yes]

Okay. It did not pass. So the order will stay the same. Okay, so let’s begin with the first resolution concerning a faculty advisor position on the AU Board of Trustees. Yvonne Kozlowski will be presenting this. I’m sorry that your name was omitted on the agenda.

Yvonne Kozlowski, Librarian: I wish to the present the following resolution for your consideration. I’d also like to invite those of you that are standing in the back to come down to the front perhaps because there will be debate on these two resolutions.

RESOLUTION

Faculty Advisor Position on the AU Board of Trustees

WHEREAS, the Auburn University faculty on main campus has sought representation on the Auburn University Board of Trustees for many years,

AND WHEREAS, the Auburn University Board of Trustees voted unanimously on August 9, 2002 to establish a Faculty Advisor seat on the Board,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Auburn University faculty commends the Board of Trustees for establishing a Faculty Advisor to the Board.

Barbara Struempler: So, there’s the motion to accept the resolution. It does not require a second. It came out of the Executive Committee, but it was not unanimous. There’s five individuals on the Executive Committee. Is there any discussion? Just line up and please go to the mike.

Larry Gerber: Barb, I would just respectfully like to offer an amendment to the resolution.

Barbara Struempler: I’m sure. We were waiting for it.

Larry Gerber: I will explain my reasons for the amendment after I read the wording.

Barbara Struempler: Do you have one to put up here? Yes?

Larry Gerber: No, actually I do not. I’m sorry.

Barbara Struempler: Can you give us your copy when you’re through?

Larry Gerber: Yes.

Barbara Struempler: Okay, good.

Larry Gerber: Now this would be… take the three clauses as they exist and add a fourth clause.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that is the view of the faculty at Auburn University that the elected chair of the General Faculty or another faculty member elected by a direct vote of the entire faculty should serve in an ex officio capacity as faculty representative in this position.

Barbara Struempler: Can you put it up and then we can begin with the question? Okay. What we will be discussing now will be the amendment and the rationale for it.

Barbara Struempler: Was there a second? Thank you. Okay.

Larry Gerber: There are only I think two valid possibilities for appropriate representation of the University Faculty on the Board of Trustees. My own preference is that the Chair of the University Senate, who is also the Chair of the faculty, should be the person sitting as representing the faculty on the Board. And I have heard you, Barb, express that sentiment yourself as have previous chairs of the Senate. I am aware through my work in National AAUP of other systems nearby a faculty member is elected by the faculty in an open vote to represent the faculty in that capacity. Actually I have a good friend who serves on the faculty member as a voting member of the Board of Trustees at Howard University who was elected by the entire faculty specifically for that purpose. I am aware of the possibility of nomination, that the President of the University could nominate him or herself a faculty member to serve in that capacity. I think in our situation that would be appropriate. I think that these are two, in my view, the only two acceptable methods of representation for the faculty. This does give some flexibility should it ultimately be decided that a person be designated to represent the faculty. But I don’t see how that person can represent the faculty unless the person separately is elected by the entire faculty.

Barbara Struempler: Other comments? You’re going to have to go to the mike, please.

Gene Clothiaux: I don’t need to go to the mich. I just want to know, why ex officio?

Larry Gerber: I would prefer to have a voting member on the Board. I do recognize that that would require a constitutional amendment. I would be happy to support an amendment for that purpose by … I am a … I think …

Gene Clothiaux: I think you can delete ex officio … you don’t change the resolution.

Larry Gerber: I’m sorry. I misunderstood the comment.

Gene Clothiaux: It’s just a question.

Larry Gerber: That would be a friendly amendment to the third aspect …

Barbara Struempler: So are you accepting that as a friendly amendment?

Larry Gerber: Yes.

Barbara Struempler: Additional discussion on the amendment. Cindy.

Cindy Brunner: Short question. How do you choose between (inaudible) …

Larry Gerber: I heard the chair of the Senate discuss the desire for some flexibility. So this amendment provides some flexibility but with the principle … the key principle in my view, that the legitimacy of whoever is going to be represented would be elected by the entire faculty

We will have to adopt or approve any procedure for representing faculty, I recognize that. It’s the Board who’s taken the first step. So, if we reach the negotiations between your discussion, if you prefer that then, between the President, the faculty leadership now in reference to the Board, this says it is the view of the faculty that this is the way it ought to be done.

Barbara Struempler: Additional comments on the amendment?

Dennis Wilson, Health and Human Performance: I generally support the amendment. I am just wondering if this does… decide if it’s a one-year appointment. It seems to me that this is our view. I am just wondering if another amendment would be an elected chair? Another faculty member who gives the alternative that someone who has been the Chair of the Senate can serve … It might need to be a two- or three-year appointment. In my experience, a one-year appointment of anybody is not the best thing.

Barbara Struempler: Jim.

Jim Bradley, Human Sciences: I’d like to speak in support of the amendment. I think that the elected chair of the University Senate … a one-year term would be just fine so long as that person as the Chair-Elect would be faculty representative for that year and attend all the meetings with the Provost and President, the Cabinet meetings, etc. So they have a year of experience learning what the issues are before they begin their service. Barb mentioned that the vote was not unanimous in support of this resolution. I was the minority vote against it. I did not support the original resolution, although I do support this amended resolution. I felt uncomfortable with the original resolution because I … I didn’t feel comfortable at this point in time with simply the resolution praising this Board of Trustees that’s about to be investigated. I think there would be an appropriate time for praise, but don’t feel it’s appropriate today. However, I think this amendment speaks strongly to the Board in addition to appreciation to the action taken. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the faculty to give Barbara and the other Senate officers our support when they go to speak with Mr. McWhorter about the details of this representative and if we pass this resolution as amended they could say that to the University faculty, this was the voice of the faculty speaking. I believe it would help those negotiations or whatever discussions that may be had.

Barbara Struempler: Other discussion on the amendment?

Larry Gerber: One other thing, it says this is Chair of the General Faculty? There is no such body, it’s University Faculty.

Barbara Struempler: Okay. The amendment now reads: “Now Therefore Be It Further Resolved that this is the view of the faculty at Auburn University that the elected Chair of the University Faculty or another faculty member elected by direct vote of the entire faculty should serve as faculty representative from this campus.” Okay. Yes?

Mary Beaudraux, Pathobiology: Barb, I just want to thank the Committee, the Executive Committee, for bringing forward this resolution as well as the other resolution. In fact, I think it is extremely important, from my point of view, to express a positive note and to let people know that we are capable of doing that. We do know how to say “thank you” when it is appropriate. And to giving us an opportunity to vote on that today. The other thing I’d like to mention, I’d to thank … this is really momentous that we are actually going to get an Advisor on the Board of Trustees. People have been working for this for years, decades. Many people have been working for this and this is just incredible. And there are really a lot of people that you can thank but right now I think that there are really two people specifically we need to thank. One of them is Earlon McWhorter, member of the Board of Trustees, who worked for months with the faculty. No other Board member ever went to this trouble. And he spent months trying to make this happen. The other important person I want to thank is you, Barbara Struempler, because the combination of you being the Chair of the Senate and him doing his work with the Board of Trustees, in my opinion, is what made it happen. Just him being a Board member would not have made it happen, just you being Chair alone would not have made this happen. It’s that combination that made it happen. And I want to thank you.

[APPLAUSE FROM BODY]

Barbara Struempler: Thank you. I should say that as Chair of the Senate you get very few compliments. So, I’m everyone’s punching bag and anything else you want to have them do. So, thank you Mary; I appreciate that. Yes, Cindy?

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Call the question.

Barbara Struempler: The question has been called. We’re voting on the amendment only, not on the resolution. You’re voting to accept the amendment as it’s written. So, all those in favor of having this amendment be included in the resolution will you kindly vote. All those in favor, say “aye.” [RESPONSES] All those opposed, say “no.” [LITTLE RESPONSE] I think the “ayes” have it. Did you hear that? Okay. So, what we now are doing, this … we are now going to go back and discuss the entire resolution with this amendment. Does it need to be read? No. So, please accept the resolution. Any discussion?

Glenn Howze: I would regretfully like to speak against the resolution. I certainly think it’s a wonderful thing for a faculty member to sit at the table of the Board of Trustees. I certainly think the Board of Trustees did the right thing by reaching the decision. However, I think that this is the wrong time to be passing this resolution. And this is the reason. In the announcements from both Dr. Walker and from you, you agree that the SACS investigation of the JAC concerns will start in the next month or so. And I … some very serious charges have been made against the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, in my opinion, has spent the last year and a half trying to polish their image. They put a faculty member at the table; they gave us raises, they put faculty members on Committees, are visiting with Schools and Colleges, doing all sorts of things to try to show a positive impact to SACS. This is just another feather in their cap if we do pass this resolution. I have every reason to believe the resolution will pass. But I myself will vote against the resolution not that I think that seating someone at the table was a bad idea. I just do not think that this is the time to praise the Board of Trustees. Maybe later, we will work together and we will praise the Board. But this is not the appropriate time. Thank you. [SOMEONE APPLAUDING]

Barbara Struempler: Any other discussion on the resolution? Call the question. Okay. So, you’re voting on the resolution with the amendment. All those in favor of accepting this, signify by saying “aye.” Yes? Yes? All those in favor, signify by saying “aye.” [RESPONSES] And all those opposed, say “no.” [SMALLER RESPONSES] Okay. It definitely passed. There is another resolution. John Mouton will be presenting this. He is the Chair-Elect of the Senate.

John Mouton: I don’t think the resolution needs any introduction, so I am just going to read it.

RESOLUTION

2003 AU Faculty Salaries

WHEREAS, the Auburn University Board of Trustees and the University administration have established an objective of getting Auburn University faculty salaries in line with regional averages,

AND WHEREAS the State of Alabama funding has been inadequate to reach that objective,

AND WHEREAS the President and the administration have developed a strategy for faculty increases to bring faculty salaries closer to the regional averages,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the faculty expresses its appreciation to the Board of Trustees, President and the administration for approving faculty salaries and advancing the University forward.

Barbara Struempler: There’s a motion. Discussion on the motion. Please go to the mike.

Danny Gropper, Economics: I rise to speak in favor of the resolution. I want to not my appreciation for your work, Barb, and the new Senate leadership and the willingness to work productively with the Administration and the Board of Trustees to bring into reality significant faculty raises. I’ve been a member and past chair of the Senate Salaries Committee, and we articulated a decade ago the goal to bring Auburn salaries up to regionally and hopefully nationally competitive levels. This year shows that we can make significant progress even in the absence of sate budget increases. I applaud that progress and those who have helped bring it about, and look forward to further progress in the coming years.

Glenn Howze: I would also like to object to this resolution. Not that I don’t think faculty raises are a wonderful thing to bring them up to regional averages, I still do not think this is the proper time to congratulate the Board for anything. I mentioned before … let me give an analogy of how this looks to me. It’s like a husband who visits his battered wife in the hospital and he is bringing her flowers and chocolate. After years and years of being abused by the Board, they pull out a pay raise and something else and we’re supposed to be happy about that. I think that what we ought to do is get the SACS investigation over with and then we can congratulate the Board for their good work. [SOMEONE APPLAUDS]

Barbara Struempler: Are there any discussions? Okay. Jim.

Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair: As a minority vote on the Faculty Executive Committee, it makes it a little more difficult to say what I have to say about this resolution. As we spoke to the amendment … to the other resolution, I am going to speak against voting ‘yes’ to this resolution because I justify my vote for the resolution because of the amendment. It would have bee a lost opportunity had that amendment not been there. In my opinion, there is time to praise and a time to refrain from praising. And I believe now is the time to refrain from praising this University’s Board of Trustees. It has already been mentioned that investigation of its performance is imminent and if praise is due, there will be an appropriate time to give that praise. Therefore, because I am not ready to praise the Board with this resolution because I also dislike being asked to vote to praise the Board at all in this resolution. I will communicate both sentiments by voting to abstain and I encourage others to do the same.

Barbara Struempler: Other comments on the resolution?

John Mouton, Chair-Elect, University Senate: The resolution reads that the faculty is expressing its appreciation. It doesn’t say anything about praising the actions of the Board. I think it’s a very simple resolution; it does in fact say we do appreciate the efforts of the President and administration. I think also an analogy that reads a little bit strange to me. I think an analogy more fitting is that sometimes things don’t remain the way that they are. Sometimes things do begin to change and its hard to figure out when that really occurs and I’m hoping that maybe this is one of those times. I support the amendment.

Nelson Ford, Management: I also support the resolution and I think that you all have done a very good job. I think we seem to go back to the same old thing. Maybe the time has come to move forward. I think there are a lot of issues like diversity, etc. Those things need our attention. I think it’s just as you say, it expresses our appreciation and nothing more.

Barbara Struempler: Other comments? Are we ready to call the vote? Question. Okay. All those in favor of the resolution signify by saying “aye.” [LARGE RESPONSE] All those opposed, “no.” [SMALLER RESPONSES] Okay. The “ayes” have it and the motion carries the resolution. Oh, the abstention. I’m sorry Jim. Abstentions? [SMALL RESPONSE] Okay. It still carries, but I am sorry. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is the report by Jim Bradley on the Joint Assessment Commission.

Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair: This is a report of the most recent meeting of the Joint Assessment Committee which was on July 29, 2002. Just a quick reminder to you of what this is all about. Eighteen months ago, March 2001, the University Faculty voted virtually unanimously — there was one negative vote — on the Joint Assessment Committee resolution. A couple of phrases from that resolution that we voted 18 months ago; in the preamble it began “With genuine concern for the long-term destiny of Auburn University in fairness and with good will to all parties we offer the following course of action as a progressive step forward.” I think that it’s important to remember and in fact in our Committee meeting on July 29 that’s the way we began our meeting to remind ourselves what the original resolution stated. The purpose is to help the University, the purpose is not to get anybody and then we remind ourselves of what our charge was and here is the important resolution that’s put into the charge: “Appointment of a Joint Assessment Committee should study the feasibility of a external objective and independent assessment of the Board’s performance. And, a little further down, the Joint Assessment Committee will determine the choices of groups or agencies to perform the assessment, draft a charge to the group or agency, and set tasks and deadlines.” So, the reason we met on July 29 was because earlier that month at the Senate meeting Dr. Struempler asked that the Joint Assessment Committee reconvene. At that time we did not know that SACS and the University were about to reach an agreement that would allow an investigation and so the concern was that we had gone over a year since the law suit or since the original complaint and almost a year since the law suit was initiated not knowing whether there would ever be an investigation of SACS or not and what sort of investigation it might be. So Dr. Struempler asked us to assess these things and come back with a recommendation. We did that. These are the membership of the Committee, those that were present at that meeting:

Present:

Andy Hornsby (Alumni)

Debra Carey (Staff Council)

Brandon Riddick-Seals (SGA)

Yvonne Kozlowski (Past University Faculty Chairs)

Jim Bradley (Chairperson).

Absent:

William Walker (Administration)

Jimmy Samford (Trustees)

Ellyn Hix (A&P Assembly)

So let me run through … we had four recommendations that we bring back to you, Barbara.

1) Stick with SACS for assessment of Board performance

2) No official revision of original complaint

3) Participation by all Trustees in AGB-sponsored Trustee training/orientation workshop(s)

4) Establish shared governance roundtable discussion group.

The first one has to do with whether we probably should continue to stay with SACS or not for this investigation and we did. At that time, after some discussion, decided to stick with SACS with the investigation and that turned out to be, I think, wise since there is disagreement and now there will be an independent investigator coming and be able to spend up to 60 days here at Auburn performing that investigation and another 30 days after that constructing the results of the investigation.

Second, we have — you have the recommendations — we discussed things that had happened since the original complaint was filed. We discussed that at least ten things that we felt were possible even likely violations of the presentation criteria that involved the Board as a whole or individual Board members that had happened since the original complaint was filed. [unable to understand] should stick to SACS, should we revise the original complaint, should we update it in an official way with a letter to SACS saying here are some additional things we’d like to be considered. After some discussions, we decided no, we should not do that. We did not do that and we let the original complaint stand as it is. We have other reasons for that. One concern was that it might initiate another round of legal activity which we certainly didn’t want.

Now thirdly, the … again, look at our charge and look at the framing of the preamble to the resolution and the focus on improving the University. And that’s not just trying to find out if somebody’s done something wrong or not. And so we have this third recommendation that all Trustees — present Trustees perhaps with the exception of the three that are still going off in a few months and all new Trustees or re-appointed Trustees — attend a workshop or an orientation session sponsored by the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) about essentially how to be a good Trustee. These workshops are regularly sponsored by the Board’s Association, the AGB, and I have actually seen a video of one of these presentations that I thought was very good; the particular one that I viewed had to do with conflict of interest and there was either discussions between Board members of what constitutes a conflict of interest, what do you do if you think you may have a conflict of interest, and some issues that come before the Board in the context of their own personal business and so forth. So that’s our third recommendation.

Our last recommendation is to establish what we call a shared governance roundtable discussion group. You’ll want details and here’s what we recommend for this group.

1) Monthly meetings

2) Topic-focused meetings

3) Meeting topics organized by Senate Chair, in consultation with interested parties

4) Membership: 2 Trustees (Trustee-selected)

2 Administrators (Present selects)

2 Alumni (Alumni selected)

2 Faculty, Non-administrative (Rules Committee selected)

1 Student (SGA Senate selected)

1 Staff Person (Staff Council selected)

1 Administrative/Professional Person (A&P Assembly selected)

First of all, let’s look at the membership. As you can see, there are two Trustees, two administrators, two alumni, two non-administrative faculty, a student, a person from the staff council, and a person from the A&P Assembly. These are made to be selected by their own groups and for this group, this roundtable discussion group, to meet monthly; begin immediately —as soon as possible, certainly beginning after the new appointments of the Board of Trustees. That these meetings be topic-focused that there is that there be a topic, for example, collaboration of Auburn University and other universities in the state. I seem to recall Dr. Walker’s mentioning the I-85 corridor, a research corridor. They can discuss admission policies, increasing academic quality, any number of … dozens of different topics. As we go into the Capital Campaign for the next year or two, probably the possible benefits and the dangers of privatizing the University; more appropriate monies coming to the University, what are the benefits and the dangers. These could be possible topics.

We recommend that initially these topics be selected by the Chair of the University Senate which certainly in consultation with the other members of the group and other interested parties. These are the members who are on here. A person who has already served in this discussion group could then be elected to serve a second time, or third, or whatever the case.

Those are our recommendations. I know this is not an action item; I don’t know, I’ll leave it up to you on whether the report requires an approval. I’m wondering what happens to these recommendations. I give them to you and then what happens next?

Barbara Struempler: I think it’s a very valid … it’s an excellent report. I think topics are served or issues that are certainly needed at the University. I’ll probably pull the Senate officers together and we’ll see where we want to go with that and we will keep you informed since it’s coming out of the Ad Hoc Committee as Chair. And if I can just make one correction … well, I think it’s a correction so that we don’t have to go back and amend the minutes. When the court order once the … you said that they had 60 days to spend here on campus. I think they have 30 days to do their investigation and then 60 to write the report.

Gene Clothiaux: They have 60. Sixty days to investigate, and 30 to write the report.

Barbara Struempler: Okay, great. Then it’s not a correction. I stand corrected. Thank you. Are there questions of Jim?

Cindy Brunner: Jim, I have a question about the shared governance discussion group. I like to know the purpose of that group and to whom is it supposed to report.

Jim Bradley: I am not recommending that the group report to anybody and the purpose of the group is to have a small group of representatives of many different bodies as you can see, who can get together on a regular basis, get to know each other on a personal basis over a year, and discuss topics of critical interest to the University with the knowledge beforehand that that’s the topic that will be discussed, and everyone spending an hour or half a day without accusations and defense. And so that was the purpose. The construction recommendations for the general Assessment Committee and I acknowledge that in part it was the intent to try to reassure the University community that this general assessment has the best interests of the University at heart. And it is not, how to get at the Board of Trustees. I am not suggesting that they will report to anybody, but each of these people on there will probably take the ideas back to their groups, the two Trustees will take their ideas back that group, the Alumni to their group, the faculty to the Senate officers, and the like. But it would be an informal hub for discussion at the institution. Anybody else have a question or comment?

I might just add in the context of this special investigator and the Consent Order, I’ve read the agreement carefully and there are some … some areas where there could be some concerns, but overall I would just like to say that I have all along had the absolute confidence that SACS has had and continues to have the best interest of Auburn University at heart. I felt this confidently from the very beginning and so since they signed the Consent Agreement, I’ve had confidence that this is going to be a good thing. This is not part of the report, but I just wanted to say that because SACS signed it, I feel confident it will be a good thing for the University.

Barbara Struempler: Is there any new business? Yes. Please go to the microphone.

Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communications: It’s not really a resolution but I’d like to commend our Auburn students for putting together one of the events for 9-11. I’d like to extend our appreciation for how dynamic our students are . It’s easy to be cynical on campus. But our students are working hard and moving forward. I think we should appreciate them for coming forward and organizing the events for 9-11.

APPLAUSE

Barbara Struempler: The representative from the SGA, is he still here? He stepped out. Any other comments? Hearing none, the meeting is adjourned.

The meeting adjourned at 4:37 p.m.