Auburn University Senate Meeting

January 14, 2003

3:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Absent: Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair; Ken Tilt, Horticulture; Hugh Guffey, Marketing; Robert Ripley, Aviation Management & Logistics; James A. Guin, Chemical Engineering; Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering; Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering; Richard Good, Music; James Shelley, Philosophy; Darrel Hankerson, Discrete & Social Science; Bill Hames, Geology & Geography; Marllin L. Simon, Physics; Ralph Henderson, Veterinary Clinical Science; Daowei Zhang, Forestry & Wildlife Science; Mike Solomon, Consumer Affairs; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal Sciences; Kem Krueger, Pharmacy Care Systems; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; Marcia Boosinger, Library; Ltc. John Salvetti, Army ROTC; Michael Moriarty, VP for Research; Dean June Henton, College of Human Sciences; Interim Dean Rebekah Pindzola, College of Liberal Arts; Dean Larry Benefield, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering; Interim Dean John Jahera, College of Business; Shari Downer, University Librarian; Heath Henderson, SGA President; Kathy Harmon, A&P Assembly Chair.

 

The meeting was called to order by the chair, Barbara Struempler.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

FROM THE PRESIDENT

 

William F. Walker, President: First of all this afternoon at 4:30 in Foy Union we will be dedicating the Center for Diversity and Multicultural Relations. I hope that you can attend. I hope this meeting is over by then and I’d like you to meet our guest, Mr. Julian Bond, President of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). There will be a reception at 5:00 over at the Conference Center followed by a lecture at 5:45 by Mr. Bond.

 

The second issue that I want to mention has to do with the SACS Consent Decree and its status. The Southern Association has requested more information from the investigator and we have agreed to that. So Mr. Bradley will be doing some additional inquiries and frankly I am not that familiar with the specifics because those discussions were held in chambers. But that should be taking place shortly.

 

On the Dean searches I’ve asked Dr. Pritchett to make sure that the search committees are formed for the searches for the Dean of Agriculture and that will be chaired by Dean Brinker I understand; the Dean of Business, the Dean of Education and the Dean of Liberal Arts. It’s my understanding that the search for the Library Dean is nearing completion. On those other searches, the Business Dean search will be chaired by Dean Benefield; Education Dean search by Dean Hinton; and John has asked Dr. Wilson to chair the search for Liberal Arts Dean.

 

The next thing I want to spend a few minutes talking about what’s going on in Montomery. Now that the election is over and things are supposedly returning to a more normal situation — whatever that is — we have a new administration. It seems to be general agreement over there that the state is facing a crisis situation. The fiscal `03 budget, the current budget, is — and now I’m talking about the Education Trust Fund — but the fiscal 2003 budget is about $200 million short. The Education Budget will not be prorated. Now if that money is taken and used to pay the shortfall as it will be, that money should be replenished although there is considerable skepticism as to whether or not that will actually happen. So that’s $200 million that the Fund will be down this year, although that will be replenished; then the best predictions that we are giving or the consistent predictions that we are getting is that when the 04 budget year — the next budget year for which we are about to start our planning, we’re looking at about a $300 million shortfall below what a prorated budget would be. So the substance of that is if nothing changing, it is anticipated that the fiscal 04 budget would find the Education Trust Fund to be about $500 million below what the fiscal 03 budget will be. That is about 12% of the total education budget. The education budget is about $4.25 billion. If nothing else happens, that would mean that we would be looking at about 12% budget cut next year. We’ve all heard that sob story before and it’s nothing. And so there’s nothing too surprising to you about that. We seem to always be in some sort of a crisis. But, the interesting thing is that there appears to be some very, very positive attitudes and some general optimism about the prospects for the financial future. It seems as if just about everyone agrees that we are potentially in a terrible crisis; and probably most significantly, there are very few if any of the officials who have been elected recently, in this past election, who had as a part of their platform “no new taxes.” So the general feeling is that finally something is going to be done. I believe that explains what has then amounted to a real flurry of activity focusing on the budget that we’ve seen over the last two and a half months in which we’ve been participating.

 

There are at present three, excuse me four agendas I think you need to be aware of concerning the budget. Each of these agendas seem to be motivated by an earnest desire to help solve the funding problem. I want take just a moment to familiarize you with them.

 

1.               The first of these started at the behest of Dr. Paul Hubbert and that is a Coalition that has been established called the Alabama Public Education Unified Coalition. That’s composed of membership of AEA, K–12, the community and junior colleges, and all the colleges and universities. Ed Richardson as Superintendent of Education is also participating in that group. We have met several times over the past several weeks developing a report that will be released tomorrow, entitled “Alabama Public Education: Standing at the Crossroad.” That will be released at 10:00 a.m. over at AUM. I encourage you to try to acquire a copy of this. I believe I have an electronic copy. Something that came in right before I left but I didn’t have a chance to review it. One of the needs for higher education that we’re putting forth at all the colleges and universities just to give you an idea of the magnitude of the situation. Higher education needs are the following as reported by that group: we need about $700 million to bring us up to the level of program funding that was determined by what is called ACHE formula. The ACHE formula is a formula that’s been used by us over the past several years. It was developed by ACHE, I think based in some degree upon what used to be called the Texas formula. But it takes into account what each institution is, the programs it has, whether it doctoral-granting or not. And it comes up with a number of things and it comes up with a projected allocation. It would take about $700 million to bring us up to the appropriation level described by that calculation. In addition to that, there is about $900 million in deferred maintenance that’s facing all of the institutions of higher education. That’s about $1.6 billion that we need. And then we tack on to that another approximately $2 billion for facilities. Many, many building on campuses around the state are in excess of 50 years of age and have had virtually nothing done to them and are in pretty careless states of repair. And so the total that we’re talking about for higher education that’s needed is about $3.6 billion. And there are comparable numbers for K–12, for the junior colleges and community colleges. So to achieve these funding levels — and we don’t expect to get all of that — but to achieve those funding levels is going to take considerable tax reform and possibly even constitutional reform. Right now I’m pleased to report that this group is working very closely together and we’ve pledged to do everything we possibly can to continue to do so.

 

2.               The second agenda is that of Superintendent Ed Richardson himself. And I’m not quite sure where he’s playing in all this but he’s been very active. Ed claims that just for his programs — and I don’t put salaries in all of this too — just for his programmatic needs, he needs about $2 billion. I mention this as a separate agenda because I think it needs to be watched. Because I just don’t understand exactly what Dr. Richardson is doing. I’ve had several conversations with him. He’s an active participant in the Education Coalition. But he’s espoused on many occasions the views concerning education funding that I think all of us need to be aware of. He contends — as do some others that I’ll mention — that we must end duplication of programs but doesn’t define exactly what that means. He suggested even that we separate the Education Trust Fund into two separate components: one for K–12 and the other for higher education. I have no idea what would be the implications of that move. And so I just mention Dr. Richardson because I think he is a major player in what’s taking place.

 

3.               The third agenda is that another group. And it’s a thing called the Campaign for Alabama. That is a business group that’s headed by former president of the Business Council of Alabama, named Bill O’Conner. He’s quoting from the publication of the BCA called Alabama Today: “The Campaign for Alabama is comprised of members of the Alabama business community who believe that Alabama must address the fundamental challenges that keep the state from reaching her full potential. Mr. Connor stated that the organization “will address the need for sensible solutions to the financial crisis that limits Alabama’s educational system and other important government functions.” That group has raised about $3 million to effect legislation in this current session and will raise even more to influence any public votes that may turn out to be needed. They appear to be very determined that something must be done to solve the problems of funding in this state, in particular the problem of funding education. However, I think it’s very important that we keep a sharp eye on this group because every conversation I’ve had with business people who have been approached by them and are working with them, makes it very clear that they want something for their support. Just like Dr. Richardson, they are talking about accountability, they are talking about duplication of programs, etc. And those are all familiar phrases that would be seem to be  decided. I’ve planned a meeting with Mr. O’Connor in a couple of weeks and hopefully then we’ll get a better idea of what to expect. I think all these efforts by wonderful people who appear to be working together, I just think that we need to make very sure that we’re participants in this and not victims.

 

4.               The fourth and final agenda is that of Govern-elect Riley. The governor, I think, very much wants to solve the problems that frankly he expects a lot more out of the research universities. I have met with him on several occasions and some of his views are not inconsistent with my own. Mainly that the research universities should serve as catalysts for economic development. He seems to believe very strongly that the research universities hold much of the key to expanding this state’s economy and I do not disagree with that. My sense is that he too is talking about let’s look at areas where we can cut and let’s look at duplication and some measures of accountability.

 

So I think the news is interesting. I’m not going to say the news is good when we’re looking at the financial situation that we are in. The good part of it is I think we’ve elected leaders as well as people all over the state who are going to take the situation very seriously and my hope is that over the course of this next year we in fact will be able to effect some significant changes in the resources … that we see coming for this university. I’ll be happy to entertain some questions.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: Dr. Walker, just one thing. That was a very helpful summary of events in Montgomery. We’d like to share your enthusiasm. When we have financial difficulties as we often do at this university and in this state, people will logically look at how public funds are being expended. There were news reports today that we spent $833,000 on our side of the legal costs that resulted in Mr. Bradley’s report and you then tell us that Mr. Bradley is going to do additional work. We see the Auburn Commons now being published, a somewhat nice looking, glossy publication. I’m not sure how these stories are being reported and if they are apparently going to legislators who may find these stories interesting, but the glossy publishing may also tell them that gee we must not be very broke here. I am wondering if our public relations and our legal expenses serve us well in the time of financial difficulty. If you could answer and also say whether or not the continuing investigations of Mr. Bradley will result in additional legal costs.

 

William Walker: Well, yeah. That cost is being shared by us and SACS. Are these costs justified, yes I think so. Actually, over the last two years we’ve spent about $3.4 million in legal fees and various and sundry things. Over that same period, our budget have been about $1.3 billion. That is less than 0.3 of 1% of the budget. And if you look at all the things that a university does, from instruction of 25,000 students to extension activities to sport which is a pretty high cost operation in respect to the potential we expect to lose, I would think that the amount of money that we’re spending would be part of that. Now, there’s no question that people will take exception to it. That’s just the nature of things. Anytime we take an action, the expenditures supports the person’s appointed view they’re going to point it out. They’re going to point it out. That’s just the nature.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: Your view of what’s going on in Montgomery sounds wonderfully frank and honest and I’m just wondering about another issue. We are hearing some things about the PR out of University Relations, this new policy that reporters are supposed to go through Hatchel and not call people directly. That personally cuts on the issue of the SACS report. It’s just remarkably good timing that the report is released when faculty aren’t around. That’s not my concept — now I’m a journalist — of good University PR. If we don’t have anything to defend or hide we should be open, we’re just saying here’s what’s going on. We’re saying these are things we need to know about. I think these new moves do not make Auburn look good. Auburn reporters have been calling me. It doesn’t look good for us. Do you think that the SACS headline that was on the home page a long time, and not only that but the press release, was justified when you referred to it as the SACS report going to every newspaper in the state?

 

William Walker: I don’t know. I … to be very honest with you Judy, I don’t pay a lot of the attention to what’s in the press. You know, I put things out, I have things put out. I expect these people to form their own conclusions to things. Can we do a better job? Is this question valid? Do we value your input?

 

Judy Sheppard: It seems to be a very recent turn for the worst. And I believe the turn should be more oppeness.

 

William Walker: I’ll have John Hachtel give you a call. I’m really serious about that. Other questions?

 

FROM THE CHAIR

 

Barbara Struempler, Senate Chair: Thank you Dr. Walker. Well, I’m going to give you some good predictions about `03. But I’m going to stay off the money. You know, at Auburn University we’ve seen in the last year an enormous number of changes at Auburn University. In fact, when I think back a year ago this time, it’s hard to believe that some of the meetings that I even sit in are the same meetings. The players may be the same but the meetings, the atmosphere is so different. And I get to see a lot of different facets of the university so I get to see it at all different angles. I just look at all the stakeholders involved. I think probably the most notable change that I’ve seen in the last 12 months is that we as a university — the faculty and the other stakeholders — are all communicating in a very positive fashion rather than adversarial. There is no denying that the last 18 months have been a struggle. It’s been a struggle I think for every group here. But I do think we have arrived at a juncture. And I hope that we can work together and continue with this momentum and keep it going. And I do believe that everyone here can agree to disagree and it’s probably the manner in which it’s done. Once it’s voiced we need to move on and move forward. I do predict that `03 will be a banner year for Auburn University. I was informed let’s say the financial situation that the state offers are things that we really have a lot of the good ingredients to make this a fantastic university.

 

·        We have a great student body. Many of … I mean we all get to work with the students. They challenge us as faculty and we in turn can challenge them and it’s nothing but a win-win situation. I’ve seen faculty for years … for the twenty years that I’ve been here, we do whatever it takes regarding some of the efforts, the time, the availability of resources to get the job done. We believe in the academy and the promises that it holds for the future.

 

·        I look at the other personnel at the university, the staff, the administrative and professional groups who contribute tirelessly to the research, to the instruction, and to the outreach efforts.

 

·        I do sit on President Walker’s administrative team and they are visionaries. They are trying to take Auburn University to a higher level so that our state, nation, and international world can be enhanced.

 

·        And yes, we are communicating with the Trustees.

 

·        And let’s not forget our alumnus who bleed orange and blue.

 

So we do have the ingredients to make this a banner year. And we certainly need to work together because we do have a full agenda this year. Our re-accreditation is scheduled for this fall; we want a permanent Provost by this fall; we have four Dean searches to work on this year; we’re in the silent phase of a Capital Campaign. So we have an enormous amount of things on our agenda that truly need to be accomplished. And it’s going to take all of our efforts.

 

I’d like to just quickly address the nominations for the Senate leaders. I have announced before the Nominating Committee and we’re still looking for a few good women and men to serve as Chair and Chair-Elect. So if you’d like to volunteer or have any friend that you’d like to volunteer, make sure you get hold of one of the people on the Committee. I should tell you that for those that sign up this year as Chair-Elect and Secretary-Elect that you will have a wonderful enhancement package coming the year that you are actively the Chair and the Secretary.

 

If you give me a minute I’m going to explain what these two lucky individuals will receive. The current Senate leaders have been working on an incentive plan. At present the incentive plan that we have is that the Chair gets a one-year sabbatical and the Secretary gets a half-year sabbatical. The Senate commitments are large commitments. I’m not going to kid anyone that it is a full-time job plus. Probably all four of the positions. And when we were looking for compensation and what’s required out of effective Senates we went to the reliable information that’s presented by the AAUP. And they have on their web site a list of traits that are for an effective Senate. And some of the key areas that we did not have at all were things like an annual budget and the secretarial assistance and good compensation for officers. Well, we took it all in line and we presented Dr. Walker with a package and I’ll show you what’s been agreed to.

 

Needs of the University Senate

 

Travel:            National conference pertaining to university governance issues

One per year: Chair, Chair-elect, Secretary, Secretary-elect

 

If the Chair or Chair-Elect or Secretary or Secretary-elect would like to attend a national conference and obviously it deals with shared governance — you can’t go to a nutrition conference — but that will be funded. So you’re looking at something like maybe the AUP or the HUB both of those outstanding organizations that have annual conferences. There also is a group down here. It’s called the Alabama Council of University Faculty Presidents. And that’s where the faculty, the chairs, from the 16 four-year colleges in Alabama get together twice a year so we get a feel for some of the other problems that are out there: the good and the bad. They are  normally held in the state and it’s usually an overnighter, but President Walker has agreed to fund an officer to attend that twice a year.

                                   

Telephone: We will be getting our own long-distance telephone code. Now that may not sound like much but when you get to use your own for a couple of years, it really starts to add up. So these little perks are going to add up to a lot.

 

Computer and Office Supplies: Office and computer supplies, we’ve had that for quite some time.

 

Office:            we do have an office in Sanford Hall. It’s 107 Samford Hall right on the first floor.

 

Ongoing Electronic Support: We will have ongoing electrical support. And this will be very, very, very important as we move into a different system with making nominations for committees which will happen in April.

 

Administrative Assistant: Probably the two most attractive areas: one is that we will have an Administrative Assistant (20-30 hours/week) a part-time individual, to help us dot the Is and cross the Ts. This person will not run the Senate in any way, shape or form, but there is an enormous of paper work and conference scheduling that is done through the Senate secretary. Getting the committees — the 100+ committees that we have and all the assignments — this person will help coordinate those efforts. So that in itself will be an overwhelming asset to the University, to the Senate and how we function.

 

Officer Compensation: Lastly, the Chair and the Secretary will have a salary enhancement for the year of office. If you’re a nine-month faculty, you’ll get a 33% salary enhancement for the year that you are either Chair or Secretary (this assumes that no additional summer compensation will be received). And if you’re a 12-month faculty member, you’ll get a 25% salary enhancement.

 

So, Dr. Walker, I would really like to thank you for your contribution to this. The Senate struggles. People call me and ask me if they can talk to my secretary to schedule an appointment. I say, “you got her.” So, it’s not that this other person will do that, but it will just help us facilitate all the work that goes on in the Senate that is just monumental that you don’t realize unless you are in the thick of it. So, on behalf of the University Senate, I would like to take this moment and thank you. APPLAUSE FROM AUDIENCE.

 

I would like to talk about the Board liaison visits that were established last year. Last year there were … the Board of Trustees a liaison program that was designed to enhance the communication between Board and the faculty, staff, and students of the academic units as well as the Office of Student Affairs. And this is where the Board members went out and they visit with departments. Originally I was very opposed to this idea. Mainly, let’s go back 15, 16, 17 months and where we were and what our feelings were. I was very fearful that if Trustees went in and talked to us on a one-to-one basis that they would receive probably information that they’d use to micromanage everyone. We have that concept. This year … well, that year has come and gone but the new assignments have been put out and I don’t believe that you have seen this. I haven’t seen it anywhere. So I’ll give you a minute to see which Trustees are assigned to a College or School and of course those began in the academic school year.

 

Board of Trustee College/School Assignments

2002-2003

 

College/School                                                          Board of Trustee Member

 

Agriculture                                                                   Blackwell, McDaniel

Architecture, Design & Construction                           McWhorter, Spina

Business                                                                     Lowder, Barron

Education                                                                    Franklin, Richardson

Engineering                                                                 Lowder, Venable

Forestry & Wildlife Sciences                                       Rane, Blackwell

Human Sciences                                                         Glover, McWhorter

Liberal Arts                                                                  Miller, Franklin

Library                                                                         Miller, Glover

Nursing                                                                        Barron, McWhorter

Pharmacy                                                                    Richardson, Venable

Sciences and Mathematics                                         Spina, Samford

Veterinary Medicine                                                    Samford, Rane

Student Affairs                                                             McDaniel, Lowder

 

But I’d like to say that my feelings about the visitation today are different than they were when they were started. And I’m going to tell you why. I think it’s important that we educate our Trustees. And I think that we have the opportunity to do that. You as well as I have heard Trustees, some Board members they’ll say that all in-state students should be allowed to attend Auburn University, regardless of qualifications. Do you think that? Do you believe that? What would that do? I’ve heard another Board member question whether we’re putting too much support to the research at our university. And if research really isn’t strongly supported here, how are we different than the other 14, 15 four-year colleges / universities in Alabama? What is our real work? So, I’d like for faculty when Trustees visit to take the opportunity to present them some vital information. I think that you can show them what an elite research program does for our state, for our nation, and for the international scene. I think you can explain to them the importance of getting a diverse student population that has a high ACT and SAT score with a good high school score. Obviously this will help us retain our best and brightest students and in terms of outreach, we need to showcase that it’s a two-way street. And how we take information from the research and take it out to the streets of Alabama. I truly would like to encourage faculty to showcase what we do, why we’re doing it, and what makes us different. To make the visitations a teachable moment. I do think it will strengthen our ties with them. If we can’t tell them that’s what we do, who can we leave that up to?

 

I just have another quick comment. It’s getting in line again for the Rule Committee to make nomination. Yes, if you can believe that. The current Rules Committee members … this is a very important committee and it is a very time-consuming committee. So before you nominate yourself or your best friend, you might want to really check to see what’s going on. We will next month accept nominations from the floor. And then we’ll have a ballot election in March for members of the Rules Committee. There are going to be three (3) positions to fill. Those are latter three starred. So we’ll need at least three names on the ballot; at least three. Christa and Daowei, you can be re-nominated again because you were only filling a one-year term. So if you agree to be nominated and if you’re elected, you can again serve an additional two-year term. Then there’s three things that are necessary: the nominees must be current members of the University Senate; a current Senator must nominate you; and you must have the person’s permission. So, three of you people are going to be some lucky people to serve on the Rules Committee. And it’s a fun committee; it really is. It’s a hard-working committee, but it is fun.

 

Chris Rodger did tell me — he’s co-chair of the search committee on the Provost and the Vice President for Academic Affairs — the announcement for this position has been posted in the Chronicle for Higher Education as well as other areas throughout the nation. So we’re off and running in that area. Comments?

 

I’d like to finish as closely to 4:30 as we can or no later than 4:45. So I’m going to move right along. Our next presenter — we’re moving into four action items. Most of them deal … well, all four of them deal with changes to policies in the Faculty Handbook. I’d like to ask Dr. Steve McFarland to come up and present the motion for Emeritus Status Policy. Once Dr. McFarland has presented the motion, I will keep him up here to give us a short rationale and to possibly answer any questions that you might have.

 

Stephen McFarland, Acting Dean of the Graduate School: Good afternoon. On behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Emeritus Policy I would like move to approve the Emeritus policy which was distributed as part of the agenda.

 

Barbara Struempler: I will accept that motion. It came out of Committee and it was reviewed by the Rules Committee. I’d like to have you Steve give comments, give us some rationale behind it, and then stay with me then as the inquiries and questions come in.

 

Stephen McFarland: The Ad Hoc Committee consisted of two professors emeriti plus two current long-serving professors at Auburn University. The two emeriti: Robin Faubel from the College of Liberal Arts and Terry Ley from the College of Education. The two long-serving current members of the Auburn University faculty are Ed Ramey from Engineering and Jo Heath from Science and Mathematics. We did a survey of 37 institutions worldwide to see if some sort of sense of the current policies the various universities use. But I think our overriding goal was to then find a consensus — the best of all 37 — to create a model policy that could then perhaps be used by other universities of the way emeritus professors should be set up and the kind of privileges and responsibilities they could then hold. I think the key force that was driving all of this was the desire to give greater visibility to our emeritus professors. To give them a continuing involvement in Auburn University and it’s multiple affairs. So our specific goals then were to create a clearer sense of eligibility, a clearer standard by which we would, clearer procedures with assigned responsibilities so that it doesn’t fall through the cracks. And finally, to have very specified privileges all designed to increase again the visibility and the involvement of retired faculty.

 

With that in mind, we started with our existing emeritus policy which currently is in the Handbook and create a new policy with three sections. One, very specifically spelling out what the eligibility standards are. Our goal that I think the key phrase there which is in keeping with a majority of these 37 institutions would be kept. That is 10 years — our current policy says 12 — of sustained meritorious service. Again, that is a very common phrase used by most institution. The rest of the eligibility standards refer to specific cases: what happens if someone has to retire early; and so on.

 

Secondly, specific procedures about how this will take place. Again, the most important feature here is that if it’s 10 years of sustained meritorious service is to assign responsibility for who it is will notify people of emeritus policies and procedures. In this case, it’s the Office of Payroll and Benefits who will of course be involved initially at the time of re-hire.

 

Lastly, specified privileges for those individuals who then gain the title of emeritus. Do you have any questions?

 

Barbara Struempler: It’s been moved that we adopt this policy as presented by Dr. McFarland. Any further discussion? So, all those in favor say “aye.” [Responses] All those opposed, say “no.” [No responses] That’s great. The ayes have it and the motion carries. Thanks Steve for your efforts in that policy. It’s much needed.

 

The next policy I’d like to talk about is the Administrator Evaluation Committee. And this is a relatively simple change I believe too. I’d like to move that we adopt the policy as it was presented in the Senate Minutes and the agenda. I’d like to present why. Currently, the current policy for the Administrator Evaluation Committee — this came out of a Committee — is that the Chair-elect of the Senate served as the Committee Chair and there’s four faculty members. The real change that we’d like to make is to make sure or we’d like to propose that the Chair-elect of the Senate is not the chair of this committee and that if that is illegal, then we’d add an additional faculty member. The reason for that is that you know you get a Chair of the University Senate, the Chair-elect comes on in March and that’s about the same time that, in theory, administrator evaluations should be ongoing and then they’re ousted within a year. There’s no continuity there. You have to be on the Committee for quite some time to understand what’s going on and to get a little running track on it. I don’t think necessarily that the Chair-elect has the time to be a one-year chair for this. So that’s what our rationale is for this. Is there discussion?

 

Gary Mullen, Entomology & Plant Pathology: Who will chair the Administrator Evaluation Committee?

 

Barbara Struempler: We will select … the Rules Committee will select someone from the Committee or …

 

Gary Mullen: Shouldn’t that be stated in the proposed policy?

 

Barbara Struempler: Well, we … I mean … we looked at how the … it can be. We can easily make that change, but the Rules Committee, when we read the Handbook it says that the Rules Committee will always nominate the chair. As you read each committee it doesn’t say that this person will be selected by. So this was exactly the way it was written, so we just kind of kept the same parallel flow. We can add it if you’d like. But I mean that’s stated already in Handbook. That is the policy. That’s what the Rules Committee does for Senate Committees — we choose the chair. And this is a Senate Committee. Oh, the other thing that we did change down here, we did add some comments that we’d like to make sure that a report is presented to the Senate. When evaluation is done, we’d like a pretty comprehensive — not a … we don’t want individual numbers on evaluators; that’s not what we’re looking for. But we’re looking for some pretty good data that would give us some overall feeling for what the evaluation did. That’s the other change. It’s just asking for them to report to the Senate. Yes?

 

Joe Buckhalt, Counseling & Counseling Psychology: I was wondering about the thinking behind the non-specificity of “periodic” review. Periodic can be a vague variable — I was wondering what the reason was for that.

 

Barbara Struempler: Well, you’re … and I’ll address that. You know, if you go back about 10 years, we’ve had an administrator evaluation usually very annual basis. And then maybe about 8 years ago, it was stopped. There were two reasons that I know of they were ceased at that point. Our return rate on the questionnaire was only 2%. So, only 2% of faculty turned in an evaluation on administrators. I do surveys and that’s very low. That’s probably is a key that you may want to change here. And the second is that when the Chair-elect steps in and they’re supposed to coordinate it, there’s no way that a Chair-elect can step in for a one-year time commitment and get this evaluation done. Really, the only reason that we had one last year is because Bruce Gladden, who was the Past Chair of the Senate, coordinated the effort. It wasn’t because I did it. And I was the Chair-elect. It was Bruce who stayed there and he got it done. So, that’s what … what we’re going to now, we’re trying to the … the Administrator Evaluation Committee as well as the Steering Committee and Rules Committee, several of the members have spent quite a bit of time in the last month or so talking about this process. And we do plan on having a very in-depth discussion about the whole process. That’s February’s meeting; that’s what’s being planned. There’s nothing hidden behind this change.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: Is there any reason that we didn’t specify the length of term Committee members would serve?

 

Barbara Struempler: That’s already specified. It’s the usual three-year. The same as any other Senate committee. Those things were kind of a given. How you get the chair; how long; the rotation. And as sometimes the Committees say it has to be from certain academic departments and that type of thing. This one doesn’t. It says four faculty and one clinical … one Staff Council member.

 

Motion: So, there’s been a motion to adopt this policy as presented. All those in favor say “aye.” [Responses] All those opposed, “no.” [No responses] So the ayes have it and the motion carries.

 

I’d next like to ask Dr. Larry Gerber to come up and talk about the Counting of Prior Service with Non-tenure Track Experience.

 

Again, I’ll ask Larry to make the motion that we adopt it. You can’t make it. Well, Paul will you make the motion that we adopt it. Is there a second? It’s not coming out of a committee. John? Okay. And now for discussion. You’re on.

 

Larry Gerber: I’m here by virtue of being the chair of an AAUP Committee that developed this proposal. I’m not a current member of the Senate although I was previously. I just want to give a little bit of background. This proposal was developed initially by the AAUP. It came into Committee that consisted of myself, Curtis Jolly and I think he’s here, and Patricia Duffy both of whom are in the School of Agriculture. We were addressing a particular issue that was a result of the last major reworking of the Faculty Handbook some 10 years ago. Actually when I was … it went on for a long time, partly while I was chair of the Senate. And at the time, the guidelines regarding everything in relationship to our tenure policies was a subject of concern by the National AAUP because at the time Auburn University was on the AUP sanction list for having violated AUP principles with regard to the length of service in relation to pay. At the time, roughly 10 years ago, the current wording of the Handbook was developed. We were intent on avoiding a repetition of the situation where a faculty member might serve more than 7 years of full-time service without being considered up or down for tenure. We were on the sanction list because we had a faculty member who had more than 7 years of service came up I believe after the 11th or 12th year at Auburn and then was turned down in violation of the notion that you can’t have more than a 7 year probationary period. The wording that was adopted at that time which is … if you look at what was … that would be the materials provided to you Senators, all years of full-time temporary appointment at Auburn regardless of rank, shall count toward tenure eligibility. There is no flexibility whatsoever. In fact, a case came up that I’m aware of fairly recently where an individual faculty member who had been on the staff as an instructor full-time served in that position for a couple of years holding only a Master’s degree, left Auburn University — they only had very limited responsibilities as a full-time instructor — left Auburn University, received terminal degree at another institution, came back some years later and was told they tell you must have the years of service initially because the Handbook says there’s no exception. Which is an absolute accounting. When I and the AAUP became aware that we had written such inflexible language, I double-checked with the National Office to confirm that AAUP policy nationally is not quite so rigid. And so we’ve come up with alternative wording to allow some degree of flexibility in this situation. It is my understanding that the Steering Committee was indignant with the purpose of this language. Also, my understanding is that Dr. Pritchett in the Provost’s Office is also in agreement with this. So I think we have a consensus with the AAUP. That’s consistent with the language that appears in the AAUP red book which is a compilation of documents that are national policy. I can answer any questions that might be  proposed.

 

Cindy Bruner, Pathobiology: Larry, I’ll fess up. I’m obviously not the only person who doesn’t have a copy of the change sitting in front of me. We’ve become complacent and expected our good secretary to bring us copies of documents that we’re voting on — thank you very much.

 

Barbara Struempler: I’ll give you some help. The changes are underlined. The new information. So how about if I give you that. Senators are expected to bring the copies they were previously provided to the meeting. This was posted to the agenda on the web.

 

Larry Gerber: And we’re just viewing the prior service one now. There are two separate proposals that are not related. We’re just looking at this one. If you want to finish in time so that you can get to the other activity this afternoon, but I do want to add one qualification we made so that people understand that this is only supposed to be limited flexibility. This does not mean, for example, if one is hired as a full-time instructor that has responsibilities that may extend to teaching upper level courses, activities that are very much like what any other tenure-track faculty member would do, if that person stays here continuously and moves into what is described as a tenure-track slot, it doesn’t mean that automatically that person will say, “Well, I don’t want to count the previous service.” It doesn’t create tremendous flexibility. The criteria are … the criteria include the requirement that there be basically a change in the job responsibilities of the person that would enable the previous service to either be counted or not be counted according to the usual agreement of the faculty that are in the department and the Provost’s Office. But it doesn’t really open up to making it possible for anybody who’s in a faculty position to start saying “Well, I don’t want to count 12 years service at Auburn University; go past the 7 years.” This would only apply to a very limited number of possible cases. And I think that’s a quite important point to make.

 

Barbara Struempler: But the cases it does apply to are very important.

 

Larry Gerber: One came to my attention that I though would … we didn’t have language that would’ve covered it and the one I described I think is the kind of situation that there should be some possibility and flexibility in the Handbook.

 

Cindy Bruner: Larry, remind me how does the University Handbook handle someone’s who’s in a non-tenure-track say a clinical-track or research-track appointment which can be continued and they deny their continue on. If that person then has an opportunity for a tenure-track position, would they be subject to that second paragraph? How would that be handled? That’s going to happen in our College within the year.

 

Larry Gerber: It would depend on the nature of the … the kind of  responsibilities that you’re describing for a person who’s in the clinical-track, it does not have the full spectrum of responsibilities … you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. Such person might come under this option but it would be determined by looking at whether there’s really a substantial difference in the responsibilities of the person in the one case as compared to the next. For example … another example would be if you switched departments. If you’d been … according to the way it reads right now,  if somebody had been in one department teaching for two or three years, left for 10 years, went and got a degree in something totally different, came back to Auburn University in another discipline and began teaching, they’d be required to count all that previous service although it’s totally unrelated. So, but it is going to have to be a case … it does require a case-by-case examination.

 

Barbara Struempler: Additional discussion? It’s moved that we adopt this policy as presented with the agenda. All those in favor, say “aye.” [Responses] Opposed, “no.” [No Responses] The motion is … the ayes have it and the motion carries. Larry I’m going to have you stay right here because we’re going to talk next about the Non-continuation of Tenure-Track Member Prior to Tenure Decision. And can I have a motion from the floor to accept it and it was printed and sent out with the agenda. Connor (so moved); a second is needed. Thank you. And I’m going to ask Larry to give some rationale. And in a little bit … and to answer any questions on the discussion. You might have to talk me through it Larry.

 

Larry Gerber: The same sub-committee of the AAUP also developed language for this policy although they are completed separated. But this also was inspired by a particular case on campus which came to the attention of the AAUP of a faculty member who was in a tenure-track position came up for third year review which was required by the Handbook. This person’s colleagues in the department voted by a substantial majority that the individual was not making satisfactory progress toward tenure. The person was subsequently informed by the Department Head/Chair that after consultation with the Provost, the person was not going to be continued … was given a year’s notice that they would not come up for tenure, that they would continue beyond the one additional year. The faculty in the first place had voted that the person wasn’t making progress toward tenure; they had not considered the question of whether they wanted to recommend that the lack of progress should warrant basically dismissal at Auburn. Common rule. And what this policy does it has another step basically saying that if the faculty votes a person isn’t making progress toward tenure, that instead of leaving it just completely up to the Department Head and the Provost that further input from the faculty, that the faculty isn’t part of the tenured faculty should at least take an advisory vote as to whether the lack of progress is as such severity that it bears a letter of non-continuation rather than giving the faculty an opportunity to deal with those problems before actually coming up for tenure the fifth year. I would say again, just like what we just voted on, you are voting to revise Handbook policy. If that is the case, that doesn’t go into effect until the President and then ultimately the Board approves any changes in the Handbook.

 

Are there questions about this recommendation? And again, I think I can safely say the same thing about this proposal as the other one; it went through the Steering Committee; it is my understanding the Steering Committee was sympathetic to it and we know that the Provost is also, and this is also a member of the Steering Committee and believes that this is appropriate clarification of this kind of situation.

 

John F. Pritchett, Interim Provost: Let me add one thing too. If you go back to the Handbook as it is currently written, it makes no reference to the faculty having any kind of a vote but then it says on appeal that the appellate body should go back to the faculty body with the first major recommendation, but there was no provision for any faculty body to make an initial recommendation. So this is cleaning up the entire Handbook on this issue.

 

Barbara Struempler: Other comments, discussion? Yes.

 

Linda Glaze, Assistant Provost: I’m not a Senator, this isn’t a discussion comment, but online and as this is going in the Handbook, I think you say it must be voted on by a majority … I don’t know what you want on this … it just needs an editorial change. Do you want a majority or the majority? It does matter.

 

Larry Gerber: Actually, I’m sorry I didn’t catch this. This is a typo where it should be voted upon by “the” tenured faculty members in the appropriate unit. This is actually … no, it should … it actually does not require a numerical majority because it still is advisory as the policy points out because the faculty in the department don’t have the power to either dismiss or not dismiss. We wanted to make sure that at least, as the Department Head or Chair or the Provost Office is acting that they are aware is what the sentiments of the department are. The AAUP is not claiming that the department faculty have executive authority to literally make that decision just as they don’t have literally the authority to make the decision about tenure or promotion. Their vote is advisory, which I think should be adhered to in most cases, but it still is an advisory opinion. So, I’m sorry that I didn’t catch that when I drafted it. It should read, “must be voted upon by the tenured faculty members in the appropriate unit.” Thank you, Linda.

 

Barbara Struempler: Any more discussion? All those in favor say “aye.” [Responses] Those opposed, “no.” [No responses] The ayes have it and the motion carries. Thank you. The last two items were really needed. When I first started as chair I had probably four or five cases that came in. Those two issues were the issues that were discussed in depth. So, thank you Larry and Patricia Duffey and Curtis Jolly. Thank you.

 

The next business of order is an information item on the Committee on Research and Salary Incentive Plan. And Bill Gale is chair of this committee. If you remember at the last Senate meeting there was a discussion on this. It was presented by Dr. Moriarty and it caused a lot of problems. So immediately after the Senate meeting they decided to halt what they were doing. They put together an ad hoc committee and voilá, our chair. So thank you.

 

Bill Gale, Steering Committee: Okay. Well, good afternoon folks. As Barb said, this follows up from the item that you had at the last Senate meeting presented by Mike Moriarty. And the Committee which I’m chairing was being charged to look at this issue and try and make some progress with quite a diverse group of people. There were really three groups in this Committee. The first group was the faculty. Some of these individuals were appointed as I was through the Senate Rules Committee. Others were appointed by the administration. There was also another group who are either the Department Heads or Deans or in some cases Center Directors. And finally we have a group of people representing the Administration. So it’s a fairly large committee as you can see.

 

So what’s this all about? Let me explain the charge of this Committee. This Committee was started by Dr. Pritchett. The charge which he originally communicated to me — I just abbreviated this; this I hope is the essence of it, this was our original scope  — was that we would review both the objectives and the structure of the policy and we suggest both modifications and improvements to this policy. And of equal importance, we would suggest both safeguards against abuse of this policy by faculty and also how we would assess the effectiveness and impacts of this policy during the pilot period. That was the original scope of this Committee. Now we’re discussing with Dr. Pritchett and also Dr. Moriarty if it became clear that there was a need to expand our agreement and we also had an additional item which was we had to consider the broader implications of this policy, to try and place the policy in context with other things which are happening. And some of the things which came up in the consulting exercises, which I’ll mention next, were very much a part of that.

 

Okay. So what’s our timeline and really what are the milestones among this process? November through December of last year found us establishing the Committee, establishing the membership, greeting people that served. We had our first meeting in mid-December. And during December, really we focused very much on gathering as much information as we could. Now the sources of information were somewhat wide-ranging. Of course, one of the most important was to get transcripts of Senate comments on Dr. Moriarty’s presentation. We captured those comments and we incorporated those in our discussion. As many of you will be aware, we also sent out a detailed request to faculty comments and many of you were kind enough to respond. In some cases, that led to very detailed exchanges and I thank you for what you did very much. It’s extremely helpful. I’ve taken those comments, summarized them, grouped them, eliminated anything which might identify the exchanges personally, and passed them on to the Committee. And those will be discussed at some length. We’ve also made every effort we can to seek information externally. We have the benefit of the surveys Dr. Moriarty did originally. We also are making a number of formal and informal approaches to contact the Committee members he already had contacted. And we also are following up on some of the input from Dr. Moriarty’s surveys. And last but not least, a number of the people we contacted in the faculty had suggestions on things that happened in other universities. I am at least trying to follow up on all of those. Of course, sometimes it was difficult to get information; people were busy. But anytime somebody asked me to have a look at policy. I tried to follow up with the contact they provided. And if I haven’t done anything further it’s just I haven’t been able to get any response.

 

So, this month we’re looking to get to developing at least the outline of our report. In order to do that we formed a number of subcommittees. Each of these subcommittees has a slightly different job. The first one is aimed at looking at both the scope and wording of the policy, both in the Senate discussion and other faculty, a number of people have rather great concerns not merely about the policy itself, but how it’s formulated and how it’s worded, what the scope would be. Also, something that became very apparent to the committee was that Dr. Moriarty’s original intent of the policy was not communicated at all well initially, and so what we’ve tried to do is we have another subcommittee trying to work out how to explain what the policy is. People can’t make a reasoned comment about whether this is good or bad if they don’t understand what the policy is. Another subcommittee which we think is very important if you recognize that this policy be it good or bad, cannot possibly address all of the problems which were raised in the consultative exercise, so one of the things we tried to do is to catch other issues which are beyond the scope of our Committee, but which we feel should be recorded and passed on with some hope that some of these issues could be acted upon. And of course the final aspect which is very, very important is to design an evaluation and assessment policy so that where we conduct our final programming — which is something that should be approved and moved forward — we have a basis determining if it’s successful and if this is beneficial or if it’s not. So, we’re hoping — you’ll notice this is dotted so this is a hope — that by February we can have a policy which is ready for people to comment on. The intention is that we will again seek comments from the faculty on this revised policy. If it be the will of the Senate, I be more than happy to come back and present the policy back to the Senate and Steering Committee. And, assuming that all goes well, we will try by February to be in a position to report.

 

Now, one thing which may influence this policy, we have a detailed set of questions which we are sending out to the Dean of West Virginia who is responsible for implementing this policy at West Virginia. This is the probably the closest thing that’s out there to our situation. We as a Committee put together 10 very detailed questions he is going to share those with some other people at the institution. He’ll also be talking to faculty there. And we would like answers to those questions as part of formulating our policy. Since he’s doing us a great favor by taking the time to do this, I cannot force him to do it quickly. He’ll respond when he responds. So that would be the one thing which again might make the schedule slip. But he’s been very, very nice about this. His one comment is that you’re getting a bit of all our secrets. I think we owe him our thanks. Okay. I would be very, very happy to take your comments or questions as appropriate. Thank you.

 

Barbara Struempler: Do you people remember what this policy said? You’re sitting there, Connor, going “yes.” Can you give us just a nutshell?

 

Bill Gale: Okay. Let me comment upon the policy as it’s written now. I cannot comment on what the Committee will come up with because we haven’t finished our work yet. But essentially what this policy said was that faculty who generate soft-money was now offering salary support would have the possibly of applying some of this support — and there was a number caveats, which people had varied reactions to — there would be the possibility of getting a non-guaranteed case-by-case basis salary supplement out of providing soft-money salary support. That was the essence of the policy. There were a number of great pieces of confusion regarding to what extent this involved using sponsor money? To do this is supposed to be based on released state dollars which is something I think people didn’t follow. That was something which caused confusion. There’s also a lot of confusion about eligibility rules and other matters. So that’s really in summary the essence of the policy that I can talk about at greater length but that answers the question.

 

Barbara Struempler: So, in theory in February/March you’ll be able to provide us with another report or recommendation.

 

Bill Gale: That would be my goal.

 

Barbara Struempler: Which is good.

 

Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: Will the revised policy come up for a vote in the Senate, or will it just be presented to the Senate?

 

Bill Gale: That, to my mind, that’s really up to the Senate. I mean, this is … if the Senate wants to vote on it, it’s not for me to stop them.

 

Barbara Streumpler: Not mine either.

 

Paul Schmidt: I think we should vote on it.

 

Barbara Struempler: It would definitely be a Senate item.

 

Bill Gale: Anything else, folks? Thank you for your patience and for listening.

 

Barbara Streumpler: Can we just have one more … yes?

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: Barb, I just want to say thank you for your responsiveness, for moving this forward for further study. I think the decision to form a committee to explore much more thoroughly, to no just … the comments that we made during the discussion but a broader implication of this policy and to do it in such a timely manner with a clear plan about which we have not just try to bring it, at a specific point in time, give or take, is laudable and I wish that more of our business were conducted in this manner.

 

Paula Sullenger: Would the speaker state the name and the department for the record, please.

 

Virginia O’Leary: I’m sorry. Virginia O’Leary, Psychology.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. The last item or the last item on the agenda is new business. It’s the Issue and Debate Forum: 2003 Budgetary Items. What we’re going to have input on today are proposed budget items for the budgeting period that’s starting now that would approved for this fall. In about oh maybe when Bruce was chair, they gave their wish list to the Budget Committee and that’s essentially what this is. What we’re going to try to do today is I have captured some of the issues that were in last … the year or two before. Some of the line items that were on our wish list and I’ve included them. Other people have generated items. What we’re planning on doing today is if you have anything that you’d like to add to this wish list, please include. State why you would like to. if you feel strongly that something should be deleted, you can also state that. But here is where we are trying to go with this wish list. We’re trying to get our system up to do some electronic polling and voting at some point to the Faculty Senate. The students are using that and we’re trying to get us going in that vein too. President Walker has given us the resources to do it; Rich Burnett. Rich you are here. We’ve seen Gene Stewart. They’ve given a demo of the capabilities that we have available. And if you remember, a year ago this time Cindy Bruner was named chair of an ad hoc committee to coordinate this effort. So, we’ve all been kind of talking and our goal is to get this wish list today and within the next month put it up on line, have you people vote, state your priorities, and then hopefully by the February meeting — no later than March but we’re really shooting for February — to come back with the summary of the results, a summary of the process, and everything down the way. So today what we’re looking for — but you can have additional comments — we’re looking for items to include on our wish list for the budget of `04. It’s … and this will be a faculty-wide vote. So it will be about 1100 individuals — faculty members — that will have the opportunity to rank their choices. And it’s a pretty slick system, from what we’ve seen. Yes, Connor.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: Are you looking for additional items here? I’m not sure if graded health insurance premiums … what I think we’d … what I’d like to bring forward is the idea that graduate students have access to health insurance.

 

Barbara Struempler: Would you consider them health insurance … that says non-students. So we need health insurance for graduate students.

 

Connor Bailey: I believe the Graduate Student Organization has been working on a proposal for this type of thing.

 

Barbara Struempler: I did speak to Ron Herring and one of the areas that they are looking at this year is some kind of cancer-type insurance. He mentioned that to me. Yes.

 

Warner Berger, Animal Sciences: A lot of these items are personnel individual enumeration and so on. But one of the things that would ease sharp at Auburn and a lot of places would be the appropriate infrastructure to do anything. Now that may not be true in certain scholarly areas but it sure is true in the Life Sciences area. And so you might be talking a lot of money. Infrastructure improvement at other institutions have nine months … given any definitions of all I mean by that.

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Barbara, I have a question about the very first item. I guess I wonder if that needs to be on the list that deals with university-wide issues. Whether or not there’s hard money for technical support. Isn’t that a departmental question? Some departments funnel money into that area and others don’t.

 

Barbara Struempler: That is true. We can leave it on the list or delete it.

 

Cindy Brunner: Why was it put on the list?

 

Barbara Struempler: The list has been ongoing for about two years now. Yes?

 

Andreas Illies, Chemistry: There are some areas of technical support the University supplies. Like the University’s IT effort. So, maybe we might need more support of that sort. The machine shop functions for the entire University. So I think that would fall under and includes technical support.

 

Barbara Struempler: Why don’t you clarify that then and say for central service areas.

 

Cindy Brunner: I don’t know what we call those anymore, those central services areas, like the EM facilities.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect: When we did this in the Senate two years ago, it was just salary and benefits issues. I’m not quite sure why it got expanded now. Maybe we should decide what we are targeting. This is too much to put into one issue.

 

Barbara Struempler: Comments on Paula’s comments? Renée? Bill?

 

Bill Gale: If you will permit me, I really think we should split things up into two separate lists so you’re comparing apples with apples. Realistically, money that we should build the infrastructure improvements is unlikely to go towards increasing disability insurance I’m sure one could say. I think … I would suggest that one is promoted to the numeration of benefits and one that related to structural improvements would make, I think it would make good sense. I think we’d have a stronger argument if we appear to be advocating realistic trade-offs.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. Renée? No. Cindy?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Since the strategy that we’re looking at, for this is a lengthy strategy, I think that makes sense.

 

Candace Bourne, Staff Council: Last year I know that faculty salaries were targeted for increase. There was some dissention in the ranks concerning staff and that fact that they did not set these increases because we don’t have a system for evaluating or looking at the market values for staff, there’s an ongoing study that’s being done. We hope to defer to that as far as staff. I will ask that when that comes up that we have the Faculty Senate support that we can move a lot of these staff salaries to where they need to be. That may not need to come on this list, but it’s certainly going to be on our list. It’s going to come up and I hope that the faculty can support us; a lot of them work for you all.

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. I totally agree. Renée.

 

Renée Middleton, Senate Secretary: Just to build on what Candace is saying, historically when we’ve used the term we have increased faculty salaries, we have always used that to mean simultaneously Professional Support Staff. But it seems like in some circles in our discussions we’ve gotten away from that and I think it might be better for us to word it there to put them both there on the same line, and not just assume that we mean our staff, but say it. Add “Increase Faculty, Staff and A&P salaries.”

 

Barbara Struempler: This list is attached to the agenda on our web site. So think it through. If there are other items you would like to add, after talking to your faculty in the next day or two, send the additional items to Cindy Brunner at Veterinary Medicine or to Barbara Struempler. We can build the items in the list of items for us to vote on. And we do have a meeting scheduled  with OIT tomorrow. Paula, do you have something else to add?

 

Paula Sullenger: I was just wondering about the faculty on the staff salaries. Maybe we should keep those two separated. I have heard some faculty express the sentiment that we do keep them separate because they feel that for the first time they actually are making more progress on faculty salaries. I have heard the sentiment expressed that you should separate them because it gives people a chance to vote on both or all of them at once.

 

Barbara Struempler: Did you all hear? Hear Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger: Right now we just said that the faculty, staff and A&P salaries are all in one group. And I heard some sentiment expressed by faculty that they do like seeing those salaries considered separately. So I just wonder if we should make those two items instead of one: faculty salaries and then staff and A&P.

 

Renée Middleton: I think at this point I would like to see them stay together and I think we would be opening up a can of worms to separate them at this point. I know that previously the Salaries Committee has held the position that those two groups should be treated the same. Now whether the Salaries Committee changed that position or the Senate chooses to change that position, I think we would be getting into discussions that we are not ready to have yet and I’d like to see them kept together … I suggest at this point that they be kept together.

 

Sadik Tuzun: Yes, I agree with the sentiment too. Since faculty outnumber staff, having a vote on this would not likely be fair. I would like to see them kept together; we are all one body.

 

Barbara Struempler: How about this? Here’s another suggestion Rich and Gene answer if this possible. If we would make two separate line items where we say, “Increase Faculty Salaries” and then another “Increase Faculty, Staff, A&P Salaries.” You only get to rank one as a top priority, is that correct?

 

Rich Burnett, OIT: That’s not feasible.

 

Barbara Struempler: That’s not good?

 

Several in audience talking at same time; unable to make out

 

Well, I see some heads shake “yes” and some heads shake “no” so not everyone was in agreement with what you guys were saying. Let’s see, Christa.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I’d like to support Renée’s position. As Chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee, we have addressed this issue and we did not want to create a conflict and competition between one of the things that faculty and staff. We always had the position that whenever there was an increase for faculty, we would treat the staff the same. We did go on and say let’s be fair if you have only faculty voting on this I’m afraid the wrong message will be received that staff salaries are not important and so, I support Renée’s position. Let’s keep them together for now.

 

Barbara Struempler: I do know that they are, as Candace said, they are brining in someone to do a huge assessment of the Staff and A&P positions at the University. A huge undertaking from what I’ve heard. And that’s, I guess, to get them in … so that we can compare them to a more regional basis because at this point they don’t know how to compare them. I’m just telling you what I have heard on another end. But that’s … and I’ve heard Lynn Hammond talk about this issue on a couple of cases and that study will start this year sometime. But it’s going to be a huge study. Cindy.

 

Cindy Brunner: Barb, maybe this will help resolve the question. Maybe instead of just saying “Increase our Salaries” we could say “Make Faculty, Staff, and A&P Salaries More Competitive.” I have been on the Salaries Committee too and I’m not sure that I agree 100% with Renée in saying that these two have always been linked. We have taken a philosophical statement, sympathetic to the staff position and certainly arguing that staff salaries should receive the same amount of attention that faculty salaries should receive. But I don’t remember that we’ve ever argued that the faculty go up 5%, staff go up 5%.

 

Renée Middleton: No, we’ve had those discussions Cindy. And you can’t find it in our University’s history when we’ve done otherwise except for last year.

 

Barbara Struempler: I’m going to make a note on that. Cindy.

 

Cindy Brunner: Just note that there’s some disagreement about it. Not about the philosophy, but about the … but that may not be relevant. What we’re arguing here is splitting hairs and semantics but when we design the survey, these things are important. We are forced to rank these items. That’s an important issue.

 

Karen Rabren, Rehabilitation and Special Education: There have been three items already. Where there has been confusion about what is meant. Can you provide a brief description to clarify what is meant by some of the items up there? What do you mean by recycling? Are you talking about process or procedure or what?

 

Barbara Struempler: We’ll look at that when we do it. On the recycling, I don’t think … this came off of Jim Bradley’s wish list last year. In the Senate comments he said we needed recycling just then. So we said “Well, on our wish list, we’ll put a recycling system..” I personally don’t know what that will take either. I guess … we’re just kind of prioritizing what we feel is important and let’s say that there is no dollar amount attached to it, which we know is not realistic. But what would you really like? Okay. And I think that’s what we’re going for. If you think that a daycare center, regardless of what is involved in it, is important then you would check that. Or if you feel recycling is that important. So, at this point to test the system if you get this kind of wish list going … I think we’re just … we’ll try to clarify some of these. But on the recycling, I’m not going to spend a lot of time in the next week trying to figure out what we might even have. It was just a wish. But I mean … I respect your comments. But you see what we’re up against too. Yes.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: (unable to hear question)…

 

Barbara Struempler: Well, what they did was two years ago with Bruce — and it was done here at the Senate meeting — and what you did is asked if I went back and read the minutes. There was no wish list and then during the meeting you came up with your top, I think it was, your top three–five choices and it was just filtered on to the Budget Advisory Committee. And so it’s just an attempt to tell the Budget Advisory Committee which is ultimately the Administration what we think as faculty now since it’s campus-wide polling, what we think is important.

 

Christa Slaton: Well, one of the things we should add on this list are the list of things we don’t want on this list. [Laughter]

 

Barbara Struempler: I’ll send them on. Bill.

 

Bill Gale, Steering Committee: Thanks. Just a practical comment that I think whatever ultimately comes out of this, we need to ultimately have a very short list. I think it greatly increases our chances of actually getting some of these things. If we pick maybe no more than at most three issues, we campaign hard for them, and it’s something that is affordable for the University I think we stand a much better chance of getting them. So I think it’s important to pick a small number of issues whether they be realistic things that can be done with any available money. If we campaign for them we have a good chance of getting our wants.

 

Barbara Struempler: Well one way that the polling may be set up is just pick the top three. And we could get to that, flush that out pretty fast. We’re meeting tomorrow so … we’re trying this rather than doing it by vote. If it was by vote we would probably still go back to the top three, four, five, whatever.

 

Paula Sullenger: Along with realistic it would also help if we could be … if this becomes an annual process, it would help if we could kind of be consistent from year to year. I know it would be hard to do but what we’re trying to do is show that we have priorities that we need and that we want this taken care of, and then this, and that’s not going to change every year.

 

Barbara Struempler: Other items? Well, we’ll see what happens with this. Is there any other new business? Cindy.

 

Cindy Brunner: Barb, I want to point out that what we’re leading up to here with this survey is the probability of having faculty elections on the web. That was something that was promised informally at least a year ago. We now have the mechanics for doing that, a web site ballot. So at this point we know that it’s feasible to hold faculty office elections though a web site ballot. What we need to know from the Senate is do you want to do this? There are some disadvantages of each. One is that when you elect faculty officers with an online ballot the attendance for a meeting when that election might have been held would probably plummet. The second problem is that the attendance for a meeting when that may have voters that are uninformed about the issue because they didn’t have to go to a meeting to hear what’s being said. The third concern I have is it will open up an opportunity for everybody to poll us on any issue that comes up. So, be thinking about these things. This is something that’s  … that we’re going to look at formally within the next few weeks. And I’ll be looking to the Senate for your opinions about whether you think this is a good idea or whether you think it’s really subverting the entire process of the Senate that the faculty has been working on for the past decades.

 

Barbara Struempler: Thanks Cindy. Other comments? Any other new business? Hearing none, we stand adjourned. And I think activities are going on at 5:00 at the Conference Center.

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.