Auburn University Senate Meeting

February 11, 2003

3:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Absent: Jim Bradley, Immediate Past Chair; David Bransby, Agronomy & Soils; David Pascoe, Health & Human Performance; Karen Rabren, Rehabilitation & Special Education; Charles Gross, Electrical & Computer Engineering; Daniel Mackowski, Mechanical Engineering; Andreas Illies, Chemistry; Darrel Hankerson, Discrete & Social Science; Marllin L. Simon, Physics; Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology;  John J. Pittari, Jr., Architecture; Thomas A. Smith, Human Development/Family Studies; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal Sciences; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; Cpt. Ted McMurtrie, Navy ROTC; Interim Dean Rebekah Pindzola, College of Liberal Arts; Dean T. R. Boosinger, College of Veterinary Medicine; 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 at 3:00 p.m. by the chair, Barbara Struempler.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S OFFICE

 

John F. Pritchett, Acting Provost: Dr. Walker is in Montgomery dealing with budget issues. Bill wanted me to share with you a little bit about the current situation as it exists in Montgomery relative to our State budget. It appears at this point in time based on the revenues going into the Special Education Trust Fund and of course that is the base or at least the State portion of our budget. The revenues to this point are looking like they are running about $200 million behind what was projected for the budget year that we are in. Of course you will recall at the last legislative session, the legislature set aside — Don, I guess this came from the Gas Oil Lease — about $250 million for a Rainy Day Fund. So it is projected that, even if we do go into proration this year, that we will not feel the impact of it because the Rainy Day Fund should cover that. However, at this point in time it also looks like next year’s revenues will run about $300 million below this year’s revenues which means the potential for about 1/2 billion dollar budget deficit.

 

Dr. Walker met with the Administrative Council yesterday. His message was to hope for the best. There are a lot of activities going on in Montgomery at this point in time. We should be spurred by this crisis that there is a chance that significant changes can occur as far as tax reform is concerned. Dr. Walker has also charged us with planning for the worst. Hope for the best and plan for the worst. And Don yesterday, I believe he told us to start looking at some areas that were called … would be based on an approximate 10% cut on our State budget at this point. So Don’s office is commencing that.

 

John Heilman asked me to announce to the group that the Budget Advisory Committee is being finalized today. Dr. Large chairs that Committee.

Dr. Walker wanted me to update you just very briefly on the Board of Trustees meeting. We had a Budget Committee meeting and also an Ag Committee meeting on Thursday afternoon of last week. We had some other committee meetings on Friday and meeting before the Board on Friday afternoon. Governor Riley attended the meeting on Friday afternoon and was passed as Chair of the Board. Some of the actions that were taken at that point in time: you’ve heard a lot about our Legacy Scholarship which is tagged a lifetime membership from the Alumni Association and basically it gives out-of-state students whose parents qualify a two time in-state tuition rate rather than three times the required to all other non-resident. That has been referred back to Committee at this point in time. No recommendation was reached by the Board at that meeting.

 

I would also say that there is an outstanding presentation out of our Outreach Office; Dr. Wilson made some comments, Joe Sumner made some comments about our West Alabama initiatives that was exceptionally well-received by the Governor and the Governor has charged us or at least indicated to us that he would like see us expand our efforts in that direction in partnership with the State. So, I think David’s people and other people here at the University have been doing a great job with that.

 

One last item before questions. This is more from the Provost’s Office. We of course had all of the notifications out on tenure and promotion actions prior to Christmas. Based on the negative reports coming out of Committee, there have been seven appeals and we are now moving into T&P Appeal Process and that process should be completed by mid-March.

 

So Barb, with that said, I will happy to answer any questions that anyone might have.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: I am the Senator from the History Department. Dr. Pritchett, when it was announced that the Search Committee for Dean of Liberal Arts would be headed by Dr. David Wilson this seemed to signal that the University was taking matters of diversity seriously. Could you comment on the subsequent decision to remove Dr. Wilson, or Dr. Wilson’s decision to step down from this position, and he’s now been replaced by the Dean of Sciences and Mathematics?

 

John Pritchett: Ruth, what I can say at this point in time is that Dr. Walker and I have discussed David serving in this capacity. I approached David. David did agree to serve in this capacity. That was announced at the last Senate meeting. Immediately following that, there were further developments and as a result of those developments, David had indicated to the President and then later to me that he felt that he would not like to serve in that capacity. We stand by David in that decision that he made. What I then did was move to appoint Dean Schneller. And basically that’s about all I can say in that matter. Conner?

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: Further developments? That really does beg to be answered. What further developments?

 

John Pritchett: Conner, I would rather not go into that because of David, but I’m sure if you directed those questions directly to David that David would be happy to address them for you. Any further questions? Yes, ma’am?

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I’d like to know the status of the Budget Committee. I’ve asked repeatedly about this Committee. The Rules Committee met in the summer and put a lot of work into making recommendations for this Committee. The list was approved by the Rules Committee back in August. So I’m wondering what the hold-up is and what is the problem in getting approval for this Committee to move forward?

 

John Pritchett: As I indicated a few minutes ago, Dr. Heilman asked me to convey to this group that he is finalizing that today for the President’s signature. I have not been involved in what has been going on. I did make a recommendation that the Chair of the Senate and also the Chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee sit on that group. I think that’s been taken into consideration but it’s been the President’s Office that’s putting that together and Dr. Heilman assured me this morning that that would be finalized today and announced, and I agree with what you said about the amount of work. Are there further questions? Renée.

 

Renée Middleton, Secretary of the Senate: I guess my question is dealing with the Search Committees. The Dean searches and the Provost search and I’m not necessarily expecting an answer but to convey this to Dr. Walker. A question about some the searches, they are using what I refer to as “head hunters” or firms to identify and help with the search process. And with the emphasis that we have on diversity, I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist with the Provost search — I don’t know anything about that. The group that’s been organized — not the Search Committee but the “head hunter” group that they are using — to what extent do these firms have skills and abilities and contacts to identify the diversity that we are saying that we want to be committed to? I think that that needs to be something that we are cognitive of as we move forward both with the Provost search, and my own concern is if at the end of this process we don’t have a good pool of qualified candidates of diversity, I question whether or not we need to reopen the search. And I’m not just talking about women who have applied or candidates of color who’ve applied but quality candidates. We don’t just want people in the pool so we can say, “well, we had women in the pool,” but have these search firms the ability and expertise to identify quality candidates for the Search Committee to review? And to what extent this Search firm has the ability may or may not, I don’t know. I just think it’s something that we need to be cognizant of and if not, we need to be aware of that as we move forward if other search firms like that are used in the future.

 

John Pritchett: Do you want me to comment?

 

Renée Middleton: It’s up to you.

 

John Pritchett: Let me say this. As far as the four Dean Search Committees, those Search Committees have not been completed yet. I believe the Rules Committee is getting ready to send us names. We will then go ahead and finalize those Committees. And one of the first questions we will put to the Committee is how you want to proceed as far as the engagement of a Search firm. I cannot comment on the Provost Search Committee or whatever Mike and Chris Rodger just walked in.

 

Michael Moriarty, VP for Research: Chris Rodger and I co-chaired that Committee. I can’t identify at this point who the Search Committee has identified. There have been a number of candidates who’ve applied, we don’t know gender or race, etc at this point. I will say we have the same firm used for the Development Officer this Fall. If there is anybody here who was on the VP Search Committee, they can confirm that when we got down to the final dozen or so, we had a rich pool of candidates of color and gender, so I have no doubt that firm will do that in this case.

 

Renée Middleton: Okay. Understand what I’m stressing is not so much that we look good in terms of the numbers. I want a rich pool, I think we all want a rich pool, I think what we’re getting is that we want to make sure that we have qualified candidates in the pool who represent that diversity not just a way of bringing in diversity no just a way of brining the numbers so we can say we have these numbers, but qualified candidates.

 

Michael Moriarty: Let me make it clear. I hope you didn’t understand me to say we would be expecting anything less than qualified?

 

Renée Middleton: No. I didn’t … I just want to clear up any confusion.

 

Michael Moriarty: Our responsibility is to ensure that whoever comes in as Auburn University Provost or Dean, we’re not doing our job if we don’t look for the best qualified candidate. I don’t mean to imply that when searching for diversity we would be looking for less than that.

 

Barbara Struempler, Chair of the Senate: Other comments? Questions? Thank you Dr. Pritchett. The writing is tiny but this is the Search composition for the Deans that we’ve been talking about. The Dean of College of Agriculture, the College of Business, College of  Education and College of Liberal Arts. And I’d like to turn your attention to the Faculty Representative of which I am most concerned about. First I’d like to thank the Senators in these Colleges and also the Senators in Human Sciences as well as the Department of Biological Sciences for assisting in the election process to get faculty nominees for these Search Committees.

 

Search Committee for Dean, College of Agriculture and Director,

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station (n = 18)

 

Chair: Dean, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences (Richard Brinker)

 

10 faculty

                        1 from each academic department

1 from Human Sciences       

            1 from College of Sciences & Mathematics/Biological Sciences Department

3 department heads

1 student

1 staff/A&P

1 external advisory council member

1 substation superintendent

 

 

Search Committee for Dean, College of Business (n = 14)

 

Chair: Dean, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering (Larry Benefield)

 

7 faculty (Numbers derived from the proportionate make up of the college)

2 from Management

            1 from each of the other academic departments

3 department heads

1 student

1 staff/A&P

1 external advisory council member

 

Search Committee for Dean, College of Education (n = 13)

 

Chair: Dean, College of Human Sciences (June Henton)

 

6 faculty (Numbers derived from the proportionate make up of the college)

            2 from Curriculum and Teaching

            1 from each of the other academic departments

3 department heads

1 student

1 staff/A&P

1 external advisory council member

1 public school superintendent

 

Search Committee for Dean, College of Liberal Arts (n = 17)

 

Dean, College of Sciences and Mathematics (Stewart Schneller)

 

9 faculty: (Numbers derived from the proportionate make up of the college)

3 from Humanities

            2 from Social and Behavioral Sciences

            2 from Fine Arts

            1 from Communication Sciences

            1 instructor (at-large)

4 department heads

1 student

1 staff/A&P

1 external advisory council member

 

Immediately following the last Senate meeting, Dr. Pritchett and the Senate leaders who sat down to discuss the composition and the fairest way to get to the faculty representatives. And in our pursuit of shared governance we decided to go back to the faculty given representation in new Senators. So that’s where you were asked to come in. The Senators in all these respective units were asked to coordinate an election process within your unit. You were supposed to send a certain number of names to Renée Middleton who is Secretary of the University Senate and most of them are in. When they are all in, the Rules Committee will meet and we will make recommendations to the Provost’s Office as well as President Walker. They will have the final selection as they do with any committee that we have. And we did. It has been alluded to that the original request did ask for diversity among the nominees. But if the Rules Committee feels that there is not sufficient diversity as we have done with other committees, we recommend additional names and we will submit those to the Provost’s Office and also to the President’s Office. So that’s kind of the procedure that has been used and we will continue with that.

 

I should say that after the original request went out, two of the Searches were expanded. The one for the Dean of Agriculture, the College of Agriculture and who’s also the Director of the Experiment Station, that was expanded to include faculty from Human Sciences as well as Biological Sciences. There’s faculty in that Colleges and Department that work directly with the Experiment Station. We also expanded the Search Committee for the Dean of Liberal Arts. We added one instructor position to that College. And instructors … they’re kind of hard to pinpoint at this University which I have found out. You get to find out a lot in this job that is kind of incidental information. But essentially what I did was I wrote a letter to all the Department Heads in Liberal Arts and asked them to send a request — my letter — to all people that had Instructor status — according to the Faculty Handbook they are considered faculty and they should have representation because there is quite a large number of them. I asked for volunteers with Instructor ranking to volunteer themselves to coordinate the election. Four instructors in Liberal Arts — and that was about two weeks ago and I’ve had no volunteers to step forward. So this shared governance concept kind of backfired in our face. Probably what will happen is that we’ll go back to the original composition of eight faculty members.

 

I would like to say that during the last year the Senate and the Administration and the Board have made a very concerted effort to make sure that we have equal and fair representation on committees throughout the University. But when we ask for shared governance, along with that means that we need faculty to step up to the plate and perform that service for faculty. We have, in the last couple of years, we have asked loudly and clearly “we want shared governance.” But at that time we also need people to volunteer. So, I know that people are totally committed. I know people get very little recognition if any at all for service they perform to the University, but it is so necessary that people volunteer or when we start asking people for the nomination process that comes through with all these committees that we do that they at least agree to serve if they are asked to if it’s possible. But this has been an ongoing issue all month long and we’ve worked very hard on the Deans’ Searches.

 

As Dr. Pritchett said Governor Riley was at the Board of Trustees meeting. I don’t think Siegelman ever made it one, did he? He did? So we’ve got heads “yes” “no” okay. But I’ll tell you what I’ve heard Governor Riley on several occasions. I really think that he believes “Alabama’s research universities should serve as engines to drive economic development in the state.” I’ll read that again. He believes that Alabama’s research universities should serve as engines to drive economic development in the state. And although I may be a little biased, I know of only one research university in Alabama that can take on this challenge. So I would encourage all of my colleagues at Auburn University to take this leadership responsibility.

 

Just a couple of quick announcements. On February 22 — that’s a Saturday — there’s going to be a Town Hall Meeting with Senator Shelby. It’s kind of a new meeting; it’s one of four or five stops. Dr. Moriarty is kind of coordinating this. I heard that there was free food.

 

Moriarty, Vice Provost and Vice President for Research: It’s been down-graded from a sit-down lunch to free refreshments.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. Well, refreshments. But as you know, Senator Shelby is a very, very strong supporter of Auburn University. He is the senior member and chair of the State Appropriations Committee. Once you look at his record all together, he does more for education in the State of Alabama than anyone else. I have listed some of the programs that are funded through earmarked funding, and some federal funding that comes in for Auburn University. It’s about $10 million. We’re third in earmarked federal funds in the nation. Only Florida and California rank higher.

 

Heath Henderson, President of the Student Government Association, asked me to make two brief announcements. They are, in conjunction with Lee County Habitat for Humanity, they are going to have an Auburn designed/built home. And so during the week of March 3–15 they are asking for anyone who wants to build to please come out and you’ll receive more on that. So if you want more information about future interest at this point, make sure that you get hold of the SGA office or Heath Henderson. Also on March 15, the SGA is sponsoring a big event. They are providing kind of a community thank you for the citizens throughout the county. They are going around and doing help projects. So if you know of anyone who needs help projects, you can turn those in to Heath Henderson or the SGA office. Are there other … oh, Renée wanted me to … well, she didn’t say this — we talked about this, sorry Renée. But you know, we’ve left some extra copies on the back of the agenda and some of the attachments that are sent with the agenda. Those really are for the friends of the Senate who attend the meetings who may not … newspaper reporters who may not actually take down our information. We kind of expected the Senators … that you people would go in and read it, print it off and talk to some of your colleagues so that you come prepared to discuss some of the issues. We’re not … we’re trying to get out of chopping down trees and save a little bit of paper, so just bring your copies with you when you come, if you would please.

 

Are there any other announcements? Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect of the Senate: We were hoping that the Committee Volunteer Form for next year’s committees would be up and running in a couple of weeks. The system we had been using no longer exists so with some help from the President’s Office and Dr. McFarland’s students, we will start a new system from scratch. They’re not quite there yet but hopefully in a couple of weeks the call will go out and start talking to your colleagues about the need to sign up for lots of committees.

 

Barbara Struempler: Thank you. Also our next announcement is from

 

Nancy Joseph, President, Graduate Student Council: Hi. My name is Nancy Joseph. I am the President of the Graduate Student Council. And I just wanted to let everybody know that we’re going to be hosting our annual Research Forum. This year it’s going to be March 19 and 20 at the AU Hotel and Dixon Conference Center. The call for abstracts has already gone out and the deadline is next Tuesday. This Forum is for any student at Auburn. They can come together, share their ideas with others, and also get some valuable public speaking experience. We also are inviting students in the Performing or Creative Arts to present their work on the evening of March 19 which will be followed by a reception. So I ask all of you to encourage your students to come out to this event. It’s free for them to attend. It’s also free to you to come and support them.

 

The other thing that I want to mention is that the GSE pays to host the Forum. We pay for the rooms, the food, the AV equipment, and the programming. But we rely on donations from the departments to cover the cash prizes that are awarded for top presentations. So far the following departments have agreed to donate money and I want to thank — if you are here from that department — I want to thank you for that. We have raised $2,800 so far and we are looking to raise another $400. So if you are interested or if you would like to make a donation, please contact our Vice President Gloria Harrick and her information is at the bottom.

 

On a final note, I just want to say that donations are great but if attendance and the number of abstracts are low, then there’s really no justification to have this. So we believe strongly in the value of this meeting but in order to continue doing this each year, we need your support. I ask that you come out to the event, encourage your students to submit abstracts and keep the interest in the Forum up. Thank you very much.

 

Barbara Struempler: Anyone else, just come on down.

 

Linda Glaze, Assistant Provost: I just wanted to let you know that we will bringing in candidates for the Director for the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. I’ll be sending out the announcement in terms of the times. It’s taken us a year but we’ve identified three candidates” one is from State University of New York–Albany, another is from the University of Missouri, and another is from Northern Illinois University. I will … there will be an open forum where I am encouraging faculty to come. I’ll be asking the candidates to give a presentation on how they envision this Center … what this Center should look like. I will be sending out an announcement with the schedule. They will be coming March 3 and 4, March 10 and 11, and March 20 and 21. I just wanted to forewarn you because there will not be another Senate meeting prior to that.

 

Barbara Struempler: Any other announcements? The next business of order is … it’s an action item and it’s a motion from the Steering Committee on the Trustee nominations. Renée Middleton, the Secretary of the University Senate will present that, will make the motion.

 

Renée Middleton, Secretary of the Senate: Everybody has the motion so my role is simply to say the Steering Committee moves that the following motion be approved by the Senate.

 

Barbara Struempler: I’ll now open up the floor for discussion. It doesn’t need a second because it came out of a Committee. Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect of the Senate: I was looking over the motion. It looks to me like there were really two different motions in one. One was urging the Alabama Senate to confirm the nominee and then there’s a second one thanking the Nominating Committee. So I’d like to move to divide the question and to consider two separate motions.

 

Barbara Struempler: Have you changed any words?

 

Paula Sullenger: No.

 

Barbara Struempler: Okay. So there’s an amendment to the motion to divide the motion. So we need a second on this. Is there a second? Okay, there’s your second. Now we can have a discussion on this amendment and what you are discussing is if you want to divide the motion into two parts. So there will be two motions. According to Paula the wording has not changed. You just have one that would go to the Alabama Senate, the first one which says “swiftly confirm” and then the second motion down here thanks the Nomination Committee and urges them to nominate a qualified women or minority person for their selection. Okay, discussion? Renée.

 

Renée Middleton: If you … are you saying that it’s going to go to two different bodies?

 

Barbara Struempler: Is that what you are saying Paula? By dividing them?

 

Paula Sullenger: Yes. I thought the motion was a thank you to the Nominating Committee. So why do we say ‘thanks’ to another party? If we’re going to thank the Nominating Committee we ought to thank the Nominating Committee.

 

Renée Middleton: Personally, I would like to send it to both bodies, the Nominating Committee and the legislators appropriately, that we do urge them to nominate a qualified woman or minority person for the third opening of the Board.

 

Barbara Struempler: So you are speaking against dividing the motion?

 

Renée Middleton: If it’s going to two separate bodies. I think both bodies … that that communication needs to be made to both bodies.

 

Barbara Struempler: Is there someone speaking for the motion? Bill.

 

Bill Gale, Steering Committee: My reasoning in support of the motion is that I think that the …

 

Barbara Struempler: This is the amendment.

 

Bill Gales: The statement made to the State Senate should be made as short as possible. We ought to have a nice, neat, short, concise thing so that they can easily read it when we ask for their support.

 

Barbara Struempler: Connor.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: I have no problems with dividing it. I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference. I think if we are going to divide it, then perhaps Paula would accept a friendly amendment for the removal of the … an additional comma.

 

Paula Sullenger: Later. Right now, only person at a time.

 

Barbara Struempler: Right now we are just voting on whether we want to divide them. So it’s that concept. And then we’ll start picking at the words. Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger: My colleague the Secretary mentioned that the whole motion needed to go to the Senate. There’s no reason we couldn’t put in a copy of the second motion to the Alabama Senate to let them know that we still working toward diversity. I don’t see that as an either/or proposition.

 

Barbara Struempler: Any other discussion on the amendment? And the amendment is to divide the original motion and have it in two different motions as you see it illustrated here. If this is voted ‘yes’ then we, as I understand it, won’t go back to the original. That’s not a choice. Judy.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: I’m not sure if this is the right time to say this either, but what if we wanted to get across the point to the Senate that we hope for diversity in the next nominee? Could we then add to the split, if you want to split it? A sentence that says “we further urge the Senate, when the Trustee Nomination Committee presents its next candidate” — and it’s supposed to be looking specifically for color and gender right? — “that they swiftly confirm the next candidate. Now we don’t know who that is so that’s a little bit risky.

 

Barbara Struempler: Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger: We have to get the motions in. We can start on the first motion and add or subtract anything that the Senate wants. So, yes. But right now we can only consider dividing it.

 

Barbara Struempler: Christa.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I’d like to speak against the amendment. I think we are splitting hairs here. I’d like to move on to other issues on the agenda and I would like to have the legislators see it.

 

Barbara Struempler: Are we ready to vote? Call the question. So we’re voting on … if you vote “yes,” you’re voting “yes” to split the motion. All those in favor of the amendment to split the original motion, say “aye.” [RESPONSES] All those opposed, say “no.” [MORE RESPONSES] Well, what did you guys hear? How about let’s do a hand vote. Okay? All those in favor of the amendment to split the motion, signify … raise your right hand. This is a vote “yes” to split it. And all those opposed, raise your right hand please. Okay. The amendment to split it failed [21 = yes, 35 = no]. So, now we go back to the original motion, to keep it all as one and this now is what we’re addressing. Paula.

 

Paula Sullenger: The Trustee Nomination Committee and then it’s called the Nominating Committee in two different places. It’s called two different things and neither one of those is actually the correct name. If you’re going to send it forward, I move that we strike “Trustee Nomination Committee” and then “Nominating Committee” and replace it with “Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee” which is the official name of the Committee.

 

Barbara Struempler: Just in two places? Is that what you guys see? So you’re just giving us the correct name for the Committee? Other comments? Dr. Wilson.

 

Dr. David Wilson: I’d like to offer a comment. Why don’t we drop the word “qualified” as a qualifier from the motion?

 

Barbara Struempler: Do we have that as a friendly suggestion? Renée, would you accept that? Ready for the question? Okay. All those in favor of presenting this motion to the Alabama Senate with copies also to the Trustee Selection Committee — thanks Dale — all those in favor of this motion signify by saying “aye.” [RESPONSES] All those opposed, “no.” [SINGULAR RESPONSE]. The “ayes” have it, so it will be sent.

 

The next business of order is nomination for the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is probably the business Senate Committee — I think that’s fair to say — of all of our committees. It does an extremely … it does a lot of important jobs, but it helps facilitate all these committee assignments that we get throughout the year. So the individual needs to know a lot of people; it’s an important committee and a very time consuming committee. The nominees must be Senators so … at the time that they are nominated. The nominations must come from Senators. It’s a three-year assignment. And we have three positions … sorry, two-year assignment. And we’re looking for three new members. And they will be voted on by secret ballot at the next meeting on March 4. It’s the first Tuesday, not the second Tuesday. The second Tuesday is the General Faculty Meeting. And Daowei and Christa have been filling unexpired terms so they can be re-nominated if they have agreed to be nominated. So hearing that, are there nominations for members of the Rules Committee? Connor.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: I would like to nominate a good friend and colleague, Gary Mullin.

 

Barbara Struempler: Gary Mullin. Gary you’re from … Entomology. Thank you. I knew that. Christa.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I’d like to nominate Paul Starr.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: I’d like to nominate Christa Slaton, Political Science.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-Elect: I’d like to nominate Bob Ripley from Aviation Management.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: I’d like to nominate Virginia O’Leary from Psychology.

 

Barbara Struempler: Have all these people agreed to these nominations? Okay. ??? Don’t want that to be a surprise, that’s all. John.

 

John Mouton, Chair-Elect: I’d like to propose Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering.

 

Paula Sullenger: James Kaminsky, Educational Foundations.

 

Barbara Struempler: Other nominations? Okay. We’ll vote by secret ballot next month. The next item is presented by Gary Burkhardt. He’s presenting the nominations for the University Senate officers: the Chair-elect and the Secretary-Elect positions.

 

Barry Burkhart, Psychology: I’m filling in for Jim Bradley who is the chair of the Nominating Committee. I’m convinced that he is hiding out because he new I would have to face people who I am having to work rather than not being here. Membership of the Nominating Committee is selected by the Senate Executive Committee as specified in the Faculty Handbook. And I’d like to acknowledge the Nominating Committee for this past year: Mel Madson, Mechanical Engineering; Jacqueline Flynn, Forestry & Wildlife Sciences; Ed Morrison, Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology; myself; Renée Middleton, Counseling & Counseling Psychology; and Jim Bradley, Biological Sciences was the chair of the Nominating Committee. The Committee used campus-wide email to solicit nominees for both Senate offices: the Chair and President of the Senate and the Senate Secretary. We also solicited Deans of every College and School asking their assistance in soliciting nominees from each department. Nominations were accepted by all Committee members who also registered their own nominations to the nominees. Names for approximately 25 nominees were obtained from each office. One of the things, by the way as an aside, that I would ask the Senate Rules Committee to consider is that in a number of occasions when we approached people to commit to serving what is essentially a three-year sentence, I mean term , many people have their search plans that extends into that window and simply can’t do that. And so it’s my recommendation that the Rules Committee consider the possibility of moving nominations back even earlier — Executive Committee, I’m sorry; the Executive Committee — so that people will have an opportunity, if they intend to let their names be put forward, to close down a research shop or postpone trips or take trips away or other things that get in the way of their second of nominations.

 

The Committee discussed nominations used a ranking system to prioritize invitations to nominees when we approach people. The Committee is pleased to announce the following candidates for Senate office: for Senate Chair and President of the University Faculty, Willie Larkin from Extension — Willie, I see you. From Geology, Jim Saunders — Jim. For Senate Secretary, Debra Cobia of Counseling and Counseling Psychology and Richard Penaskovic from Philosophy. And that’s the report of the Nominating Committee.

 

Barbara Struempler: Thank you. Let me … of course the election of the officers will occur at the Spring meeting on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 — that’s 28 days from now. And at that meeting you should also have additional nominations from the floor if the consent of the nominee has been obtained. Election will be by secret ballot and there’s also absentee balloting and that will be coordinated 10 days prior to the Spring meeting by the Secretary. So, there will be candidate response information going into the AU Report. They’re going to run on the March 3. They’ll be running some bios and statements from all the candidates so you’ll be able to familiarize yourself with them and we appreciate your efforts on behalf of them. So thank you. Other comments? Yes.

 

Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering: Didn’t you say the March meeting was the 4th rather than the 11th?

 

Barbara Struempler: Yes. The Faculty Meeting is unusual. The Faculty Meeting, this regular Senate meeting, is the first Tuesday, will be March 4. And the Spring meeting which is the General Faculty meeting of the Spring meeting, is the second Tuesday. It should be changed Paula; but we’ll let you take care of that next year. Okay? We’ve talked about that. It makes no sense.

 

The next business item discusses the result of the electronic vote of the faculty on the ’03 budgetary priorities and Paula Sullenger as Secretary-elect of the Senate will present this information. Prior to your comments, I would like to thank Gene Stewart. Gene Stewart is in the audience; he works with the Office of Information Technology. And Gene gave us … this was a pilot test and we knew it was a pilot test. We have listened to your comments; we have received many of them. And some were very nice and some were not so nice. But we’re used to that by now. But we will take those comments and we’re working with that to give us a better system. So we appreciate those people that voted. And Gene, thank you so much for technically supporting this voting process. It has been a desire of the Senate for years and it would not have occurred without your support. You’re just vigilant on that. Thank you so much. Paula

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary-elect of the Senate: Hopefully, y’all will let me off easy and just go over this one page. There were 293 people that voted on this. And there were on-campus and off-campus selections. We were kind of interested to see there were any differences. I don’t know if it shows up very well up here but I’ll try to hold up the top five. In the on-campus the top priority was the pre-scholarly salaries that we set. Second was to increase the number of faculty positions; third was to raise the PDA cap on the learning stats; fourth, GRA waivers; and fifth was the medical. And it was slightly different for the off-campus: salaries was still number one; and PDA cap was higher; then insurance premiums followed by the increased faculty positions and health insurance was right at the end. But there weren’t enough off-campus voters to affect the overall decision; there’s the total ranking on that followed the on-campus ranking. And then for the part that was conventionally been employee-funded only, the numbers were very different; I won’t read them all to you, but you see the on-campus ranked very differently than the off-campus. If you put the two together, that changed everything completely. I think the next step is to forward them to the University Budget Advisory Committee for their consideration along with Faculty Welfare and Insurance and Benefits and whoever else forms recommendations. Are there any further questions?

 

Steve McFarland, Representing the President’s Office: Do you have any sense of the relative weights of the voters compared to the total who are eligible to vote?

 

Paula Sullenger: I … presented a questionnaire for faculty, but when I asked Mr. Stewart he said that the call went out to 1,984 people, so that’s about a 14% response rate.

 

Barbara Struempler: What I would envision just where this electronic voting is going, you know, Cindy Brunner was chair of a committee to look at the electronic voting and Cindy and her Committee were, when they were appointed well over a year ago, were given the technical aspects of it because that’s what our problem was at the time. And then OIT stepped in so we didn’t have that technical difficulty. So I’ll probably be going back to Cindy and see if she or any of the members of the original committee would like to participate in an ad hoc committee to come up with some recommendations of when you use electronic voting and polling. I mean, it  just can’t be willy-nilly. So, we’ll work on that. If you have any desire to work on a committee like that, if you have any opinions send them to me or to Renée or to Paula, John who will be taking over. So, think that through if you do have some concerns on that.

 

The next business of order is an update on the Peaks of Excellence by Acting Provost John Pritchett. You know, the Peaks of Excellence has been … have caused a lot of resentment for faculty if you listen to them. The kind of … if you listen, they’ve created a systems kind of the haves and the have nots. And its been a source of conversation throughout the last year. So Dr. Pritchett is going to give us an update on the history of them but also the upcoming assessment that they will be doing to evaluate the Peaks which I think is of interest. It has been to me. So, thank you Dr. Pritchett.

 

John Pritchett, Acting Provost: Thanks so much Barb. What I want to do is take you back about four and one-half years and I believe that this was about the time the Rolls-Stoke Commission where we talking, Don, I guess was a five-year plan that we were putting into place. When Dr. Muse proposed selecting some subset of our programs who were already very good and elevating those to national and even international prominence. What Dr. Muse then did is establish a committee which was chaired by then Provost Walker, it included other members of the administration as well as faculty. That committee in turn generated the guidelines which would be used in calling for the request for proposals. In turn we received requests for proposals — I indicate here is was 40+ Dr. Moriarty indicated precisely — but it was 49 proposals that were received. The Committee conducted an initial review of all proposals and one of the things that came out of this was that many of those were interrelated. So what we asked the Committee is that those people submitting proposals go back for a second generation and we appropriately combine those proposals to make those things synergistic. As a result of that second generation and as a result of the Committee review, 10 proposals were recommended to the President. In turn what Dr. Muse did is to identify from those 10, seven specific proposals. And these were not selected for implementation. These seven areas were then selected for further external review. In other words, what we were interested in doing is bring the scientific expertise from outside the University to bear on these seven areas. These of course include Fisheries, Poultry, Cellular and Molecular Biosciences, Sustainable Forestry, IT, Transportation, and Detection and Food Safety. I’d like to point out on this last one, Detection and Food Safety, that was one of those areas where we had a very strong proposal for Detection and we had a very strong proposal in Food Safety and as a result of that second generation, those two things were indeed put together.

 

During the summer of 1998–99, we conducted these seven external reviews; these were coordinated by the Research Competitiveness Office of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We brought five to six member teams to campus and spent several days in each of the areas. And then based upon the review information that we received from those external review teams, we sat down and selected five of those programs for funding for the first year. And of course the first budget year was 1999–2000. Those five areas that were selected for funding in the first year were Cellular & Molecular, Sustainable Forestry, IT, Transportation, and Detection and Food Safety. I indicated implementation was begun in FY2000 — that’s the 1999–2000 budget year — however, those two areas that were not selected for funding in the first year were getting the opportunity to cycle back through the review process and to improve their individual proposals.

 

Here basically is the funding scheme that we have been following: year one was 1999–2000; if you look at year two, you’ll notice an asterisk. Poultry Science was added in year two. Fisheries on the other hand became what we call an un-funded of self-supported Peak of Excellence. Fisheries did not receive any money as a Peak of Excellence fund. The Peaks are funded by really two kinds of money. In year one, we put in $1 million in continuing money. In year two that amount was increased by $1 million to a total of $2 million. And every year since we have added an additional $1 million. We are currently in year four of the overall Peaks Program. Next year is year five. In addition to the continuing funding, we have added about $500,000 per year in one-time funding to the total program.

 

So where are we going from here? Each program is required to submit an annual progress report. That submission comes to the Provost’s Office and in turn what we do is sit down with the Office of Vice President for Research, the coordinating Deans for these areas, and the faculty involved to review what they have done the previous year and what their plans are for the coming year. Barb, this last progress report, we called for … also requested to what extent did you generate any unusual amount of extramural funding? That standard calls for annual progress reports, but built in to the overall process — and this will be initiated following the sixth of the progress reports — is the beginning of what I refer to here as a fourth year review or fourth year substance. This will be conducted under the auspices of the University Program Review Committee. In other words, this will provide us … provide for the oversight. What we will do is go back and identify the external reviewers or as many as possible that were involved in the initial review, we will bring them back to campus and we will ask the very hard question: “Did this program accomplish what it set out to accomplish?” So this is the process that we will commence, I guess, in the April-May time frame. It is very possible that if we have these programs that did not accomplish what they indicated, that Peaks funding will then be withdrawn and redirected. But that’s where we stand in the overall process. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. Renée?

 

Renée Middleton: You said Fisheries was added but didn’t received any funds for support. Are there other Peaks that have been added but are receiving no funding as of yet?

 

John Pritchett: These were the original seven. Fisheries was not included for the September 1 round. Now the Board of Trustees liked this program so much that they asked for a second round and we went through the process a second time. As a result of that second process, three additional areas were identified. One was the area of Finance, one was the area of Transitions in Rehab and Special Education, and one was Architecture and specifically Architecture as it dealt with a Rural Studio. That was two and one-half years ago and budget-wise you may remember what happened to us two and one-half years ago. So there was no funding to fund the second round of Peaks. So those are what we refer to as unfunded at this point in time.

 

Renée Middleton: So as we look at the second round of Peaks and you are making decisions as to whether or not those first round will be funded, the intent is to … are you going to … those second round won’t get funded if you refund the first ones? Are we looking at putting more money in to fund the second round?

 

John Pritchett: Understand Renée. This is a five-year budget in each of these areas developed a five-year budget, except Poultry; they did a four-year budget. In continuing funds, if they are doing what they said they were going to do, we’ll stay with that. The continuing dollars will stay. So it’s a matter of acquiring new dollars to fund additional Peaks. Any further questions? Thanks so much to all of you.

 

Barbara Struempler: Dr. McFarland is our next presenter. He’s going to talk about … give us an update of the Trustees Academic Affairs Committee. One of the things we always talk about — does the University exist for athletics or for academics? — and if you go to Board meetings, academics … that issue is sometimes … you don’t find it very often. It’s been kind of a quiet committee for too long. Trustee Jack Miller desires to change this Committee. He’s the Trustee from Mobile and he wants to make Academic Affairs the meat of the Board Committee. And with all other committees of the Board, there is a representative on campus that helps coordinate those efforts. And so Dr. Steve McFarland, Dean of the Graduate School, is taking on that assignment. And I think you’re going to charge it up, aren’t you?

 

Steve McFarland, Acting Dean of the Graduate School: I’m going to try.

 

Barbara Struempler: Yeah. Well, good. I’m excited. Thank you for coming.

 

Steve McFarland: Housekeeping first. Is that better? Or is that better? The second one. As Dr. Struempler said, the idea is to energize the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board. Several years ago, two committees were merged. There was a Planning Priorities Committee of the Board that was relatively active. It dealt with a few of the issues of the Academic Affairs. And then there was a largely moribund committee called Academic Affairs; it really never met, it never acted. So a couple of years ago those two Committees were merged and now have a new chair of that Committee; Jack Miller from Mobile, a member of the Board of Trustees. Quite frankly, Mr. Miller wants to truly energize that Academic Affairs Committee and the reason he wants to energize that Academic Affairs Committee is that he feels that academic affairs should be, as he said on Friday’s meeting, the razzle dazzle of the Board of Trustees. That is should provide the focal point for all discussions of the Board in that any deliberations involving budgets, involving alumni, involving construction, involving athletic programs should in some way be affected by that Academic Affairs Committee. Now with that in mind, last Friday we made a presentation to the Board, to the Committee and to the members of the Board that were there. It largely revolved around discussions of how we assess ourselves, about how we view the SACS reaffirmation. But it also presented to them a start of some of the basic statistics that we use in evaluating the health of this institution. The academic health of this institution. And Senate leadership — Dr. Struempler — asked me if I wouldn’t come and present some of these same data to you. You might find it kind of fascinating. You may not. But at a very fundamental level we start assessing, one of the first things we do is reach for statistics, reach for data to see what it might indicate about the interactive health of this institution.

 

I want to take just a couple of minutes and present some of this data to you. Certainly open it to you in possible discussion you might have. You might be interested to see these numbers. The first is undergraduate grade point average as you can see, done in yearly terms. This chart is not very indicative. A 0–4 grade point average is basically a nice horizontal line. There are two lines which may be difficult for you to see but I’m going to separate them for you here in a minute. The two lines are, if you remember, in Fall of 2000 we switched to semesters. But in addition, we also initiated the grade adjustment policy. And that’s why we have to start talking about two different lines. And if you will, what I’m now going to do is blow it up for you so you’ll have a better view. I’ve changed the scale from 2.7 to 2.9 so you’ll understand that I’ve magnified it dramatically so therefore when you see this significant change in grade point averages you’re actually talking about that in reality. Alright?

 

So I think what this chart does seem to indicate is in the last few years of quarters prior to the switch to semesters, Fall 2000, we did have an increase in grade point average. Grade inflation, I’m not sure I could exactly tell you what the reason behind this was, but do be aware that what looks to be pretty dramatic here is actually less than .1 of a grade point average. But you can also see that there was an impact from the fall semester transition. The Fall 2000 semester transition. All the literature that we read indicated that we would see a drop in grade point average. And it’s reflected in this chart which is again highly magnified. The two lines that you see — the colors don’t come that clear — but the bottom one is the original GPA meaning these are unadjusted. The top one reflects the grade adjustment policy or so-called GAP (grade adjustment policy). Initiated in Fall 2000, if you remember what that policy essentially says is that any student registered Fall 2000 an after may remove up to three failing grades from the considerations of grade point average. They remain on the transcript but they do not affect the grade point average. The reason we have two lines going all the way back to 1994 is that the students were enrolled in Fall of 2000 could reach into the past to ask that those failing grades be removed from the grade point average. As a matter of fact, as of the Fall 2002, the most recent figures we have as you can see, is a difference of 6/100ths of a grade point average because of some 12,500 requests we’ve had from undergraduate students to remove failing grades from their grade point calculations. There’s been a lot of publicity, a lot of discussion, some grumbling, some cheering about the grade adjust policy, but the net effect as of the Fall 2002 is it had a .06 of a grade point affect. And if you think of the numbers involved, 12,500 since Fall 2000 and yet on average we have in Fall and Spring semesters roughly 110,000 grades assigned. There are 110,000 grades in any given semester assigned and only 12,500 have been adjusted. Any questions about grade point averages? Dr. Reinke.

 

Mike Reinke, Clinical Pharmacy: My question concerns those 110,000 grades assigned per academic year. Does that include the professional students and graduate students as well?

 

Steve McFarland: Undergraduates. This is undergraduates. I’ve got professional and graduate. I thought you might want to see that too. This is undergraduate only. And if you remember the grade adjustment policy does not apply to professional and graduate students.

 

Graduate. Of course we did a selection process involving graduate students; the grade point averages will be substantially higher. I know you all know that but there are a few people who might not know that. See it’s just the opposite. Grade inflation … in fact we were kind of heading down when we headed toward semesters. But as in the case of undergraduates, with the initiation of semesters, it took a while, I think, for faculty and students to adjust to semesters. And so there was a slight decline. In this case, 1/100th of a grade point average. With the initiation of semesters, but then students have now recovered. And in fact, as you can see we’re moving back up to the 1994 averages. This is an adjustment period for our graduate students. Then for professional students, these are the numbers. Again, I have truncated or magnified the scale so sometimes the peaks and valleys are less significant than they appear on these charts. To lead us from 0–4, you’d just be seeing a straight line; a horizontal line. Any questions about those?

 

Now some of the other basic statistics if you will of our academic performance. Undergraduate student we have concept rules, academic warning. The philosophy behind this, of course, is to give these people warning when their progress is insufficient. In case you don’t know what those are, if an undergraduate student at the end of the semester has a cumulative GPA below a 2.0, they then are put on academic warning. I’m going to show you these others but just so we can cover them now, first suspension requires that which is fairly elaborate; the second suspension is if you do No. 1 again, the first suspension. Then expulsion is if you do it a second time or a third time. Academic warning is again, by term, not going back quite so far. As you can see, it’s largely seasonal or by term. You perhaps can blame this on the football program, the very busy social schedule in the fall. I think you could also certainly indicate that or connect this to the fact that there are great number of new students coming to college in the fall and it takes them a while to get adjusted. You also have new faculty involved. In addition, it’s also self-selecting in the sense that some students drop out after that first semester feeling Auburn is not for them. And in addition, they get their warning when they then pay attention, if you will, seek assistance, and the Student Affairs division has a great number of programs designed to help students. There is the Study Partners Program, there’s the Supplemental Instructor Program, there’s the Tutorial Program, there are the Success courses, anyone from Student Affairs here? I think they’re all ??? There are a couple more. But students tend to then do better.

 

So, again, you’re seeing Fall into Spring, Summer and then Fall, Spring and Summer for semesters. We do follow that pattern. We have to even this out. We haven’t seen a dramatic change in the transition to semesters. There was a momentary blip — you see the 14.1% in the Fall of 2000 when we switched to semester. Actually I think that is much better than what the literature indicated and we would expect literature that’s full of the transitions from one calendar to another indicated a much bigger blip. Ours spiked but not substantially, but then the students righted themselves relatively quickly. I think, again, that we should also indicate that there is faculty too. It took a while for faculty to adjust to the semesters. And as you can see, 12.1%. We are now back down for Fall of 2002 without our tradition level for the number of academic warnings. I didn’t give you absolute numbers; I can give those to you if you want. Doesn’t make any sense since enrollment goes up. But as a percentage of undergraduate enrollment, all undergraduates enrolled, then you should be current. Those are the percentages you would expect 12 out of 100 to get an academic warning letter this first … academic enrollment letter.

 

First suspensions. Under quarters, that was two quarters. Under semesters, it’s one semester suspension. It’s time to give students a chance to take time out, think about their involvement with any type of problems, seek assistance, take the Success course. These percentages are much smaller so obviously the academic warning program helps. We dropped from 12% in the Fall; 4.1% in Fall 2002 down to 1.6% in terms of suspensions. Again, to me that is a very healthy sign that the programs we have work, and for warning works. This does not show a dramatic increase in Fall 2000, during transition to semesters. Second suspensions — as you can see that percentage is really small. In Fall 2000, only 43/100ths of a percent of the undergraduate enrollment was given the second suspension.

 

And finally, academic expulsion. This is our failure rate. Failure as an institution, failure as students. Undergraduate academic expulsion for Fall 2002 was 12/100ths of a percent. Now I will say these are not … I should have explained ahead of time. There is an appeals process for all of this. And because the appeals process is … the process is relatively complicated, these are pure numbers. These are the students who received the initial action and some of them were later overturned on appeal.

 

And three others you might be interested in. Average course loads. The number of hours per week taken by a student. Number of hours per term taken by a student. This is not adjusted for semester; this is the number of hours spent in class during the term. So therefore there is no multiplier when switched from quarters to semesters. As I think you can see quite obviously with the last couple of years prior to the semester transition, students obviously boosted their number of hours that they tried to complete under quarters as opposed to semesters, so they wouldn’t have to go through the semester transition. The literature told us that there would be a net drop off in the number of hours students would take under semesters because, again, of the fear, the worry about what semesters meant. There’s the fear that might have a dramatic impact on the grade point average. But, the literature also indicated that it would slowly go back up. As you can see, it has. Thirteen point five is getting very close to the quarter number. You see the same thing for graduate students. Spiked higher that started quarters. As you can see also, graduate students prided themselves and have essentially taken the same number on average of course loads. The professional students, you see a net decline that’s been continuing; I’m not sure that semester transition had that big of an impact. But that’s largely due to the changing nature of professional education. This is a time in which the likely or the Pharm D becomes the only program … three years ago. 1998. And that changed the hour commitment for professional students in pharmacy. And that School has also changed some of its programs over the last couple of years.

 

Now the plan with the Academic Affairs of the Board is to continue in this line, provide them certain statistics that we might want to fall by building indicators. But also to talk about such issues as how we evaluate good teaching, how we assess good teaching. I spent the last week talking to all the department heads on campus, polling them if you will about peer evaluation of teaching. We’ll also be talking to them about providing that to the Academic Affairs Committee. We’ll also be talking about student evaluations and some of the other means that we use for evaluating good teachers. And we’ll be doing the same for research and similar topics over the next couple of sessions. Any questions I might be able to answer for you about this process as we try to refocus the Board on academic issues?

 

DISCUSSION DEBATE FORUM

 

Barbara Struempler: Our last item is our discussion and debate forum. In today’s topic we’re going to have a discussion on the Court-Appointed Bradley Report on the JAC Complaint. Just to give you a little … that we’re all on the same page here, about a couple of years ago about this time the Joint Assessment Committee was an ad hoc committee of the Senate. They had representation from all the stakeholders of the University, from the Trustees to alumni, students, A&Ps, staff, on down the rank. They were looking at a process, a way to investigate some of the actions of the Trustees. They submitted a list of items, their complaints, to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools — the SACS — for an investigation. And that original document is on the Senate home page. And it’s been there every since it put out, so that is your link. And then last August a consent order was agreed upon by SACS and Auburn University and what this consent order did was to allow an investigation by Richard Bradley, not Kim Bradley, Richard Bradley — there’s a lot of Bradleys in here — and Mr. Bradley is an independent lawyer. Both parties agreed that he would be qualified to conduct an investigation of the JAC complaints. That began in September, last fall, and it was completed on scheduled in November. About 52 people or so were interviewed and then Mr. Bradley prepared a report which is also online at the University Relations web site. It is that report which this debate centers on today, the contents of that report. Since that time, as you know, SACS has requested an additional inquiry. I don’t know what’s involved in that, but if we could — and I don’t think that’s … I don’t know what’s involved in it — but our debate today where discussion centers on the report. You were given three pieces of information to help you with this. There was of course, the University’s response to the Bradley Report, there was also an article by Glenn Howze that was printed in the Plainsman, and there was also an article by Jim Bradley, who was Chair of the JAC and also the immediate past-chair of the Senate; that was also printed in the Plainsman. So that kind of gives you the stage for the Report. We do have microphones posted so that your comments can be well heard; and if need be, I can pass this one. So (PAUSE). Connor.

 

Connor Bailey: Do I need a microphone?

 

Barbara Struempler: No. You’re loud enough.

 

Connor Bailey, Steering Committee: I hardly know where to begin in my critique of the Bradley Report. First, I want to make it very clear that it is not the SACS Report as there is some kind of erroneous …

 

Renée Middleton: Connor. I do think your comments are important and I hate to ask you, but it is going to be necessary to go to the mike. Because we want to capture your comments.

 

Barbara Struempler: Sorry, Renée.

 

Connon Bailey: The first comment is that the Report by Mr. Bradley is a report by Mr. Bradley, an individual, a lawyer hired by a federal judge who is not the SACS Report as it was at one point erroneously referred to. I think we need to understand if you look at the Report, you look at the footnotes of that Report where Mr. Bradley documented who he spoke to — a citation if you will, to use an academic term — who he drew on to support the statements that he made, it was largely members of the Board of Trustees and members of the administration. It was certainly not from faculty or others stakeholders within the University. I don’t remember anybody from the Staff Advisory Council for example being in it. I may be mistaken but certainly there was not much from the students or from Staff Advisory Council or other stakeholders. A few from A&P and some faculty, but mostly Mr. Bradley’s comments were drawn from members of the Board of Trustees and the central administration of Auburn University. So that’s one thing. I think that Mr. Bradley drew upon at least cited in his Report a limited set of interested parties. The second  and more, I think, critical issue is that much like the Draft SACS Report which hopefully will be available for the faculty as a bullet, Mr. Bradley’s Report says that Auburn University is currently, today, at this moment, this razor-edge of time, in compliance with SACS criteria. But I think that SACS, and I’m guessing perhaps that the … that SACS when they come back and ask for additional information, has said that’s all well and good if, in fact, the case. But what about the last decade? What about five years ago? What about three years ago? What about six months ago? Have we been in compliance this whole time? But I believe that SACS is going to be asking should want to know, what we have done since last they came here ten years ago. The third point I want to make, since no one else is coming and asking for floor time, is I was appalled, dismayed, shocked, and revolted by the public disparaging of Bill Muse’s leadership as President of this University.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: I wasn’t preparing to do this but I had these numbers in my bag, so I’ll share them with you. I counted up the … it was an interesting document because the people interviewed were listed in the footnotes and so it was quite easy to compile. I’ll just give a numerical total of who was interviewed. The person most quoted was Mr. Lowder with 11 quotation; Mr. Sanford is nine; Mr. Barron was seven; Venerable was four; Miller had five; and then Dr. Muse was extensively quoted, eight. But as far as faculty, it was only about I think eight — I don’t have my letter compiling all this — but there were only eight separate different faculty members were interviewed; there were, as Connor said, alumni people such as J. Don Logan, it was remarkable, doing that kind of busy work and seeing who was in this Report? Who he’s reporting from. The Board of Trustees mainly I think.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: I was one of the people who asked to go speak to Mr. Bradley, I got an appointment with him. I did sit down and talk to him for maybe two hours, maybe more than that. He asked me a lot of different questions, but I was most dismayed, I think, — because this is close to my heart, of course, but because I happen to have some personal knowledge about it — about the dismissal of any kind of controversy around the Journalism and the Education department merger. And not that he might have dismissed that, but that I did take him in a very large box of material and had gone to some pains to get it together and bring it to him and ask can I get it into the record right at the start and he said “no.” We were talking about who was quoted in this and who has been quoted, it is a little difficult … I made every effort I could to gather as much information on that as possible and it was found not to have any kind of merit whatsoever. A lot of people have said, I’m certainly not a lawyer; but most of us have seen or in my case, I’ve covered trials and we see them in movies and we even see it in the Mobile Register that my cousin Betty wrote which is much truer to the spirit of the law than this document was simply for the reason that they’re holding us to a very narrow legalistic analysis but yet there was nothing … there is no legal basis I’ve seen to clearing people of what they had been charged with if they simply deny it. And over and under the evidence that he said is that there’s no evidence showing this so therefore they didn’t do it or they feel … I don’t find them in non-compliance. That troubles me, that people will just see Auburn University never were in compliance, there’s no evidence to the contrary when as I said in this piece that is in the Mobile Register. I think the only thing would have really worked here was if he had found a secret diary entitled “Why We Did It and Why You’ll Never Get the Goods On Us.” He wasn’t going to deal with that. So maybe in some way the narrow legalistic thing, that he didn’t have documentation. But he did have interviews from other people and he took those into consideration but nothing on the other side really. Everything else was dismissed. He believed the Trustees, he didn’t believe anybody else. And that’s very … that is troubling to me that we would now try to say this is a document that has cleared up this whole situation. I mean, almost anybody who’s been around here in the last couple of years knows that just not true.

 

Gary Mullin, Entomology & Plant Pathology: There are a couple of things actually I’d like to pose first as a freshman and I’m not sure it appropriate but I’ll address this to the chair. One, could we see by a show of hands how many have actually read the Bradley Report in its entirety. Less than half. The one thing I wanted to do was to urge everyone to take the time, go to the University Relations home page, web site, whatever, download it and see it and read it carefully because there is no way, in my estimation, to appreciate how shallow and misleading this Report is unless you see it for yourself. The second question I wanted to ask is — and I’m not sure who is here, perhaps Dr. Pritchett could address that — my understanding is that the University has or was given 60 days — is that correct? — to respond to the Report? In response then to the Bradley Report, if I have a correct calendar and counting the days since December 13, which I believe was the day it was submitted, that 60 days expired yesterday. Can you give us a report or update on what the University has submitted to SACS in meeting this deadline?

 

John Pritchett: Gary, I’m sorry. I cannot … that is being coordinated through the President’s Office. On this subject I was not briefed to present anyting, but the President’s Office should know about that.

 

Lee Armstrong, Legal Counsel: Maybe I can provide just a little bit of additional information. The University hasn’t responded to SACS. It has some questions about the Bradley Report. So we are asking for clarification, so until those questions are clarified, we don’t have a response. So that’s just sort of on hold for the moment.

 

Gary Mullen, Entomology & Plant Pathology: Can you tell us if the University got an extension then on submitting this Report?

 

Lee Armstrong: We didn’t ask for an extension. The fact of the matter is the Report has not been considered complete, and therefore we shouldn’t report to or respond to a Report that has not been finalized. I’m trying to clarify where that stands.

 

Gary Mullen: Has the University submitted or not submitted a response?

 

Lee Armstrong: No it has not. It has not submitted a Report.

 

Gary Mullen: Okay. I think that answers, not the question but at least provides a response. I too have been extremely disturbed by the tone, the tenure, the whole approach to the Report. I’ll come back to my colleagues comments about what I would characterize as paraphrasing what he said the same was bashing of Bill Muse and using him as a scapegoat for all the University’s problems. It was referenced the problems were because of money, the problems were because of the President’s inability to lead, the President’s inability to communicate, his refusal to communicate with the Board, etc. And all I can do is rather than take my word for it, and it would take me more than the two minutes that I am probably allowed here at the mike, to go through and point to the phrases in that Report not only what it says but the implications. The other think I want you to note as you read that is the Auburn response has not been reviewed with the faculty, the students, the staff, professional or otherwise, Auburn has added or what makes it clear is the central administration and the Board. I want to appreciate that is the controls of information, that’s where the dominance of interviews took place, that’s where the denials, where the dismissal, no evidence. This was not an investigative report than it was an impartial review. It’s called an investigation and you would expect, as I think SACS probably expected, that Mr. Bradley would conduct a true investigation, to get documentation, to provide evidence, concrete information to SACS to assist it in its review to determine if there was compliance. I think most of you who have read this will see very clearly that Mr. Bradley not only conducted a very superficial — in fact, I wouldn’t even call it really an investigation; it was a series of interviews with a very biased representation. He did not submit any documentation. If it wasn’t given to him, as far as he was concerned, it didn’t exist. He made no reference and is continuing to say there was no official statement or record by the Board in these cases, therefore there’s no evidence to indicate that there was any wrongdoing. He did not even go so far as to say that this Board has a long-term record of having purposely kept no minutes by the Athletic Committee chaired by a particular member of the Board. Of course there was no record of wrongdoing. He did not, and I asked him when I spoke to him in an extended interview that ran the better part of an hour and a half or an hour and forty-five minutes, I asked him about subpoena power; he recognized that he did not have that. But I think he felt extremely sure that there is at his perogative of seeking out documentation. When he makes statements that there are no inappropriate relations — business relations — among the Board. You can draw your own conclusion as to what that meant. He did not turn to any investigative reporting that actually laid that out, spelled that out, to go back to confirm or verify that himself. He avoided. He dismissed anything that appeared in the newspaper which I think is a real affront because some of the investigative reporting in a couple of the state’s papers were the only ones that are trying to lay out the facts. This is not an investigative report. What bothers me especially is not only the very denigrating image and using Dr. Muse as a scapegoat, but what I would view as very inappropriate conduct on the part of the Auburn central administration and the Board of Trustees in controlling the information that that particular Board had and I think it’s flatly embarrassing to this institution and affront to the faculty.

 

Sadik Tuzun, Entomology & Plant Pathology: I also was very surprised when I read that Report because I wasn’t thinking informed and actually there was only one side of the document and it was not done to investigate the questions that were raised originally from the Senate. It was done to clear up the Board. I just wondered, who paid Mr. Bradley? How much did he get paid to do this job? Did Auburn University pay him? Or the Board pay him? Did SACS pay him? How much did he get for that job?

 

Gary Mullen, Entomology & Plant Pathology: I’m only going by what I’ve read. My understanding was yes, the cost was split between Auburn University and SACS. Auburn University paid $800,000 for the Report.

 

John Mouton, Chair-elect of the Senate: My understanding was yes, the cost was split between SACS and Auburn University, that $800,000 is the total cost.

 

Sadik Tuzun: Eight hundred thousand dollars for that Report? I believe that this Senate should take an action regarding this Report. It is not good to say things, it’s time to take some action. I think we clearly see when we read the Report, it is clear to see that it one-sided and it doesn’t really investigate the original questions that were raised. This Senate should take some sort of resolution or something to respond to Mr. Bradley’s Report. As this University has done so, I think we should have done so within the 60 days, I think we, as a Senate, should also put an answer to that Report.

 

Barbara Struempler: Are there any other comments on this? Connor.

 

Connor Bailey: I have not a comment but a question. Is there any further information, I wonder, on the additional questions being brought to Mr. Bradley by SACS? Is there anyone in the room who might be able to address this?

 

Barbara Struempler: Lee, do you want to take that?

 

Lee Armstrong: I’m not at liberty to respond to that at this time.

 

Barbara Struempler: U gyess no-one is in the room who can answer that question. Is there any other new business? The next Senate meeting is three weeks from today on March 4 and then the Spring Faculty Meeting is on the 11th of March. Yes. One more question, hang on.

 

Sadik Tuzun: I would suggest that the Senate develop a resolution regarding the SACS report?

 

Barbara Struempler: Any resolution … The Steering Committee will be happy to accept any resolution. The resolution needs to be put forth to the Steering Committee. We meet on Thursday at 3:00. And then what the Steering Committee … that’s to set the meeting for the March 4 meeting. And we vote it up or down. If it’s voted up, it appears. And if not, it has to be entered as New Business and then the vote is delayed. That’s the procedure that has been used this year. So, if you truly want a resolution to come in, work very quickly on it. We did this last time around. We had our Steering Committee meeting and the resolution was submitted at the last minute and we did a vote on it by email which we have done in the past for others, and that was the motion that you saw here today. So we’ll take that as long as really the agenda hasn’t gone out and as long as we have enough time to facilitate it. We’ll stretch the rules as far as we can stretch them. Yes.

 

Paul Schmidt, Mathematics: What is the procedure for resolutions to be presented at the General Faculty Meeting which will be a week later?

 

Barbara Struempler: The Executive Committee, which sets that agenda, meets a week from this Thursday. Okay? So that’s where you … you have to bring that resolution to that Committee by that point. A week from Thursday.

 

Paul Schmidt: Who’s chairing it?

 

Barbara Struempler: I chair both committees. You can send it to Renée, the Secretary. So you just need to submit it and it will be presented, either for a General Faculty which is done through the Steering Committee which is the March 4 meeting or the one on March 11 which is the General Faculty Meeting; that agenda is set by the Executive Committee. So that’s John, Renée, Paula, Jim Bradley, and myself. That’s the Executive Committee.

 

Okay. We stand adjourned. Thank you. See you in three weeks.

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.