Auburn University Senate Meeting

May 6, 2003

3:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Absent: Debra Cobia, Secretary-elect; Barbara Struempler, Immediate Past Chair; Ted Tyson, Biosystems Engineering; David Bransby, Agronomy & Soils; John Saye, Curriculum and Teaching; James Kaminsky, Leadership and Technology; Rhonald Jenkins, Aerospace Engineering; James Guin, Chemical Engineering; Brian Bowman, Civil Engineering; Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering; Barry Fleming, Art; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders; Richard Good, Music; Joe Cherry, Biological Sciences; Ralph Henderson, Vet Clinical Science; Daowei Zhang, Forestry & Wildlife Science; Mike Reinke, Clinical Pharmacy; Jack DeRuiter, Pharmacal Sciences; Jesse LaPrade, Cooperative Extension Service; James Bannon, Agri Experiment Station; Thomas White, Air Force ROTC; CPT Ted McMurtrie, Navy ROTC; Michael Moriarty, VP for Research; Dean T. R. Boosinger, College of Veterinary Medicine; Interim Dean John Jahera, College of Business; John Pritchett, Acting Provost; Kathy Harmon, A&P Assembly Chair.

 

Members Absent (Substitute): Joseph Buckhalt (Renée Middleton), Counseling & Counseling Psychology; Emmett Winn (Bill Sutley), Comm/Journalism; Tin-Man Lau (Rich Britnell), Industrial Design; Mike Solomon (Carol Warfield), Consumer Affairs; Dean Larry Benefield (Joe M. Morgan), Samuel Ginn College of Engineering; Sheri Downer (Harmon Straiton), University Librarian

 

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by the chair, John Mouton.

 

Call to Order

 

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate:  I would like to call the meeting to order.  The first order of business is that we actually have two sets of minutes that we’ve posted on the web: the minutes from our last meeting on April 8, and the minutes from the meeting on March 4.  Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes?  There being none – the minutes are accepted.  We are going to change the agenda of the meeting slightly today.  We have some students here who we would like to recognize, and we realize that they have other things to do besides be here.  So, we have moved them up to the front.  Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing us to do that.  I would like to call Conner Bailey up to make the presentation please.

 

Conner Bailey, Steering Committee:  I’m rarely at a loss for words, but we have with us here some swimmers and coach – in whom I’m totally in awe … the swimmers too, but really the coach, Kim Brackin, Assistant Head Coach to the men’s and women’s swim team has made remarkable contributions – particularly to the women’s team, but also to the men.  The men and women swim together.  Jeremy Knowles, Brad Knueven and Joe Gonzales are here representing the swim team and looking very sharp I must say. This year, men’s and women’s teams won both the SEC and the NCAA championships, national championships. These are astonishing accomplishments, but what we are here today to honor them for is for their academic achievements. So, I put forward to the body this resolution:  

 

RESOLUTION

 

MEN’S AND WOMEN’S SWIM TEAMS

 

Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate congratulates the Auburn University Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving teams as examples of exceptional student athletes, as demonstrated by both teams being named as Academic All-American teams by the College Swimming Coaches Association of America, on the basis of an average GPA of 3.142 for the Men’s team and an average GPA of 3.269 for the Women’s team, in the same academic year in which both teams won the SEC and NCAA championships.

 

If anybody had any idea how many hours these people put into the water … morning workouts, afternoon workouts, weekend workouts, dry land training.  These people put in probably a 25-30 hour work week for their swimming, and they accomplished this academic record. [Applause]

 

John Mouton:  This resolution comes forward from the Steering Committee, so there is not a need for a second.  All in favor please state Aye; [Aye] any opposed? [None] We’d like for you to stand up and be recognized please. [Applause]

 

Conner Bailey:  Now you can go study or go to the pool … whatever you need to do.

 

John Mouton:  Thank you, we’ve got one other adjustment to an agenda item.  John Pritchett, the Provost, is attending two professional school graduations this afternoon –back to back. So, we are going to do the Faculty Salary Comparisons at the June 10 meeting rather than this afternoon.  Now, I would like to introduce President William Walker for his announcements.  Dr. Walker.

 

Announcements

 

Office of the President:  William F. Walker, President:  I appreciate your recognizing the swim team for reasons that Conner pointed out to you.  It might interest you to know that a week or so ago, the Athletic Department recognized 158 of our student athletes for carrying a GPA of 3.0 or better.  That, of course, is not all of our student athletes, but it is a good percentage of them, and I think is really a credit to the fine job that many of our colleagues are doing in helping these young people achieve an education while at the same time they are competing in some very, very rigorous sports activities. I only have two or three things that I want to mention to you.  First is that, of course you’ll all want to know that Saturday is Graduation, so you’ll want to get there early.  We have the first gradation at 10:00 a.m. and the second one at 2:00 p.m.  We will be graduating about 2200 students from Auburn University and Auburn University at Montgomery.  I really do seriously recommend that you occasionally experience one of these graduation ceremonies. Because, quite frankly, in the minds of many of the people that take advantage of the services that we provide at this institution, that is, that is what it’s all about and it sometimes does help to replant our feet on the ground, so to speak. 

 

The other matter I want to bring to your attention is to try to give you as much of an update as I can on what is happening in Montgomery.  I spoke to a group a couple of weeks ago and said that there is good news and bad news.  The good news is:  the legislature is locked up and can’t make any progress. The bad news is: the legislature is locked up and can’t make any progress.  There is just all sorts of old-fashioned Alabama politics being played over in the legislature.  Frankly, to the detriment of, I think, the people of the State of Alabama but, that seems to be the history of Alabama politics.  The fact is that, if I understood, was the Governor’s intent today to call a special session of the legislature which would begin on May 18 … and whether or not he will get it done today or that will change, I don’t know.  Things are always tentative in Montgomery until they actually happen.  My understanding is that in his proposal, there will be some recommendations concerning income tax – some recommendations concerning property tax  and all the indications are from across the street that it will be a very, very contentious special session.  So, that doesn’t look particularly good from the point of view of those of us that are trying to construct budgets for the next fiscal year.  We are in the process of doing that, Dr. Large is, and I’ve simply instructed him to proceed under the basis of the Governor’s original plan, or original speculation, which was about a 6.3% budget decrease.  So, we are trying to construct the budget with that in mind.  If that doesn’t happen, then all the better, and then we will be able to do some things that would otherwise have been not have been included in that budget.  So, that’s really the extent of my remarks.  I’d be happy to entertain questions.

 

Conner Bailey:  Dr. Walker, can you tell us, what is the projected bonded indebtedness for Auburn University by the end of this calendar year?  It is pretty obvious to all of us that we are going through pretty significant building, and I remember from my service on the University Budget Advisory Committee, some years ago, that we were paying a fairly high interest rate with significant payments on paying down indebtedness from a previous administration.  I’m wondering what kind of obligations this university is going to be facing in years to come as the result of the current building boom.

 

William Walker:  That’s a good question, and I’ll get Don to respond in just a moment.  Look, actually the bad economic times have worked to our advantage in that regard. We have renegotiated some of the bonds that we have out, and in fact, we have received significant savings in that process.  Don, do you have the figure on our bonded indebtedness?

 

Don Large, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer:  Conner, I don’t know right off the top of my head, probably, including all our auxiliaries and the university as a whole, probably in the upper $100 millions, getting closer to $200 million in bonded indebtedness.  Actually, that compares pretty favorably to a lot of our peer institutions. From a … the only thing we can pledge – forgetting the auxiliaries, I’ll tell you about those in just a minute – the only thing we can pledge for our general fee indebtedness – general fund indebtedness – is tuition.  We cannot pledge state revenues.  There was a time during the Martin administration that it got up to … our debt was 16% of our tuition revenues, and it grew rather dramatically while we were letting tuition go down compared to our peer groups, and I don’t know why.  Right now it is about 6% of tuition revenues.  So, we are in a pretty , still favorable position and obviously that just means that tuition has gone up a good bit more than the debt over the years.  We haven’t borrowed a lot of money in recent years.  What you’ve seen is a lot of restructuring.  On the horizon, that one is a little tougher to predict.  I don’t know anything that will be going into the bond market, general fees, in the immediate future.  You will probably see us go into the bond market for the student housing.  In the Master Plan, there is a plan to move our  -- right now we only have about 3500 beds for students and the Master Plan calls for somewhere between 5000 and 5500 in trying to at least house your first year class. Tie that in to Student Life and improved retention, whether we make that a requirement is still, I guess, open to discussion.  That would have a revenue component, so that’s not tied to tuition.  The Union – Student Union – again that has a revenue source where the students in effect tax themselves.  We are accumulating money – we have four or five million dollars already accumulated. If we wait much longer that will be a pay as you go, and we won’t have to borrow any money.  But, that is a forty to fifty million dollar project that depends on timing.  We may have to borrow, but that will be linked to a revenue source.  Athletics, don’t know what they will do.  You know what I know in the presentations of recent, they may have some bonded indebtedness attached.  A lot of those other buildings that you are hearing about, Transportation and some of those, we are hoping that we receive outside and that does not become part of our responsibilities.  So, all in all, we are still positioned pretty favorably, at least by Moody’s and others that evaluate our indebtedness to our revenue stream.  I am probably more worried, not so much about the indebtedness in the future, as I am about the operational requirements when you put a building up.  It’s one thing to have a forty million dollar building go up when someone has donated the monies; it’s another, still to pay to maintain the utilities, and upkeep, and preferred maintenance on it.  So, those would be more, in my book, more of the challenge of the next ten years and not necessarily the indebtedness.  That’s a long answer probably …

 

Larry Gerber, Non-senator:  Can you tell us the status of SACS legal situation? I understand there are still some conversations going on.... What are they about, and [Inaudible]?

 

William Walker:  Mr. Bradley is still getting information.  He has requested quite a lot of business information from some of the trustees.  They’ve been putting that together.  They’ve been getting some of their privacy issues taken care of, and I believe that information has recently gone to him and hopefully he can complete his work within the next few weeks.  Other questions? Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  One more please …

 

William Walker:  Oh, I’m sorry.

 

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee:  This is probably a discussion for later on in this meeting, but you probably won’t be here for that.  So, let me ask you, or I don’t know, at least ask you a couple of questions.  A number of us have been lately very concerned about the search for the Provost that’s going on now.  We all know that there are many ills [Inaudible] university and that we have all been worried about that.  But, the timing – the very rushed nature it seems that these candidates were announced, and then they were on campus, and then they were off campus during a time where we’re all extremely busy.  Many of us feel that this is not really a good time or good way for us to get true faculty input into the search and there have been some other concerns raised too about the fact that all these candidates are white, and that there’s a need, you know, you and all of us are very committed to the idea of diversity and inclusiveness.  I wonder if there’s any kind of thought or possibility that we might pull back a little bit for a more deliberate search in which we might extend it a little and open it up to other candidates, and let us have a way to let the faculty participate more fully. 

 

William Walker:  How to answer that diplomatically. … I am aware of some concerns that have been expressed.  I have purposely stayed away from that. It seems to me that the correct process, that committee has 23 -24 people on it , about half of which are faculty.  I believe that is correct, and if there a concern about the process, it seems to me that that concern needs to be addressed to the Search Committee.  The co-chairs are Mike Moriarty and Chris Rodger.  I have no problem with your communicating with them and expressing your concern if you have some.  I think, in deference to the candidates, that’s probably as far as I would go on that. Yes …

 

Renée Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Psychology:  One question before you leave …

 

William Walker:  Where am I going? Is there something you haven’t told me?

 

Renée Middleton:  If you are not leaving, I can hold my question because …

 

William Walker:  Well, I think I’ll leave now.

 

Renée Middleton:  I just really wanted to know – was it that they, the search firm’s charge, was that something that was left to the Search Committee, or was that something done by you?

 

William Walker:  No, that was done by the Search Committee.  The Search Committee did run the names.  In fact, I think I met with the representatives of the search firm, and essentially said, “Yeah, they look fine to me.”  There was actually another one, but they withdrew from the search because they were involved in the search at the University of Georgia. 

 

John Mouton:  I am not leaving, so you can hold your questions. I am just going to make a few announcements.  One, from the Rules Committee, Paula is going to do a report and ask for the approval of the committees that have been completed. I really appreciate the work that she’s done and the Rules Committee has done a lot of work.  So, anyway we’ll do that in a few minutes.  The other thing is that Barb Struempler and I have been appointed to the SACS Fix-it Committee, which deals with the recommendations and suggestions coming out of the SACS self-study.  What I’ll tell you is that the Committee is working hard and moving fast, and it is a good group.  I think there is some opportunity for us in the recommendations and suggestions that are available and so we will continue to represent the Senate in that regard.

 

The other thing that I would like to address is that the Academic Affairs Committee has now had their second workshop.  They had it on Monday, April 28, I think it started at 10:30 in the morning and went to 2:30 in the afternoon. … And what I would like to report to you is besides the members on that committee, there were other Board members there listening to the presentations and discussions. And I will have the opportunity to this fall to have at least one discussion – maybe more than one discussion, if needed, with the Academic Affairs Committee, about faculty in a large sense but the faculty role and the contribution we make,  the circumstance we operate under, and the work that we do.  There’s a great deal of interest in understanding, gaining a better understanding – not only from the Board of Trustees – but the comment that was made is that the “Lay People in the State” as they look at funding higher education really don’t understand what we do. So, I think that’s an opportunity for us also. 

 

The other thing that took place on Monday, April 28, I need to apologize because I don’t know the specific name of the committee, it was a committee in regard to a faculty advisor on the Board of Trustees. As they started the discussion, they did reference the University Faculty Resolution regarding how the faculty advisor would be selected.  And what they talked about was that on March 16, 2004, when there is an election of the Chair of the Faculty Senate – of the faculty – that that person would be the Chair-elect, the past Chair, I’m sorry, the Chair-elect, the Chair, the past Chair and at the time of being past Chair, would also be the Faculty Advisor to the Board of Trustees.  In the interim, l through next March, Barb Struempler will serve by appointment.  At that point in time, I would serve until the following March by appointment. At that time, Willie Larkin would serve until the following March by appointment.  This passed the Committee and will be put forward to the Board in June, and so, the people who have been questioning what the status of that was, that was the action that was taken.

 

Conner Bailey and I went down as representatives from the Steering Committee on Wednesday, April 23, to the Trustee Selection Committee … most of you probably read in the newspaper or heard Governor Riley act as Chair of the Committee.  He made strong references for them to cast a wider net.  The next meeting will be on May 28, in Montgomery, and I am assuming Conner and I will go down for the meeting. 

 

My final announcement is that last Thursday and Friday, Marcia Boosinger [Faculty Athletics Representative], Willie [Larkin, Chair-elect], and I went to Nashville to Vanderbilt University for the first ever SEC conference on Governance in Athletics.  Willie is actually on the Steering Committee for next year’s meeting.  The NCAA has some pretty significant and informed initiatives underway.  And the supposed point of it is that the student athlete profile will become more like the general student profile.  I think that one of the things that we brought forth and had some discussion on is some unintended consequences of some of the regulations that are coming forward, that they’re moving forward, with this.  So, there will be some information forthcoming out of that group, and then there is a meeting in Birmingham next year.  I will be glad to take any questions.  Conner, please.

 

Conner Bailey:  The SACS Fix-it Committee – you might explain that that is not to fix the document, unless I’m mistaken.  I think it’s to …

 

John Mouton:  It’s to address ... it’s to address … the committee that went through,  the Steering Committee,  put together – I think there’s fourteen recommendations and then pages of suggestions.  The recommendations are areas where the University is in violation or not in compliance, not in compliance with the provisions of the SACS requirements.  Those are issues that have to be addressed, and at the time the visitors come there has to be an action plan as to what is taking place in regard to those.  The suggestions are things that were found by the subcommittees working on the reaffirmation that they’re suggesting the University investigate and look into these things and make a determination if the University wants to do anything.  It’s not a requirement for compliance, but there are recommendations that they want us to look into.  Thank you for that question.

 

Conner Bailey:  Are you sure it’s not to fix the document? [Humorously]

 

John Mouton:  I’m sure it’s to fix the document. [Humorously] Okay, we are going to move to the Action Items now,  and as I introduce Dr. Stephen McFarland, if you’ll remember in our last meeting last month, we reviewed the Classroom Behavior Policy , and a couple of things were asked.  We were asked to run it by the SGA which we have – and there are SGA representatives here.  We were asked to run it by the Graduate Student Council, and I think there are representatives from the Graduate Student Council here, and then we were asked to also run it past the Student Disciplinary Committee – which has also been done.  So, this document has been in front of all of those groups, and today we are going to take action on this resolution. Dr. McFarland …

 

Action Items

 

Stephen McFarland, Acting VP/Dean, Graduate School:  Dr. Leighton, the Student Discipline Committee Chair, made two suggestions – changes to this document.  [Policy projected on screen]

 

AUBURN UNIVERSITY POLICY ON CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR

 

 § INTRODUCTION

            The goal of Auburn University and its faculty and students is to foster a dynamic environment of higher learning where all students develop analytical skills, learn to think critically and communicate effectively, promote inquiry, pursue knowledge, and prepare for productive careers.  Behavior in the classroom that impedes teaching and learning and creates obstacles to this goal is considered disruptive and therefore subject to sanctions.  The purpose of these sanctions is to create and protect an optimum learning experience; they should not be considered punitive, neither by the student nor instructor.  Disagreement expressed in a civil fashion, eccentricity, idiosyncrasy, and unconventional behavior are not, per se, disruptive to the classroom experience.  These sanctions are intended only to preserve the classroom as a place to pursue knowledge, exchange ideas, and share opinions in an atmosphere of tolerance.  Students have the responsibility of complying with behavioral standards.  Faculty have a professional responsibility to set reasonable limits on the expression of opinions while treating students with dignity, respect, and understanding while guiding classroom activities.

            At the classroom level, clear guidelines for behavior and early intervention are the foundation for an intellectually stimulating experience for students and instructors alike.  Instructors are encouraged to include in their syllabi guidelines for classroom behavior.  Instructors who state these guidelines early and enforce them at the first appearance of disruptive behavior prevent minor episodes of classroom misconduct from escalating into serious confrontations and help transgressors to avoid the more serious consequences of such actions.

            Examples of improper behavior in the classroom (including the virtual classroom of e-mail, chat rooms, telephony, and web activities associated with courses) may include, but are not limited to, the following:

            • arriving after a class has begun

            • eating or drinking

            • use of tobacco products

            • monopolizing discussion

            • persistent speaking out of turn

            • distractive talking, including cell phone usage

            • audio or video recording of classroom activities or the use of electronic

                        devices without the permission of the instructor

            • refusal to comply with reasonable instructor directions

            • employing insulting language or gestures

            • verbal, psychological, or physical threats, harassment, and physical violence

 

 § POLICY

1.  When confronted with disruptive, but non-threatening behavior, the instructor should issue a general word of caution to the class as a whole rather than to a particular student so as not to exacerbate the problem.

 

2.  If a general caution directed to the entire class does not stop the disruptive activity, the instructor should endeavor to meet in private with the disruptive student.  The resulting discussion should include a description of the problem, the reason it is disruptive, and the consequences of continued violations of classroom behavior guidelines.

 

3.  If the disruptive behavior is preventing further instruction, the instructor is authorized to ask the disruptive student to leave the class immediately for the remainder of the class session.  Removal from the classroom for more than one class period, for an extended period, or on a permanent basis normally requires the instructor to file charges of a violation of the Auburn University Discipline Code with the Vice President for Student Affairs.  The department head/chair or dean may negotiate a withdrawal from the course or a transfer of the disruptive student to a different course section or course, if, in his or her opinion, a different instructor and different classmates would defuse the situation and provide the disruptive student with a new learning opportunity.

 

4.   If threats have been made or physical violence is imminent, the instructor should notify the Auburn University Department of Public Safety immediately.  The instructor should also notify the course department head/chair or dean promptly, followed by a memo to the department head/chair or dean documenting the incident and actions taken.

Instructors and administrators are encouraged to maintain records of all disruptive incidents and any actions taken concerning them.  Nothing in this policy is intended to infringe or restrict the educational process or the academic freedom of Auburn students or instructors.

 

Stephen McFarland: The first had to do with the need to specifically identify cell phones.  We specifically left cell phones off the document because once you start down that road, you are talking about video games, Game Boys – you are talking about chirping watches, you can also add on pagers, and all of a sudden you have got this long list of possibilities and new technology will come forth in the future and make this obsolete.  So, the actual phrase we chose was audio visualaudio or video recording of classroom activities or the use of electronic devices without the permission of the instructor.  But, the Senate Leadership, Paula [Sullenger], right, suggested the possibility of then adding instead to: distractive talking, including cell phone usage and I guess, is it within my power to accept that?

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary of Senate:  It hasn’t officially been placed before the Senate yet as a motion, so, yes.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Well, the resolution for the policy was last meeting -- was it not?

 

Paula Sullenger:  No, it was just a discussion item.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Discussion item, okay. Well then, this has been modified then, I guess, at this point.  As far as the other issue that Dr. Leighton suggested, was the concern that in the policy, the first two items, that first the instructor should issue a general word of caution.  Secondly, if a general word of caution does not stop the disruptive activity, then the instructor should endeavor to meet the student in private, or continue on from there. The suggestion from Dr. Leighton was that faculty should do either one of the two. If you want to put that in – that’s fine. I will point out that the reason the committee put this policy together, and that is the key verb in both the first and a second item is should.  The recommendation then, to try to keep the situation from boiling over is that first, you try a general word of caution and not identify the individual student and then perhaps intensify the situation. And again, our logic was the verb should  would then take care of … if you want to jump to number two, that’s fine, it doesn’t say you will – it says you should.  I did want to point out to you the recommendations made by the Chair of the University Discipline Committee.  That’s all I have in preface, what’s next? 

 

John Mouton:  Questions.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Questions?

 

John Mouton:  Jonathan.

 

Jonathan McConnell, President of the SGA:  I guess the only student concerns that we have are – are the examples from the introduction, are they going to be published in the Faculty Handbook and the Tiger Cub? Are we voting on this resolution how it is?

 

Stephen McFarland:  Yeah, it really kind of raises two questions about how this will be administered. The first question is – there is an introduction – a preamble, if you will, and then there is the actual policy itself.  The second larger – and whether they go together or not – the second larger question is what is then going to happen to it? Because there is no part of the resolution about putting it into the Tiger Cub or what happens to it from here.  Do you have input John?

 

John Mouton:  I thought that we were going to move it forward to the Administration for implementation.

 

Stephen McFarland:  With our recommendation as to what should happen to it, or …

 

John Mouton:  With our recommendation …

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary of the Senate:  When we talked about it in Steering, we were just assuming it would go to the Faculty Handbook and …

 

Audience:  We can’t hear you.

 

Paula Sullenger:  Sorry.  Paula Sullenger, Secretary.  When we talked about it in Steering, we did assume it would be going into the Faculty Handbook, and we also asked if it would be going into the Tiger Cub since it was kind of a student policy.  Dr. Pritchett indicated that he thought it probably should also, but we didn’t make the final determination.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Okay. So, that answers my second point, and that is, it will go into the Faculty, it is recommended that it will go into the Faculty Handbook and into the Tiger Cub.  As far as the issue of whether the introduction and the policy go in or just the policy, that has not been determined.  I guess when we finally have a resolution that will have to be addressed.  But, I didn’t have a …

 

John Mouton:  This should be the resolution.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Okay. So, what they are suggesting is the introduction and the policy would go into the Handbook and …

 

Paula Sullenger:   We did also talk about that in Steering Committee.  It seemed like the whole thing would go in as a policy – the whole document together.

 

Jonathan McConnell:  All right, I would like to make a motion for a friendly amendment.  Two parts, arriving after a class has begun – I would like to add repeatedly before that. 

 

Stephen McFarland:  Well, perhaps I should make a, or someone needs to make a motion first. So, I’ll make a motion that we now adopt this policy, and we have to have that motion on the floor before you can amend.

 

John Mouton:            We need a second.

 

[Unknown]:    Second.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Okay, please go ahead. 

 

Jonathan McConnell:  I would like to make a motion to add repeatedly to before arriving after a class has begun.  The reason I know many students are late – a lot of extenuating circumstances,  especially like taking a test that has run over, and not being able to find a parking space. [Audience laughter] But, that’s the first order, and I’d also like to motion to add, either to strike eating or drinking or to add unauthorized eating or drinking.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Dr. Curtis, do you want to address that issue?

 

Christine Curtis, Associate Provost, Facilities:  What -- parking?

 

Stephen McFarland:  [Audience Laughter] No, eating or drinking … eating or drinking.

 

Christine Curtis:  One of the reasons why we’ve been encouraging no eating or drinking in the classrooms is that when these classrooms are used day-in and day-out,  we clean most of the classroom buildings at night, and so ,and that’s from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. So, if they start at eight o’clock in the morning and there’s successive eating and drinking in the classrooms, things get spilled, the tops of the tables get grungy, and then the students in the afternoons have to live with crumbs, spilled drinks, etc.  So, that’s one reason.

 

The second reason is the carpet.  I was sitting here, rather admiring the work that our Cabinet Shop did this Spring Break – they came in and refinished these tops.  The little notes are not on there – they may be, I’ve heard they’ve started writing again, but they’ve done an excellent job.  Our building services people are working very hard to try and keep these carpets cleaned – there’s nothing worse than a spilled Coke to try and clean up out of a carpet.  So, that is one of the reasons we’ve asked, if it is at all possible, to keep food and drink out of the classrooms. Outside, in the hall, there aren’t any carpets.  That’s not nearly as much of an issue as it is in the classrooms.

 

Stephen McFarland:  Mr. McConnell, to respond directly to your, if I can split the two, divide the question. As far as a friendly amendment, I have no trouble with repeatedly.  I think that’s fine. But as far as eating or drinking, I do have some concerns.  So, I think I would like to separate that, if you will, and if you would then make that a formal amendment.

 

Jonathan McConnell:  Yes, I would like to make that a formal amendment that we strike eating or drinking, if it’s going to be a problem with, that it be unauthorized altogether then that should be published specifically in the syllabus, about… the eating and drinking.

 

John Mouton:  So, your second motion is to strike eating and drinking.  Do we have a second on that motion?

 

Conner Bailey:  Second.

 

John Mouton:  We are going to discuss the second motion now.  Is there some discussion in the back please?

 

Judith Lechner, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology:  [Inaudible] eating and drinking [Inaudible] all day long [Inaudible] College of Education students are working teachers who arrive just barely in time for class.  They have not [Inaudible] all day long [Inaudible] lunch time anyway. So, I think the policy is very detrimental to the College of Education evening students.

 

John Mouton:  Okay. We’ll go into the back please, Renée.

 

Renée Middleton:  This is to support [Inaudible] of my colleague.  We don’t have carpet in Haley Center.  [Audience Laughter]  [Inaudible] unauthorized eating and drinking, simply because I think if the University were going to provide a space for our students in Haley Center to eat or whatever – that would be fine . But, there is no such place – the basement was taken away from us – for good reason, for another department, and we don’t have a problem with that, but until such time as there is space where students can eat and drink, as Dr. Lechner says, our students – they’ve got to eat.

 

John Mouton:  Conner Bailey, please.

 

Conner Bailey:  Sometimes we teach classes that go more than 50 minutes.  In those cases there may be students who have problems with low blood pressure.  I had a student this semester who was in an advanced pregnancy that she was experiencing. Three and one-half hours, folks, I’m going to let her eat, and in this climate, I certainly understand Coca-Cola being a problem, but to say that we would impose a restriction fluid intake as an absolute ban strikes me as not wise.  I very much prefer the idea of something approved.  If a student has got a health reason that needs fluids or food during the class period, then that student ought to talk to the instructor and be given permission.  If it’s an absolute ban, I would be in favor of removing rather than have that [Inaudible].

 

John Mouton:  The only motion that we have in that regard is to strike, at this moment. Please, in the back.

 

Jim Gravois, Library:  If I read this, it applies to everything, but the beginning sentence says that “examples may include.” [The word “may” to me – that means, well, I might not care to enforce it. [Inaudible]

 

John Mouton:  I think that’s why it was stated that way.  None the less, we have the motion.  Do we have any other comments in regard to the second motion, which was to strike eating and drinking?  Are you ready to take the vote? 

 

Jonathan McConnell:  I would like to say, I guess once again, that it is addressing a disturbance – not a mess, it’s what the Classroom Behavior Policy is. In response to Dr. Curtis, we are not talking about a mess; we are talking about a disturbance in class.

 

John Mouton:  We are going to have Senators voting, please.  All in favor of striking eating and drinking from the proposed policy, signify by saying Aye. 

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

John Mouton:  All opposed, Nay.

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

John Mouton:  We are going to need to do a hand count.  So, I am going to ask all the Senators in favor to please signify by raising your right hand. We are still counting, so keep your hand up. Thank you.

 

All those opposed … like sign.  Raise your right hand, please.  Okay, thank you.  The motion passes, so we are going to strike eating and drinking.  Now I want to go back to the first motion about repeatedly arriving after class …

 

Paula Sullenger and Stephen McFarland:  No, that’s a friendly amendment.

 

John Mouton:  Oh, that’s accepted.  Any other discussion, please.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science:   That first motion passed so quickly, I didn’t realize it. I have a little bit of concern about that.  I remember when this policy was first discussed  in Rules Committee some of us had concerns that it would take away from discretion professors have in classrooms because you have a [Inaudible].We were told this was to protect professors, not to have more “you can” “you cannot” and have all these rules to memorize. I am a little bit concerned about  having the word “repeatedly” in there because when you have a class size of 40 [Inaudible] to keep track of which student is repeatedly coming in and going out for something very urgent.  I think that if you state in your syllabus clearly up front that arriving late would not be acceptable.  If a student has a particular problem, they can address that problem privately with the professor, but if you put that word repeatedly in there, you are going to have us keeping all kinds of documentation and records. In large classrooms that’s going to make that basically ineffective for [Inaudible] implementation …and I do not think that [Inaudible].  It takes away from any kind of discretion [Inaudible].

 

John Mouton:  Judy

 

Judy Sheppard:  [Inaudible] Weren’t we saying, it reads these things “may include”? So, why not leave it?

 

John Mouton:  I think that in part of the discussion that I heard, and [Inaudible] people including in the syllabus the things they needed, but having some other authority to point to, some larger authority to point to, is the kind of thing we need.  Is there any other discussion about revisiting the …please.

 

Missy Josephson, Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology:  There are situations where something has to be done right at the beginning of class before the rest of the class can go on.  And in those cases, it is a disruption for students to come in late.  I think it needs to be at the discretion of the faculty member, and I would prefer to leave it as it is.

 

John Mouton:  In the back, please. 

 

Kem Krueger,  Pharmacy Care Systems:  [Inaudible] If we leave repeatedly in there,  but if I in my syllabus, for some reason, don’t want anyone to walk in late, can I put it in my syllabus and enforce it?… [Inaudible]?

 

Paula Sullenger:  Yes.

 

John Mouton:  Are we ready to vote on the resolution?  Paula, would you read the resolution please?  Do you have a copy of it?

 

Paula Sullenger:  This is three pages.

 

John Mouton:  Well, do you want to not read it?

 

Paula Sullenger:  No …

 

John Mouton:  Paula suggested that we dispense with the reading.  Please …

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology:  It was mentioned earlier that the graduate student organization saw this.  What did they say about it?

 

John Mouton:  They’re here.            

 

Melissa Brooks, Graduate Student Council President We did not have a problem with it because, we thought that... [Inaudible] I’m in biological sciences [Inaudible] and they keep bringing in Coke’s and doing whatever. [Inaudible]

 

John Mouton:  Jon.

 

Jonathan McConnell:  I have one more amendment I’d like to make.  In the policy in section three, it talks about,  I think in the third sentence beginning with  The department head/chair or dean may negotiate a withdrawal from the course or a transfer of the disruptive student.  I’d like to add “with approval of the student” – that they may not be transferred from a class without them knowing it – otherwise it does resort to the Student Discipline Committee.  Because otherwise, you can be transferred from a class without even knowing or without any student input at all.  The Dean may transfer someone to [Inaudible].

 

John Mouton:  If I understand, what you are proposing is that the student has to accept the transfer.

 

Jonathan McConnell:  Yes.

 

[Inaudible]

 

David Pascoe, Health and Human Performance:  I’m wondering whether the word you’re asking is notification rather than approving, to be notified of the change.

 

Jonathan McConnell:  I think having some input also …

 

John Mouton:  We are going to need a second to this amendment [No second]… the motion dies for lack of a second.  Okay, are we ready to vote on the resolution? Conner.

 

Conner Bailey:  In that same sentence, what does the word negotiate mean? With whom would this be negotiated if not the student?

 

McFarland:     It’s with the student.

 

John Mouton:  We will dispense with the reading of the resolution.  We will ask all Senators, if you are in favor of the resolution, signify by saying Aye.

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

John Mouton:  All opposed, Nay.

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

John Mouton:  The Aye’s have it. 

[Behavior Policy as passed by the Senate]

 

John Mouton:  Paula, I believe that you are up next with the Approval of the Senate Committees.

 

Paula Sullenger:  I hope everyone has had a chance to review the Senate Committees that were sent out with the Agenda.  There was a brief list last week, and then an updated list yesterday afternoon.

 

Audience Member:  Your microphone’s not working.

 

John Mouton:  Turn it on at the switch.

 

Paula Sullenger:  I hope everyone had a chance to review the Senate Committees that are up for approval.  There was a brief list sent out last week with the Agenda, and then an updated list sent out yesterday afternoon.  The Rules Committee had 19 Senate Committees to fill, and as of yesterday afternoon, we had completed 16.  The only ones left are:  Core Curriculum Oversight, Faculty Salaries, and Steering,  and I’ll go ahead and give a brief Rules Committee report while I am up here.  We contacted the SGA and graduate students for the students we need to fill out those committees.  We also had 28 University Committees to be filled, and we have completed 20 of those and we’ve passed those on to the President’s Office. Dr. Heilman coordinates that part of the University Committee activities.  He also is getting names from the SGA and GSC for the student positions.  I was very lucky this year, none of the Senate Committees had staff or A&P rotating off.  The President’s Office isn’t so fortunate – they are getting in contact with those groups and also AUM to find the appropriate representatives for committees that need that.  So, the President’s Office has a few more steps than we do. So, the Rules Committee has been working very hard, and we’re very close to completion. I’m hoping we can get these done by the end of the month.  If the Senate approves the appointments we’ve made so far, sorry I don’t have the candidates today, I forgot to make out a list to put up, but there were so many that I probably wouldn’t do that anyway.  We could have the appointment letters for those 16 committees ready to go out tomorrow or Thursday. [List of Senate Committees follows]

 

Senate Committees

 

New committee members appear in bold font.  Student names are provided by the SGA & GSC.

 

Academic Computing                                   Senate

The committee shall review on an annual basis the status and needs of academic computing and shall recommend action and policies, or policy changes, with regard to academic computing.

 

Faculty                        Nine faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio  Executive Director, Division of University Computing or designee

Undergraduates          Two undergraduate students nominated by the President of the Student Government Association

Graduate                     One graduate student nominated by the President of the Graduate Student Organization

 

Sara Wolf (Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology) – Chair – 2004

Richard Burnett (OIT) – Continuing

Elizabeth Norris (Nursing) – 2005

William Villaume (Communication & Journalism) – 2005

William Gale (Mechanical Engineering) – 2005

Tom Denny (Electrical Engineering) – 2004

Theodore Kilgore (Mathematics)—2004

Wayne Martin (Curriculum & Teaching)—2006

Cheryl Savage (Nursing)—2006

Thomas H. Straiton (Library)--2006

 Graduate Student Rep:

Tom Rentenbach

 Undergraduate Student Reps:

Jeff Evans

Matt Kemph

 

Academic Program Review                              Senate

 

The committee shall periodically review each academic program of the University in terms of its quality, productivity, and centrality of the University's role and purposes and, on the basis of this shall develop appropriate recommendations for review and implementation by the President

 

Faculty                                    One faculty member from each college or school

Continuing/Ex-officio              Vice President for Outreach

                                                Dean of the Graduate School

                                                Vice President for Research

Restrictions                              No faculty member shall serve more than two consecutive three-year terms.

The chairperson of the committee shall be a faculty member.

 

Curtis Shannon (Chemistry) – Chair – 2004

David Wilson (VP for Outreach) – Continuing

Mike Moriarty (VP for Research) – Continuing

Stephen McFarland (Acting Dean Graduate School) – Continuing

Sareen Gropper (Nutrition & Food Science) – 2005

Juming Zhong (Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology) – 2005

John Saye (Curriculum & Teaching) – 2005

Peter Jones (Mechanical Engineering) – 2005

David Sutton (Communication & Journalism) – 2004

Charles Mitchell (Agronomy) – 2004

Kathy Jo Ellison (Nursing) – 2004

Henry McCurley (Library) – 2006

Michael Reinke (Pharmacy Practice) – 2006

Art Chappelka (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) – 2006

Randy Bartlett (Industrial Design) – 2006

Peter Stanwick (Management) – 2006

 

 

Academic Standards                                   Senate

 

The committee shall study policies governing scholastic standards for all students regarding admission to the University, continuation in residence, and graduation, and make recommendations to the Senate.  In addition, the committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of all college, school, and department requests to establish additional standards for admission in individual programs or curricula.

 

Faculty                                    Nine faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Provost or designee

                                                Registrar (non-voting)

 

Caroline Dunn (RSE) – Chair – 2004

John Fletcher (Registrar) –Continuing – Ex–officio

John Pritchett (Acting Provost) – Continuing – Ex–officio

Cathleen Giustino (History) – 2005

Kevin Sherman (Curriculum & Teaching) – 2005

Marcus Kieltyka (Library) – 2005

Susan Brinson (Communication & Journalism) – 2004

Tim Dykstal (English) –2004

Leonard Bell (Nutrition & Food Science) -- 2006

Scott Enebak (Foresty & Wildlife Sciences)—2006

Diane Hall (Management)--2006

  

Administrator Evaluation                             Senate

 

The Administrator Evaluation Committee shall consist of five faculty members and one staff member nominated by the Staff Council. The committee shall oversee and/or conduct a periodic evaluation of University administrators involved in the University's teaching, research, and extension programs and provide a report of aggregate data to the Senate.

 

Faculty                                    Five faculty

Staff                                         One staff member nominated by the Staff Council

 

David Bransby (Agronomy & Soils), Chair– 2004

Ann Janer  (Clinical Pharmacy) – 2005

Paul Starr (Anthropology, Sociology, Criminology) – 2005

Dwayne Cox (Library) – 2005

Herb Rotfeld (Marketing)--2006

 Staff:

Pat Chiroux – Staff Council – 2005

 

Calendar and Schedules                               Senate

 

The committee shall submit a proposed University Calendar for approval by the Senate.  It shall recommend policies concerning scheduling to promote effective use of the University's facilities

 

Faculty                                    Six faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Registrar as secretary

Staff                                         One staff member nominated by the Staff Council

AP                                           One administrative and professional member nominated by the Administrative and Professional Assembly

Undergraduates                      One student nominated by the Student Government Association

 

Alyson Whyte (Curriculum and Teaching) – Chair – 2004

John Fletcher (Registrar) – Secretary – Continuing

Rod Turochy (Civil Engineering) – 2005

Elizabeth Norris (Nursing) – 2005

Gary Waters (Finance) – 2005

Martina Miranda (Curriculum & Teaching)—2006

Thereza Oleinick (Theatre)--2006

A&P Representative

Kim Trupp (Housing) – 2004

 Staff Representative

John Varner (Library) – 2004

Undergraduate Student Representative:

Mera Priest

 

 

Curriculum                                           Senate

 

The committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of requests for undergraduate and graduate curriculum changes.  Graduate curriculum matters, including requests involving 6000-level courses, shall come to the Curriculum Committee following approval by the Graduate Council. In addition, the committee shall review overall curriculum patterns and course content of the instructional program other than the University Core Curriculum and shall recommend to the Senate curriculum changes needed by the University.

 

Faculty                                    One faculty member from each college or school

Continuing/Ex-officio              Provost or designee as chair

                                                Dean of the Graduate School or designee

                                                Registrar or designee as secretary

 

Linda Glaze (Academic Affairs) – Chair – Continuing

John Fletcher (Interim Asst. VP for Enrollment Management) – Continuing

Steve McFarland (Graduate School) – Continuing

Barbara Kemppainen (Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology) – 2005

Bruce Lindsey (Architecture) – 2005

Sultana Selima (Geology & Geography) – 2005

Greg Somers (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) –2005

Mark Graham (Art) – 2004

Leonard Bell (Nutrition & Food Science) – 2004

Dave Williams (Horticulture) – 2004

Regina Beaird (Nursing) – 2004

Dan Mackowski (Mechanical Eng)—2006

Charles Taylor (Clinical Pharmacy)—2006

Beverly Marshall (Finance)—2006

Edna Brabham (Curriculum & Teaching)--2006

  

Faculty Grievance                                    Senate

 

The committee shall evaluate grievances filed by faculty members and make recommendations to the President. The committee shall follow the Faculty Grievance procedure outlined in Article 6 of the Senate Constitution.

 

Faculty            One elected member from each of the academic schools or colleges

                        One elected member from the Library

One elected member from the non-tenure track faculty members of the Cooperative Extension Service who are not included in academic departments

One elected member from the non-tenure track faculty in University Extension who are not included in academic departments

 

Restrictions      The chair shall be elected from within the Grievance Committee and shall serve one year as chair-elect before assuming duties of the chair as provided in Article 6, Section 3. No member shall serve more than two consecutive three-year terms

 

Malcolm Crocker (Mechanical Engineering) – 2004, Chair

Tony Guarino (Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology) – 2004, Chair–Elect

Richard Alekna (Director, Distance Learn & Outreach) – 2005

Ronald Dale Lewis (Geology l& Geography) – 2005

Jim Gravios (Library) – 2005

Joe Newton (Pathobiology) – 2005

Jai-Ok Kim (Consumer Affairs) – 2005

Donald Cunningham (English) – 2005

Robert Drakeford (ACES) – 2004

Norbert Lechner (Building Science) – 2004

Maynard Hamrick (Pharmacy) – 2004

Barbara Wilder (Nursing) – 2004

Nelson Ford (Mgmt)—2006

Patricia Duffy (Ag Econ & Rural Soc)—2006

Robert Tufts (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences)

 

 Faculty Handbook Review                               Senate

 

The committee shall receive and solicit suggestions for changes and updating of the Faculty Handbook and recommend to the University Senate such changes as it deems appropriate.

 

Faculty                                    Six faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Provost or designee

 

Carol Whatley (Extension) – Chair – 2004

John Pritchett (Provost) – Continuing

Dwayne Cox (Library) – 2005

Robin Fellers (Nutrition & Food Science) – 2005

Alyson Whyte (Curriculum and Teaching) – 2004

Lourdes Betanzos (Foreign Languages & Literatures)—2006

Jorge Mosjidis (Agronomy & Soils)--2006

 

 Faculty Welfare                                      Senate

 

The committee shall look into and make recommendations concerning faculty benefits and welfare programs of the University.

 

Faculty                                    Eight faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Executive Vice President

                                                Director of Payroll and Benefits

Staff                                         One staff member nominated by the Staff Council

AP                                           One administrative and professional member nominated by the Administrative and Professional Assembly

 

David King (Geology & Geography) – Chair – 2004

Ron Herring (Payroll & Employee Benefits) – Continuing

Don Large (VP Business & Finance) – Continuing

Marie E. Francois (History) – 2005

Jackie A. DiPofi (Small Business, Director) – 2005

Paul Holley (Building Science) – 2005

James Jenkins (Library) – 2004

Winfred Foster (Aerospace Engineering)—2006

Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry)—2006

Worth Gardner (Theatre)--2006

 Staff:

Robert Byrd (Telecom) – Staff – 2004

 A&P:

Dorothy Cordell (Chair) A & P Welfare Committee

 

Graduate Council                                     Senate

Review requests for curriculum changes in courses that may be taken for graduate credit, review & recommend approval of all proposals for new graduate programs & modifications to existing programs, review existing programs, recommend regulations & policies for the Grad School, assist the dean of the Grad School in carrying out those regulations & policies.

Faculty                                   12-15 faculty members, with at least one from each school or college with a graduate program

Continuing/Ex-officio              Dean of the Graduate School as chair

Assistant to the Dean of the Graduate School as non-voting secretary

                                                Associate Dean of the Graduate School as non-voting vice chair

Graduate                                One graduate student nominated by the Graduate Student Council

Restrictions                              Faculty members shall be appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School from a list of nominees provided by the Senate Rules Committee.  The list of nominees shall, at a minimum, exceed the number of openings by two and shall contain at least two nominees from any college or school without a continuing representative.  Faculty members must be full members of the Graduate Faculty.

 

Steve McFarland (Grad School) – Chair – Continuing

Susan Brinson (Communications) – 2005

Robert Jakeman (History) – 2005

Sandra Forsythe (Consumer Affairs) – 2005

Ulrich Albrecht (Mathematics) – 2005

Daowei Zhang (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) – 2005

Hareesh Tippur (Mechanical Engineering) – 2004

Claire Crutchley (Finance) – 2004

Forrest Smith (Pharmacal Sciences) – 2004

Henry Kinnucan (Agricultural Economics & Rural Sociology)—2006

Caroline Dunn (Rehabilitation & Special Education)—2006

John Pittari (Architecture)—2006

Judith Hudson (Clinical Sciences)--2006

 

Graduate Student Representative:

Brooks, Melissa

 

Lectures                                             Senate

 

The committee is a companion to the student-run University Program Council and shall augment the instructional programs of the University by supporting speakers of distinctive scholarship and accomplishment who would be of interest to students, faculty, and staff.

 

Faculty                                    Three faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Associate Provost or designee as chair

Undergraduates                      Two undergraduate students nominated by the Student Government Association

Graduate                                One graduate student nominated by the Graduate Student Organization

 

Linda Glaze (Academic Affairs) – Chair – Continuing

Allyson Comstock (Art) – 2005

Jim Hansen (History) – 2004

Jana Gutierrez (Foreign Languages & Literatures)--2006

Graduate Student representative:

Fraidun Akhi

Undergraduate Student representatives:

Andrew Hulsey

Andy York

 

Library                                              Senate

The committee shall recommend policies governing the distribution of funds for acquiring library materials, policies for the selection and location of such materials, and library services to be offered.

 

Faculty                                    One library faculty member

                                                One faculty member from each school or college

Continuing/Ex-officio              Dean of Libraries

Undergraduates                      One undergraduate student nominated by the SGA

Graduate                                One graduate student nominated by the Graduate Student Council

 

Sherida Downer (Acting Dean, Library) – Continuing

Maria Witte (EFLT), Chair – 2005

AJ Meir (Mathematics) – 2005

Mike Mitchell (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) – 2005

John Rowe (Nursing) – 2005

Roger Killingworth (Building Science) – 2004

Scott Ketring (Human Development & Family Studies) – 2004

William Sutley (Communication & Journalism)—2004

Bernie Olin (Pharmacy Practice)--2004

Michael Baginski (Electrical & Computer Engineering)—2006

Claudine Jenda (Library)—2006

Wallace Berry (Poultry Science)—2006

HuiChu Lin (Clinical Sciences)—2006

Casey Cegielski (Management)—2006

Graduate Student representative:

Vivek Krishnan

Undergraduate Student representative:

Chelsea McLemore

 

Non-Tenure Track Instructors                         Senate

 

The committee will consider the special concerns of non-tenure track instructors and may propose policies relating to the status, function, and rights of non-tenure track instructors within the University.  Each fall the committee chair will inform all non-tenure track instructors of the committee's existence and purpose.

 

Faculty                                    Six tenured faculty members

Two department heads/chairs

                                                One representative of the central administration

                                                Three non-tenure track instructors

Restrictions                              All with staggered three-year terms

 

Tenure Track:

Ron Clark (Accounting), Chair– 2005

Frank Walters (English) – 2005

Emmett Winn (Communication) – 2004

Michael Melancon (History) – 2004

Ulrich Albrecht (Math)—2006

Krystyna Kuperberg (Math)--2006

Non–tenure Track:

Talitha Smith (Accountancy) – 2005

Pamela Paine (Foreign Languages & Literatures) – 2004

Caroline Miles (English)--2006

Department Heads/Chairs:

Andrew Weaver (Curriculum & Teaching) – 2005

Bob Smith (Pharmacy Practice)) – 2004

Central Administration:

Dan Rosenthal (Planning & Analysis ) --2006

 

 

Research Grant-in-Aid                                Senate

 

The committee shall establish policy for the Grant-in-Aid programs and review and recommend proposals

 

Faculty                                   Thirteen faculty members.  Each school or college shall be represented by at least one faculty member.

Continuing/Ex-officio              Associate Provost and Vice President for Research as chair

                                                Associate Vice Presidents for Research as non-voting members

 

Mike Moriarty (VP for Research) – Chair – Continuing

Barbara Wilder (Nursing) – 2005

Sean Forbes (Educational FLT) – 2005

Lynn Williams (Library) – 2005

Joe Cherry (Biological Sciences) – 2005

Herbert Horne (Adm-Business) – 2005

Bob Aderholdt (Building Science) – 2005

Gary Hepp (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) – 2004

Zhanjiang Liu (Fisheries & Allied Aquacultures) – 2004

Jon Bolton (English) – 2004

Charles Breese (Pharmacal Sciences) – 2004

Hulya Kirkici (Electrical & Computer Engineering)—2006

Juming Zhong (Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology)—2006

Mona El-Sheik (Human Development & Family Studies)--2006

 

 Retention                                            Senate

 

The committee shall be responsible for continuous monitoring of the retention of undergraduate students and for recommending retention initiatives and working with the appropriate deans and student affairs to establish them.

 

Faculty                                    Five faculty

Continuing/Ex-officio              Director of Financial Aid

                                                Director of the Student Success Center

Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Studies

Undergraduates                      Two students

Restrictions                              The faculty members will serve 3-year rotating terms

 

Marllin Simon (Physics) – Chair – 2004

Nancy McDaniel (Student Affairs) – Continuing

Linda Glaze (VP for Academic Affairs) – Continuing

Michael Reynolds (Financial Aid) – Continuing

Francesca Adler (Human Development & Family Studies) – 2005

Ivan Watts (Educational Foundations & Leadership Technology) – 2005

Becky Liddle (Counseling and Counseling Psychology) – 2004

Oladiran Fasina (Biosys Eng)--2006

Undergraduate Student Representative(s):

Makenzi Hamilton

Marianne Clancy

  

Rules                                                Senate

The Senate Rules Committee shall have the responsibility for providing the President with a list of faculty nominations for University committees.  The committee shall serve as the Committee on Committees.

 

Faculty                                    Six members elected by the Senate

Continuing/Ex-officio              Chair of the Senate as chair

                                                Chair-elect

                                                Secretary

                                                Secretary-elect

                                                Immediate past-chair

Restrictions                              Elected members shall serve two-year staggered terms.  Election of members to two-year terms shall be held by secret ballot at each March meeting of the Senate.  Candidates who receive a majority vote shall be elected and their appointment shall become effective immediately.  Nominations shall be made from the floor at the Senate's February meeting. Information about candidates shall be distributed to all Senators with the agenda for the March meeting.

 

 

John Mouton (Senate Chair) Ex officio

Paula Sullenger (Senate Secretary) Ex officio

Willie Larkin (Senate Chair-elect) –Ex–officio

Debra Cobia (Senate Secretary-elect) –Ex–officio

Barb Struempler (Senate Immediate Past Chair) Ex officio

Bob Locy (Biological Sciences) – 2004

Richard Beil (Economics) – 2004

Ken Tilt (Horticulture) – 2004

Christa Slaton (Political Science) – 2005

Gary Mullen (Entomology & Plant Pathology) – 2005

Robert Ripley (Aviation Management & Logistics) – 2005

  

Teaching Effectiveness                               Senate

 

The committee shall review what is currently in place in the University with respect to appropriate and reasonable teaching assignments. The committee shall establish policy for the Teaching Grant-in-Aid program and review and recommend proposals for funding. It shall also evaluate existing resources for teaching, provide systematic approaches to faculty evaluation, offer formal faculty development programs, and recognize excellence in teaching.

 

Faculty                                    Thirteen faculty.  Each school or college shall be represented by at least one faculty member

Continuing/Ex-officio              Provost or designee

Undergraduates                      One undergraduate student nominated by the SGA

Graduate                                 One graduate student nominated by the Graduate Student Council

 

John Pritchett (Provost) – Continuing

J.R. Kessler (Horticulture) – 2005

Marcus Kieltyka (Library) – 2005

Howard Clayton (Management) – 2005

Al Fromhold (Physics) – 2005

Gisela Buschle–Diller (Textile Engineering) –2004

Cindy Brunner (Pathobiology) –2004

Scott Ketring (Human Development & Family Studies) – 2004

Lisa Samuelson (Forestry & Wildlife Sciences) – 2004

Glenda Avery (Nursing) – 2004

Jill Salisbury-Glennon (Educational Foundations, Leadership & Technology)--2006

Carole Johnson (Communication Disorders)—2006

Kem Krueger (Pharmacy Care Systems)—2006

Scott Kramer (Building Science)—2006

 

Paula Sullenger:  So, with that I move adoption of the 16 Senate Committees that have so far been appointed by Rules. 

 

Willie Larkin, Chair-elect of the Senate:  Second.

 

John Mouton:  Any discussion please?  All Senators will signify approval by saying Aye.

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

John Mouton:  Opposed – Nay [None]… the Aye’s have it.

 

Information Items

 

John Mouton: Okay, we have already completed the Resolution with the swimmers, so that completes the Action Items.  I mentioned that Dr. Pritchett cannot be with us today. We [Inaudible] Faculty Salary Comparisons [Inaudible] at our June meeting.  We do have some guests here who have been working with Christine.  I’d like Christine to come down and introduce our guests, please.

 

Christine Curtis, Associate Provost for Facilities:  Good afternoon.  I’d like to introduce to you today, two people that we have here as guests.  First, we have Marty Wells from Wells & Associates who is our consultant for our Traffic and Parking Master Plan, and Mickey Hall who is from Skipper & Associates who is working currently on our transit study as well as the transit in the Master Plan. I will also let you know that Marty Wells helped us last year in the Game Day analysis and was instrumental in helping us formulate how we could make the campus RV free.  I don’t think we had a single violation last year. Thanks go to the planning that he helped us with – as well as to the police who helped enforce it.  One thing that Marty has learned, and I think he will tell you, is that there is one over-riding issue, and that is parking.  So, he’s really heard the numerous people that he’s listened to, and he’s helping us to try and formulate some ways to deal with the issues – so, Marty.

 

Marty Wells, Wells & Associates:  Thank you very much. This is a PowerPoint Presentation here if we can get the equipment working.  I’ve been listening to your deliberations, and I must say to you I’m pleased to be here to talk about such a non-controversial topic – parking and traffic. If sodas in the classroom are an issue, believe me, I know that parking is too.  I’ve been on campus for about three months now working on the Transportation Master Plan.  If we had these slides here, it would be able to tell you that the two firms working on this endeavor are Wells & Associates based in McLean, Virginia and Skipper Consulting who are out of Birmingham.  Mickey Hall is here today, and Darryl Skipper, President of the firm.  You’ll be pleased to know they are Auburn graduates.  The topics that we are looking at are pedestrianization of the campus – that is the central transportation theme of your recently adopted campus Master Plan.  We are also looking at bicycle travel on the campus, transit, cars – both in terms of moving traffic and parking.  We are continuing to look at Game Day conditions, and we’re looking at service and delivery issues – which are very important if we are looking at pedestrianization of the campus. The Sasaki Associates with whom I know many of your have met in the past couple of years, they’ve prepared the campus Master Plan.  That Master Plan drives the development, the growth of the campus for the foreseeable future over the next coming decades.  We’re having trouble with the PowerPoint here, and there is a transportation element of that plan – the purpose of the Transportation Master Plan is to flesh-out the details of the transportation component.  We’ve talked to a lot of different groups on campus.  We’ve talked to the Senate, we’ve talked to students, we’ve talked to residents, and we’ve talked to the various departments on campus.  We have an email address AuburnTigers@mjwells.com from whom we’ve heard from roughly 60-70 persons.  There is a survey on your website.  If you go to the homepage of the Auburn University webpage, you will find a link to a transportation survey.  We’ve received over 1600 responses to that survey.  We’ve asked questions about what are the principle transportation concerns.  If you have compliments, we’d like to hear them, if you have complaints, we’d like to hear those, too.  It may not be a surprise to you that most people are most concerned about parking.  Eight out of ten people who have a compliment –more likely a complaint – about transportation on campus – parking is the issue.  To a lesser extent, about a third of the people have responded with comments regarding transit. Mostly people were not happy with your transit, but it is getting better. The ridership is up – the routes have been revised, and the ridership is up.  The other topics: traffic, pedestrian, Game Day, bicycles, and what not – fewer than 15% of all the respondents were interested in those issues.  By far the burning issue here is parking. If we get the graphics here soon, I should point out some of the details. The parking issues here, or responses we have heard, is that there simply isn’t enough parking.  Well, that’s not exactly the fact.  There is enough parking on campus.  There is roughly a little over 10,000 parking spaces in the core and the fringe of the campus.  We’ve conducted an occupancy survey on a Wednesday, which is a peak time – the peak day on campus.  We did that at ten o’clock in the morning, two o’clock in the afternoon and six o’clock in the evening.  What we found is that the peak occupancy occurred in the morning. [PowerPoint Presentation is projected on screen]

 

Here we go …if we could go through the first few slides please … these are the issues we are looking at.  Quickly, this is your campus Master Plan which shows existing buildings in black here; new buildings in colors – for example the Transportation Center, new academic buildings south of the Hill Dorms, new dorms west of the Hill Dorms, and near the horseshoe, the new student village, and parking garages which I’ll speak to in a moment.  Next slide please, the core concept here is pedestrianization of the campus.  This roughly T-shaped area extending from Magnolia down to Samford between Donahue and College, Mell and Duncan and north to Samford – the campus Master Plan calls for this to be a pedestrianized zone. In a room full of professors, I’m obligated to say I understand that pedestrianization is not a word you would find in Webster’s Dictionary, but it is a term we are using on the Auburn campus to describe the closure of certain streets.  For example, West Thach between Ross Square and Donahue – as well as, Roosevelt.  Roosevelt is closed now, as you know, and will not reopen to vehicular traffic.  This area would be an area where pedestrians would have on their minds their academic affairs, their college life, and not be worried about, as they cross the street, being run over by a car, or a bus, or a service delivery vehicle.  That’s the idea behind this zone.  In this study, we are looking to extend that zone south to incorporate the Hill Dorms.  We are very mindful that there’s a heavy volume of pedestrians that cross from the dorms into the academic core and back and forth here … and there’s a great deal of traffic that uses Samford, and these conflicts are conducive to university life.

 

Next slide please. Here is a measure of the interest we had in the surveys in the different topic areas.  Not to belabor the point, but most people are interested in parking or a little bit in transit – not so much in traffic, pedestrians, parking, Game Day, or other.  Although there are other thoughtful comments on those topics also. 

 

Next slide please.  Here is a depiction of the parking problem, if you will.  We have divided the campus into a number of different areas – this is Engineering and Arts, for example, this is Haley Center, North Quad, Library, and so forth.  You see three bars here.  Each on of these bars is a measure of how utilized the capacity – parking capacity is at ten o’clock in the morning, two o’clock in the afternoon, and six in the evening.  Where red is at, red means that the spaces, for example in Engineering, at ten o’clock, they were 90% full at ten.  At two o’clock, they were 93% full, and in the evening they were only 73% full.  The reason they are not 100% full at those times, is that there are certain spaces that are reserved for particular user groups.  The pattern we see here is that the core – you see a lot of red, in the periphery you see blue.  Students, if you want to know where to find a parking space, I’ll tell you where they are You know where they are,  they are around the Intramural Fields … they are even in the l Max Morris lots, but they’re not the spaces closest to campus.  They are the spaces that are in the periphery of these lots.  So, part of the measure, if you will, of the shortage of parking in some areas is over in this current academic year.  Almost 21,000 parking permits have been issued.  [Inaudible] So, what happens is if you can’t find a space here, you are looking into adjacent areas.  That is one of the reasons the Library Deck is so full, for example.  The consequences of the parking shortage,  not having enough parking where it’s needed most – you can’t park close to where you work or where you are going to class.  There is unnecessary traffic caused by faculty, staff, students, and others just circulating looking for a parking space,  hoping there’s a vacant parking space where there is none.  As you know, even if you find a space in the morning, if you go out to lunch there is certainly no guarantee that that space is going to remain vacant until you get back, somebody else has that space.  Students poach on the A and B spaces.  It’s widely perceived,  although things are getting better,  it’s widely perceived that the transit connection between where the vacant spaces are on the fringe and where people want to go in the core,  that it’s not up to snuff.

 

Next slide please.  What are some of the solutions?  Some of the solutions are to strengthen the transit connection between the vacant spaces where they are in the periphery of the campus.  These are the revised on-campus circulator routes.  Ridership is up by about two-thirds, I believe, to three-quarters since these routes have been revised.  That’s one of the solutions.

 

Next slide please.  Just a word about Game Day – this is the brochure you may be familiar with that shows the RV-Free Zone, the new RV parking spaces, the new peripheral spaces, and the circulator bus Game Day connections.  We are looking at further improving the Game Day experience by expanding the RV-Free Zone to include the Hill Dorms and the CDV Extension. That’s partly a safety and building access issue. Fortunately, there have been no incidents that I’m aware of, where we needed to get a fire engine into the Hill Dorms on a Saturday when a football game was taking place.  If we did have to do that without the controls that aren’t there today, a fire engine simply wouldn’t be able to get in there.  So, we are doing things to enhance emergency vehicle access. To improve pedestrian access to the stadium, we came up with the novel idea to keep cars from parking on certain sidewalks during a football game, so pedestrians could actually walk to the stadium on certain sidewalks without walking in the streets.  Also, there are certain behaviors that we have identified in the Library Parking Deck that we’d like to prevent, like charcoal fires.  We do understand that Library employees have to be in the Library even during football games.  So, we are looking to reserve some parking spaces for Library employees. 

 

Next slide please. As we go through this we are mindful of traffic volumes.  As I mentioned to you earlier, Thach and Roosevelt would be closed to thru-traffic under the pedestrianization plan.  Those streets, this is in the PM peak hour, these are sixty minute figures around four to five in the afternoon.  Roosevelt, before it was closed, carried roughly four hundred cars, Thach carried about five hundred cars.  To put that in perspective, Magnolia, at this same time, carries about nine hundred cars.  We are looking at closing Samford which carries over 1250 cars, so that’s the real traffic workhorse here.  So, we are looking at ways to improve as a circumvention route, Samford to Mell to Lem Morrison and back over to Samford.  So, that’s being considered in our study.

 

Next slide please.  If you distill the campus Master Plan to its essence, the essence of that plan says we are going to pedestrianize this area.  The thru-routes through campus in an east-west direction are Magnolia to Wire and Samford, and the north-south direction are Donahue and College.  The principle parking solution in our currently adopted campus Master Plan is to replace existing spaces that will be displaced by new buildings, – and to account for growth in enrollment and employment by constructing new parking decks,  here,  here,  here,  here, and here.  These are one-two-three-four-five parking decks that are 650 spaces.  These are three-level decks of a human scale, much like the Library Deck.  They are near the Engineering and Arts area or very close to the pedestrianized area.  There is a sixth deck in your plan now.  It’s a 500 space deck that would be built on the, near the lot [Inaudible] existing surface parking lot of the Conference Center.  Well, the problem with this is it’s expensive.  One parking space that you’d be proud of, a well-designed parking space in this structure is roughly fifteen thousand dollars.  So, the rough math on each one of these decks is its ten million bucks apiece.  So, that has caused us to say,   well, maybe these decks aren’t exactly the right solution, or maybe we need to do something differently, and that’s why we went to the next slide – to look at a different concept.  That is to say, how about providing some peripheral parking, surface parking, and really strengthening the transit connection between these lots and the campus?  Strengthening it to the point where the word on the campus would be that Tiger Transit is not less effective than I would like it.   Let me be more blunt, a lot of people tell us it’s unreliable and undependable and we don’t like it.  Let’s change that by providing better service – more frequent service.  Service where, if you can’t see the bus, you know a bus is going to be there very shortly because we’re operating on very short intervals to then connect peripheral parking – these spaces are, by the way, about two thousand bucks apiece.  Compare two thousand with fifteen thousand.  Also, this shows the expansion of the pedestrianized area to include the Hill Dorms.

 

Next slide please.  There is an in-between position. Certain decks may be exactly the right decks to build – perhaps the one in Engineering and Arts.  Or maybe that is not the right one, maybe there is something we can do as a joint venture between the university and the city to provide parking that could be used both by the university and by the merchants and others in the city.  A candidate location for this garage might be to move it across Magnolia and help to revitalize the area just north of Magnolia.  That could be a joint venture between the university and the city, where this could be used by the university during the day and the city in the evenings and weekends.  So, we are examining those, and then provide certain parking decks – one or more – and then a combination of the decks and the peripheral parking.  That’s where we are.  We are continuing to get feedback; I’d love to hear some feedback from those of you I see in the room.  Some of you have familiar faces, others are new faces.  I’d like to hear from any and all of you.  If you don’t feel like raising your hand and speaking today, AuburnTigers@mjwells.com works well or fill out the survey which you can find on the homepage of the university’s website … and that’s … those are my prepared remarks.

 

John Mouton:  Please.

 

Cindy Brunner:  I’ll let you know, right off the bat, I work at the Vet School.  I’m one of three faculty members on the Senate, and four counting my Dean.  I didn’t see the Vet School on any of your maps.  And I understand that we’re sort of a remote campus, but the problem that poses for us is we have to drive to these meetings, we have to drive to Samford Hall.  I have to drive to Comer and to Swingle and to the Life Sciences Building, to get there – to transport research materials.  If you could actually enact what you have proposed here with remote lots – satellite lots and good transit – it might be workable.  But, I want you to not forget us because as these solutions evolve, sometimes we are forgotten.  My example is, when the bus system was first implemented, it was very reliable.  I could get on the bus at Greene Hall every ten minutes, and I could get to Haley Center within ten minutes and it would take me back at that same interval.  Well the bus quit stopping at Greene Hall, and for the past several years, we’ve not been able to board the bus at Greene Hall to go to campus. Well, now with the new and improved bus system, I still can’t board the bus in-bound. I have to ride it out-bound through Gentilly and all that circle. And the truth of the matter is, now it takes me three buses instead of one to get to Comer Hall.  So, that’s the new and improved transit system for me as a faculty member at the Vet School.  Don’t forget about us out there.  We’re still citizens of the university even though we are not in the core most of the week.

 

Marty Wells:  I appreciate it … very well said.  I heard similar comments; most of our meetings have been at Facilities.  What I’ve heard from some of your peers in the core part of the campus is, you know, I really don’t like coming out here for a meeting because I left my parking space, and I have no faith that when I return to my office right after this meeting, I have no faith that I will have a parking space when I return.  We did hear from people from the Vet School, but your points are well-taken. I also heard from the other side of that same coin, one of the meeting participants … I forget what building she worked in, but she was in the core. She said, “You know I tried the bus to come to this meeting at Facilities – and you know what, to my surprise it worked very well.  I was glad I did it, and I figured it out, and it worked great.”  So, we’re looking for more success stories of that type, and I think, Mickey, this is as much a comment about a Loop System as it is a Linear System.  So, I’m interpreting from what you’ve said that you would prefer a more Linear System to a Loop System.  Thank you for that comment.

 

Cindy Brunner:  We may need both.  We’ve got a lot of people to accommodate.

 

Marty Wells:  Again, what drives us to consider, mind you this is not a recommendation at this point, but to consider the peripheral parking is the disparity in the cost between the structured space and a surface space.  We know some of the capital cost savings would have to go to higher operating costs with a shuttle bus.  So, thank you for helping to decide that.

 

John Mouton:  Paula.

 

Marty Wells:  Paula’s been a good participant in our meetings.

 

Paula Sullenger:  Is there a timeline for actually having a pedestrian campus?

 

Marty Wells:  We’re working on it.  Let me tell you that one decision that has … I believe this is correct … one decision has been made, and that is that when Roosevelt was closed, the decision was made that it would not reopen to everyday vehicular traffic.  We’re faced with a decision, an opportunity, and a challenge. We have a similar situation.  West Samford is going to be closed this summer for some much needed utility work.  The question is – should it reopen?  So, the answer is it may happen sooner than was anticipated in June of last year. But, we don’t know – stay tuned.

 

Missy Josephson:  That brings up the point that on the south side of the campus, Lem Morrison looks like it has got to absorb the major amount of traffic that goes through Samford right now, but that road is a disaster area.

 

Marty Wells:  We are very mindful that it was a poorly designed road. I think we mentioned that the asphalt paving was done directly on clay beds.  [Inaudible] when you put asphalt on clay – that’s bad.  When you further put on that type of road, heavy truck traffic like is using the traffic now for the track construction and some utility construction – it is just tearing that road up. There are areas where whole sheets of asphalt are coming up.  That’s one of the trade-offs.  We would be expecting Lem Morrison to carry more traffic.  It’s in poor shape to do that and some funds would have to go into reconstructing, if not completely rebuilding Lem Morrison to do that.  Good observation.

 

John Mouton:  Thereza.

 

Thereza Oleinick, Theatre:  We work very late in Theatre.  At eleven o’clock at night, what kind of accommodations can you give me, standing on the street corner all by myself, waiting to go out to Timbuktu to get my car? It’s vulnerable. I’m not going to stand outside by myself and hope that the bus is going to come, and then you take me to the edge of the parking lot and I’ve got to walk to  I don’t know where to get my car.

 

Marty Wells:  I understand.  We did meet with Theatre and Music; they had some very legitimate concerns. In your area just north of Samford there is not a great number of parking spaces.  You have some unique demands -- not just faculty and students, but you have performances, you have rehearsals, you have concerts, you have season ticket holders … we are very mindful of that, and we are looking at [Inaudible] parking, we are looking at maybe some innovative things like a connection between the new art museum and the theatre – that could be a good synergy.  So, thank you for bringing that up, and we are looking at that.

 

Karen Rabren, Rehabilitation and Special Education:  What is the plan for accessible parking? 

 

Marty Wells:  We are mindful that ADA is something that we must comply with.  There are, I believe, two hundred and, I’m doing this from memory, roughly two hundred and thirty some handicapped parking spaces on campus.  So, accessible parking has to be an integral component.  We have to meet ADA requirements.  For each of the buildings, we have to have the right number of situated, close to the building, an accessible path to the building, and that’s an integral part of what we are looking at for parking.  In the pedestrianization plan, as we look at the details, there are very few parking spaces that we think we would lose as the result of that.  We think we can make connections from the peripheral roads from Mell, from Duncan, from Magnolia, a section of Samford would stay open to gain access to the parking that’s on the north side and south side of Samford.  So, we’re looking not to lose those spaces, and we are mindful of the ADA requirements.

 

John Mouton:  Behind you please.

 

John Salvetti, Army ROTC:  How many vehicles on campus are state or government registered, and does that impose an external constraint on the parking spaces?

 

Marty Wells:  We’re a very narrow parking occupancy town.  So, who has the latest numbers on this?

 

[Unknown Speaker]:  On campus [Inaudible]…

 

John Salvetti:  Well, the reason I asked that second part of the question is, we are already in the process of removing those spaces – moving those further out. I wanted to get a feel for what was the number because in some of those areas…they weren’t in your red blocks.  So why was there a limitation on your parking plan to move those?

 

Marty Wells:  I don’t know that there is a limitation on our parking plan to move them.  In fact, most of the state vehicles have been moved out to the rugby field.

 

John Salvetti:  Well, that’s what I’m saying. The answer … the question is why? Does it impose a limitation on the parking plan … in order to keep those in place? Or, do they have to be moved from that location?

 

Unknown Speaker:  Because when you take two hundred vehicles off the center of the campus, it will deduct that [Inaudible].

 

John Salvetti:  Would some of the places that we moved that state vehicles from are places that are not coded red.  So, was there a bigger limitation on the number of state vehicles or government vehicles that are on campus?

 

Marty Wells:  Well, we’re keeping that there are certain spaces that are marked for service vehicles.

 

John Salvetti:  Yes, sir.

 

Marty Wells:  Those spaces, by and large, were retained. Those numbers of spaces were reserved for the day-to-day functioning of the campus.

 

John Salvetti:  Well, the reason I asked is that I am not in that “by and large” comment.

 

Marty Wells:  Okay.  Why don’t you present us with your particular situation, and we’ll see how we can respond to it.  We can do that now or later – if you like. I’d like to meet with you individually to see what your situation is … to see what we can learn from that.

 

John Mouton:  Cindy.

 

Cindy Brunner:  You mentioned something that has now raised another concern.  I think I heard you say that Samford will be closed this summer, and you’re thinking about not re-opening it.

 

Marty Wells:  Yes, what do you think about that?

 

Cindy Brunner:  I think it stinks frankly. 

 

Marty Wells:  Don’t sugar-coat it now … tell me how you really feel.

 

Cindy Brunner:  Part of the problem that we have with Samford right now has been generated because all the cars that used to drive through the center of campus are now forced out to Samford.  The people who actually work in those buildings along Samford can’t get out onto the street.  What you’re proposing to do is create a further problem by closing Samford – forcing cars out to Lem Morrison.  Lem Morrison and Donahue is a fatal intersection right now, and I don’t want to even talk about Lem Morrison and Wire Road.  Those are two completely out of control intersections. You’re forcing cars out there, and at that point …I’m assuming, I mean, we are already in May so summer’s not far off.

 

Marty Wells:  That’s right.

 

Cindy Brunner:  You’ve made no accommodations for that shift in traffic flow.

 

Marty Wells:  All right, I feel your passion.

 

Cindy Brunner:  [Inaudible]

 

Marty Wells:  Yes, I do.  Mind you, we’re …this will be a Core Transportation Master Plan.  If we did not use a wide brush to look at as many alternatives as possible … some of these alternatives do close Samford, and some don’t, and we’re evaluating that.  As I’ve mentioned to you with a particular slide, we are mindful that Samford carries much more traffic than did Roosevelt, than does Thach, and even more than Magnolia – so we are mindful of that. We are mindful that we simply can’t close Samford, close our eyes, and hope for the best – we have to provide an alternative. That’s what we are examining.  What I’m hearing from you is,… it’s a bad idea – it would just put too much traffic on a poor road, and we need some special controls or suggestions if we did move traffic from Samford onto Lem Morrison, for example, at Donahue which is a very wide, uncontrolled intersection – uncontrolled on Donahue – I believe the side streets are stop sign controlled.  But it’s so wide, and the speed is, I believe, 45 MPH on Donahue at that point.  I think we would have to look at the possibility of a traffic signal to control that is there was much heavier side street traffic, and the same might be true at Wire and Lem Morrison.  Particularly, if as is incorporated in the campus Master Plan, Lem Morrison is extended through Wire Road all the way back up to Samford.

 

Cindy Brunner:  I’m just asking that you do this in a logical order.  That you not …

 

Marty Wells:  As engineers, that’s our …

 

Cindy Brunner:  Then, don’t close Samford and keep it closed after this summer – until you put those stop lights in.

 

Marty Wells:  Good point.  Thank you.

 

Don Large:  I’m seeing this for the first time as well.  If we’re going to build six decks, Conner, I may need to [Inaudible] that debt service answer to you.  Well, my question is this though … the six decks which would have an initial cost, although we may have some revenue potential because I’m often told by students in particular that they’d pay a thousand dollars a year just for an A sticker.

 

Marty Wells:  I think that’s a figure of speech.

 

Don Large:  Well, I don’t know – I’m not so sure.  But, nevertheless, the evaluation of six decks and its initial cost …to the remote parking and the significant cost of transportation over a period of time … not to mention a change in culture … is there a break-even period where … pay now or you pay over time, but in fifteen years you will have paid the same for instance.

 

Marty Wells:  We’re looking at that.  We are going to look at it in a present value.  If this campus is like others, I suspect from the pure dollar point of view, it’s probably cheaper to go with the surface parking and the transit.  I think that this campus, speaking frankly, the greater price, if you will, is the change of culture.  Auburn is like most of America – we love our cars, and we love our SUV’s even more than we loved cars … and if that changed, you think about just the way I live my life – I drive most places … and when I drive to shop, I expect a parking space … and I expect when I go home, that there’s not somebody parked in front of my house,  and I expect when I drive to the office that -- maybe not the space that I want – but, there’s a convenient space.  When you come to college, isn’t that a reasonable expectation?  Well, yes and no.  I think the biggest price that changes ways of doing things is the change in culture.  And we can debate long and hard whether that’s the right thinking.  We can debate long and hard whether the pedestrianization of the campus – extending that pedestrianization … is that worth the price of a little more inconvenience for a car … going from one side through campus … from one side to the other and upgrading the  roads that would have to carry that  traffic.  Like so much of life, it involves trade-offs.  You’ve got some big decision makers here to help make those decisions.

 

John Mouton:  In the back please, Judith.

 

Judith Lechner, EFLT:  Convenience or change of culture partly may also involve making a more pleasant experience for students to be on campus while they’re lugging their books around. So, again, more expense, but it may be good to think about lockers.

 

Marty Wells:  Lockers?

 

Judith Lechner:  Lockers.

 

Marty Wells:  Something we hadn’t thought of.

 

John Mouton:  Well, you thought about wheel locks.

 

Marty Wells:  Yes, we have … I know where you’re coming from.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  Oh, Vic, please.

 

Vic Walker, Staff Council:  I’m just concerned about the peak times. We have staff coming on at 7:45 in the morning and leaving at 4:45 every day. Are we going to preserve this parking that can cause some congestion at that time of day from student competition, [Inaudible] as well as faculty and staff? How will you address that?

 

Marty Wells:  Well, we are looking at the volumes, and we’re also looking at the schedules.  Part of the data we are looking at is …when do class times start and end?  They are concentrated in time …mostly on …Wednesday is a peak day … Mondays and Wednesdays are peak days where the classes begin at … is it nine o’clock?

 

Christine Curtis:  Classes begin at eight, but peak time starts at nine and goes to noon

 

Marty Wells:  Basically eight till noon – Monday and Wednesday are peak times.  Friday is just a little bit lower than Mondays and Wednesdays.  Then Tuesdays and Thursdays are lighter on those days.  At the risk of causing a revolution of another type, if those class schedules were a little more spread out … if they didn’t coincide with certain work shifts, that would be a helpful thing both from a traffic point of view and a parking point of view.  Again, culture …I know there are all kinds of logistics.  Again, don’t be alarmed – that’s not a recommendation, but when looking at that … that’s a consideration and your question reminded me of that. 

 

John Mouton:  Thank you very much – we appreciate it.  The next thing on the agenda is New Business.  Is there any new business to come before the Senate?  Okay, before we adjourn, I’m going to make a couple of announcements.  We usually do brief notes immediately after the Senate meeting, but Paula has a family emergency. So, it will probably be after the weekend before we can get those out.  I’m going to go ahead and adjourn the meeting so that we can move to our Discussion Topic which is the Provost Search Process.  There are microphones on either side, so we’ll welcome you to come down and make your comments, if you have any, about the Provost Search Process.  [The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.]

 

Adjournment

 

 

Discussion Topic:  Provost Search Process

May 6, 2003

4:45 p.m.

 

 

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate:  We are going to go ahead and start the discussion.   Renee, if you would like - were you raising your hand? Could you please come to one of the microphones so that we can get a recording?  I guess we’ve got two on this side and one over here.  

 

Renee Middleton, Counseling & Counseling Psychology:  Is this one on?

 

John Mouton:  Yes, it is.

 

Renee Middleton:  I did have some questions as it related - relates to the search process. And, in fact, I directed seven questions to the Search Committee, the chairs, and Dr. Walker.  I would hope and ask that the Search Committee have an honest dialog as it relates to those seven questions have a dialog amongst themselves and particularly have that dialog prior to making any recommendations to the President.  I do have three questions that I would like to ask publicly: 

 

One question is what charge was given to the search firm – particularly as it relates to diversity ?

 

Secondly, the question is why does there not appear to be any significant outreach to serious candidates who represent racial and ethnic diversity … to include African-American candidates on the short list coming in for campus interviews.  I would define serious as those candidates in readiness to fill the position of Provost - who in by the judgment of most committee members be considered qualified to make the short list for interviews.  On February 11, I made public comments to the Senate. Particularly, I had concern that we not simply be satisfied with checking off on our AA-EEO list saying that we had women in the pool, and that we had minorities in the pool. That’s something that is very easy to do, and while it satisfies the AA-EEO criterion, I particularly addressed concerns way back on February 11 that if we are hiring and using a search firm that the search firm identify candidates who would be in readiness to fill the position.  And so, I’m questioning why – if - what was the quality of the pool? How many African-Americans and other types of diversity were in the pool, and why we don’t see any on the short list? 

 

Thirdly, when in the process did the Search Committee receive training by the Affirmative Action-EEO officer? And, what was the nature and content of the training?  Particularly, I’m wondering if it’s possible that the training came too late into the process to really be effective. Those are just three questions that I would like to … I think … I think asking the questions are important for us as a faculty.  We’ve been passionate about parking, SACS, I tend to be very passionate about diversity … and so, I think there are some questions that need to be asked – particularly as a University when we’ve made public comments about our commitment to diversity. 

 

John Mouton:  Thank you, Renee.  Do we have others?

 

Conner Bailey, Steering Committee:  As I looked through the packets of the four candidates, I was struck by the lack or near absence of letters of recommendation in the supporting materials.  In most cases, there was only one letter … in some cases, there were synopses done by the firm Korn-Ferry on some of the letters of recommendation.  Letters of recommendation are absolutely essential for the faculty to review in order to make an informed … to form and express an informed decision or recommendation for the hiring of who’s going to be the Chief Academic Officer for the University.  I am very disappointed that more information, particularly the letters, was not made available.  We have the CV’s and that’s helpful … and that was put on the web, and that’s helpful … but at least based on the materials that I reviewed in the library that were on reserve, the letters of recommendation were very few and insufficient.  I’m trusting that the Search Committee had available to it very much more material in the form of letters of recommendation than were shared with the general faculty. 

 

John Mouton:  Other comments please. 

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology:    I want to … I guess I want to raise two questions.  One, I am very disappointed that this innovative process of having a discussion by the full University Senate of concerns of general interest to the entire campus is occurring regularly after the adjournment of the meeting.  Because, I think that, I understand the pressing concerns of people wanting to go home to their families, etc., etc. But, I also know, that the pacing of the formal of business, has to then, under those conditions, take - thank you - take precedence over allowing a reasonable amount of time for the discussion, so that, as occurred today, we adjourned at approximately a quarter of five - which would have been the usual time for adjournment for things on this campus and then moved into the discussion. So, I guess that’s - I understand that it was announced that we would do it this way, but I guess I would have - I guess I’m questioning why we are doing it this way, or at least, the wisdom of doing it this way in order to allow for a full participation of all of the Senators, which I thought was the spirit of doing this innovative new thing – adding a topic of discussion to each agenda.  So, I don’t know if that’s a question or comment.

 

The other thing that I want to say that is pertinent to the discussion issue before us is that I’m concerned about the timing of the interviews for the candidates for Provost.  While I am certainly aware that on numerous occasions, various members of this body urged the President, among others, to move forward with the Provost search because there are other searches ongoing or at least beginning. And there was a sentiment that in order to - which I shared - that in order to attract well-qualified candidates to some of the positions underneath Provost, it would probably be important for those individuals to know the identity of the individual with whom they were going to work, and to whom they were going to report - speaking of the Dean’s searches. And I know that there was a push, back in, certainly  February  to move that forward.  However, we’re all, at least the majority of the people who serve on this Senate, are on nine month appointments … and so it is really problematic to announce on the 21st of … was it … of April …who the list is going to be … and on the 24th come out with the schedule for the interviews … and then have those interviews take … the majority of those interviews take place … if not in the final days of classes … after classes have already ended during the time that faculty are … probably busier than at any other time of year with graduation looming … trying to get the grades in for their seniors, in particular, so those can be reviewed prior to the May 10th Graduation Day. The result of all this, I believe, has been problematic in terms of the full participation of faculty in particular on this campus in this process.  It seems to me that the faculty are pretty critical to the process.

 

John Mouton:  I will respond to, I guess, the first piece and the second piece.  We had the parliamentarian come in and review a couple of meetings. It was upon the parliamentarian’s recommendation, under Roberts Rules of Order, that these types of discussion topics be held after adjournment.  Certainly, we didn’t know this topic was coming up for discussion at that time, and that has been the practice.  And the decision … it was part of the Steering Committee in putting together the agenda for the previous meetings and this one. I think in regard to the circumstance as to when the candidates were coming in … a little bit earlier this semester, actually during Spring Break, we redirected an Academic Affairs Committee meeting that was scheduled during the Break so the faculty could have access … and we got the information out … and there was very low participation. But I think it is important … from all I’ve heard … to make sure that we don’t do things when faculty are away.

 

When we were contacted in regard to the candidates being identified and coming forward, it wasn’t the timetable that you said.  We pushed very hard, to where possible, to have the forums at the times of the regular Senate meetings.  At that time, they were looking at some Tuesday and Thursday dates ... to access it to as many people as we could …If the alternative at that time was to push those interviews back until the summer.  I think that would have been a terrible mistake. If the opportunity then should have been to take a response and say that … the Provost’s Search be delayed until we returned to school next fall.  Candidly, that didn’t cross my mind to raise that challenge. I simply tried to find the best access we could for faculty to participate. Other questions or comments?  Please.

 

Christa Slaton, Political Science:  Do I go to the microphone?

 

John Mouton:  Please, there’s one down here.

 

Christa Slaton:  I would just like to reiterate what Virginia has said.  I also would have preferred if … on the agenda, we had not just “Provost Search Process” … but also, “Discussion of Diversity in the Pool” as one of the topics … and I read the O-A News editorial today, and I have to disagree with the O-A News editorial –although I think they do a good job.  I think that this poor attendance right now for this important topic indicates that when we talk about diversity … it’s more about window dressing and rhetoric than walking the talk.

 

Renee Middleton and Evelyn Crayton sent out a very thoughtful email to various campus groups.  How long ago was it, Renee? A week … two weeks … that we could talk about this.  To be talking about this, with this small group in attendance, I think, is ridiculous.  I think there should have been much more public notice about the importance of the topic.  I think that we’ve got all this … I think we’ve got all these diversity commissions and groups … and I’ll have to tell you right now …I came from a couple of meetings yesterday … and all these diversity groups don’t know what the other diversity groups are doing … they don’t know what the charges are … they don’t know what their mission is … the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing … and I still see, for the most part, people who are running this university are predominately white – running the University.  People who are chairing these search committees are white … but chairing these search committees.  Now, we’ve got a pool of nominees for the Provost, and we’ve got only white applicants.  We’re not doing this right ... and we’re not doing it right to rush through this process to get a Provost very quickly.  Dr. Pritchett said to the College of Liberal Arts Dean Search Committee, “If you don’t like the pool of applicants, if you don’t think it’s a sufficiently diverse pool, go and extend the search and ask for more.”  I don’t think that we should even be having this discussion with this handful of people here.  I think the Senate leadership … I think more people ought to be raising the issue of why aren’t we getting more diversity in Auburn.  It’s not enough to bring in speakers to campus, who are here for one hour, and give a nice talk and then they go away – if everything remains the same.  So, I’m for not even continuing the discussion unless other people have really strong views … and have the discussion when it is on the Senate agenda … and people’s responsible for coming … having thought about the topic … to come with their points of view – one way or the other. 

 

Sadik Tuzun, Plant Pathology:  I really share the same viewpoints made by my colleague. I challenge Senate leadership to ask the questions which was raised in the last Senate discussion:

 

•One – we want … what  do we want from Provost?  One – fresh blood.

Two – academic excellence.

Three – strength in student affairs.

Four – diversity.

Five – new vision.

 

I want this answered from the Search Committee for every single candidate … and I want to charge Senate to be responsible that … you will get this to us … this information to us. We want the description.  Why these four candidates are chosen and how they fulfill those requests raised in the Senate meeting by the Senators … and this is the responsibility of the Senate leadership.

 

Now, I would like to raise some other issues that I see from that process:

 

            Number One:  The description of the job is very broad.  Who are we hiring? The only requirement is being promotable at Auburn University. What does that mean? Being promotable according to Faculty Handbook?  Is that the criteria? So, everyone should be hired under this criteria, whether they’re internal or external.  We should look at the credentials of the people as stated in the Faculty Handbook.  Okay? 

 

Professor is a rank requiring professional peer-recognition of the individual as an authority in his or her field of specialization.

 

Continuing on the next paragraph …

 

For this rank, it is essential that the candidate should have demonstrated a marked degree of scholarship appropriate to his or her assignment through work, typically publication or creative endeavor, subjected to peer review.  By means of such activity, a candidate for the University’s highest academic rank should have a respected national reputation.  

 

So, I would like to see if all the candidates are fulfilling this requirement. Okay? Another thing that I found rather disturbing … one of the candidates, or nominations made for the candidates, had some sentences that I find rather appalling and maybe conflict of interest.

 

At this point of time, we do not have luxury to go and get someone from outside.  What are we doing? Hiring a Provost? Hiring our chief academic officer who is going to chair the Tenure and Promotion Committee? Or, just get somebody else because we don’t have the guts to get out the best in the nation or the United States. When we are hiring faculty members, we look their recommendations, their breadth of knowledge, their breadth of academic experience.  What are we doing for our Provost search?  I’m sorry.

 

John Mouton:  Do we have other comments or questions?

 

Virginia O’Leary:  I’d like to make one more comment, and it’s about the pool, and I don’t exactly know at this point in time where this best be addressed. I heard President Walker suggest that it be addressed to the Search Committee … Yes… to the University Search Committee, and it has to do with a charge that was given to Korn-Ferry as the firm that was acting on behalf of the institution … vis-à-vis … the question of the pool. I am sure that our colleagues who serve on the Search Committee looked very, very carefully at the credentials of the individuals who came before them … and it is my understanding, that the role of a search firm, in this process… and they are paid to do this … is to ensure that the will of the institution with regard to the depth and breadth of the pool of candidates … or, at least, to the best of their ability, is carried out.  So, I’m just going to echo my colleague Renee Middleton’s concern, about the obvious absence of any individuals of color in this particular pool … at a point in time when this university weekly reaffirms its commitment to diversity … at least in the public forum … if not in its private business.  And I know, for a fact, that it is common practice of search firms charged with identifying candidates with a particular background, or a particular gender, or a particular expertise, or a particular - representing a particular race or ethnic group … to employ consultants from other institutions who are representatives of that group on behalf of their efforts to expand and deepen the pool.  And I don’t know … because I’m not on the Search Committee, some efforts may have been made by Korn-Ferry in that regard, but as far as I’m concerned, the fact that we have interviewed four candidates, and none of them was a candidate of color, suggests to me that even if there were individuals across the country solicited by Korn-Ferry to fulfill that particular criterion it was not successful.  And I think that that creates a very serious problem in this whole selection process.  I guess I want to lay the burden at the feet of the firm that we hired to ensure that an appropriate search be carried out.  And I would like to hear from them, frankly, what they did and what their efforts generated because I know people – colleagues of mine – who have various characteristics and a variety of backgrounds in academic positions across this nation - have been contacted by “Head Hunting” firms, such as, Korn-Ferry, and asked about their particular interest in a given position at a given university, and often those come in form letter format, but it is also possible for those queries to come as a telephone call with an accompanying urging on the part of the representative of the search firm - that particular individual throw his or her hat into that particular search because there has been a mandate from the institution that we must make every effort that we can to hire someone with this qualification … whatever this qualification is in that particular case.

 

John Mouton:          Please.          

 

Renee Middleton:   That last question I asked with respect to training … since our Affirmative Action officer is present, can we ask her to address when she provided the training and what … what …did she provide assistance as related to working with the Committee in writing the job description … or what feedback she can give us that relates to that component?

 

Janet Saunders, Executive Director, AA-EEO Office:  I can share with you that I met with the Search Committee. I believe it was their second meeting, it was after they had already placed the ad and after they had already discussed the charge to Korn-Ferry. So, it was late.  I did not take an aggressive role in trying to mandate what the search firm would do because, that in my opinion, was the responsibility of the Search Committee.  So, to answer your question, I would agree that the training was late, but we were dealing with a committee of individuals and the chair assured me that he and the committee did not need training in procedure.

 

Renee Middleton:   May I ask a question … when you say the training was late? What kind of assistance would your office be able to provide in helping direct a job search and what impact does that have on our ability to attract - all kinds of candidates - candidates that represent diversity, including traditional candidates?

 

Janet Saunders:  Normally in a search, not at the level of the Provost, my office is involved in reviewing the job description, developing the criteria for selection, and working with the Search Committee to make sure that there are no barriers created to … this reaching out to identify minorities or people of color and women.  So, that part of our assistance was not given for the Provost search – I will admit that.

 

Christa Slaton:  Why is that search any less important than any other search on campus?  Why shouldn’t it be even more important?

 

Janet Saunders:  It’s not less important, in my opinion.  It just worked out that the committee met before they decided to have the training.

 

Christa Slaton:  If a department were to pursue a search without consulting your office, what would happen to that search process?

 

Janet Saunders:  The process would hopefully stop - because the ad would not be placed - things would not happen, but, because this was the Provost search … the President and the chairs of the Committee … the co-chairs … had a lot more control over what was happening initially than I did.

 

Christa Slaton:  So, the lower we go down the University ladder, the higher the standards for hiring are?

 

Janet Saunders:  I don’t know that I would consider the standards necessarily changing.  I think things happened differently for this particular search.  It’s the first search at this level at this University that I’m involved with and it is different than how I’ve normally handled executive level searches.

 

Virginia O’Leary:    I’d like to ask Janet a question.

 

Janet Saunders:     Sure.

 

Virginia O’Leary:    [Inaudible] Have you trained the four Dean Search Committees that are currently conducting searches for those respective candidates?

 

Janet Saunders:     That training is being scheduled now, and the training will be given prior to any advertising or any outreach efforts.

 

Sadik Tuzun:  Janet, I’d like to ask you a technical question since you are EEO officer. If there is a knowledge of a candidate by the Search Committee, are there the possibility some biases may occur during the search process?

 

Janet Saunders:  I’m not sure that I understand your question.

 

Sadik Tazun: I mean, if there’s [Inaudible] applying for the job, and that knowledge of, - matter of fact, that a group of people A group of people who they can ask references -.

 If the search process is not done correctly, that - can that be any problems during the search process or not? 

 

Janet Saunders:  I would encourage any and all Search Committee members that if they identify that there are problems that come up during the process, that they certainly can call my office and seek advice or seek our intervention.

 

Sadik Tazun:  And there is no [Inaudible] to do that?

 

Janet Saunders:  Sure, if - I’m not sure if you would know what goes on …or if there was bias in the process.  The problem is identifying the bias, and then seeing whether or not it has tainted the process to the point where the process needs to be modified drastically or ended.

 

Sadik Tazun:  Some of these candidates affected by [Inaudible], so training is very important?

 

Janet Saunders: Sure ... sure ... Sadik, sure … training is important, in my opinion … as well as, monitoring so that Search Committee members feel that they can get advice and counsel if there are problems that come up during the process.

 

Sadik Tazun:   [Inaudible]

 

Janet Saunders:     Yeah.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  Thank you. Any more comments or questions? Please.

 

Renee Middleton:  Did you inform the chairs of the Search Committee that we were going to have this dialog?

 

John Mouton:         Yes, I did.

                                                                       

Renee Middleton:   Because, I find it troubling. The questions that I have, they are not an attack on the Search Committee.  My concern is the role of the search firm and what the search firm was able to provide the Search Committee.  I have full confidence in the Search Committee itself, but I do, I do hope that, as I said, the Search Committee will address those questions that I’ve asked in the deliberations.  I am disappointed that, and I don’t know if there are members on - in the Search Committee here.  I only know the chairs  and it is troubling to me that neither of the chairs as I can identify are here, and that is troubling to me. 

 

I mean, how are we, we’ve asked questions I think need to be asked publicly and need to be answered publicly.  How are we going to get the answers to the questions that we are asking, John, if they’re not here?  When will we get those answers?

 

John Mouton:  Well, I can’t be certain that we are going to get those answers. The thing that happens is that we’ve got a recording ... we’ve got a record of everything that took place in this discussion that we will transcribe and put forward.  I think the questions were - I think the questions were well known prior to this meeting.  I think that there’s been correspondence from you and Evelyn and others, questions that have come forward before this meeting.

 

Renee Middleton:  I know they know the questions, because I gave them the questions. My concern, I thought that the questions needed to be asked publicly because I think that asking. [Inaudible] we need to ask questions ... that’s what we do. And you shouldn’t take that as a challenge but as an education opportunity for all of us to benefit by - and the same token that I felt and feel it’s important for the answers to be offered publicly, because they may have very good answers ... but, we don’t know ... and I don’t know who is on the Search Committee.  As I said, I know the chairs and I don’t see them here and I don’t know - I mean, I would hope that you would encourage the Committee to really deliberate as to relates to the questions they have been asked and to answer them publicly. And they can do that through a number of means.

 

John Mouton:  I’ll do that. Other comments or questions?  I’d like to thank everybody for their participation.  Thank you.

 

Adjournment