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
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
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
Conner
Bailey: Dr. Walker, can you
tell us, what is the projected bonded indebtedness for
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
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
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
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
My final announcement is that last Thursday and Friday,
Marcia Boosinger [Faculty Athletics Representative], Willie [Larkin,
Chair-elect], and I went to
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,
AUBURN UNIVERSITY POLICY ON CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR
§ INTRODUCTION
The goal of
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
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
visual … audio 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
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]
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
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
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
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 (
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
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
Ann
Janer (Clinical Pharmacy) – 2005
Paul
Starr (Anthropology, Sociology, Criminology) – 2005
Dwayne
Cox (Library) – 2005
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
A&P Representative
John
Varner (Library) – 2004
Undergraduate Student Representative:
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
Registrar
or designee as secretary
Linda
Glaze (Academic Affairs) – Chair – Continuing
John
Fletcher (Interim Asst. VP for Enrollment Management) – Continuing
Steve
McFarland (
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
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
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
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
Rik
Blumenthal (Chemistry)—2006
Worth
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
Assistant to the Dean of the
Associate Dean of the
Graduate One
graduate student nominated by the Graduate Student Council
Restrictions Faculty
members shall be appointed by the Dean of the
Steve
McFarland (
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:
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
Graduate
Student representative:
Fraidun
Akhi
Undergraduate
Student representatives:
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
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
Krystyna
Kuperberg (Math)--2006
Non–tenure Track:
Talitha
Smith (Accountancy) – 2005
Pamela
Paine (Foreign Languages & Literatures) – 2004
Department Heads/Chairs:
Andrew
Weaver (Curriculum & Teaching) – 2005
Bob
Smith (Pharmacy Practice)) – 2004
Central Administration:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Marty
Wells: Basically
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
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