Brief notes

Discussion led by University Faculty Secretary, Paula Sullenger

[These issues will be voted on at the regularly scheduled September 16, 2003 University Faculty meeting.]

There was little discussion of the issues raised. Faculty comments made at the meeting are noted below each topic.

A. Pros and cons of voting outside of meetings

One speaker was in favor of voting for faculty officers outside of elections but not for resolutions. The speaker felt it is important for voters to hear the discussions because people can be swayed by arguments made in the meetings.

A second speaker thought that if faculty vote after a meeting is held and the arguments for and against are sent to faculty, then faculty would be informed and such voting would work.

A third speaker favored such voting for both elections and resolutions. He said he always had his mind already made up and listening to arguments in a meeting is a waste of time.

B. Possible mechanisms (electronic, paper ballots, other methods)

The only comment made here was from a speaker who could not get on the system for the budget priorities vote held in February. The speaker said if we couldn’t get the system to work, then we need to develop a new system.

II. Proposed Faculty Handbook changes

A. Voting in officer elections

The secretary pointed out that under the current rules, a nomination could be made from the floor and nullify any absentee ballots in officer elections. She also noted that the current wording regarding filling of officer vacancies is ambiguous. New wording for that section will be necessary whether the other sections are changed or not. This will be another voting item on September 16.

One speaker preferred a petition method rather than write-in candidacies in those instances where someone not chosen by the Nominating Committee wanted to run.

Another speaker opposed the whole idea of a six-person Nominating Committee to choose candidates and thought all candidates should nominate themselves.

The secretary noted that with so little discussion, she would leave the current wording. There will be opportunities for proposing amendments at the September 16 meeting.

B. Voting on non-election matters

This topic was covered in the more general discussion above.

III. Definition of faculty

One speaker agreed that there is confusion about the definition of faculty. Does the “main campus” provision of the current definition exclude Auburn faculty who are based in an office in Mobile?

There was no further discussion. The secretary asked for a show of hands from attendees to see if the matter should be pursued. Those who thought the definition should be more explicit outnumbered those who wanted to keep the current definition. The secretary will bring this back September 16, but it may not be a voting item at that time.

Presentation: The Honorable Bob Riley, Governor of the State of Alabama

Governor Riley urged the audience to vote for the September 9 tax referendum, acknowledging that most of this audience would probably pay more under his tax plan. He spoke about the opposition to his tax proposal and said that those against the proposal are not portraying it accurately. He pointed out that a few years ago, Alabama and North Carolina were tied for 48^th place in K-12 education. North Carolina decided to change that, and is now highly ranked in the country. Alabama can do the same thing. Why is Alabama always in last place? He doesn’t believe there is anything innately wrong with the people of Alabama. Our current system of government is holding us back. A former governor of North Carolina told him that Alabama will never progress until the people of Alabama learn to cherish their institutions of higher education. Governor Riley wants to see our universities become the economic engine of the state.

The governor then answered questions from the audience.

Q: Car taxes will go up astronomically under his plan.

Riley: The state portion only is going up. The tax is not going up as much as some people claim.

Q: But there’s no guarantee that local governments won’t raise these taxes also.

Riley: That’s right.

Riley: It is true that the costs of services will go up. Some have criticized his plan for that tax and others because they will run off business. Riley says if this runs off business, why aren’t businesses flocking to Alabama to take advantage of our current tax structure? Why are other states with higher taxes doing so well?

Q: As a tax professor, didn’t think people still misunderstood the car tax, but apparently they still do. Under the plan, lower income people will be better off. Why aren’t they getting the message?

Riley: He and his people stay up at night wondering just that. People who will pay more overwhelmingly support the plan. They are losing the blue-collar vote.

Q: Why did you veto the felon voting bill?

Riley: He thought it was bad legislation. He believes that just because someone has served his time should automatically get that right returned. He believes that people should eventually get it back, but the person should have to put forth some effort in pursuing it.

Q. Your commercials are not strong enough. They make it sound like we need some improvement, they don’t sound like there’s any urgent need for reform. Those by the opposition are stronger.

Riley: He’s trying to explain the most comprehensive reform package this state has ever seen. It takes hours to truly understand. He can’t explain it in 30 seconds.

He says the state can either stay ranked 49^th or 50^th for another twenty years, or we can learn from other states and fund reform. The opposition has it easy. They can just say “this is bad, taxes are going up, vote no.”

Q: What assurance is there that future administrations will use these new funds as intended?

Riley: Alabamians are rightfully skeptical of politicians, but in Alabama skepticism has become an unhealthy cynicism that has led to paralysis. Nobody could run a home or a business with 92% earmarking, certainly not a state. Paranoia has led to no flexibility. He is sure that if new funds are put into the two existing trust funds, they would disappear. All funds in the proposed new trust fund can only be appropriated for one year. Programs funded out of it will have to stand on merit. Future administrations will have to work within these constitutional constraints. He pointed out that Reagan raised taxes when he became governor of California, but a few years later gave money back to the people when it wasn’t needed.

Q: Support the plan, but wouldn’t it be easier to sell if it eliminated or reduced sales taxes on medicine and food?

Riley: It would cost $550 million to eliminate the sales tax on food. He couldn’t work around such a huge amount. He thought it would be better to move the tax threshold from $4600 to $20,000. He would like to address the food sales tax later.

Adjournment: [3:45pm]

Submitted: Paula Sullenger, University Faculty Secretary