Auburn University Faculty

Special Called Meeting

February 10, 2004

Broun Auditorium

3:15 pm

Call to Order

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate: Either my watch is slow or Leanne’s is fast, so we’ll split the difference. I’m going to call the Auburn University Faculty special called meeting to order. The first order of business is the approval of minutes. We have approval of minutes from two meetings; one was a special call University Faculty Meeting of August 26, 2003. The second is the fall University Faculty Meeting of September 16, 2003. Are there any additions, corrections, or deletions from those minutes? There being none, the minutes are approved.

Announcements

On the announcements today, Dr. Richardson has told me that he doesn’t have announcements from the President’s Office, but he’s got plenty of other things to say, so we’ll give him an opportunity in a minute. I am going to make just a few announcements.

First of all, I want to thank the Nominating Committee for doing a really excellent job. The Nominating Committee put forth the following nominees for Chair-elect: Conner Bailey from Agricultural Economics, and Rural Sociology and Mark Nelms from Computer and Electrical Engineering. For Secretary-elect: Patricia Duffy from Agricultural Economics, and Rural Sociology and Jim Gravois from the Library.

We’re going to do electronic voting from March 11-15, and then the meeting is on the 16^th. There’s going to be some information coming out about the electronic voting this week that everybody can get. Paula’s [Sullenger] going to take care of that. I’m not really up to speed on that.

The other thing that we worked out and believe is in the first two weeks of March is that the AU Report will carry the writings of our candidates, our Chair-elect candidates at least, so that people will have the opportunity to get to know them and what their positions are. So look for that in the AU Report beginning in March.

I was at a meeting in Montgomery today of the Senate Confirmation Committee. For those of you that don’t know, the three Trustee candidates have passed the Senate Confirmation Committee. They still have to pass the Senate – [talking to someone in the audience]. They passed the Senate? So we have three new Trustees. [Audience applause] I thought the faculty knew everything more than the President did. [Audience laughter]

Anyway….the other thing that I’d like to announce is that on Monday, February 23^rd at 3:00 in the afternoon in Foy Union 203 is when there’s going to be an opportunity for faculty to meet with the SACS Visitation Team for the Reaffirmation. The word’s going to go out on that. Anyway, it’ll be Monday the 23^rd at 3:00 in the afternoon.

The only other announcement that I have is that we will have a Senate Meeting on March 9^th and then the General Faculty Meeting will be on March 16^th.

Information Items

John Mouton: Let me go through the Information Items real quick. I’m going to ask Dr. Richardson to do a presentation. At the end of the presentation, we’re going to have an opportunity for faculty to ask questions. Somebody came to me and asked about people that are not faculty being able to ask questions. According to Robert’s Rules of Order, the faculty would have to vote by a vote of two-thirds to allow non-faculty to ask questions. Nobody has called for a vote. That just came up and I wanted to make people aware that without that vote, only faculty can participate in the meeting.

Okay, so we’re going to have faculty questions, and then after the faculty questions we can open it up for discussion. What I’m going to ask people is please, when you come to the microphone during the question and answer period, it’s okay to make a statement to qualify your question, but what we’d like to have is the questions and the opportunity for the questions to be responded to. Those of you that have positions that you want to take on particular aspects of it, please do so when we provide the opportunity for faculty response and input regarding the University’s plans in this regard. So, I guess it’s time to introduce, and this was an experience that I didn’t know I was going to have…but I get the opportunity to introduce our new Interim President to the first Faculty Meeting. Dr. Ed Richardson. [Audience applause]

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Let me just make a few introductory remarks, and in the interest of your time and mine, I’d like to just quickly go through a series of points. The first being, why am I here today? I’ll answer what I consider to be some strengths and weaknesses that I bring to the table. I’ll talk to you about SACS, in terms of what we’re about, and then yield to any questions that you might have.

I was pleased to get a call just a minute ago that the three Trustees have been confirmed by the Senate, which means that they are officially in a position to serve at this point. I’ll speak a little bit later - that we will have an orientation session that will start for them somewhere around our March 19^th meeting. I certainly want to ask John [Mouton] and others to participate in that, because I think it’s important that they get information from a lot of people.

I would like to give some background information as to how I was selected for Interim. Let me assure you that I did not apply for this job. I did not ask for this job. I was working with the Governor about three weeks ago in terms of K-12 budgets, to tell you the truth. He informed me that he had talked with the Trustees and was prepared to make a decision in regards to President Walker. He asked me if I had any names to recommend, and I said no. Based on his conversations with others, my name kept coming up, and he asked me if I would be willing to serve. I informed him that it was my intention to retire within two years, and that I would be willing to serve under those conditions.

I do believe I bring a few things to the table. There are clearly some weaknesses, and I’ll try to hit some of those, some I won’t tell you about….or at least admit to, anyway. I have a very good working relationship, both with Legislative leadership…that is what I’ve been doing for about nine years, and the Governor, who also served as Chair of my Board as well. I believe I will bring considerable strength in that regard, more so than past Presidents that you’ve had. I would say that we are looking at some major cuts this year, because of this health-care dilemma. We’re pitted against Higher Education becoming neutral in terms of funding verses major cuts if we don’t adjust state employee and public employee health-care. But I hope to minimize the damage there and then set the stage, so that perhaps we can enjoy some gains over the subsequent year.

My weaknesses…I spent all day Sunday meeting with seven attorneys getting ready for my trip to the NCAA this week. I know nothing about NCAA. I’d hoped not to learn anything about NCAA [audience laughter]. I already know more than I wanted to. So I will tell you that I am certainly not strong in that area. As I said - for you, it’s probably a strength, but it had been my plan to retire anyway. This is not a situation that I would have readily taken, except I believe that when we get into some of the issues with SACS you will see that there are some advantages with me taking it. So I do believe that with me being here the two years or so, whatever it turns out. I do anticipate that sometime early next year there ought to be a search started for the President, and depending on how long that takes, then it will be somewhere around the two-year, two-and-a-half-year period I would think; counting the first year as this year.

I would say that it is my goal, among other things dealing with SACS, is to make sure that the President upon being selected to replace me will have an excellent chance of success. There is a lot of work that has got to be done, and I’m going to deal with some of those today and be glad to respond to questions you might have. I have been actively involved with Auburn (I would have said Auburn University, but I think more correctly would say Auburn, not Auburn University), I was on the faculty a couple of years at AUM, I obviously was a local superintendent here in Auburn for a number of years, and a State Superintendent on the Board now for almost nine years. So I do have some knowledge of the issues that lie before us.

I want to talk about major objectives. That is my number one objective, and I wanted to talk with you just a little bit about why I thought it was essential the first Board Meeting, which was two weeks after I had assumed position, which was a little sooner than I had preferred. Nevertheless, we started that first step with that meeting last Friday, and that is to remove the lawsuit against SACS. There are two reasons for that. Some people say, well is that sort of a moot issue? And I would say to you: no it was not, because one of the citations was that questioning whether Auburn is committed to the Accreditation Process or not. And I felt that symbolically, if for no other reason, we needed to withdraw that. Number two, I had already contacted Mr. Allen, the SACS person that serves as our contact, to try and talk with Dr. Rogers (Jim Rogers) and others to see what it was going to take for us to get this behind us. They were restricted from talking with us while that suit was in place. So I think that in order for me to have a direct dialog with SACS, I think the removal of that suit was absolutely essential.

You’re going to see some other steps taken on March 19^th which will further define the relationships of Boards of Trustees, so I hope by the 19^th we will have most everything in place. This is the one to which I referred. There are some documents dealing with the Board of Trustees relationship with the University in terms of business dealings. There are going to be some issues raised in terms of contact with other people, certainly in the area of Athletics, which seems to be more popular to some than others. We have that point in place, and I have already talked individually with two Trustees to remind them of that. Now, this is not going to be an easy situation, because the first meeting was two weeks, and they certainly wouldn’t fire me at my first meeting, I wouldn’t think [Audience laughter]. Although during one session it was in doubt, I would think. Nevertheless, my sole purpose is to make sure that institutional control is more clearly defined. That is really what this SACS is all about, in my view. So to do that, I am going to have to push back so that the new President succeeding me will have a decent chance of success. That is one advantage that I have, because I do have creditability with the Board. They know me, I know them, and I believe that I can get away with that more easily than most. But that is going to be a continual struggle for this next 12-month period, and there are going to be some abrasions and some disagreements. But that is going to have to happen, and we’re going to have to have some written documents signed by the Board to comply with SACS and meet their requirements. This is what it is all about, and you’re aware of that more so than I. That is what is going to happen, and I believe that I will be able to pull that off, to tell you the truth. That has been stated, so let’s talk about some SACS issues.

I am just going to take this out, and if anybody wants hardcopies I certainly have one here that can be copied. These are just some quotes, and I am going to get to the critical issues in just a minute, from the letter received by SACS that stipulated where Auburn was deficient and warranted the probationary status. It did say that we had provided some examples of progress, which was good, but let’s get to this. This is where we have been deficient, and that is “a sufficient level of Institutional commitment to the Accreditation Process.” That is where the suit was involved, in my view, and I hopefully will have that corrected within the next two weeks. We failed to demonstrate the existence and implementation of sufficient safeguards dealing with the Board and the Trustees. That is going to be more clearly defined.

I would just like to offer my observation. Some of you may disagree with this, but that’s life. I would say part of my role over the last nine years was to serve on about 32, if I remember correctly, boards and commissions, of which nine were university Boards of Trustees. I was most active with Auburn, but a close second was the University of Alabama system, followed by Troy State and South Alabama. It is just a law of equilibrium that works here, and I have seen it on very small boards, and I have seen it on very large boards. If the President or the Chief of whatever the organization happens to be is tentative or hesitant or uncertain or reluctant to offer an opinion, the board fills right in behind you, like the vacuum. That is just the way it works, I assure you. I could list you at least eight or ten examples of different boards where this has occurred. Now, that is going to require that I appear to be more knowledgeable than I am, just to be quite candid. I am going to have to be confident and pushy, but I want you to know that I’m certainly not coming here with “I’ve got the answers on a 3 x 5 here and I’m going to show them to you a little bit later.” I do not. But I do believe we have some excellent people, and I believe that by pushing an aggressive agenda and not being hesitant, that we will have a great chance of establishing this institutional control, which will serve my successor well.

I think that the existence of a minority of the Board was an issue. I mean obviously two or three names pop up every time there is an article written, and I do not believe that that is going to be an issue at all. I’ll tell you why. Prior to my accepting, I had about three days to make a decision. On the third day, I did inform my wife that I was being offered another job [Audience laughter]. I knew I was in good shape because my two grandchildren live here in Auburn, so I felt like I would get her to come with me. I did talk to the Governor directly individually, and I said, “If you appoint me to this, I am going to be the Chief Administrator.” And when I say ‘I’, I do not mean singular, but the people within the Administration of the University, and within the governance system of this University. So don’t misunderstand if I say “I”, I do not mean just me individually. I have talked to each one of the Board of Trustees; Mr. McWhorter, Mr. Lowder, Mr. Rane, Mr. Spina, all of them…and said the same thing. And I tried to make it very clear during my acceptance speech, at the last meeting when they did appoint me that that is the way it is going to be. So I am going to be pushy in that regard and I just wanted you to know that that is the only way we are going to better define institutional control and set it up for my successor. The contractual in all of that…we are going to have a document prepared. I have talked to people – Chancellors from different states, as well as within the state – and we should have a document that will clearly define the role of a Trustee to the Institution.

So there are really two issues involved in these citations: Institutional control and then Athletics. I would have to tell you that I have never coached; I have not attended a basketball game this year; I did attend two football games last fall, and that has been my pattern. I have not attended any Bowl Games in several years, primarily because I don’t want to spend three days following the football team around, I’ll just be candid with you. [Audience laughter] I would say to you that I am going to get up to speed as quickly as I can here. This is an issue that is going to have more emotion attached to it, because you have some Boards of Trustees that seem to be very interested in Athletics. But I am prepared to do whatever it takes in that regard, and I have already communicated that, to not only the Athletic Director and others but, as late as today, two Trustees. So the President will have the ultimate decision in regards to Athletics. Over the funds, Dr. Large is here, and we have had a number of conversations how we can more clearly define that. That is something that is going to take a little more work, but I assure you that in terms of the funds for Athletics, the President will be in charge of that. One, we have got to if we are going to get off probation. I don’t have a choice. And that actually gives me some leverage in this discussion, to tell you the truth. So I am using the probation hopefully to accomplish those objectives.

Safeguards in terms of the Board here – I think that has overlapped with some others that we have had, and I assure you that there will be written safeguards in sufficient number to cover those examples that are frequently unclear and are violated.

Now this is simply the letter from Dr. Allen of SACS, so you might say please note. I am just giving you the critical parts of that letter. Obviously we have the SACS committee coming on the 22^nd, which is a Sunday, and will be here hopefully for the exit interview on the 25^th. But this Committee, this group coming in, seems to be a very good group. I have talked to Mr. Casteen from the University of Virginia and he feels very good about it. I have talked to Dr. Glaze and Clothiaux about it, and they feel good about the report. But this visit does not deal with those sanctions that led to probation. So they will not in any way consider those. There will be a separate group that will come in October of next fall. I have until April 22^nd to submit a response to those and what steps we have taken. Hopefully, many good steps will have been taken. But then sometime in early December, when you have the annual meeting that first week of December, we would hope that SACS would vote to remove that probationary status.

I brought to the Board, issues of major policy decisions. I will just tell you that is part of it. I have streamlined the agenda and have taken out many of the Administrative items, because if you are putting Administrative items on the agenda, the Board’s going to talk about them and they are going to help you make a decision. That just is not compatible with this institutional control. So we have streamlined that in a major way, and you are going to see more of those streamlined. But on the other hand, the Board plays a very important role, and that is really ultimate control of the University, according to the law, but more importantly, the policies that will direct this Institution. Now that doesn’t mean without the input…I am not trying to ignore that. But we have got to put several major policies on the table again to help define institutional control. So that they are dealing in policies and I am dealing in staff and dealing with Administration.

According to the numbers that I have reviewed, and in conversation with Dr. Large, in three to five years, unless some steps are taken, our expenditures will exceed our revenues. Now the advantage of me putting it on the table now is that we don’t have to wait until we have a crisis and then run around and make hasty decisions. So on March 19^th, which will be here in Auburn, I am going to ask Dr. Large and others to put on the table the trend-lines, the numbers, and I encourage you to get copies of those. We are going to spend the next three months, four months, in some cases maybe even into the fall of next year, assessing those issues to determine whether or not that is an issue that would help us resolve this dilemma with revenues and expenditures. So that will start on the 19^th. Now that is going to be the first issue I put on the table, because I think we need to get that one going. The budgets will have to be done this summer. The Legislative Session will be over somewhere around May 17^th or so, and the budgets will have to be made – so some of these decisions will need to be made by the June [Board] meeting, our annual meeting. But we have got several months, and everything is going to be on top of the table, and I encourage your input and participation.

I have always felt that you look at your central Administration, and I am not sure what we would call this. I jokingly said to Don, “Are we called the Samford Hall Mafia?” or whatever we are called in that building, I’m not sure. Generally, it is a negative term for the central administration. But we are going to look very much at the operation of that building, in terms of whether there is too much cost there and if we can reduce it. And we are going to go there first, and we will start that discussion during the Called Meeting in April. We will have another Called Board Meeting in April, it may be the first few days of May; we are trying to get that set now. By the March 19^th meeting we will have it set and it will be announced at that time.

Based on my rough math of construction projects on the campus, it is somewhere between $390 and $415 million in projects. That is a lot of money. More importantly, it is a lot of expense to maintain those buildings. So that is going to exacerbate the problem in terms of revenues and expenditures in my view. So I think we need to look very carefully at our plans, including whatever deferred maintenance we need to apply and to project that out for several years so that the new President, upon coming in, won’t have to face this same thing after two or three years on the job. So we need to look at that. Several issues have come up. John Heilman and others, Provost Hanley, have been very helpful in this regard, in terms of whether we have buildings that have outlived their usefulness, and we are paying a lot for maintenance and whether or not we need to demolish those. So we will be looking at all of those kinds of issues again. Those are going to be on the table, and we certainly solicit your thoughts in that regard.

We are going to look at our campaign. Bob, you have given us a good report so far, so no pressure, and just keep up the good work. We feel like our campaign will be very successful. I think the numbers you provided me on Friday was that we are 34% above last year, and our December collections were the highest in a very long time. It certainly exceeded last year. So I believe that once we get past some of this disagreement and distrust that is so prevalent, I believe you are going to see some very positive things come out of that. We are going to have to look at financial investments. I don’t know about yours personally, but mine didn’t do too well the last two years. So we are going to look at that to see what we can reasonably expect and if we can enhance that.

Here is the one that John Mouton corrected. John? Oh, you got as far away from me as you could. [Audience laughter] Thank you. I use the term “viability”. And that was just a carryover from my days on that [1998] Role Commission. And there is more to it than that. And Dr. Hanley and I haven’t….well, Tom’s here…..excuse me….and he indicated to me there are some studies going on at this time that are broader in scope. So let me comfort you, that in terms of the viability studies to which I referred that we had several years ago, that is not what we have in mind. So I am asking Tom to continue on with those studies, and to bring an assessment of those programs forward. The “viability” raised questions of whose program is going to get cut. I want you to know this. My reason for bringing it up was not prompting from any trustee. I believe that if the Administration is going to demonstrate that it is in fact in charge, it has to put the issues on the table rather than being confronted with, “Why haven’t you brought these issues up?” So I’m going to put them on the table. John Heilman has assured me that those last studies that much was accomplished in the sense of looking at the viability of programs. As questionable as how much money was actually saved, I will acknowledge that as well. But nevertheless, I think a lot of work has been done, but we ought to put it on the table and review it to see if there are some benefits there.

State Aid – this is something that I have worked with for a number of years. If you look at it nationwide and certainly in Alabama, this year I can say is still going to go down. I would anticipate that next year we may be getting back close to level funding, which reflects “level” after several years of cuts, not back to where we were three years ago. So I would say to you that I am not optimistic there. Now some may question, and I have seen a couple of articles questioned, “Well how in the world can I change from K-12 to Higher Education?” I think that is fairly simple. Higher Education is paying me, so I am full-time Higher Education. I think the skills that I have acquired and the contacts that I have made are going to allow me to get in the door that many other people could not get in.

Now the real issue is how do we fashion a response? Most people do not understand (I would put myself in that category in terms of fully understanding) a university and what it is all about and the pressures that are on to attract good people and hold on to them. What we have to deal with, and that was why my job was a little easier in K-12, there is an emotional attachment and 90% of all the school-aged children are there. Many cases they are in tough financial shape. That was easier to sell. No question about it. So what we have got to do is to define, and I really think the economic issues are becoming so apparent to many people in this state; that is where the universities have a great opportunity, I think, to say this is what it is going to take, and universities can play a role. Just to give you an example: one of my long-time friends, Jim Hayes, who is with Economic Development Partners of Alabama (a major economic development arm in the state) and a graduate of the University of Alabama, and he called me to congratulate me and basically said this: “I just want you to know, of all the universities in this state, Auburn is the one that has worked with us the most and has done the most, in terms of economic development.”

So we have got a lot of people that will speak on our behalf outside of the people in this room. So I would anticipate that there is a niche for us. And of course we all know that Auburn, in terms of a student-per-student allocation, has never even been average. We have been short-changed for a number of years. We have got to make that point, and we have got to push it. My experience in dealing with Montgomery is it takes about a three-year cycle to turn people’s attitudes. So we have got to start pushing it this year, hit it harder the next year, and then by the third, hopefully, the new President will be very successful.

Tuition policy: that is a sensitive issue with me, it is a sensitive issue with the Board, and I am sure it is an issue with you. The basic policy that has been set by the Board of Trustees is that we want to move up incrementally to regional average. Now the real issue here, of course, one thing that has helped, I think, is that the regional average has been going up about like we have, so I am not sure if we have closed that gap or not. But every time we go up, it is going to be more and more difficult for Alabamians to attend this Institution. So we have to make a decision then, if we don’t gain much in the way of revenues from these other suggestions, do we then come back with tuition policy and say we are just going to have to go up on tuition to make up the difference? Even if it goes above regional average? So, I have put the tuition down for that reason.

As I said, I have spent part of my career at AUM. I was involved in education when AUM was built. I would tell you as Co-Chair, and by the way Co-Chaired with Bill Walker as some of you may remember the Role Commission, that was something I never really understood. What is AUM in relation to us? I still do not understand that. But I think we have got to look that if there are ways that we can gain some financial benefit by connecting with AUM in some way. I know some steps have been taken, Don and them have taken steps over the years, but at least we need to review that to see if there are other opportunities there.

I just put down “other” because there may be many others that you have, and I would hope that you would feel free to put those on the table. That is it. Anybody have any questions? Is that the way it works, John?

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate: Does anybody have any questions? Please come to the microphone.

Richardson: While you are thinking about it, and you always have to have an icebreaker – I should have listed, and I just found out that I left out a couple. We are going to be looking at the issue of pedestrianization. I just want to make sure that we have a good feel for that, and look at traffic flow and all of that, so there will be also an overlap with that as well. There will be some other policy issues put on the table on the 19^th, and again, we will have several months to discuss those so they should not be secret. Conner?

Conner Bailey: Dr. Richardson, thank you. I have a question about the Presidential search. If I understood correctly, you suggested that might start in a years’ time, that we would initiate a search in one years’ time. Can you tell us why we would wait that long to initiate a search, please?

Richardson: Sure, that is a good question. Here is the situation: if you start a search, and you want to attract good people, then you have got to make sure some of these problems that are currently on our plate have been resolved, and there has been a pattern of decisions made over several Board meetings that clearly conveys that the President is in charge of the Administration. Now by the fall of this year, at the best I would have had four opportunities. And so that is the reason I would say. Whether it starts in late fall or winter or after the first, I don’t know. I would say to you that the vote in early December on probation was somewhat of the timeline that I was just using, but that also would give me a time, I think, to implement the policies that SACS will require and to demonstrate that a President can be in complete charge. That is not for me to call. The Board will do that. But if you are asking me my opinion, that is why I would suggest that time period. Yes sir?

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: In follow-up to Conner’s question about the search. You know, we have had an Interim President for three years now. If you are on for two more years, that is five years for Interim Presidents. It makes the hiring of Deans very difficult, because they want to know who they are going to answer to. My idea is this: why don’t we ask SACS when they think we should start the search, rather than deciding ourselves, so as to sort of bring them an olive branch?

Ed Richardson, University Interim President: Well, as I said and I would point out whether it means anything or not, Governor Riley has committed to going to convey his importance, his expression of how important this issue is to go with us. John [Mouton] and others will be going; Tom [Hanley] will be going with us, and we will confront that. And I will certainly raise that question. I had not thought of that. Again, my role is to accomplish that objective primarily of Institutional control, which to me is the heart of this question and the heart of SACS problems. And whatever time it takes to do that. Now I will tell you, if I go through the motions and you get a new person coming in, and I have been a new person, actually I am ahead of the job (I should have pointed that out, John) here. When I took the job of State Superintendent, I had never been in that building, so I didn’t know where the office was located. I at least knew where the office was located when I came here. But I would tell you that when we get this suit out of the way, I would say to you that we will be able to talk directly with them. I want to have enough time to clearly confirm that a President should run this and can run this. Again, keep in mind that is a narrowly defined term, but keep in mind I am not meaning individually. Once that is done, then the new person will have a chance. The point that I was making about my other job: if you are not careful when you come in new - let’s say the person is outside of the University, which was probable. That person is going to have to establish relationships, not only with the Board of Trustees but also with others. And in that period of transition, if you are not careful, there is going to be enough ambiguity that this thing is going to start closing back in on him. So again, that is what I am after is to make sure it happens. I will raise the question, Richard, with SACS when we go. As soon as this suit is out of the way, I will call immediately and ask for that appointment, and I will tell you what they said.

Mouton: Please.

Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders: I first want to congratulate you for withdrawing the lawsuit, which has, I’m sure, saved us more money than what we have been spending over the last few years. Can you tell us if you have had any response from SACS about this withdrawal, and how they are reacting to this?

Richardson: I have not had a specific response…so, no I have not. What I have done is to communicate with them to let them know that that is happening. I am sure they knew it. What I am waiting for now, in fact the attorney, Pete Degnan, called me just before I was to come into this meeting, and I just could not take it. I just wanted to make sure….I said, “Pete, have we done what we are supposed to, and how long is it going to take?” As soon as we have something formal, and it looks like it is going to happen; I am just going to call SACS directly. I would tell you, I talked to…each state has a member of the Executive Committee for SACS. I have talked to that person. I have talked to Chancellors outside of this state. I have talked to Commissioners on Higher Education, and I have talked to Mr. Allen. I actually called Dr. Rogers, but because of the suit he could not talk with me. And I am quite confident that the suit itself contributed greatly to the problem. I would just like to address that if I could extend that answer out – because you might want to blame me for part of that.

When we got the complaints - and I am not questioning - that is a right of individuals or groups to file complaints when the University is not doing what it is supposed to do. I am not questioning that. We were then, upon notice, given 30 days to respond. We were in the process of preparing a response. In 20 days, we got SACS’ decision, which reflected to me a predisposition and led me to believe we were not going to get a fair shake. And so, I was asked on two occasions as a Board member, what we should do. Should we go ahead with it, and I said, “We are going to get some home cooking (if you will allow me to use the Southern term) and yes we should go forward.” So it was my recommendation. But when I spoke to the Board last Friday, I said, “It is now an impediment, and we need to move forward.” So I was part of that that recommended we go forward. I do not believe it serves a worthwhile purpose now, and as soon as I can get some clearance, I am going directly there and get a response, and be glad to respond to any questions you have at that point.

James Goldstein, English: Dr. Richardson, first of all I want to say that I respect and was grateful for the various overtures you made during your presentation inviting the faculty to inform ourselves and to make suggestions and so on as we work our way out of this mess. And during your presentation, you mentioned that you feel that to be effective in getting us out of this mess, there will be times where you will have to act as though you know more than in fact you do about certain issues.

Richardson: I do that a lot.

Goldstein: We all do that in the classroom everyday. [Audience laughter] Please strike that from the record. [Laughter]

Richardson: Me too.

Goldstein: I was wondering if I could get you, please, to follow-up on; what assurances could you give the faculty that as you are finding your way to informing yourself about these issues, that you will be consulting with faculty as much as possible in the spirit of shared governance to make sure that our input (I don’t mean just faculty leaders and so on, but wider representatives of faculty) do help you for those things that the faculty may know best – that that will be part of the process in which you inform yourself.

Richardson: That is a very fair question. What I hoped to do is, if we periodically meet and there are issues that come up, and then I will be glad to come before you and respond to questions. The second thing I would say is that I am trying to put some of these policy issues on the table with several months in advance to give us all a chance to get up to speed. And I would say in terms of shared governance, I have learned over these 40 years that I have been in administration that you come up with much better ideas if you involve other people in that. I still take credit for them as Chief Administrator [laughing], but nevertheless, you come up with much better ideas, and again maybe I appear more intelligent than I am. I am going to do that. I am going to meet with you regularly. I mean, that is a part of the problem of distrust, and we have just got to get past that. Now, how can I best demonstrate that? I am here today; I am prepared to come back again; I am going to put the policy issues on the table; I don’t like secrets and I am sure you don’t, and that is the best answer I can offer at this point. I assure you. If you have got a better suggestion, if you have got something you want to say now that would help, let me know.

James Goldstein: Thank you.

Richardson: Thank you.

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry: I appreciate your comments on withdrawing the lawsuit as a positive factor, and I agree with SACS. In fact, I would ask why you will go farther than that in the essence that we have individuals on the Board of Trustees that are responsible for the actions that have put this University on probation. Those individuals don’t see fit to resign. Apparently, they think they are so uniquely qualified that they must remain on the Board at all costs, even accreditation of the University. Will you join this body, which has called previously for their resignation publicly...

Richardson: No.

Blumenthal: - to clear this with SACS?

Richardson: No, I will not.

Blumenthal: If clearing the University’s lawsuit is good, why not clear the people who caused the other violations? [Some audience applause]

Richardson: It is a fair question. Obviously, you have some people who agree.

Blumenthal: One. [Laughing]

Richardson: One? Well I suspect there is probably more than one that would agree with that position. Let me just give you – I am just going to shoot straight and try to answer the questions as best as I can. I have a very narrow window to make some things happen, so I don’t have time to chase rabbits. I would say that is a fair question. We have three new Board members as of today, and we have two more. That was one reason for me stepping down. That freed up an at-large position, to tell you the truth. Conner asked me to step down a year ago. [Audience laughter] I would say that that is going to bring in a whole set of dynamics. Two – I believe that I can make it happen with this Board. And I think that is going to send a stronger message. If we are in the process of changing and the best we can hope for in the next two in my view, since I have not heard any names surface – I mean there are 40 people I think that have applied for the Lee County; that was the last number I had. So it will be May or June before we know, probably May at the best. And therefore, I would say that if we can get those on in that period of time; we make the budget in June; we come into the fall; we get ready for that search – there will be that confidence that this has been done.

If you get into…let me just be realistic. The Board members serve a term. They are there. I mean, we can sit here and say “somebody ought to step down or not”, but we are actually just making it more difficult for us to get past. I would rather confirm that the Administration is in charge - this institutional control issue - with the people that we have and the five new that will come on, and I am confident that we can do it. If you started to get people resigning, then you go back through replacements and all that. I think it actually extends the period of time it would take for me to demonstrate satisfactorily to SACS that the Administration is in charge. It may not be a great answer, but that is the one I would offer.

Larry Gerber, History: Following-up on the question before about your seeking faculty input and ways that you might be able to do that.

Richardson: Yes sir?

Gerber: You know – we have a very elaborate system of Standing Committees…

Richardson: You do.

Gerber: ….both University and Presidential. On some of the issues you just quickly touched upon, like program assessment or program review – it is my understanding we have a Standing Committee that has not met in some time.

Richardson: I believe that is correct.

Gerber: Would it be correct that you would think that would be an appropriate means of getting faculty input?

Richardson: Yes, I do. I do.

Gerber: And that other committees, like we have a Faculty Salaries Committee and the University Budget Committee, that these would be committees that you would put a good deal of reliance on as a means of getting input?

Richardson: There are thirty-something weren’t there – 36 or 40 committees that we have at the University? There were a large number. Those committees that can enter in to this discussion when appropriate, then all of them should be active and should be participating. And I would be glad to provide them with information or allow for the input to come in and offer rationale for decisions. Yes sir, I do.

Gerber: If I might, could I ask one other question that relates to the sort of formal governance structure and where there is a division between Administrative decision-making and policy setting on part of the Board. A couple of years ago, the University Senate Salaries Committee adopted a policy which had advocated a mixture of merit increases and across-the-board increases when it came to salary enhancements, when we did have those. [Laughing] The University Senate actually formally adopted that as a policy, and at the time when I believe Dr. Walker was still Interim President, he indicated sympathy for that as a method of dealing with salary enhancements until he spoke to some Board members, who convinced him that that would not be acceptable to the Board. Is that an instance where you think the Board was acting appropriately, in terms of setting policy, or do you think that is more of an Administrative position or issue that should have been dealt with internally?

Richardson: I will answer it this way. If that comes before me, I will handle it internally. There are some policy issues, obviously, involved in that. My building in Montgomery was right across the street from the State House. So I had 105 people that were trying to help me every day. And I would say that if you asked them, they will help you. So I think if we just press on with the Administrative issues…I would say, Larry, if I could add to that. One of the advantages of that Role Commission, to me, was a recommendation that I made that said, and I asked the Board to agree to it and it did, that we would make a commitment to faculty salaries, deferred and departmental maintenance, and part of this revenue expenditure question is that. Can we live up to those commitments? My position is we will live up to those commitments. So I would say let’s get the committee started; let’s review that again, and I will do the best I can to give you a good answer on that. But I want to make sure that we don’t get out here two or three years, and Don comes to tell me we don’t have enough money to live up to these commitments. Now I may not be here, but I would hate to leave that for my successor. Yes sir?

Roy Broughton, Textile Engineering: For the most part, you’ve said the right things today…

Richardson: You’re going to point out what I didn’t say, is that right? [Audience laughter] Roy and I go back a long way, he tried to help me as Superintendent a lot. [Audience laughter]

Broughton: That’s right. Two decent individuals have preceded you in the job and were fired, so you’re between a rock and a hard place…

Richardson: Not really.

Broughton: - and we have sympathy for you, but as I told the last one, and you said today you can get away with a lot. The previous Administrator could have gotten away with a lot had he chosen to do so. I hope you will choose to do so…

Richardson: Roy, if I can just interject in there…if I am fired before the two-year period or whatever it turns out to be. It is not fatal to me.

Broughton: I understand.

Richardson: So I am prepared to do whatever it takes. This is what I am committing to Auburn. I am prepared…I had a four-year contract left where I was, and I gave that up. So I would say I am prepared to do whatever it takes so that my successor will have a good chance. And I am going to offend some Board members; there are going to be some difficult meetings at times. And I am going to be pushing into policy issues some. So the answer is…I am in a different situation. I intend to retire. I don’t want to be the permanent President. I didn’t ask for it to begin with.

Broughton: I do have one suggestion. You said you are going to end the war with SACS, and I think that is a good thing. I am going to ask, would you also consider ending the war with the Alumni Association?

Richardson: Yes sir. I met with them on Friday in the clubs, and I will meet with the Board again. That has been counterproductive and it has…yes, that has to be done. Yes sir.

Missy Josephson, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology: Looking at the – what you outlined at least, as the sources of revenue, the main sources of revenue that will be considered: Campaign and Investments, State Funding, and Tuition Policy. It appears that the most promising source of new revenue would be in the Campaign and Investments category. I mean, we have seen by the vote last fall that State Funding is not going to go up, and the tuition policy, for the same reason, will hurt too many Alabamians.

Richardson: I think you are correct.

Josephson,: Given that we were asked to agree to make the last Interim President a full-fledged President because of the capital campaign, what can you do as the Interim President to enhance that campaign and give a positive image to the University?

Richardson: Sure. Well, a couple – as Roy mentioned about the Alumni Association problems, the institutional control. All of those issues – we have got some Athletic issues – there are a number of issues that have to be resolved. I am headed in that direction. So I would say to you that I am an Interim President. What that really means to me is that I am here for a short term. It doesn’t mean I am half-President. [Audience laughter] So I am going to be a full-fledged President. I am going to have to do that to make these things happen. One of my…Bob’s [McGinnis] doing a great job, and I believe it is ready to happen. One of the first calls that I got was a friend of mine that had served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees for a long time, Gary Neil Drummond, a coal magnate, and he upped his contribution to a million dollars, I think. And I asked Gary Neil, I said, “Gary Neil, what are you going to do? Alabama is not going to let you come back to Tuscaloosa.” He assured me that he had given them a million too, so he thought it would work out. [Audience laughter] I have got a number of contacts of major people in this state, and I could list you many. I am coming in this from more of an objective point of view. I am trying to resolve some issues. I am not here for any other reason. I feel comfortable doing that. I feel comfortable in that environment.

So I think by in short-term resolving some of these problems that seem to just aggravate us; get some of those out of the way, and then I am just going to have to spend some time on it. Now I have not been out of that building to speak of for February. The Board meeting, we have got the NCAA thing later this week, and then the SACS review. But you are going to see that happen for me in March. I am also going to be able, and I have already talked to someone today, calling my contacts in Montgomery. And I am going to push that hard, too, because I can do some things there. But you might say, well we still got cut. But if you are going to get cut ten million, and you only get cut seven and a half million; that is progress in my view. So I am going to try and minimize the damage. I am going to work hard on that. Bob [McGinnis] is doing a great job. I am confident that we are going to meet our objectives, and I am going to do everything I can. I don’t think that whether you call me “Interim” or “temporary” or anything else will matter in that regard.

Renee Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Psychology: Dr. Richardson, the last two Presidents we have had have been very committed to diversity. I think each within their purview during the time they were serving. Can you share with us what is your commitment to diversity, and I would define that very broadly to include not simply ethnic diversity, but also with respect to women and sexual orientation? Can you share with us how you would define diversity and what your commitment is to that? And I would point particularly to searches that we have going on with our deanships and other administrative positions.

Richardson: Well, Tom [Hanley] is actually driving the ship on the dean search, and he has already had two conversations with me in that regard. He is committed to that, and I have supported him in every respect and I anticipate that you will see the results. This is sort of the way I look at it. I spent two and a half years trying to convince the public that we needed to raise some additional money for all levels of education. Obviously, I didn’t do a very good job, because we got whipped, badly. But the major thrust of that is as you look at economic trend-lines for Alabama – and I could sit here and rattle off a number for you, most of you probably already know them – but they are all negative. One example: per capita income in Alabama has dropped seven consecutive years. We have half of our counties now that have an average per capita income of less than $20,000. We are a poor state, and have got some significant problems. So the shift in the economy is going to exacerbate it for states like Alabama.

Here is the point: diversity in the early days - and I have been involved with this for a while and gone through desegregation issues and a number of suits and so forth – was to basically inform white people how they are supposed to get along with black people. That was the first step. Hopefully, we’ve gotten past that. When you look at it from more of a worldwide prospective, both whites and blacks are clearly in the minority. If you look at economic trend-lines based on the Government report just of last month, is that we are going to do the best just to hold on to a decent quality of life in this country over the next 30 years. So I would say we have got to look at it in that regard, diversity from a much broader point of view. Now, in terms of should we have equity in the area of gender? Sure. Should we have more minority representation? Sure. You mentioned sexual preference – that comes along on its own. I mean, that is not an issue with me. So I would say to you that you are going to see a concerted effort made to do that, but we must always remember that we are here to get the very best people that we can. We are going to try and attract them, and right now if I just assessed it, we are probably not the most attractive show in town. And we have got to improve it for a number of reasons. That is about the best answer I can give you.

Mouton: Are there any other questions, please?

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I came to Auburn about ten years ago, and at that time it was around the time we were going through the Goals and Priorities process, and every department and every program was to be assessed according to a set criteria. I participated in the department on that committee, and some of us were skeptical that the decisions were already made about which programs would be benefiting and which programs were not. But we were encouraged to get involved. I got involved in that process, and at that time Political Science came out ranked second, along with History in the College of Liberal Arts, and we were told that we would be receiving more resources. Before we received more resources, they scratched that plan and they went to 21^st Century Commission. After that happened, the Political Science Department lost two of its programs. Last year in my department, we had difficulty with one of our programs that was accredited not being able to pay the money to pay its accreditation fees, which is a teeny-tiny little amount for a program that is accredited. So we don’t have a very good track record in my department of being involved; being engaged, and demonstrating our competence. And one thing that concerned me, after serving on the Goals and Priorities Committee, is that one of the members of the Board of Trustees raised a question when they saw Political Science and History listed in the top third. They asked the question, “What does that have to do with the mission of the University?” That was very disheartening and very discouraging.

I would like to ask you, what is your concept of the mission of the University, and what could you do to encourage those of us in Liberal Arts that feel as though we have not been treated very fairly in this University? We have worked really hard and we have struggled really hard, and it is pretty difficult to sit aside and watch lawyers be paid money and outside consultants be paid money that we could use for just programs in our department.

Ed Richardson, University Interim President: Fair point. There is a lot – at least three or four questions there, I believe. I am getting some age on me, so I will try to remember them as best as I can. I think we have got an education issue associated with Trustees and those that are outside looking in, even the Legislature. I am going to turn that over to Tom Hanley to do; I have given up on that one. I would say that this is a comprehensive University. Now as I remembered going through those discussions, I thought that was the way it came out with a Land Grant Mission. I thought it was comprehensive. But a couple of documents I have seen, somehow comprehensive doesn’t show up. Now maybe I have got some old documents, but that is a surprise to me.

I do not foresee us going through ‘that before” that we went before in terms of, are you number four? If not, you are out of here or you get cut back. I don’t see that. What I wanted to be able to demonstrate is one that we have looked at those viability issues. We have examined how much money, if any, was saved, and that we don’t see that as a productive area. Now in terms of how – you mentioned specifically on Liberal Arts – I really, coming in cold (I mean this is my 12^th day) so if you will give me a couple more days I will become an expert, but I really don’t know how to do that other than it is a critical area. It is fundamental to most every discipline that we have got here, and I can’t really offer you the context of that discussion; although, it may have come because of some comments that were made critical of the Board. I don’t know. But I want us to get past that. I would not be concerned at all. You made a statement, and I remember there used to be an evaluation system that one school system used. Basically, you would come in and they would ask you to talk about your weaknesses, and then they would use it against you. So that sounded like to me what you were describing. No, no. We are not going to have that environment. I am not going to end my career in some deceptive, underhanded way. I assure you of that. Whatever comes will be on top of the table, and if you want to participate you will not be penalized, and I could not see Liberal Arts being penalized anyway. I mean, you are not exactly, in terms of salary and everything else, at the peak of the line anyway. I don’t know if I fully understand your question, but I would tell you don’t be concerned about that. I think once you see us get into the April meeting, you are going to see a number of things that come out that will broaden this discussion and hopefully alleviate those concerns.

Holly Stadler, Counseling and Counseling Psychology: I appreciate your transparency in giving us some of the issues related to revenues and expenditures. I noticed that the Peaks of Excellence weren’t included in that review. Could you elaborate on your thoughts about that particular initiative?

Richardson: I did not mean that to be an exhaustive list and that is why I used “other” at the bottom – there will be many other issues. Certainly, that is something in which we should take great pride. There has been some support for that, and I think we should look at it in terms, not only are there other peaks that changes and conditions would require us to review. So be assured when I…what I was trying to accomplish here is to say that everything is going to be on the table, including Samford Hall. And I am open for any suggestions in that regard. Some of the suggestions that will come up will require more money. I mean, if we are going to live up to our salary commitments it is going to require more money. So that exacerbates the problem. If we with go with more Peaks, then it will. No, be assured it was not a deliberate oversight to cause you any concern about that at all.

David Bransby, Agronomy and Soils: Dr. Richardson, a little while ago, I believe it was a Board meeting or sub-committee of the Board that met, and one of the Board members asked about faculty loads. They were told that 12 hours is a full load, and the response was what does the faculty do with the other 28 in the week? That demonstrates your – I guess…

Richardson: My mother still asks what I do in the summer. [Audience laughter]

Bransby: - that demonstrates your implication that the Board members probably still need some education about what happens here at the faculty level.

Richardson: Absolutely. Yes sir. Yes sir.

Bransby: Now, Dr. Walker tried to address that, and there was one round of visitation, I don’t know how long ago, but maybe two years ago…and that was it. And our response, or at least mine is, were they genuine in their interest in learning about what we do, or weren’t they? How are you going to address this problem?

Richardson: Sure. The education, David, is clearly an issue. My mother is 90 years old, she is a former teacher, and she does ask what I do in the summer. I would say that it is just a matter of understanding. As I have read some of the comments – there is a clear disconnect, in terms of what K-12 is. I mean, they see it as a high school out here in the middle of a cornfield or something, and that’s it. There is a whole lot more to it than that. And I would say for the University – we have got, in orientation for new Board members will be an ideal time, because all the Board members are going to be invited. Just to say, “All right, yes, I teach 12 hours a week, whatever.” But in addition to, if I am with graduate students or you know, whatever, other doing research responsibility, whatever else, and then we just block it out – and then low and behold, it turns out to be more than 12 hours. So there is an understanding that we have got to do.

Now in terms of the Board idea, I am not sure who – maybe Dr. Walker came up with that idea for the Board of Trustees to be assigned on an annual basis. I thought it was a great idea, and I would anticipate that that would start again, but the education is key. The beauty of these policy questions, and I anticipate that maybe load will come up, I don’t know, no one has mentioned to me, you are the first one. But it is something that will probably come up. We need to be in a position to say, sure – in the classroom, X hours, but here are the other things that are expected of us. And I think it will be readily apparent that this is something more than a part-time job. I guess you would agree with that.

Bransby: I just wanted to follow-up on that. I believe that Board member should probably be asked, “How many days do you spend, and how many hours do you spend in court a week?” And if it were three or six then, “What do you do with the other 30?”

Richardson: Yeah, well….I think it is better – and I am not ever…I think if you say, “Look, that’s the worst idea I’ve ever heard in my life.” We are not going to personalize this discussion, we are going to try and come up with something. I think rather than personalize it, we can do the education. It should be readily apparent, and I think we can make a good case without any difficulty at all. If the question was really asked because of some personal issue, then we have just got to get past that. We have got to look at the total University. There will always be some aberrations. You know, some people may have major grants, and then they may not be teaching as much as normal. But we have got to help them understand. The orientation for these new Board members will be an ideal time. My tentative goal is to start on the 18^th, which is the day before the 19^th; spend a day there, and then whenever this April, early May meeting is set; again have another day for that. And we will have faculty involvement in that orientation. Yes, ma’am?

Kathryn Flynn, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: Hi, Dr. Richardson. I sympathize with the job you have ahead of you. I think you have got your plate pretty full. In terms of…

Richardson: The pay is pretty good.

Flynn: [laughing] That is good. One of the things that I felt, and I assume other faculty have felt the same way, is a certain level of frustration over the past few years because we have all known that there were problems. And it has taken a lot to get to the point where we are now, where I think we might have the chance of really dealing with them. There are a lot of faculty who have really good ideas, and I think the disconnect between upper administration and the faculty at large is fairly, probably common to a lot of universities. One thing I would ask – is there a possibility of doing some type of less formal round-tables, where you could invite faculty to come in and brainstorm, for example, on issues or offer their suggestions or ask you questions in maybe a little less formal setting?

Richardson: Sure. You have got a big group, and you are at a disadvantage. What I would suggest is a different format. This was…I met with the Deans a couple of weeks ago, and this was suggested, as they have meetings around…is that you invite me to come in and we will see if we can schedule it, and I come to you and we sit down and, without listening to another presentation by the President, that we are just there and you ask me the questions you want to. Sure, I would welcome that. I like that. I do not like being cooped up in that. This is the first time that I have walked across campus since I have been President, in twelve days.

Flynn: I would make a comment. When my sister went to Notre Dame and I visited her there one time, and I remember Father Hesburg was still President and he would actually drop in the dorms and would talk to people, and what an impression that made and how it made people feel. I know it is a smaller university, but it really made a connection that, I think, brought him a lot of support – earned him a lot of support.

Richardson: He just got an award with NCAA. If we could clone him we’d be in a lot better shape.

Mouton: Do we have other questions? Please.

Bob Locy, Biological Sciences: I would just like to ask you – in light of the fact one of the major missions you outlined with SACS was to make sure that it was clear that the President was in charge. Do you expect to be asking members of the Board of Trustees to use their private planes to conduct University business, as the Interim President?

Richardson: [Laughing] That is a good question. [Audience laughter] No. That is a…I thought you were going to ask a parallel question about the cost of the University planes and some of the other expenses, and I am going to be looking at that – that is going to be part of the costs. We are going to put that on the table, too. But when I go to Phoenix, I am flying Delta, so it won’t be - I would say the trip to Louisville was a bad decision. I mean, that surprises all of you. I know that is the first time you have heard that said. [Audience laughter] For several reasons: one, you identified. It has created distrust among coaches in the administration. It has created suspicion as to what was really the motive to go there. I think Dr. Walker overall did an excellent job. And for those people who have never made bone-headed decisions, would you please stand up? I would say I need to sit down, so you won’t misunderstand – I have made a lot, too. But that was a mistake, and the answer is no. But on the other parallel question, will the University planes be brought in to – not that you sell them – but how much it is costing to run them and all that, and what we are using them for. Will that be on the table? Yes, it will. Does that get to your question? Okay.

Mouton: Do we have another question?

Richardson: Great. Piece of cake. [Audience applause]

Mouton: [Inaudible, not at microphone] We are going to have a discussion…

Richardson: Do you want me to keep this on, or am I through?

Mouton: You’re done.

Richardson: Okay. Good deal.

Mouton: What we have on the agenda next is the opportunity for faculty to discuss or put input into the record where we are recording this, so we will have all the information to pass on to the Administration. So is there anybody that would like to come to the microphone and give us a suggestion or some input? Please. We are having a lot of output right now.

Richard Penaskovic: In the story in the Mobile Register for October 23, 2003 it was reported that the University spent $740,000 to a PR and Lobbying firm called Direct Communications, run by Rick Hartsill and Steve Raby from Huntsville. I wonder if this is something we want to continue doing…paying this outside firm…when we have a whole department of University Relations, led by John Hachtel?

Mouton: Thank you, and that is in the record and we will pass it on to Administration. We have ended the question period. We were going to go ahead to discussion. So thank you for that. Are there any other comments on that point or other points?

Penaskovic: Could I make another comment?

Mouton: Please.

Penaskovic: Okay. Dr. Richardson, here is a question that I was going to ask you before. I didn’t know the question period was ending, though. But in an interview with Wayne Flynt, Dr. Muse said that Mr. Lowder micromanaged the University. Sometimes he didn’t speak directly to President Muse but would go through other people, like he might ask the head of the, the Secretary to the Board, Mr. Leischuck, to tell Dr. Muse to give Lowder a call because he was upset with him on a particular point. How do we know that won’t happen with you…that Mr. Lowder won’t call you up and speak to you and tell you what to do? Do we have any assurances that that won’t be the case, especially since Mr. Lowder doesn’t usually leave any fingerprints?

Richardson: Well, one of the advantages I have is that I have dealt with that type of pressure environment for the last nine years. I know the Board; I am not in the least bit concerned on that. I made that very clear prior to my appointment. I talked to him individually prior to my appointment. I said, “Now if I’m going to be appointed, I’m going to do this.” And I think you are going to see this Board of Trustees, like so many other people in the Auburn community, sort of sick and tired of all this squabbling and fussing going on, and I think you are going to see them back off and relax, and I do not anticipate that. The only other thing I can add to that, Richard, is this: my criterion for success, is that I establish the conditions for my successor to have a chance of success and a long tenure. That’s it. And when I leave here, whether you think I have done that or not – I am going to judge my self. And if I allow that to happen, what you have described, then I will not meet that and I will leave unsuccessfully. I would hate to end my career after all these years on a very unsuccessful note. There is probably going to be some hot discussions. And a lot of people are interested. The Athletic thing keeps going around, and I am going to deal with that. I even had one that asked me about the goldfish pool in front of the President’s House already. Well, as I said, that is not in the top 25. [Audience laughter] There will always be people that bring up suggestions, but as far as influencing me – if I am going to be successful, and I intend to be, then I cannot allow that to happen. They may try, but the key is whether it influences me to do something that I don’t want to do and that is not going to happen. I have worked with three Governors; two of them tried to fire me at least once, and I am still here.

Mouton: Okay is there any other discussion? Not seeing anybody come up, we are going to move on to any new business. Is there any new business for the faculty? Not seeing anybody rise, we will move to adjournment. Thank you very much.

Meeting Adjourned