Members Absent: John Jensen, Interim Dean, College
of Agriculture; John Pritchett, Acting Provost; Martha Taylor, A&P Assembly
Chair; Leanne Lamke, Steering Committee; AAES Representative; Mario Lightfoote,
ACES; Werner Bergen, Animal Sciences; John Pittari, Architecture; Ted Tyson,
Biosystems Engineering; James Guin, Chemical Engineering; Sridhar Krishnamurti,
Communication Disorders; Richard
Good, Music; Thomas White, ROTC-Air Force.
Members Absent (Substitute): Fran Kochan (Emily Melvin), Interim
Dean, College of Education; Sheri Downer (T. H. Straiton), Acting Dean of
Libraries; David Bransby (Charles Mitchell), Agronomy and Soils; Gary Martin (Susan Villaume), Curriculum
and Teaching; Charles Taylor (Robert E. Smith), Pharmacy Practice; Christa
Slaton (Ted Becker), Political Science; Vivian Larkin (Karen Rabren),
Rehabilitation and Special Education; Paul Starr (Jim Gundlach), Sociology,
Anthropology, and Social Work.
Call to Order
The meeting
was called to order at
John Mouton, Chair of the
Senate: It is
I would
like to make one quick announcement.
Our Discussion and Debate Topic was held over from the last meeting, and
we anticipate this being a pretty full meeting. If we get to
Announcements
William Walker,
President: I have two or three matters that I want
to bring to your attention. The
first is concerning the Provost, Dr. Tom Hanley. He should be on campus next Monday and
ready to conduct business; although, he is still taking care of matters, like
trying to find a place to live and all of that. The second item concerns the SACS visit;
it is scheduled for February 22 – 24, Sunday through Wednesday, and it will be
chaired by Dr. John Casteen, President of the
John Mouton: Would you go to the microphone and
identify yourself please?
Ted Becker, substituting for Christa
Slaton, Political Science:
I think the
average tuition increase this year in American universities is somewhere
eighteen percent. So, why do you come up with nine?
William Walker: Well, that is this year. I am talking about the ‘05 fiscal year.
Ted Becker: Well, they have been going up every
year.
William Walker:
I am
aware of that. Over the past two
years, we have increased tuition at this institution by almost thirty percent.
Ted Becker: Okay. So, that is possible that nine percent
is a low ball.
William Walker: Oh indeed, yeah. Anytime that Don Large does it, it is a
low ball.
[Laughter]
Ted Becker: I’m relieved.
William Walker: I meant that as a compliment to Don
[Large].
[Laughter]
Judy Sheppard, Steering
Committee: I understand that there has been a date
set for SACS to examine the Bradley Report.
William Walker: That report is in to the Southern
Association now, and we will be getting our comments, which will be very brief,
in response to it. I am assuming
that that would be considered by SACS at its December
meeting.
Judy Sheppard: Do you know for sure that there is
some session setup in which this will be discussed?
William Walker: I have no idea – SACS has not been in
contact with me at all about that.
Conner Bailey, not a Senator: Dr. Walker, will the
William Walker: Most likely. I can’t imagine that there would be
anything in there that the judge would disallow.
Conner Bailey: That would imply that Mr. Bradley’s
report would also be public?
William Walker: No sir. That has been locked up by the
judge.
Conner Bailey: Is there any reason to expect that the
judge might release Mr. Bradley’s report?
William Walker: I have had absolutely no indication
of that.
Conner Bailey: Is there a reason to believe that
would stay locked up?
William Walker: I presume so. Lee, do you want to
…
John Mouton: Please, can we get you to the
microphone?
Lee Armstrong, General Counsel: I’m sorry. I would assume that the majority of the
report will always be under seal, because it contains personal financial
information that was received by individuals under a pledge of confidentiality.
John Mouton: Thank you, Dr. Walker. I have got several announcements. The first one deals with the Student
Behavior Policy that the Senate passed in the summer. This is the policy that we
passed. [Projected on
Screen]
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:
•repeatedly arriving after a class has begun
• 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
I won’t go through it in
detail. When it got to the
Committee and to the Board, there was a change made and I am just going to put
up the change. The original
proposal that we approved, said “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
[The sentence “Instructors and
administrators are encouraged to maintain records of all disruptive incidents
and any actions taken concerning them.” was changed to “Instructors and
administrators must maintain records related to all material disruptive
incidents and any actions taken concerning them.” The policy is available online at http://frontpage.auburn.edu/gradschl/public_html/policies/classroom_behavior.pdf
] I will take any comments on this, if there is any.
Okay. On
On October 15 and October 29, we
have Steering Committee meetings. We always have a Steering Committee meeting
immediately following the Senate meeting – relatively long-range planning
meeting. On the [October] twenty-ninth, we will set the agenda – so people that
have items that they would like on the agenda should get them to us by the
twenty-ninth. On October 20 – next
week – the Rules Committee will meet, and we have received a request from Dr.
Walker in regard to the Planning and Priorities Commission. [2003oct14planmemo.pdf] The Planning and Priorities Commission
– what they have asked for is the faculty’s name who you send forward, should be
scholars who are tenured full professors; should reflect a variety of
disciplines; and should have demonstrated the capacity to think in terms that
transcend their own programmatic areas and speak to the broad long-term
interests of the entire university. The committee is going to be in place – it
says on the next sheet, that the commission will serve for at least five years
and will provide recommendations to the President for development of a five-year
plan, as well as provide oversight for the implementation and ongoing assessment
of this plan. So, in the next week,
actually before next Monday; those of you that are interested in serving on this
committee or those of you who have a nomination; please get it to members of the
Rules Committee or through Paula [Sullenger].
On October 22, there is a Handbook
Revisions Committee meeting. They
have got several items that they are working on, but one of them is, I think, of
the greatest interest of the faculty, and that is the faculty evaluation of
tenure track faculty. At Senate
meeting, we made a decision that there needed to be some sentences put into the
Handbook in regard to that issue…so, that committee is where it has been
brought. The Senate Leadership is
going to meet with Provost Hanley on the [October] 21st, the day before the
meeting, and make sure that we have his input if we move it forward. The concern that has been expressed is
that this spring, in fact the evaluation of tenure track faculty has to take
place, and what is the status of this item in regard to the spring evaluations.
So, we are working diligently to move that forward.
Some people in here know and some
don’t, so I am going to address this – to make sure that everybody has the
information that they need. Paula
and I met with Trustee Miller at his request last week. The topics discussed were all related to
the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board, and I serve on that committee. The
Committee has been conducting a series of workshops, and what they are designed
to do is educate the Committee but also the General Board, in regard to the
academic side of the University. I
think, given the frequency and duration of the workshops that we have seen and
the number of matters that there are to cover, this process is going to be
ongoing for some time. Things that
we talked about – we talked in limited detail about the appropriate role of this
Board Committee in regard to the governance of the University. The current topic, of course, and the
recent workshop that we are midway through, is Core Curriculum; we had some
discussion with that and tried to identify some faculty who are the most
knowledgeable about Core Curriculum to be involved in that discussion. I informed Mr. Miller, in a reasonable
level of detail, about the promotion and tenure process and scholarly
achievements and Instruction Research and Outreach, as well as how appointments
were made and how they vary across the campus; hoping to give him some flavor of
the variance of what individually, several of us do. We also talked about what I call faculty
gratification and their work and positions – and what it is that faculty are
interested in and why they choose this as a profession and what sustained
us. We had some discussion about
admissions and enrollment and the data in that regard. Mostly we responded to his inquiries;
things that he was interested in knowing about and hopefully we did some good
for the faculty and for the institution. So that was what we recently did.
Item (B) under Information Items, is
a response to a request for information regarding the joint AUM/AU
Committee. I had also been asked by
some faculty to comment regarding the call for a special meeting of the Senate
and my decisions in that regard, which some think may have influenced the
resolution that we saw come forward last week. On the 25th of September, I received a
request to call a special meeting of the Senate to consider the resolution that
is on the agenda today. On that
day, I received the requests, eight additional messages from six faculty, and
there was six faculty supporting the call. The next day, I received fifteen
additional messages, seven supporting the call. I did not really receive any additional
messages after that, and I did not hear back from Dr. Mullen, after my response
to him. However, if you look at
this – [Projected on
Screen]
Article 4: Procedures
Section 1. Executive Committee: The Executive Committee is the standing committee of the University Faculty and shall consist of the current officers of the University Faculty. The committee shall make a continuous study of the affairs of the University Faculty, shall receive suggestions from the membership, and shall assist the chair in preparing the agenda for University Faculty meetings.
Section 2. Meetings: There shall be a meeting of the University Faculty during the fall semester and another during the spring semester. Notice of regularly scheduled meetings along with the agenda shall be sent to the members at least 15 days prior to the meeting date. Special meetings may be called by the Executive Committee and shall be called on written petition of 50 or more members. At least seven days' notice must be given to the membership for special meetings. It is understood that the prior notice is not required for emergency meetings called by the President of the University and that the officers of the University Faculty shall assist in informing members of such meetings.
If it is a Faculty Meeting; it says,
“Special meetings may be called by the Executive Committee and shall be called
upon the written petition of 50 or more members” and on the Senate … [Projected on
Screen]
Article 5: Procedures
Section 1. Meetings: The Senate shall have one regular meeting each month during the months of September through July, except December, as scheduled by the Rules Committee. These regular meetings should be scheduled a year in advance and must be scheduled at least 30 days in advance. Special meetings may be called by the chair of the Senate at the request of the Steering Committee or the Rules Committee. A special meeting shall be called by the chair within seven days after receiving a petition signed by at least 40 percent of the members of the Senate. Notice listing the agenda shall be sent by the chair or secretary at least 48 hours before each meeting.
It says that “Special meetings may
be called by the Chair of the Senate at the request of the Steering Committee or
the Rules Committee or after receiving a petition signed by at least forty
percent of the members of the Senate,” which I think is thirty-six…and none of
those things happened…so I didn’t call the meeting and so for those faculty that
were looking for information on that; that is this status on it. With that, I will open it up to
questions.
Conner Bailey: The Commission that is being proposed or
established, I would like to hear a little bit more about the charge to that
Commission. It appears, if we are
talking about not only coming up with some priorities, but overseeing their
implementation that those who might find themselves on that Commission are
likely in fact to have a long tenure.
I noticed under the Deans, very fine print from where I was sitting, that
it was a two-year term, and I didn’t see any term limits for the others. I would like to know how this Commission
may differ from or not differ from the last great commission that we had on this
campus that Dr. Walker served on, and a little bit more on the background and
term of this Commission.
John Mouton: Well, and I will tell you what I
know about it and then if Dr. Walker has something to add, he can. The charge says that “this group will
assess Auburn’s position among the regional and national institutions; develop
and prioritize rational and measurable strategic goals for the next five years;
moving Auburn forward to peer institutions; provide a means of addressing
additional emerging priorities during that five-year period; develop a financial
plan to achieve the strategic goal; develop procedures for monitoring and
assessing progress towards these goals; and report regularly to the President on
the above matter.” The composition
of the Committee is that there is a Steering Group and Resource Group. The
active group is the Steering Group.
It is chaired by the Provost, Tom Hanley, and includes Executive Vice
President, Don Large; Vice President for Research, Michael Moriarty; Vice
President for Outreach, David Wilson; Vice President for Student Affairs, Wes
William; a Dean to be selected by the President from a list of nominated deans
two-years, and five distinguished faculty selected by the President from the
list of nine nominated by the Senate – which we brought this to the Rules
Committee – and then where it says the membership, it says that “The Commission
will serve for at least five years and will provide recommendations to the President for
development of a five-year plan as well as provide oversight for the
implementation and the ongoing assessment of the plan.” So, the faculty that we
have talked to that have been nominated, we are asking them to look forward to a
five-year appointment on this Commission.
Anybody else, please.
Virginia O’Leary, Senator,
Psychology: I have two questions regarding the
new joint AUM/AU Committee to investigate the allegations concerning efforts to
change academic grades, and…
John Mouton:
Virginia O’Leary: Certainly.
John Mouton: Anybody else? Okay. The next item is an Action Item,
and Bill Gale from the Academic Computing Committee is going to bring forward
recommendations regarding the purchase agreement. Bill.
Action
Item
Bill Gale, Academic Computing
Committee: Good afternoon, folks; John, thank you.
What I am going to report this afternoon, are the recommendations of the
Academic Computing Committee as a whole.
I would, however, emphasize right at the outset that these aren’t
necessarily the unanimous recommendations of everybody on the Committee. There is some degree of disagreement
about these. I think that some
members of the Committee felt that we should have gone further than we did. So, please bear in mind, I think that
this accurately represents the views of the majority of the Committee members,
but please don’t take this as necessarily representing the views of everybody on
the Committee. It would be very
remiss of me if I gave that impression.
I am speaking for the Committee, but I am not the Committee chair. Okay. Well, this one arose out of concerns on
the part of the faculty regarding the computer contract which was awarded
recently to GovConnection, and that really drove a lot of discussion amongst the
faculty, a lot of discussion from the faculty and administration, and ultimately
the Academic Computing Committee was given the charge of coming up with a report
for the Senate to discuss what we as a committee thought should happen. One thing that I would like to stress is
that my purpose here is not to provide a history of the policy for two
reasons. Firstly, I think it is
much more important to say that we are where we are now and to look forward to
what we can do to make things better; and secondly I am not sure that having
come into this process relatively late in the day that I am necessarily the best
person to provide a history of this.
So, with an emphasis on fixing things – we really see this as being a
two-step process. The first step is
a quick-fix to find a way that makes most people at least reasonably comfortable
with living with the present contract, which the University is obligated to, and
we also are looking into a longer term solution to possibly find a better way of
doing things in the future that makes the process a little smoother for
everyone.
Well, the first issue here is that
by default, you have to order a computer through the GovConnection
Contract. If you are to order a
computer via any other means, then according to the information put out by
Purchasing, then we need to provide sufficient justification for what legally
justifies an off-contract order. We
as a committee would like to see a clear definition of what sufficient
justification is. This would be
good for the faculty, because it allows them to get their special needs
addressed, and we also feel that this would be good for Purchasing, because
perhaps it would stop them from being bombarded with frivolous additions by
gadget-freaks, such as myself. One of the things that we would really like to do
is to have a clear identification of who the key people are in the approvals
process and make sure that the right people are doing the approvals. We feel that we need an appeals
procedure, in the event that an off-contract request is turned down that is both
clear and also streamlined, recognizing that many technology purchases are of
course, time-sensitive. Basically,
we want to know who to address our requests to, is what it amounts to. Well, here is the process that we came
up with. We tried to make this as
simple and as short as we possibly can.
ACC
Purch Policy Sen#7BEA6D.pdf If
you are going to order from the GovConnection Contract, none of what I am
showing you applies; this is only an issue, if there is a request to order off
of the contract.
Well, initially, this has to go
through Purchasing; it is as simple as that. They are the arbiters of what we can and
cannot buy legally on this campus.
If purchasing goes ahead and approves, then under the existing policy,
the order gets placed, and we don’t see any reason to change that. If everybody is happy, there is a
non-issue. The issue arises on the
branch that goes out to the right, which is if Purchasing feels that this
request is not reasonable and denies the request. Now, rather than just bouncing this back
to the faculty member with “no” stamped on it; what we would like to see, is
these going to the director of IT for a review and a technical review. We would like these things reviewed by
someone who has the necessary technical knowledge to decide whether this is a
serious and necessary request or whether this is a frivolous request which would
not satisfy the demands of the law.
We feel that it is very important, given that we have a very large campus
and it would be very unfair to expect any one person, however talented, to know
about the needs of every single faculty member on this campus and our diverse
needs. We feel that it is very
important that the IT Director seeks input from the relevant distributed IT
coordinator. Most units on this
campus have their own IT people, and there is a Distributed IT Committee; we
would like to see those people providing input on requests that come from their
area. We feel that this is the best
way of making sure that requests are viewed fairly. In the event that the IT Director, and
going back and for, we hope in detail, with the relevant IT Coordinator – feels
that this is a reasonable request; then it would go back and be approved and the
order would be filled. In the event
that this is decided to be a frivolous request, then the request would clearly
have to be denied. We feel that
this is a simple and straight-forward structure that doesn’t have a lot of extra
legs. It would place a significant
burden on the IT Director. I have to say this – this is going to end up being a
lot of work for whoever sits in the pink part of this chart.
Now, something that we would like to
see is community involvement in this whole process. We feel that it is very important that
the user community has input into this process. If we want faculty to buy into this, as
opposed to being coerced into the present situation, recognizing of course that
we have to satisfy all of all the demands of the law; both the letter and the
spirit, we feel that consulting you as the Community as very important. Particularly we would like to see this
happen when the current bid expires, and this is re-bid. We would like to see
consultation with end-users, and a rather diverse group of end-users, throughout
the future bid process. We would
like to see involvement in the development of the bid specifications; in the
evaluation of the bids; and we would also like to draw an expertise which exists
close to end-users and could represent end-users as a group – which means that
we would like to see the distributed IT managers being fully involved in this
process. Something else that we
hope will be explored – we accept that this is too late for the present time and
this can’t be done at present – is that there is a possibility of entering into
joint purchasing agreements with other universities in the state and that might
provide an avenue towards reasonably and legally award-making to multiple
vendors. We would like to see that
explored. As far as I am concerned,
speaking personally, competition is a great thing. We really would like to have our choice
of vending machines, if you will pardon the pun – sorry. One of the things that came up when this
went to a Senate Steering Committee; is that this is a moving target; technology
changes, technology needs change, and we would like to see this reviewed on a
regular basis. Essentially, we feel
that twice a year would be a reasonable kind of duration for that review. Now, one question that comes to mind – I
have received a lot of e-mail regarding this – there has been a lot of
discussion on the ACC and elsewhere.
There have been some concerns expressed that this is all too mild and
that we should have taken a more firm position. With every understanding of the
frustrations of the people who’ve made that point – this is a compromise. This
is not perhaps everything that one might have wished for; however, even the
Genie’s of the world get frustrated of technology sometimes. The reason for seeking compromise is
that the present positions are very polarized between the faculty group and the
people associated on the Purchasing side.
We think that if this process is ever going to work together, we have got
to stop extracting each other computational entrails and try and learn to work
together. Our demonstrating the
willingness to compromise is our half of establishing a working relationship
which avoids, hopefully, a repeat of this whole unfortunate affair. This is an Action Item and we are
putting forward a motion. That
motion is that the Senate support implementation of the Academic Computing
Committee recommendations on the Computer Purchasing Policy. Fire away please, folks.
John Mouton: The motion does not require a second
because it has come from a Committee, so we will open it up to discussion. Please.
Paul Schmidt, Senator for
Mathematics: I see one problem with the suggested
appeals process. The problem with
that is that there is no faculty involvement in the entire process. The requests that are denied by
Purchasing are forwarded to Rich Burnett, who is the OIT Director, and he has
the final word. There is no faculty
involvement whatsoever. I would be
much more comfortable with these recommendations if you would replace the word
“OIT Director” with Academic Computing Committee. That is a committee, and you are on the
Committee, and you are making the recommendations. Rich Burnett is an Ex-officio member of that committee and
the Committee could really well rely on his expertise in making the final
decision, but it would give faculty members a voice in this appeals
process. So, I would propose an
amendment to these recommendations; essentially replacing the word “OIT” by
“ACC” (Academic Computing Committee).
Bill Gale: How do we handle that – because that was
an amendment?
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: Inaudible.
John Mouton: We need a motion to amend.
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: Inaudible.
Bill Gale: Okay. Sure.
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: I second the
motion.
John Mouton: Okay – the discussion is now on the
motion to amend. Is there any
discussion on the motion to amend?
Bill Gale: Is this something that I can respond
to? How does this work, John?
John Mouton: I think you can respond.
Bill Gale: Let me perhaps explain – I will
intentionally take a neutral stance on the motion and not speak either for or
against. But let me explain the
mindset which led to this. There
were some people on the Committee who really felt that we really should do
exactly what you have proposed, and I am glad that this point is being raised,
because this was something that the Committee members felt should happen. The concern ultimately driving this – is
in an ideal world, yes, I would like to see faculty involvement too – but I
think that given that we are starting to get close to what looks to my mind,
like trench warfare. I think that
was something which we felt we would just have to give up if there was any hope
that any of this would be accepted by the people who would have to implement
this – namely the Director of Purchasing and the people in that part of the
administration. We felt that this
was something of a climate of misunderstanding, and that this was – and I am
sure that this is unfortunate, and I think we are dealing with good people who
can work together. We were just
concerned that if we did that it would be misunderstood by the people who have
to implement this as a – I want to say, almost a slap and a threat – and we
thought that in the circumstances, it is probably safer not to, because we were
concerned that if we did, we might lose the whole package. That is ultimately what drove our
decision. Yes, in an ideal world,
it would have been very good to see faculty involvement, but this was part of
the compromise which I mentioned.
Whether that was a good thing or not – the reason I am not going to say
“aye” or “nay” – is that it is for the Senate to decide whether that is a good
thing or not, but that was our thinking and you must decide whether this was a
good call or a bad one.
John Mouton: Does anyone else want to speak on
the motion to amend.
Please.
Kathryn Flynn,
Bill Gale: Me too.
Kathryn Flynn: Good. I just feel sort of bad when I admit
that to my technophiles, but the question that I have is – is the IT Director
tenured? Because if he is not, it
seems to me that this thing kind of went through quickly – and if there is a
lack of trust – is he protected if he doesn’t toe the line – if there is a line
that is supposed to be toed? It
seems like it leaves him in a really awkward position with no protection, job
security, or anything like that.
Bill Gale: Correct me if I am wrong, but I
believe that is an A&P position and not a tenured faculty position. So, what
you say is perfectly true. The
individual would be very much in the hot seat. It would not be easy – and whoever takes
this on is going to have an earful.
I’m just being frank with you.
It won’t be easy. But for
the reasons that I explained earlier, that is why we went down this road. I’m not trying to hide the
difficulties. It would be very,
very difficult for that person. The
number of people that are going to be complaining about the decisions are going
to vastly outnumber the person who is going to be making them.
John Mouton: The Committee currently has
non-tenured faculty.
Bill Gale: I might add that one other thing
that is the reason that I am making this presentation, is we have some
non-tenured faculty on – John thought it would be a good idea to say this – we
have some non-tenured faculty – these are faculty but tenure track faculty on
our committee, and I am a tenured full professor – so I am here because I am
relatively bullet-resistant, shall we say.
So, yes, I am sensitive to what you say, but my earlier explanation still
stands.
Renée Middleton, Counseling and
Counseling Psychology: Didn’t you have in your diagram
there, where you were saying that the IT person is not making this decision in
isolation, but that they were consulting with IT people in the different
colleges, I thought?
Bill Gale: Yes. That is correct – which most colleges
have.
Renée Middleton: I don’t know about other colleges.
In our college, that person would be a faculty member, and I think as long as he
is not making these decisions on his own but is consulting with the designated
people in the various colleges, and I think that at that point, that
consultation, we should make sure that faculty members are a part of that
process – one way or the other, whatever mechanism works within each college; I
think that gets us at “both/and” and not at “either/or.”
Bill Gale: The answer to that is quite college
specific. It depends on the
college. Let me try and explain the
process as I understand it. It
would be better if one of those IT coordinators or IT Director gives you a
definitive answer, but here is how I understand the process.
You have a director of IT, then a
Distributed IT Committee. Some of
the individuals on that committee are non-tenured full-time staff. Some colleges have very heavy computer
needs and have full-time staff people who do that job – so they are non-tenured
individuals. In other cases, as you
say, in some of the smaller colleges or schools or some of the colleges or
schools which aren’t quite so computationally intensive as some of the others;
there it would often be a faculty member. As far as I am aware, that
committee, that Distributed IT Coordinators Committee, would get you a
mixture. So, I am not absolutely
sure who is a member of that from every single unit on the campus.
Renée Middleton: I’m just thinking that in a college,
if that IT person …
John Mouton: Please go to the microphone. I’m sorry, but it is the only way that
we can get it on the record.
Renée Middleton: In the different colleges, and I am
just conceptualizing, if that IT person is not a faculty member, then it seems
to me for the purpose of this process, that IT person would get a subcommittee
of people, including themselves, to look at these requests and come to a
decision.
Bill Gale: There was no reason that individual IT
Coordinators wouldn’t have the discretion to do that. I certainly, as an individual, would say
that would be a very healthy thing. But it depends – but the situation in
different colleges regarding IT is so different; it is very difficult to just
make that a hard and fast rule for everybody. But I imagine that in most colleges that
would most likely be what would happen.
John Mouton: Please.
Paul Schmidt: As you have said, the situation is
very different in different colleges.
As far as I know, we have only one person in COSAM who qualifies as a
Distributed IT Manager – and that person is certainly not a faculty member;
neither tenured nor tenure track.
So, consultation with the OIT Director and the Distributed IT Managers,
if there are any, is not a substitute for faculty input. I believe that the Academic Computing
Committee is a group of people, including OIT people, including Rich Burnett as
an Ex-officio member, and including
cognizant faculty from all over campus, who would be in an ideal position to
judge these cases that are offered – in dubious merit. Therefore, I think that we should amend
the recommendation according to my motion.
Bill Gale: I think what Paul says –he’s
certainly correct in terms of that group is not entirely, by any means, a
faculty group – it’s a mixture of faculty and professional staff, I think, is my
reading of the situation. But if
anybody knows anything different, please tell me.
John Mouton: Do we have any other comments? Please.
Unknown Speaker: Can we modify that
motion?
John Mouton: Please – identify
yourself.
Sadik Tunzun, Entomology and Plant
Pathology Senator: Can we make that motion a little bit
different? The IT people will
contact with the IT people in the colleges and also with the Committee in making
decisions?
John Mouton: We are going to vote on this
amendment, and then we will make a decision on the motion for the amendment as
it is stated and then if somebody wants to modify that, we
can.
Sadik Tunzun: Okay.
John Mouton: Anybody else, please?
Okay.
Bill Gale: John, can…
John Mouton: As I understand the motion, we would
move to paragraph 2C – when it says “Purchasing
forwards rejected request to the Academic Computing Committee” – paragraph D – I
think this would change to ACC representatives either approves or requests
clarifications of IT needs from the faculty member’s Distributed IT
Manager. After this review, ACC
makes a final recommendation to Purchasing regarding the purchase of outside
contract agreement. Purchasing
processes or rejects the purchasing requests based on ACC recommendation – (e.g.
if ACC recommends processing the request, Purchasing does so; if ACC recommends
denying the request, the request is denied.) Faculty not having a Distributed IT
Manager in their college should utilize OIT expertise in this process. So, as I understand it, Paula,
please…
Paula Sullenger,
Secretary of the Senate:
I just heard some
discussion, and I think this is the gist of it – I would like to speak against
the amendment, and if the amendments fail, then I will come back and propose
that we add a section E, that any appeals to the IT process will go to the
Academic Computing Committee – rather than the first time everything going to
it.
Bill Gale [Not at
Microphone]: That would be if the
motion passed.
John Mouton: So, what I would like to do –
please.
Tom Williams, Naval ROTC: Are we voting to amend the motion
that is on the floor?
John Mouton: That is
correct.
Tom Williams: Well, this is not the motion on the
floor.
John Mouton: This is the motion that is on floor –
the presentation was electronic, but this is actually the document that was put
out as a motion.
Paula Sullenger: Actually, no, no. Thank you, Mr. Williams. The motion was to approve or to endorse
the recommendations. So, no, we can’t be talking about this because the motion
is only about – isn’t that correct?
Audience: Confused discussion
[Inaudible].
Paula Sullenger: No, the motion
is…
John Mouton: The motion is what you [Bill Gale] pull
up off of your computer – go back to your computer.
Paula Sullenger: The motion is – the
Senate supports implementation that the Academic Computing Committee’s
recommendations on the Computer Purchasing Policy. That is the only motion for
discussion.
Audience: Argumentative
discussion [Inaudible].
Paula Sullenger: But we are not
amending the motion.
John Mouton: We are amending the
text.
Paula Sullenger: We can only vote –
amend and vote on the motion. The
document is not the motion.
Bill Gale: Can I make a
suggestion? I think that it might
be best if I [Inaudible]. I assume
that there will be the possibility of amending the motion to say that instead of
the motion saying – you could request that the motion be amended from “the
Senate supports the implementation of ACC recommendations, etc., etc., etc.,” to
“the Senate supports the implementation of ACC recommendations, but would like
to see some changes” and ask this to go back to the ACC for review. Would that satisfy the Senate’s
rules? No. I am only trying to help
folks – [Laughter] – I just want people to be heard, that’s
all.
John Mouton: Paula, please – get us out of
this.
Paula
Sullenger: There is a motion on the floor, and that
is what we are supposed to be discussing.
John Mouton: So, we are going to call for a vote on
this motion and if it fails, then we can have further discussion or do something
else. No?
Tommy Smith, Human Development and
Family Studies [Not at Microphone]: You could withdraw the original
motion – then you could talk about Paul’s.
But Paul seems to think that it would be his [Inaudible] – because you
can’t accept friendly amendment for the Committee – you don’t represent the
whole committee. His motion would
be to send it back to the Committee to consider his idea to come back to the
Senate.
John Mouton: Would you withdraw your
resolution?
Bill Gale: Well, in those circumstances, I will
be happy to withdraw the resolution so that we can consider Paul’s amended
amendment.
Tommy Smith [Not at
Microphone]: So, if this passes, then it is a
recommendation to go back to that committee to consider whether they will change
it and bring it back to us [Inaudible].
Bill Gale: We can’t do
that?
Virginia O’Leary [Not at
Microphone]: [Inaudible] … it prevents the body
from making an amendment and passing it on the floor.
John Mouton: But I would like to ask, is that if we
can – Paula – can we [Inaudible]?
Paula Sullenger: Is the Academic
Computing Committee amenable to some of the changes that have been
suggested? Can we take it on faith
that if we approve this motion then the Academic Computing Committee
…No?
John Mouton: Paula, let’s send it back to the
Committee.
Paula
Sullenger: Okay, I think that would be the
best…
Bill Gale [Not at Microphone]: I would like to have some idea
whether this amendment has the support of the Senate.
Audience: Discussion
[Inaudible].
John Mouton: Okay. Let’s everybody settle down for just a
second, please. We have got
somebody at the microphone here to speak – if you would go to the microphone,
please.
Missy Josephson, Anatomy,
Physiology, and Pharmacology: We can short-circuit the sending it back
to Committee, I would think, if we can add – at each amendment that is going to
come up – it becomes – the Senate supports implementation of the ACC
recommendation with the following changes, and the first change proposed is
about having faculty involvement.
If all of them fail, then send it back to the Committee – but at least we
might kill two birds with one stone.
Paula Sullenger:
Yes,
that sounds possible …
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: I had a point of information. There are other suggestions that have
been offered that are unrelated to the previous one that we would also like to
contribute and this may provide us an avenue to do that.
John Mouton: Okay. Please.
Virginia O’Leary: I just want to underscore the
importance of the body being able to amend from the floor. So, I don’t want to
see this going back to committee.
If there are other suggestions that need to come before the body, then I
think that certainly should occur.
John Mouton: So, do we vote on this
motion?
Paula
Sullenger: This is the motion on the floor. Would anyone like to propose amendments?
Missy Josephson: I would like to propose to amend the
motion to read – following the Computer Purchasing Policy with the following
changes and whatever it was he said. [Laughter] Tell me what you said and I will
…
John Mouton: What Paul said, I think, is this
information [Projected on Screen] –
is it a reasonable representation of what you said – this information? So, this would represent what Paul had
said, and that is the amendment that you are proposing to that resolution. Accurate? Replaced OIT with
ACC?
Missy Josephson:
Yes.
John Mouton: Do we have a second?
Unknown Senator: Second
John Mouton: We have got a second; discussion on
that resolution – the amendment to the resolution? Thank you.
Unknown Senator: Call for the
question.
John Mouton: Okay. There are lots of people here;
the Senators are voting please. All
in favor signify by saying “aye.”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: Opposed
say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: Will that handle
it? It sounds like the “ayes” had
it to me. Okay, we now have the resolution that was proposed, with this
amendment. Are there any other
amendments to this resolution that people would like to propose? Please.
Cindy Brunner,
Pathobiology: Am I recognized? I am offering up the following
suggestion as an amendment to the motion on the floor, and that is that we add
another statement to the report. The basis of this statement is, we can trace
back to one of the requirements in the scope of work requested in the bids. The
scope of work lists the following requirement that is that the requests for bids
– “successful bidders must have a secure web site dedicated to
John Mouton: That’s the motion?
Cindy Brunner: The motion is that we
amend the motion on the floor to include this change – that this be an
additional item in the ACC recommendations.
John Mouton: Do we have a second?
Unknown Senator: Second.
John Mouton: Please. Go to the microphone please,
in the back.
Bill Gale: While we are doing that – I can
confirm that that problem exists.
It is very real. I recently
bought a new lab computer, and one of my graduate students ended up doing a lot
of back and forth with GovConnection to take care of what should have been a
straightforward purchase. We ended
up buying a baseline machine and effectively adding what amounted to after
market parts and GovConnection added after market parts and charged us for
installation and we ended up spending an awful lot more than we should have
done, just to get what was reasonably needed. That is a problem and I think that
having that web site properly configured would make a very big difference to how
well the contract operates. I think
that I can confirm that for sure.
Paula Sullenger: I am not really clear on what is
being voted on at this point. [Laughter]
I guess I am going to speak against the whole motion and then if it does
fail, then we can move to have it added as a discussion item; that way, we will
still discuss and send it back to committee and have them come back next month
with something that is more amenable – if there is this many problems with the
inside edit.
John Mouton: Any other comments on Senator
Brunner’s amendment of it. Was it seconded? It was seconded – absolutely. So, we are going to vote by voice
vote. Please, all Senators in favor
…
Paula Sullenger: … and this is on the
amendment?
John Mouton: This is on the amendment. All Senators in favor of a new amendment
that was read into the record by Senator Brunner, please signify by saying “aye”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: The “ayes” have it and it
passes. Are there any other
additional amendments? Here we go …
Dennis DeVries, Fisheries and Allied
Aquacultures: I would speak, I guess, against the
overall motion because I think as Paula has said, we are doing committee work
here in the Senate. I don’t think
this is the time or the place to do this.
I think it is obvious there are a lot of issues that are important and a
lot of issues that need to be brought up.
I would argue that if we vote against amendment – if the Academic
Computing Committee would ask for input from the faculty – we as Senators could
go to our faculty, get that input and the next month allow that to come back as
a recommendation from the entire faculty and then deal with it in the
Senate.
John Mouton: Thank you. Anybody else? Please.
Unknown Senator: Question on the
motion.
John Mouton: Call the question on the overall
motion.
Audience: What is the overall
motion?
John Mouton: The overall motion is – the
statement is – the motion is that the Senate supports the implementation of the
ACC’s recommendation on the Computer Purchasing Policy – with the changes that
were read in – this is the first amendment – the changes that were read off of
this document, and the second one was read into the record. Do you have a hard
copy of it? Can I have it please? [Projected on Screen] If you start
here, it says “the ACC recommends that the Purchasing Office begin immediately
to enforce the contract provision calling for web site that permits users to
configure computer, including examination of the
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: My ears aren’t too good. Let’s have a hand vote real quick. All in favor signify by raising your
hand please. Okay, you can put your hands down please. Are we okay? All opposed signify by
raising your hand please. It passed
forty-three to seventeen. Thank you
very much; thank you, Bill.
Bill Gale: Thank you for the Senate’s patience – I
did not know it was going to take that long.
John Mouton: Okay, we are going to move on to
Action Item (B) which is the resolution on
Senator Barron. We need someone to
present this resolution and make a motion please.
Jon Bolton, Senator from the English
Department: I’ll go ahead and read out the
resolution:
Whereas, Alabama
Senate President Pro Tem Lowell Barron waited until the recent special
legislative session was nearly over to refer the nominations for new
Whereas, When a
meeting of the Senate Confirmations Committee was finally called to act upon the
nominations in the waning moments of the legislative session, the meeting failed
to achieve a quorum when known political allies of President Pro Tem Barron
failed to attend;
Whereas,
Knowledgeable observers such as Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee
member Andy Hornsby and State Senator Ted Little have been publicly quoted as
blaming President Pro Tem Barron for the failure of the Confirmations Committee
to achieve a quorum and thereby blocking confirmation of the three new trustees;
and
Whereas, These
recent events have cast further doubt on the integrity of the nomination process
and have once again demonstrated the conflict of interest inherent in Senator
Barron serving as both President Pro Tem of the Senate and a member of the
Auburn University Board of Trustees; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate calls
upon Senator Barron immediately to resign his seat on the Auburn University
Board of Trustees.
Okay. Yeah, I move that we accept
this resolution. It didn’t come
from the Steering Committee, so we need a second.
Unknown Senator: Second.
Jon Bolton: Any discussion?
Jim Gravois, Library: Representing the Library, I can say
that in general we favor it. That
is library faculty – not administration (just to get that clear); but I would
like to propose some amendments to it. So, I’m going to come down …
John Mouton: Do you have them in writing
please? Can you put them where we
can see them?
Jim Gravois, Library: Our concern was just that maybe some of the phraseology was not
necessary, and I will show you what I would remove. I feel like we should remove the first
part here – that we feel like the meeting failed to achieve a quorum – period; I
don’t know that this helps. We also
felt that this “whereas” section should be deleted, as those people are not here
– and that’s basically it. We just
felt like those two sections should be removed, so I am going to go ahead and do
that on my copy. What I am not sure
is whether we should take that as two separate amendments; just to vote on each
one.
John Mouton: We are going to take it as two
amendments. The first amendment that we will deal with is to remove “when known
political allies of President Pro Tem Barron failed to attend;” Is there a
second for that?
Unknown Senator: Second.
John Mouton: We have got a second on that;
discussion on that amendment. Please.
Bill Gale, Steering
Committee: I would like to speak in favor of the
amendment. I think that it is a
good practice for people of the University not to engage in hearsay. I think it is better that we stick to
things that are known and accepted in contentious matters like this. I feel much more comfortable seeing the
motion in its amended form as a result.
When this came before the Steering Committee, I didn’t feel that I could
support it written the way it was because of the issue of this containing what
is hearsay and however enlightened speculation.
John Mouton: Is there anyone else that would like
to comment on the first amendment? There not being any; are we ready for the
question? I have a call for the
question. All in favor of amendment as posed signify as posed; signify by saying
“aye”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: Okay, the “ayes” have it. Okay. Now we are going to move to the next
amendment and the next amendment was to remove completely the paragraph that
begins: “Whereas, Knowledgeable observers such as Auburn University Trustee
Selection Committee member, Andy Hornsby, and State Senator Ted Little have been
publicly quoted as blaming President Pro Tem Barron for the failure of the
Confirmation Committee to achieve a quorum and thereby blocking confirmation of
the three new Trustees;” and I think that you have made that as a motion. Is there a second?
Unknown Senator: Second.
John Mouton: Do we have any comment? Please.
Missy Josephson: While I probably wouldn’t have written
it as it is written; I don’t think I would strike it for the reason given that
they are not here. I assume that he
was talking about Andy Hornsby and Senator [Ted] Little. Because it is in the public record what
they said, whether you choose to believe them or not is another question, but it
is in the public record.
John Mouton: Please.
Norbert Wilson, Agriculture
Economics and Rural Sociology:
My one
concern with this particular section is – it doesn’t state where the information
is publicly known. I mean, I think
I heard it on the news, but I would like to have the very specific reference as
to where it is.
Jim Gravois: I just want to add a little more to
that. I think that the main goal of
this resolution does not need to say – because of what other people have said
about this – even though there is really lots of evidence of that effect. I think that the main goal is to say,
look, the man did not get the Committee to meet on time, and we suspect that
there may have been ulterior motives and we call upon him to resign. I think that stands as a defensible
resolution on its own.
John Mouton: Anyone else, please.
Bill Gale: I think some of my earlier comments also
apply to this, so again, I speak in favor of the amendment. It is like J.F.K., we all know he is
dead, but there are certain disagreements about the role of the grassy
knoll. We should stick to things
that I think are verifiable and not subject to dispute, and I don’t feel that
this paragraph adds anything to the case; on the contrary, I think it does the
exact opposite.
Missy Josephson: While I would agree that it is
probably inflammatory, I think there needs to be some insertion in the
resolution about the fact that people who are knowledgeable of what was going on
in Montgomery on that day, have expressed their opinion about that in the public
record. I can imagine it being
written in a different way, but I think the fact – what those – that those
people said something to implicate Mr. Barron, is important to be in there;
furthermore, if you take it out, there really isn’t anything in the resolution
that indicates anything underhanded was done or there were ulterior motives; in
fact in the next paragraph we say that Senator Barron demonstrated a conflict of
interest, but we don’t have anything to base that on.
John Mouton: Please.
Judy Sheppard, Steering
Committee: I actually brought this to the Steering
Committee, and I think there has been, for anyone who has chosen to pay
attention to any news reports and doesn’t want to simply dismiss news reports
because they weren’t there and there aren’t sworn statements from people saying
this is why I wasn’t there or other kinds of methods of evidence that no court
of law would require. Reasonable
people who are informed about this state and the politics and the pattern that
Mr. Barron has – I mean, this is the third time at least that this kind of
blocking of Trustee nomination has occurred on his part. That is
well-documented. If you have read
any newspaper recently, editorials or news reports, it is hard for me to see how
people can say, we didn’t know, we don’t know what happened. If you are saying that we simply do not
believe all of the newspapers in the state; well then that is one thing. But if you are saying; essentially
reasonable people reading the media can make certain reasonable inferences, I
think that I would have to definitely say that if you want to revise the wording
of that paragraph – great, but let’s not totally gut the meaning of this
resolution.
John Mouton: Please.
Ted Becker: I agree with the last two people,
speakers on this matter. I think
that perhaps it might soften it a bit by saying “are on public record as placing
responsibility” on the President Pro Tem Barron, rather than using the word
“blame.” Also, keep in mind, as far
as I know, the Senate is still on record as having voted no confidence in the
Board of Trustees. That has not
been removed, has it?
John Mouton: That is
correct.
Ted Becker: So, I mean, this is just simply
further information, and also that Hornsby is a member on the Committee and I
assume – we know he says this; he has been in contact with people in this body
in e-mails, etc. So, it is not just
public record, it is also personal communications. We all know that this
happened. So, maybe we can just
make it a little more legalistic by saying on public record and placing the
responsibility, rather than using the word “blame” – if the people who wrote
this would be willing to accept that.
John Mouton: We will entertain that after we vote
on this motion. Thank you. Please.
Cindy Brunner: I would like to speak in favor of the
amendment to delete the marked paragraph.
My rationale is again based on the phrasing of the paragraph that we have
two knowledgeable observers who “have been publicly quoted as blaming President
Pro Tem Barron” and I would like to quote what was distributed to the Senators
by Isabelle Thompson, I believe, was the source of this information – this is
reported to be a summary of audio tape recording of Mr. Andy Hornsby’s remarks
concerning failure of the Alabama Senate Confirmations Committee to confirm
three new Trustees – due to lack of a quorum, remarks were made at a meeting of
Auburn University Chapter of the AAUP, Thursday October 9, 2003 – and I am going
to be fairly specific in my quote here.
This is the second to the last paragraph, I believe, at the bottom of the
second to the last page of the material that we were given. “So when asked if Senator Barron had
anything to do with this (this is, of course, in reference to lack of quorum) I
don’t know. I know what I was
told. I was told by reliable
sources that it was set up the night before. I know Senator Barron’s allies didn’t
appear. I can only draw a
conclusion that it was somewhat orchestrated. I don’t know that, and he said that it
was not.” I think on the basis of
Mr. Hornsby’s own statement, we ought to delete that paragraph.
John Mouton: Please.
Jim Gravois: I would also like to offer the
possibility, afterwards perhaps, or just for you to entertain this otherwise
that perhaps in the final paragraph that says “whereas,” one could put these
recent events and comments by knowledgeable observers and just leave it at that
and continue it. That is not a
proposal; I am just saying that is another way to handle it.
John Mouton: Well, let’s get other people who are
addressing this to microphone please.
Anyone else?
Unknown Senator: Call for the question.
John Mouton: We have got a call for the question.
Okay. The motion that is on the floor is an amendment to this resolution that
deletes the paragraph – I am not going to read it again – and I will ask all in
favor to signify by saying “aye.”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: The “ayes” have it. Okay. So we now have a resolution that has
been amended twice to have deleted this.
Does anyone else want to come to the microphone and make any comment on
the resolution as it now stands? We
have got some movement in the back of the room. I think we have got one speaker
up.
Missy Josephson: I would like to see something placed
back into the resolution in the mildest terms possible but recognizing that Mr.
Andy Hornsby, Vice President of Auburn Alumni Association, was quoted in an
Associated Press story on September 25, as saying “It was by design. Senator
Barron’s forces were the ones who didn’t show up.” So, that he places responsibility on
Senator Barron and, as well, Senator Little said – “‘There is no question in my
mind that the lack of a quorum was orchestrated,’ said Little a member of the
Confirmations Committee. ‘It goes
on to say that he would not say who he believed was responsible – and that was
in the O-A News.’”
John Mouton: So, what are you proposing,
please?
Missy Josephson: Well, I haven’t actually proposed.
I’d prefer that somebody else do it because I don’t know quite the right words,
but something to that effect.
John Mouton: We have some help.
Raymond Hamilton, Aviation
Management and Logistics: Correct me if I am wrong – I may be
simple and simplistic in looking at this, but this resolution does not sink or
swim on that paragraph, and if either of those two gentlemen, in some subsequent
form, denied that statement, would it kill this resolution or its veracity? I think it would. I think that paragraph contributes
nothing in terms of substance. The
resolution stands on its own merit without quoting those two, in my view.
John Mouton: Any other speakers?
Please.
Paul Schmidt: If it is felt to be important that
public statements have been made blaming Senator Barron for orchestrating the
failure of the Committee to achieve a quorum, couldn’t we add – and this is just
a suggestion – I prefer not to make the motion myself – couldn’t we add a
sentence just to the extent – Whereas, Senator Barron has been publicly blamed
for orchestrating the failure of the Nomination Committee to achieve a quorum,
instead of the deleted paragraph?
John Mouton: Do you want to make that as a
motion?
Paul Schmidt: Okay, I move to put that sentence
in.
John Mouton: Is there a
second?
Unknown Senator: Second.
John Mouton: We have got a second. Is there any discussion?
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: What was that
sentence?
John Mouton: We are going to get it right
now.
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: [Inaudible]
John Mouton: I think we have a second. So, what it says is, “Whereas Senator
Barron has been publicly blamed for orchestrating the failure of the Nominating
Committee to achieve a quorum – to be inserted where the other paragraph has
been removed. Please.
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: It’s Confirmation
Committee.
John Mouton: It is the Confirmation
Committee. Thank you. If there is not comment, can we have a
call for the question please? Okay.
I would like to have all in favor signify by saying
“aye.”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: Let’s have a hand count on that –
my ears are not that good. Willie,
can you help?
Please.
Cindy Brunner: Point of clarification – is this the
amendment that we are voting on?
John Mouton: This is this amendment right here
that we are voting on. We have not
voted on the resolution yet. All in
favor signify by saying “aye” – raise your hand – I am sorry; my mind is
somewhere else. You can put your
hands down. All opposed signify by
raising your hand.
Paula Sullenger: There was 35 to 23
pass.
John Mouton: The amendment passed 35 to 23. Are there any other ideas to come
forward in this? Somebody call the question – I’m sorry – we have somebody up
again.
Missy Josephson: I think it is redundant to present
another resolution asking Senator Barron to resign, when that has already been
done. It seems like it would be
more effective if we restate the Senate’s resolution that Senator Barron resign
and publicly censor him or otherwise show our disapproval of what has
happened. That is a motion –
amendment.
John Mouton: I don’t understand what it is. Could you
restate the motion?
Missy Josephson: To amend the last sentence –
Resolved that Auburn University Senate – we cannot call on him to resign – it
would be redundant if we did because we have that other resolution already in
existence. So, that the Auburn
University Senate, for example, restates its resolution that Senator Barron
resign and publicly censors him.
John Mouton: As a point of order, the other
resolution did not single out Senator Barron – it is the entire group. I am not sure – I guess we can reference
it, but it was a resolution that was larger than this one in regard to the call
for resignation.
Missy Josephson: Certainly, but he is a member of
that group. It just seems
redundant.
John Mouton: I don’t understand what the
resolution is. Do we have a
second?
Unknown Senator: Second.
John Mouton: Okay, we now have a second. Could you come up here and write this?
That would help us tremendously. I
will get a clean … Do we need [Inaudible]? Okay. It has been proposed and seconded that
the last paragraph be changed “Resolved, that Auburn University Senate
restates its resolution that Senator Barron and other members of the Board of
Trustees resign seats on the Auburn University Board of Trustees and publicly
censor Senator Barron.” Please,
Virginia O’Leary: I want to speak
against this amendment. I don’t
think that it’s redundant. I think
that what we are attempting to do in this resolution is to make it clear that it
is the sense of the body that we hold Senator Barron accountable for the failure
of the Committee that he chaired to garner a quorum to do its business and as a
result, I think that that’s clear.
I also want to – and I know that we have got to vote on this amendment
first – but as a friendly amendment to the preceding, we need an “and” before
the final Whereas. I think that changes nothing in terms of content, and I will
reintroduce that after we have voted on the amendment on the floor.
John Mouton: Other comments? We are voting on the
amendment to change the last paragraph as shown here. All in favor signify by saying “aye.”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators: “Nay”
John Mouton: The “nays” have it. If we take
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: No, it’s in the paragraph that Paul –
it’s at the end of Paul’s paragraph.
John Mouton: In Paul’s paragraph – right? Yeah, you are right; I’m sorry. The amendment is to add “and” to Paul’s
paragraph. It’s a friendly
amendment. Do we need to vote on it?
Audience: [Confused discussion]
John Mouton: Do we need to vote? Call for question? All in favor signify by saying
“aye.”
Senators: “Aye”
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: [Inaudible]
John Mouton: That is on this adding of
“and.” All opposed – none; it
passes.
Unknown Speaker [Not at
Microphone]: [Inaudible]
John Mouton: I realize that. Okay. We are going to try to finally get to –
we are now to open discussion on the resolution as stated here, and I realize
that it is a little difficult to read – but we have had a change in the second
paragraph, deletion of the third paragraph where it has been replaced with these
words – the resolution has been seconded.
Please.
Cindy Brunner: I have to confess that I find
myself in a very precarious position.
I support this resolution, but I believe that the majority of my faculty
members in my department do not. In
consulting them – and I want this on record is why I am stating it – in
consulting them, I was met with considerable opposition, most of it based on the
fact that the issue has become moot – that Senator Barron will be stepping down
from his seat at the end of this year, presumably [Audience Laughter] – and the
Senate will not meet again until after that event takes place. Now we could all speculate as to what
shenanigans might be going on the meantime, but I had rather not do that. The point that they were making was this
is a lot of puffing and blowing about something that is now moot. On the other hand, I did have one
colleague, a non-tenured faculty member in my department, who has only been
tenure track for a couple of years, point out that if we vote this down that
makes an entirely different statement publicly by way of the position of the
faculty about what Senator Barron allegedly did. I don’t think I want to be on that side
of the issue. I would rather
support this resolution even though there are a number of faculty members in my
department who would rather just let this die.
John Mouton: Please.
Ted Becker: The reason – I haven’t polled the
members of my department – pardon me, but, I think that it is important that the
faculty Senate passes this resolution, even if it is moot. I think that Cindy’s point is
correct. The reason is, is because
I think that the faculty should speak on this before SACS comes, and we should
be on record as saying that we know what is going on here and we don’t like it
and it is just another example in the long, long, long list of examples that
SACS is coming here – by the way, I am pleased to find out that the President of
the University of Virginia is the one that seems to be the head of this
committee – where they try to decide about what has been going on here at
Auburn, in terms of the management of this university by the Board of
Trustees. I think that it is very
important that the faculty speak out on this right now and just have the most
recent statements of its feelings about what has been going on.
John Mouton: Other comments, please. We got a call for the question. We will
do a voice vote. All in favor signify by saying “aye.”
Senators:
“Aye”
John Mouton: All opposed say “nay.”
Senators:
“Nay”
John Mouton: The resolution passes. [Audience
Applause]
[The Resolution Follows]
Whereas, Alabama Senate President
Pro Tem Lowell Barron waited until the recent special legislative session was
nearly over to refer the nominations for new
Whereas, When a meeting of the
Senate Confirmations Committee was finally called to act upon the nominations in
the waning moments of the legislative session, the meeting failed to achieve a
quorum;
Whereas, Senator Barron has been
publicly blamed for orchestrating the failure of the Confirmations Committee to
achieve a quorum; and
Whereas, These recent events have
cast further doubt on the integrity of the nomination process and have once
again demonstrated the conflict of interest inherent in Senator Barron serving
as both President Pro Tem of the Senate and a member of the Auburn University
Board of Trustees; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate
calls upon Senator Barron immediately to resign his seat on the Auburn
University Board of Trustees.
Information
Items
John Mouton: Okay, the hour is getting late, and
I didn’t read about Erica’s [Jackson] report in this morning’s paper, but I read
about the next item in this morning’s paper. So, I have asked Erica to please
postpone until the next meeting so we can move on to the next item. She has graciously accepted to do
that. So, the next order of
business is in regard to the joint AUM/AU Grade Interference Committee.
At the recent Rules Committee
meeting, I was asked to communicate with the faculty in regard to the way that
this committee came into being.
There is a statement that is on the Web that I am not going to put up,
but I want to make some comments, and then we will open it for discussion. At the October 6 Rules Committee
meeting, it was recommended that we include this matter on the [Senate]
Agenda for discussion. The Steering Committee was polled and
this matter is on the [Senate] Agenda as an Information Item.
The issues, as I understand them,
were about the formation of the Committee, the composition of the Committee, and
communication and understanding regarding the Committee. I think that an issue
that is relevant – or that was raised – in our Senate Constitution under Article
4: Committees. [Projected on Screen]
Article 4:
Committees
Nominations for membership to all standing committees shall be made by the Rules Committee and approved by the Senate, for a period of three years, unless otherwise specified in these Articles. Committee appointments shall become effective at the beginning of the fall semester and shall expire at the end of the summer term. Students serving on committees shall serve one-year terms; staff members shall serve three-year terms unless otherwise specified in these Articles. Each standing committee shall have a written statement of its operating procedures on file with the secretary of the Senate. Deliberations of committees dealing with grievance; student or faculty dismissal; discipline; promotion and tenure; and other personnel matters must remain confidential.
Section 2. Other Committees: The
Senate may form other ad hoc committees; nominations for membership shall be
made by the Rules Committee unless otherwise specified in these Articles.
There is a statement in regard to
other committees that says, “The Senate may form other ad hoc committees;
nominations for membership shall be made by the Rules Committee unless otherwise
specified in this article.” Dr.
Mullen’s position, as I understand it, is that I bypassed the procedures. My stated position is that there is not
a procedure in this circumstance.
This says that the Senate may form other ad hoc committees, and if we
look at this committee carefully, I think it is clearly not a Senate ad hoc
committee. What I would propose to
you is this: If there was a grade
allocation issue on our campus, and the AUM Senate formed an ad hoc committee to
look into it, we would be up in arms.
This is a matter that involves both campuses. So, if we look at it, I think the
uniqueness of circumstances is clear.
The alleged incidents involve the AUM campus. Our interest as a faculty is based on
fact that we share the Board of Trustees, and the reported offenders are
currently members of that Board.
The committee includes four members of the faculty elected as leaders by
both of the faculties. The qualification and appropriateness of those elected
leaders to serve on such an important matter, in such a complex circumstance
crossing two campuses, to me is apparent.
I will open it up for comment and discussion. Virginia, please.
Virginia O’Leary: Well, when I stood to
ask about this earlier, I was of course aware that it was on the [Senate] Agenda
and set for later in the meeting, but because it was an Information Item, I was
not sure that there would be an opportunity for discussion – which is why I
tried to bring it up a bit earlier in the Agenda. I no longer have two
questions, I guess I have really reduced it to one, and now I am thinking that
perhaps it is not even a question but rather a comment. Technically, I think that it is correct
that there is no specific provision for the establishment of a joint
committee. However, there is past
practice in terms of the establishment of ad hoc committees, and I think that
the fact that the Rules Committee, when it discussed this, was split; is
instructive. There were more than –
actually more than two, I believe three members of the Rules Committee – who
thought that the composition of this committee should have been passed through
the Rules Committee, and I don’t know see anything actually that would have
prohibited the Rules Committee, or indeed any of the Senate leadership from
contacting the Senate leadership on our sister campus and having this be a
jointly comprised committee. But
the other observation, or perhaps it is a question that troubles me greatly, is
I read your public statement regarding your belief that the timing and formation
of this committee at the time that it occurred was warranted. I wonder if you’d share with us the
meaning of the impulsive action that might be taken by the faculty. Because that was one of the
justifications – that you had to act quickly in order to prevent some impulsive
action being taken by faculty, and it troubles me that that’s your opinion of
either your colleagues or this body collectively.
John Mouton: First of all, I will say that I did
in the statement take responsibility for the formation of the committee. That said, there were four people
involved; there were two leaders from this campus and two leaders from the AUM
campus. The concern was that there
was a lot of information floating up about this that could have had a response
of “he said-she said” before in fact there was a thoughtful look into the
information. That was the
discussion that we had, and the AUM faculty were involved. The AUM faculty leaders were involved in
that discussion and that was part of the discussion, candidly. Please.
Kathryn Flynn: One of the questions that came to my
mind when I first heard about this was why
John Mouton: First of all, the committee was
formed by the four people that have been identified as having a forum. Collectively, we did not have any
discussions with the Board of Trustees.
I sat at a lunch meeting between two members of the Board of Trustees,
having two separate conversations with both of them. Earlon McWhorter was on one
side and he and I conversed about the fact that I was looking into this with
some people. But, as a group, we
did not meet with any trustees or any administrators. I think that I may have had a
conversation with somebody else, not a Board of Trustees member, but I don’t
have a specific recollection; but I did sit at lunch and have a conversation
with Mr. Miller on one hand and Mr. McWhorter on the other hand and it did come
up in the conversation with Mr. McWhorter.
Please.
Conner Bailey: Can you tell me when that lunch took
place?
John Mouton: That lunch took place
…
Conner Bailey: Was it before you asked me to serve
on this committee?
John Mouton: Yes, it was – I believe that it was;
it was Thursday. Any other comments
or questions? Well, if there is not
any, then the meeting will be adjourned, and we will meet again on November 14 –
[November] 11. [Adjournment at
Adjournment