Auburn University Senate Meeting

November 11, 2003

3:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Absent:  Barbara Struempler, Immediate Past-chair; Don Large, Executive Vice President for Business and Finance; Lee Evans, Dean, School of Pharmacy; John Jensen, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture; Sheri Downer, Acting Dean of Libraries; Vic Walker, Staff Council Chair; Martha Taylor, A&P Assembly Chair; Leanne Lamke, Steering Committee; AAES Representative; Mario Lightfoote, ACES; Barry Fleming, Art; Scott Fuller, Building Sciences; Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry; Ann Beth Presley, Consumer Affairs; Gary Martin, Curriculum and Teaching; Randy Beard, Economics; Ken Tilt, Horticulture; Nelson Ford, Management; Richard Good, Music; Charles Taylor, Pharmacy Practice; Christa Slaton, Political Science; Vivian Larkin, Rehabilitation and Special Education; Thomas White, ROTC-Air Force.

 

Members Absent (Substitute):  David Pascoe (Peter Grandjean), Health and Human Performance; Joe Sumners (Jeremy Arthur), Outreach; James Shelley (Richard Penascovic), Philosophy.

 

Call to Order 

 

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

 

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate:  We are going to go ahead and call the meeting to order.  Our University is open today on Veteran’s Day and we had scheduled this meeting long in advance before realizing that it was Veteran’s Day.  I would like to take the opportunity to recognize veterans that we have in the audience.  Are there veterans here please? I know there’s a couple at least.  The other thing is that I would like to ask for a moment of silence for all of the veterans that have served our country and preserved our freedom.  [Moment of silence]  Thank you.

 

The first business of order is to approve the minutes.  The minutes are on the Senate Home Page from the meeting of October 14, 2003.  Are there any corrections, additions, or deletions to the minutes?  There being none, the minutes are approved.

 

Announcements

 

John Mouton:  President Walker cannot be with us this afternoon, so we are not going to have the announcements from the President’s Office.  I’m going to move on to the announcements – I’m going to move on up to the Senate Chair announcements.  I don’t see Dr. Hanley – is Dr. Hanley here? Okay.

 

The first announcement I think most people are aware of.  At the Board meeting on Friday, the Board of Trustees approved a one-time salary supplement, and the basis for the salary supplement for each of the members of the faculty is the information that was produced last spring in the Evaluation of Faculty for Merit and also the Evaluation for Market Increases.  The choice of doing the one-time salary supplements – we had a Budget Advisory Committee meeting – and the choice was made so that Auburn could stay true to its commitment to maintain and attract quality faculty through salaries comparable to the regional average.  At the same time, provide a safeguard until the University gets a better grasp of the financial outlook for 2005. I think most of you probably read about Trustees Lowell Barron and Jack Venable, who both ultimately supported the one-time allocation, warned that the University is going to feel attacks from the Alabama Education Association in the coming legislative session. I thought at the close there was a very nice statement by Trustee Jack Miller that opened up and said, “The Board’s responsibility is to remember the people who teach are the heart and soul of the institution and the Board must be ever mindful of their interests.”  So, that is what took place at the Board meeting.

 

The Administrator Evaluation Committee has met.  I met with them one time; they met with the Provost.  They are going to be distributing to the faculty – for the review of the department heads, chairs, and deans in January – the questionnaire.  The questionnaire will be the same one used in the 2001 Administrator Evaluation.  We’ve got that data as a benchmark to look at the new data that’s collected.  Once the survey is completed, we will get a report from that committee on the aggregate data that is going to be compiled and reported to us.

 

The status of the Intellectual Property and Patents Policy – I talked to Dr. Moriarty and they are working on a policy.  He indicated to me that they’re not going to have the policy completed – their draft of the policy – until late in the Spring Semester.  At that time, we will form a Senate ad hoc committee; I guess Willie [Larkin] will do that because I will pass it on to him – and with the assistance of a patent attorney, as needed, they’re going to review the policy and make recommendations to this body.

 

I checked on also the status of the Incentive proposal – the RSIP proposal – the Office of Sponsored Programs and the Office of the Controller are working out implementation details – some of which are fairly complex and have become more complex with this one-time salary supplement in calculating what people’s salaries are as a basis for the funded research project.  So, anyway the people responsible are intent on achieving a fair and representative pilot program, and they’ve got several matters to resolve so we’ll keep you apprised of it as it goes on.

 

We’d had some discussions previously about the annual evaluation of probationary faculty, and as you may recall, in February the Provost sent out a memo to deans indicating that there would be an annual evaluation of probationary faculty by the tenured faculty.  At that time, we looked at it and had some discussion in the Senate and the Steering Committee before that and decided that it needed to be a Handbook change.  We recently met with Dr. Hanley, the Provost – who I will introduce in a minute – the Provost has advised the Steering Committee that he’ll take this matter under advisement.  The Senate will reconsider the matter when the Provost has completed his review and makes a recommendation.  Given that the Senate has not acted on a policy change, the guidelines as previously provided are optional – which means the programs can use them or not use them.  The Provost did encourage the mentoring of, and feedback to, each probationary faculty member, and he discourages other than a formal third year review voting on probationary faculty.  So, what was in place the previous year has been set aside and individual units can do what they’ve traditionally done.

 

I did want to recognize – this is the first meeting we’ve had and for those of you who wouldn’t recognize him – would you stand for just a minute please? This is Dr. Tom Hanley; he’s the Provost of Auburn University. [Applause] It was very timely for you to come in at that moment.

 

The next thing I’d like to give an update on is the Non-continuation Policy.  The Senate passed a Non-continuation Policy – actually I think it was late last year or early this year – and one of the issues in it was that the Non-continuation Policy had that a review or appeal handled by an elected faculty committee.  At that time, we had determined as a Senate to give it to the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee has been doing it; they gave us feedback that it is not really within the realm of what they do.  So, what we’re working on now is to move it from the Grievance Committee, take the Faculty Dismissal Hearing Committee, create an elected committee out of that – so there will be an election this spring for next year – for ’04 and ’05 and ongoing – and through the balance of this year, the Grievance Committee is going to continue to handle those responsibilities.  So, I think we’ve finally ironed that out.

 

The next thing is the Steering Committee looked at the issue of the recognition of faculty organizations.  We had a couple of organizations approach us for recognition.  The other thing is that we have some organizations that are listed in the Faculty Handbook that we’re not sure exist anymore.  So, the Rules Committee has formed a three-person ad hoc committee to determine how faculty organizations will get recognized on campus.

 

Then the final thing that I have to report on is a very abbreviated report – but the committee that is looking into the grade interference allegation is nearing its completion, and I suspect before the Thanksgiving holidays there should be a report on that.  So, I will open it up to questions or comments from people in the audience.  Please – would you go to the microphone?

 

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy:  Representing philosophy and substituting for James Shelley who is not here today.  I wish – I can understand President Walker not being here, but I think in that case he should send a substitute; I think he should send maybe the Provost or someone else to answer questions.  I have a question about the last Trustee meeting where Trustee McWhorter told the Board that [Paul] Davis and some faculty critics of the Board are trying to harm Auburn.  I don’t think it’s helpful to impugn sinister motivation to those who are critical.  Actually, those who ask the hard questions are doing this University a service – keeping both the Trustees and the Administration on their toes and preventing further intrusion into the workings of the University by the Board.  I tell my students, “No one has a monopoly on wisdom.”  That statement has a corollary – “That no one has a monopoly on stupidity either.” And I also tell them if you disagree with me, you have something to give me.  I think we shouldn’t try to squash dissent – that will never work.  Instead we should have an open exchange of ideas. Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  Thank you.  Please.

 

Paul Starr, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work:  I’m also on the Administrator Evaluation Committee although I’m not speaking officially.  Our merit system is not working – 15% of the faculty in the SACS survey report not having any evaluation and that leads us to question the validity of the information that is made available for merit increases.  The Faculty Handbook is very explicit in terms of the procedures to be used, and they are not being used.  It’s a minority involved, but it’s over probably 150 faculty involved in this.  If I reported only 85% of my student’s grades, I’d be in real trouble.  What can we do about this particular problem? I mean it’s very serious.  Why should another department work very hard doing evaluations of faculty and others simply not do it?  It’s a serious problem and there should be a paper trail to indicate who is doing it and who it not doing it.

 

John Mouton:   First of all, I whole-heartedly concur with you and we had several meetings amongst the leadership of the Senate with the Provost through the past year about that very issue, and of course, we were assured at the end that actually there was one department on campus that had not – where the evaluations were not done and raises were not given to somebody … but we didn’t have information that is was not 15%, and I would ask Dr. Hanley to look at that.  Would you like to make a comment? Please go to the microphone.

 

Thomas Hanley, Provost:  Yes, I would like to make a comment.  This is not the first time I’ve heard this.  As a matter of fact, Paul, I’ve heard it from you twice now.  So, the policy here is that everyone needs to have an evaluation.  What we started working on last week in the Dean’s Council was a formal process by which not only is there evaluation, but there is an annual establishment of objectives during the year.  That is an agreement between the evaluator and the faculty member on what should be accomplished.  We’re going to then do the evaluation at the end of the time period; that evaluation then – if I can get this through – and the question is – I know what the – how the book reads; I’m not exactly sure what it means in the interpretation.  What I would like to do is then to require that that evaluation be used in any salary increase.  So, what we are putting together is a performance-based salary increase system that we’d want everybody on campus to use.  The other thing that some people have in place – but some people don’t – is there is an appeal process inside the department.  For instance, if a faculty member is unhappy with the duties and unhappy with the evaluation or unhappy with the raise, they can then take that concern back to a group of faculty in the department for review and there are procedures for that depending on how that comes about.  My experience in using that system is almost nothing gets out of the department – is that most of these disagreements are resolved inside the department and it makes for a more consistent system.  We have had discussions about requiring the Deans to have an evaluation on file before the annual raise can be approved.  So, I will do what I can to make sure that we have those documents in place and would encourage you to let me know if you have any suggestions or words to the wise in going about doing it.

 

John Mouton: Thank you, and Paul, I will tell you, I mean, ever since last spring’s raises, we’ve had several conversations, and we were given assurances – but we couldn’t look physically at the evaluations  that were done or not done – all we could do was ask for assurances that we were given.  So, I hope that after this Dr. Hanley will respond to that. Anybody else? Okay. We have four Information Items today; one of them is a hold over from the last meeting, and I appreciate you returning. Erica Jackson is the chairperson of the Academic Honesty Committee and is going to give us a report.  Erica, please.

 

Erica Jackson, Chair, Academic Honesty Committee:     I was just asked to talk a little bit about what we see in terms of the number of cases; then some things that hopefully can be done to try to reduce the number of cases; then just some suggestions for faculty in terms of reporting or detecting cases.  As you can see, we have had an increase the past year in the cases that we see.  2003nov11ejackson_presentation.ppt  I only have fall and spring here – and this is since the semester transition.  Including the summer cases last year, we had about 71 cases.  I don’t know how much of that is due to increase in students committing offenses, or how much is due to resources such as http://turnitin.com/ where faculty can catch cases a little bit better than in the past, but we have seen an increase.  So far this fall, we’ve had 12 cases which is kind of going back to the older numbers.  We usually do get a surge at the end of the semester, so it looks like they’re going to be down a little bit.

 

Most of the cases that we do see are plagiarism.  The kinds of things that I want to mention in terms of things that I hopefully can be done to prevent cases – just mentioning and talking about some of these things in your classes.  We do see cases and I don’t have the breakdown by year in school, but we have had cases from first year students all the way through doctoral students on plagiarism.  So, don’t assume that students know, understand and are going to cite things correctly – or know how to cite internet sources, etc., But 29% cheating, forgery, fake medical excuses, fake funeral announcements, judicial documents – we see a range of things with fake excuses.  We have had some that don’t fit so nicely into any of those categories.   Most of the cases we see, there is sufficient evidence to support the charge and some type of sanction is imposed. Only about 8% do we not have sufficient evidence that the offense occurred – and we will get to that in a little bit also.  But oftentimes, faculty members don’t give us a lot of information or don’t attend hearings, and we can’t make decisions or recommend any kind of sanction if we don’t have good evidence that the student actually did it or if you don’t attend the hearing and kind of give us some information about – that we don’t have in front of us. So, it is really important that you attend hearings if you do turn a case in.

 

When you submit your materials, you can recommend sanctions.  I am going to go over the possible sanctions that can be imposed, and these should be the kind of things that if you do turn a case in that you are consistent with these.  They can range from a zero on the assignment – that is typically a fairly minor, that is not quite as common as some of the other sanctions, but that is one option – that is the least sanction that can be offered.  Probably the most common thing that we recommend is an “F” in the course.  With an “F” due to academic dishonesty, the students cannot use the Grade Adjustment Policy with that – so that “F” will remain on their transcript until graduation.  Oftentimes with an “F” due to academic dishonesty, we recommend that there is a notation on the transcript that the “F” is due to academic dishonesty, and we can recommend that being placed in their transcript anywhere from one semester through graduation.

 

Suspension – In the case of a student who has been previously before the Academic Honesty Committee and has received some kind of sanction, suspension is the minimum sanction that is imposed for a second offense.  Within the past year, we have had, I believe, three or four students in front of the Committee for the second time – some students, one semester after the other – so that does happen.  At the very severe end – expulsion.  Since I have been on the Committee, we have imposed sanctions ranging from zero through expulsion.  Also with this, in the Committee we agree upon a sanction and make a recommendation to the Provost who ultimately assigns or imposes the sanction on the student.  So, the information that we give you in the hearing – this is what we are recommending – that might not hold, depending on the Provost decision as to whether that is too harsh or too lenient for that particular offense.

 

From the different hearings that we have had – and hearing comments from students and faculty in the Committee meetings – we usually have a little bit of time between hearing or after hearings – we kind of talk about some things that we think or hope would potentially prevent some of the cases that we do see.  One is just turning in suspicions.  I think, my perception, is that part of the reason that we are seeing a little bit of a decrease is we have had a lot of cases turned in and there has been a little more attention on academic dishonesty, and just being aware that you can receive an “F” in a course.  You can receive suspension for a semester, etc., for some of the offenses that students often think of as being fairly minor.  They realize that when they get before the Committee that cutting and pasting a document from the Internet is not quite as minor as they thought when they first turned the paper in.

 

I think sometimes, if they are aware that there is going to be some sort of repercussion for their actions and that the Committee takes these things very seriously, that may deter some students from committing some of the offenses.  Again, discussing these things in your classes and again, don’t assume that because you have an upper level undergraduate class or a graduate class, that it won’t or can’t happen.  Because we have had doctoral students in front of the Committee for plagiarism, cheating, etc.  Forgery – let students know if you verify excuses.  Again, we have had fake excuses ranging from court documents through funeral announcements.  So, we do see a range of things with that.  Cheating – defining what constitutes cheating in your class.  If group work is permitted or not permitted – and just letting students know up front what can and can’t happen in your class.  Also on the syllabus – a clear definition of rules and assignments for your class.

 

Again, attendance policies – if you verify excuses and things of that nature.  Some reference to the Tiger Cub – where definitions of plagiarism and cheating are defined – so that students are aware.  Also in the Tiger Cub, the policies and procedures for the Academic Honesty Hearings and a list of sanctions are in the Tiger Cub as well.  So, again if students see that they can get an “F” in a course or suspension, they might think twice before turning in something that is not their work.  And then, some sort of statement to the fact that academic dishonesty in your class is not going to be tolerated; that you will turn in suspicions, and that way they again they have this in that document, basically that contract between you and your classes, the syllabus.  So, there isn’t really any kind of question if you do turn any kind of case in.

 

And then, just some general information – if you do find a case or you do suspect academic dishonesty in your class and you turn it in – assume innocence with the student and the student is to remain in your class. Do not advise the student to drop a class.  Even if the student is found guilty of the offense, the sanction that we recommend might be a zero on the assignment.  So, if we recommend a zero on the assignment, and the student drops out of your class, then that kind of puts the student in a difficult position.  Also, you are to grade the remainder of the student’s work fairly without any kind of bias toward the previous incident for that student.

 

Follow the procedures in the Student Handbook for submitting cases and they have an abbreviated version on the web that you can have very easy access to.  You are required to meet with the student, or make a reasonable attempt to meet with the student prior to submitting any materials.  Also with that, you are to notify the student in writing when you submit the materials for the case, as well as notifying the Provost’s Office who gets a copy of that as well.

 

Submit all of your supporting information.  Even if there are things that you don’t think are going to be beneficial to the case – if we don’t need it – then we don’t need it in the hearing – but if you have a multiple choice test, turn in the item analysis, if that is going to help us to determine whether or not cheating occurred.  A copy of the syllabus where you outline your procedures, a copy of the assignment – we’re from all disciplines – faculty and students across campus.  So, we don’t necessarily know or understand what particular assignment you had, or your paper, or the way things are done in your department.  So, any information that is going to support your case or support your charge against a student should be turned in with your notification to the Provost Office.  Then again, if you turn the student in, make every attempt to be at the hearing.  Just about every hearing – we do have questions for faculty; we do have questions for the student involved – and if we can’t get those questions resolved, we are not going to – in terms of finding for the student – it is very difficult to find that a student committed an offense if we have poor information from the faculty member and the faculty member does not come to the hearing to clarify anything.

 

Again, you can make a recommendation for a sanction when you submit your materials.  Don’t get discouraged if the Committee does not recommend – and the sanction that you recommend is not imposed.  When we consider the sanctions and we have our discussion, we consider previous cases that were similar, extenuating circumstances, and we kind of have a history that we go by when making these decisions.  Often times if we don’t impose a sanction that is recommended, it is because it is considerably different from what has been imposed in the past.  If you are recommending a zero on the assignment and we have suspended people for that same offense in the past – we try to maintain some degree of equity with the types of sanctions that we impose.  We don’t disregard your comments or disregard any information that you send, but we do need to maintain some level of standard or equity in terms of imposing sanctions.  I was asked to be brief, so that is kind of …

 

John Mouton:  Any questions?  Next, I am going to introduce another newcomer to our campus.  Jim Groccia is the Director of the Biggio Center for Enhancement for Teaching and Learning.  Is that right?

 

Jim Groccia, Director of the Biggio Center:  Good afternoon.  I am delighted to be here.  I just have a few minutes and I would like to first of all introduce myself – and John pronounced this the “Beegio Center” [soft “g”] and that is the way that I have been pronouncing it, but I understand that most folks here pronounce it “Biggeo Center”, [hard “g”] so I am conflicted.  Maybe the first piece of advice that I could get from you all is how to pronounce the name of the Center correctly.  The goal of the Biggio Center is basically to support your efforts to enhance the quality of teaching and learning here at Auburn University.  We are located on the fourth floor of RBD Library, Room 4011.  I can be contacted, and hopefully we can be contacted – it will be “we” in the future; our phone number is 884 [844] -1266, and my e-mail address is groccje@auburn.edu.

 

I have come here from the University of Missouri-Columbia, where I was the director of the Program for Excellence in Teaching and the assistant dean in the Graduate School.  I have also worked at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Worcester, Massachusetts.  I have written and published and done research on educational innovations, educational quality, and productivity – and have collaborated with a wide range of faculty from across colleges and departments on both scholarly publications and grant proposals in the past.  A primary reason for speaking to you today is to alert you to the fact that you will be receiving within the next week or two, a needs assessment survey electronically.  With this information that I get from this needs assessment survey from you, I will use this in helping to determine the approaches, topics, programs and target groups that the Center is going to provide, work with, and deliver for you.

 

Some of the possible approaches that centers have used in the past – and I have been the director of two centers – I established a Center for Curricular Innovation and Educational Development at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and worked for eight years at the University of Missouri with their Program for Excellence in Teaching.  So, I have some background, some experience, and some ideas of what I think will work here, but of course, I want you to help guide and direct our efforts.  Some of the possible approaches that you can direct me towards are these: individual consultations, classroom observations, a variety of workshops, seminars, brown-bag workshops, conferences, some research on the scholarship of teaching and learning, newsletters, a web site – those will be some of the approaches that  we will use to deliver our services.  Some of the possible topics that I have worked in the past with – and you will help me decide where we will put our efforts – Course and Curriculum Design, Assessment of Learning Outcomes, Evaluation of Teaching, Academic Portfolios, Teaching and Learning Styles, etc., etc., Diversity – again research on teaching and learning. I’m very – I want the Center to be a place where faculty can be encouraged to do research on these ideas, to develop a body of scholarship to support your teaching efforts.

 

Some of the possible programs we will be doing:  New Faculty Orientation, Graduate Teaching Assistant Orientation – we are hopeful in establishing and preparing Future Faculty Programs, some Mentoring Programs.  We would like very much to get affiliated with national initiatives and the American Association of Higher Education, Carnegie, Pew have a number of national initiatives on teaching and learning.  We will be very supportive of efforts to enhance educational and instructional technology.  We will hopefully offer our services to the entire range of individuals at the university.  There will be targeted programs for example, for new faculty, for graduate students.  So, in summary, please complete the survey, return it to me, and help me establish the Center – help me determine how the Center can best meet your needs to enhance the quality of teaching and learning at Auburn University.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  Questions? Bill, I think you are up next.  I will take a second while Bill is setting up to address two things.  As Erica left the podium – for the balance of this semester – the Steering Committee is going to meet weekly looking at our Committee structure, looking at the charges to the Committees, and trying to see if we can get a little bit more effectiveness.  We had a luncheon several weeks ago and had over half of the Chairs of Committees there, and we will continue to follow-up on that.

 

What Bill is going to talk about today; I want to give a little bit of an introduction to.  At the last meeting, as a body, we amended the recommendations from this committee and forwarded them on to the administration.  The recommendations as amended proved not to be workable, given the technical and legal responsibilities within the University regarding the compliance with the State Bid Law.  One of the things in the conversations with faculty – a lot of faculty seem to think that the objective of the Bid Law was actually to provide the least cost to the purchaser.  When you look at the State Bid Laws, what they’re actually to do is to provide fair competition amongst the vendors that pay the taxes that support the universities.  What we see then, is the vendors actually shaping some of the laws that control the bid laws.   So anyway – the Steering Committee – we had a long discussion in the Steering Committee – I took some action based on that, and then informed them back – that in the interim, we are utilizing the recommendations of this committee as they came to the Senate the last time so that we can still have some interaction in regard to the purchasing.  So Bill, if you will have at it…

 

Bill Gale, Academic Computing Committee:  Thank you.  Okay, well back again.  But this time, purely for an update. Bill Gale 2003nov11\ACC Purch Policy Senate Update.pdf I am sorry to spoil things for you.  You are not going to get to vote this time –partly because we want your input.  Okay, you may remember that y’all chaps voted [Laughter] to say that you wanted to be participants – not spectators – in the Computer Purchasing Policy – in terms of choosing equipment that matches what faculty see as the needs.  Now, I think to quote Tom Lehrer, “I think that we would like to be at the front of this.”  We don’t just want to be observers watching the things that we had to give up, thanks to this new policy.  So, we then started to proceed to look at how to provide the chance for faculty to actively participate.  We took the guidance that we got from the Senate and tried to put that into – basically into a faculty committee – or faculty membership on the committee which would do the review.  Unfortunately, the reading that we get back from the administration is that unfortunately isn’t legal under our State Bid Law.  There are constraints and there have to be officially sanctioned persons doing this.  So, we are trying to find something which allows us to satisfy the demands of the law and also satisfies the very reasonable demand of faculty, as expressed by the Senate – that faculty get to participate in the review process.

 

Unfortunately, we have to accept that the law is very firm in this case, and we lost our permit, to quote Tom Lehrer again, to run the Committee ourselves.  But, we tried to find a way that reconciles these two somewhat conflicting concerns.  Okay.  So let’s have a look.  We can all sympathize with how Hubert Humphrey must have felt, again quoting Tom Lehrer – I know that it is hard to accept, but we have to be somewhat second fiddle in this, but I think you will find that this is not necessarily the case and that there is a workable compromise.  As a way of introducing this, let me remind you of where we were before.  What we brought before the Senate last time that people had concerns with.

 

Here was our old structure.  The issue was when faculty felt like they needed to order something that was outside the scope of the contract, and we had a case where Purchasing said no – then this would go to a Director of IT – and he would consult with distributed IT Coordinators and come to a decision.  Now, there were concerns that there were no faculty involvements in this.  There were also concerns that this puts a very heavy burden on the IT Director, who is not a tenured person – and so – well you said no to this version – so fair enough. [Laughter]

 

So, we are back proposing a slightly different proposal.  Okay.  I apologize that the chart is so busy looking.  I really could not make it any simpler.  But, let’s explain how this beast works.  The idea is that the faculty member who wants to commission the order will identify the technical requirements to get their work done.  It is not the job of the rest of the process to question those technical requirements.  The rest of the process consists of getting a piece of machinery that satisfies the technical requirements specified by the faculty member.  Of course, that doesn’t mean that every faculty member wishes to seek advice from IT and tell them that they are not able to do so – of course they would – but we are talking about a case where the faculty member feels perfectly competent to establish their technical needs, and we then go through a process.

 

Under this process, the first thing would be the faculty would check what is available in the contract.  If we get the simple case where faculty can get what is needed to satisfy their technical requirements, you just go ahead and place an order.  If the order is under twenty-five hundred bucks, then just as at present, it can be placed at a departmental level and doesn’t have to go to Purchasing at all.  The issue comes clearly in the event that the faculty member feels that their technical requirements can’t be met on the contract – or that they are unsure that their technical requirements can be met.  Now, one way we feel that the faculty can save time, and we are very much concerned that this could become a long and drawn out business which is difficult with time critical purchases like technology – is if you have gone through and searched for what is available – you have searched what is available in GovConnection’s offerings and you find that they don’t meet you technical requirements – then go ahead and say so.  This is optional, but it could save a lot of time.

 

What then happens is that Purchasing evaluates the request.  In the event that they agree with the faculty member – well, we have a non-issue and Purchasing then just places an off-contract order.  Orders will have to go through Purchasing to comply with the law.  If the dollar value is high enough, this will have to be bid as for any other purchase.  We would seek – if this does have to bid – that the faculty member has a chance to review those bids and comment.  This is not a new right – this is the same right that Purchasing grants as a courtesy to faculty at present with things that go out to bid.  They currently allow the faculty member to review the bids and make technical comments.  Now, in the event that Purchasing either says, “Well, we don’t agree with the faculty member or we are still unsure” – then this would go on to the IT Director.  The only circumstance in which Purchasing would bounce an order straight back to the faculty member and not act on it, is if a faculty member has clearly asked for something which is frivolous.  There are State Bid Laws which prohibit frivolous specifications or if it is obvious that the faculty member wrote the specifications purely for the purpose of evading using GovConnection.  I suspect this – and I would hope that this would be a very rare occurrence.

 

Much more common would be the case where Purchasing either doesn’t know whether they can meet the faculty member’s technical requirements under the contract or there is a disagreement with the faculty member.  At that point, this would then go to the IT Director.  Now, under our new model, the IT Director has a much simpler job than before.  Their job is not to say – yes you need it; no you don’t need it – it is to say that given the faculty member’s technical needs which the faculty member has identified – can these technical needs be met under the contract?  And of course if you have documented things, you can save a tremendous amount of time.  So, this is purely a checklist of the faculty member’s requirements against what is in the contract. In the event where the faculty member’s needs can’t be met under the contract, we go straight to off-contract order; in the event that they can, then of course purchasing would occur under the contract.

 

So, this does look rather complicated, but I think we feel that this can be done smoothly and efficiently.  In most cases, the faculty member documenting their technical requirements clearly would be enough to head off us ever having to go to review, and most off contract purchases we anticipate going straight out of Purchasing and to be purchased.  I do think that this is a fairly smooth process.  We have to hope we have a team effort and preferably an “amicable team effort” – to quote Tom Lehrer again.  But one question that you will understandably have is, where is the faculty involvement in this?  One thing that I want to make clear is that we do have a very clear role for a faculty member.  The faculty member concerned is choosing their technical requirements.  It is not anybody else’s job to question their needs – that is between them and whoever is providing the money – it is between them and the sponsor or their internal source of funding.  Okay.  So, the words that are going to come out of the faculty members mouth, “This is the process that I need to get my work done.” And it is helpful to say, by the way, that you can’t get one of these under the contact.  The second statement is optional, but it could save a lot of time with people looking.  The important thing is for you to clearly say what it is you need to get your work done.  I am afraid that your choosing a specific vendor would not satisfy demands of the bidding law, but we see no problem with you choosing a specific set of technical specifications, so long as they are not a deliberate attempt to work around the contract.

 

So, I would like to emphasize that this is a rough draft.  It is very much a compromise between what the Senate directed us to do and what the law allows us to do as has been reported to us.  So, we definitely would like your input – that is why this is back as a Discussion Item rather than for a vote this time.  Everything is still very much up for grabs.  If people have a better idea, the Committee would be very happy to listen it.  We are more than happy to borrow your ideas.  Maybe I shouldn’t have put this slide up right after the Academic Honesty Committee [Laughter], but this is Tom Lehrer’s case – he said that plagiarism should be referred to as research [Laughter] – which is probably why his career as a mathematician did not get that far; but in this case we genuinely would like your input – and we will actually give due credit.

 

There were some other continuing issues – which were documented as a result of a Senate meeting.  One is the usability of GovConnection’s site.  This is kind of a mixed bag.  I think that the log-on process has improved a bit; ordering is still incredibly frustrating though.  It is still somewhat hard to identify what is in the contract and what isn't.  You end up having to go off-line and resort to phone or fax, which is not exactly efficient.  I can tell you from personal experience that delays in purchasing orders are very frustrating.  This is not a delay at Auburn; this is a delay at the vendor.  Regarding the creation of a set of FAQs, I am very pleased to say that Purchasing has started to ball rolling on this and I would commend them for doing so.  We do feel that not all responsibility is defined yet, but that is partly because we are still discussing what we can do within the law.  So, I think there has been some progress there.  I say new complaints, with good reason, because we heard your complaints last time.  We haven’t forgotten about anything.  If we haven’t acted on what you said, it is only because the law wouldn’t allow us to do things, as I explained.  I can still feel the bruises from last time, but I would be more than happy to take your suggestions or if you feel what we have proposed this time is absurd, feel free to say so.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  Comments or questions?

 

Bill Gale:  That is a little different from last time.  [Laughter]

 

John Mouton [Not at microphone]:  Well, you have got to say this it is progress.

 

Bill Gale:  Or, we just bored everyone to sleep.

 

John Mouton:  Well, at our next Steering Committee Meeting, we will review this and make a determination about bringing it back to the Senate.  The next order of business is the proposed Intimate Relations Policy.  Janet Saunders, the Director of Affirmative Action and EEOC is here.  I want to make a comment that several months ago – Janet and the General Counsel had a meeting with the Senate Leadership.  Subsequent to that meeting, we furnished a copy of the AAUP statement on intimate relations and requested that the policy that would be put forward would be consistent with that statement.  This statement has come through the Steering Committee; we reviewed it and made a slight adjustment in it; then sent it back to you; you made a slight adjustment in it, and I think we finally have the policy as we want to see it. So, Janet.

 

***Track 99***Janet Saunders, Director of Affirmative Action and EEOC: I promise to be brief.  I really didn’t have a presentation prepared.  So, I will sort of walk you through the rationale for the policy recommendation and hope that you all are supportive and agree that the time has come for some kind of behavioral standard for us, in our relationships with students.

https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/intimate_rel_pol.htm

https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/intimate_rel_just.htm

 

Quid pro quo-type harassment is not new to the Affirmative Action Office, and perhaps I should begin by introducing you to two Compliance Administrators who work in the office and are there to assist you – as well as all of the students.  Some of you might not know them, I know most of you do not know Michelle Martin, who is brand-new, and Kelly Taylor has been around a while – so, hopefully most of you remember her.  We deal with these complaints and problems on a regular basis.  Together we can address them.

 

The Quid pro quo-type harassment probably is best understood that if you have a supervisor who decides to massage the shoulders of an employee or a faculty member, who has worked real hard, sitting at the computer, and that supervisor tends to get a little bit lively with the massage – and the hands go in places that are not appropriate.  The next thing you know, rather than having a situation where a supervisor compliments a student or compliments an employee, we have a situation of potential harassment and a highly offended student – a very difficult situation to address.  That is the kind of thing that we are trying to address.  That is the kind of thing that we are trying to address now that may start out quite innocently, but eventually winds up as a sexual harassment situation.  We have had situations where faculty have indeed, in walking around the room, decided to touch the shoulders of students, or otherwise give gestures of encouragement.  So, I am not looking at a situation where you have got someone who may intentionally be attempting to harass or intimidate students, but yet the effect of their behavior may be that the student is uncomfortable, the employee may be uncomfortable, and it is going to impact future relationships and interactions with those individuals.  So, we need to recognize how our behavior may be interpreted by the students or by our employees.

 

I am assuming that you are moving along with me.  We did take some of the language from the AAUP Policy, which focuses on whether or not the student has the free will to consent.  Whether or not the student feels comfortable saying, “No, go away,” or “No, I don’t want to do that,” and that is sort of the key – the legal key – even if you have what you think might be a consenting intimate relationship.  The courts will look at that relationship as whether or not it was welcome and whether or not the student really felt they had the freedom to refuse.  In most instances, the student may feel that they do not have that freedom.  Students are intimidated by the power of the faculty member; just as an employee is intimidated by the power of the supervisor, manager, or department chair, or dean, or even higher.  So, we need to deal with the relationships with an understanding that there is unequal power, and that is why it becomes such a problem.

 

Let me know if I am moving too fast.  I am trying to be brief.  Again, we looked at what kind of policy would be appropriate to retain the respect, trust and power of the faculty, or of the supervisor, at the same time, beginning to monitor our own behavior and understand where the behavior may indeed conflict with the relationship.  The interesting thing about some of the consequences is the students generally are the ones who bear the consequences of the behavior.  Sexual advances by a professor, who teaches a course – perhaps he is the only one; or she is the only one – who teaches that course in the student’s major.  The student – and we have had examples where students may indeed change the major.  So, those are things that we need to be alert for, to make sure that students are not somehow redirected because of our behavior, or because they lack the freedom to complain.  Another situation, which is in my opinion, probably a worse scenario, is where a professor has an intimate relationship, and the student is so intimidated that the student actually leaves school – because perhaps they don’t want to change their major and they really feel that they can’t address the problem in the relationship, so that they wind up leaving school altogether.  Those are things that we need to be alert to, so that we can guard against that and protect the educational process.  That is the last of the rationale, and I will put the policy itself up.  I seek your advice, your counsel, your comments and suggestions; so that we can be sure we are indeed protecting the educational process.  Any questions?

 

John Mouton:  Please?

 

Janet Saunders:  Comments, concerns...

 

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy:  In regard to your policy, the last statement there, “Anyone involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with someone over whom he/she has supervisory power …” etc.  Does that include ones spouse? [Laughter]  I will tell you why – because in [a department, we could have a husband and wife team. If Professor X becomes Department Head], does that mean he can’t evaluate his wife who would be a faculty member?

 

Janet Saunders:   I think that is what it means.  I think that the University already has a Nepotism Policy, and hopefully we all take conscious steps to avoid having a spouse supervising a spouse – or a parent supervising a child.

 

Richard Penaskovic:  [Comments deleted]

 

Janet Saunders:   That may be, but we have got new laws, new polices, and it is a new society in my opinion.  John … 

  

John Mouton:  Go to the microphone please.

 

John Heilman, Not a member of the Senate:  I would like to recommend that since the name of a faculty member – two faculty members has been invoked, I would recommend that we make sure that we have got the facts correct about the timing...  [Comments deleted]  That statement carries implications that I’m not comfortable with at all, and I question its responsibility.

 

Ruth Crocker, History:  We actually could not see that at the back; I think that the print is too small for several of us.

 

Janet Saunders:  Oh, I am sorry.

 

Ruth Crocker:  Will we have access to this –on line.  Is that on line?  Can you give us a blown up version or something?

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary:  Yes, it was in the Agenda that was sent out, and it is online.

 

Janet Saunders:  Okay.

 

Audience Discussion [Inaudible]

 

Paula Sullenger: With the Senate’s indulgence – I know we normally do verbatim transcriptions, but I will not be using particular names in the transcripts for this meeting.

 

Audience Discussion [Inaudible]

 

Janet Saunders:  Can you see it in the back?  Okay.  Thank you; I apologize.

 

Tom Williams, Naval ROTC: I am a bit confused by the last statement.  On the one hand, you say it is prohibited, but then when you say that it exists, that he has to recuse himself or herself [Laughter]. Either it can or it can’t exist, and if it can’t, then why do you have procedures for when it does?  [Laughter]

 

Janet Saunders:  I would hope that there is some self-policing, if you will, some attempt to try and correct the situation.  There are relationships all over campus that the Affirmative Action is certainly not going to be aware of, and I would hope that if a situation arises, that we would be able to look at our own behavior and recognize that we need to correct something and do something about it.  Now I don’t know, maybe it is too weak, and we need more teeth in it.  You tell me.

 

John Mouton [Not at microphone]:  I think that in the Steering Committee review of it, one of the things that we questioned was what if the consequences – if, in fact, somebody engages in [Inaudible]? So, I think that [Inaudible] there need to be a separate paragraph or something in the introduction [Inaudible] recent discussions about [Inaudible]. Please.

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology:  I would like to address that same issue.  My concern is let me put my reading glasses on here – I would like to take us back to the rationale.  There is a paragraph that begins, “the correct inquiry in a case of Quid pro quo harassment in the workplace is whether the alleged advances were unwelcome.”  You go on then and establish the case that whether or not the behavior was welcome, is the key issue and I think that is the issue in the cases of bona fide harassment; in addition to what we are taking about here.  Then you offer that this is controversial.  Some argue that students consent to amorous relationships; therefore, the associations are not harassment.  But, there seems to be the conclusion that consent is really not possible –that if someone is in a subordinate position, even if they say they are consenting, they really can’t be seen as consenting.  That is what troubles me, because then in the policy itself, Auburn is prohibiting all such relationships, even when they are mutually consenting relationships, and we don’t have any means within this policy of sanctioning individuals who are involved in a mutually consenting relationship.  How do you propose that that be done?  Would someone turn them in?  Who would be the judicial body that would hear the case when both individuals are consenting?

 

Janet Saunders:  Well, I can respond as to what happens now.  What may start out as a consenting relationship, generally winds up not being mutually consenting, and you have one party or the other that finds their way to the Affirmative Action Office and files a complaint.  Initially, it may start out as a consenting relationship.  I have to admit, the mother in me says; as long as there is that power differential, there is no such thing as a consenting relationship.  Because the student – particularly if you are talking about an undergraduate student – doesn’t have the free will to refuse.  Now, that is a mother’s response.  So, in that regard, I have said a number of times hold the hormones, let the kid graduate or move on, but there is no reason why there is this urgent need to have a relationship with an undergraduate or with one of your students or your employee, when it is obvious that you the faculty member have the ultimate power over that person’s future employment and education.  That is a personal opinion.  Somewhere in there, we are trying to see at what point this consenting relationship become dysfunctional.

 

Cindy Brunner:  John, could I have a follow-up?  I would be concerned – I hope we based this policy on legal standards and not on a mother’s feeling.  No offense intended – because I think we need to show compassion, we need to show that kind of concern, but we do need to be sure that this is well-founded in law.  The concern that I have – I understand that what appear to be consenting relationships can degenerate and they can end up in the Affirmative Action Office.  There is no doubt about that.  There is protection for the individual who files a complaint; we have procedures for that. My concern is for the individuals who don’t file a complaint – the individuals who are in fact consenting adults.  This policy would prohibit those relationships, as well, even when there is no complaint filed.  So, I want to know what happens to those people.

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology:  I want to point out that there is an enormous body of case law in the United States that has accumulated on this topic – an enormous body across the last fifteen or eighteen years – and it is far more restrictive than this policy.  I am very distressed by what I see as the leniency of this policy, given that the year is 2003 and given that there is so much accumulated case law that is being observed by most major institutions of higher education, as well as corporate America.  So, I guess I would urge a more restrictive – as far I am concerned, quite frankly, there are no circumstances under which these kinds of relationships – whether they appear to be consenting or not – are appropriate, and I am not referring to spousal hires.  I think that just ...

 

Janet Saunders:  Spousal hires would not be in that same kind of relationship where one is reporting to the other – I would hope.

 

Tom Sanders, Library [Not a Senator]: I would also urge that the last sentence be dropped because if it is prohibited – and you are asking people to say, “Okay, I’m in a prohibited relationship, so I am going to go tell my boss that I am in a prohibited relationship and I have to get out of this; I can’t vote on this person’s tenure or whatever, or their grades.”  I think we also should acknowledge that as much as we like to protect the students, we are really talking about protecting the University here.  We’re talking about protecting the University from multimillion dollar law suits, and I think that should be very clear as one of the reasons we need this policy.  There have been multimillion dollar law suits in other states against universities that the universities have lost – and there have been very tragic circumstances, including at least one suicide that I know of, that have been involved in this type of relationship.  So, we are trying to protect the students, the employees, the faculty, but ultimately we are trying to protect the University from any responsibility that it might be held in a legal court to have in this situation.  I think that is one thing that we need to be clear about.  Again, back to the point that was made earlier – if it is prohibited, we can’t have a policy for how to proceed when you are in this prohibited relationship.  You know, it is like ‘don’t steal the money, but if you do, go out the back door’.  [Laughter]

 

Janet Saunders:  Well, I certainly agree and the protection is not limited to the University.  There have been court cases where individuals have been named.  So, it is not just the University.  We are trying to protect those faculty or administrators that enter into relationships with undergraduates or employees.  It is not just the University.  I think a lot of people are assuming that they have no liability in this.  You are right, legally; it is a serious matter that the individual, as well as the University, can be sued.  I don’t want to minimize that – so it is not just “Mommy Janet” that thinks that it is a serious situation.  There are legal cases that make it very serious and hopefully you can see that.

 

Larry Gerber, Not a member of the Senate:  I will be quite brief.  I had no intention on speaking on this.  There is no contradiction between the second and third statements here.  In fact, an example already cited – you could have two faculty members in the same department who are peers – neither having supervisory authority over the other – be married, and then one subsequently become department chair; in which case there then would be a relationship and it would be, in my view, totally inappropriate for that chair to have authority, in terms of merit raises or other evaluation of a spouse.  So, there is no contradiction in my view.  The word “pursuing” may need to have some work because you want to prevent someone from becoming involved with somebody anew.  But the last sentence would deal with a case that may arise from a preexisting condition.  [Laughter]

 

Janet Saunders:  I have one comment though, in response to the assumption that perhaps if there are no complaints, we must be dealing with a consensual relationship – and that is far from the truth.  Okay, I have got head-shaking; so, okay – we understand that there may not be complaints but yet there may be major problems.

 

Larry Gerber: One other quick point in terms of the whole issue in the first two sentences.  It is not only a question of sexual harassment that a policy like this is needed for, and that is if you are in a class where the instructor has a relationship with a student, the other students will quite naturally have concerns, if it becomes known, that that professor is going to deal unfairly, perhaps in a too positive way, with a student with which that professor is having a relationship.  So, it is not only a matter of harassment, it is also a matter of equity and perceived fairness and ethics.  I don’t think that it is just a matter of a legal question, but I do think that the AAUP position would be that this is an ethical question, as much as it is a legal one.

 

Janet Saunders:   Thank you.

 

Dennis DeVries, Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture:  As we read through and looked at this, I guess these are just suggestions as this policy is developed.  I think it is difficult to define, or at least in my mind, what a romantic relationship would be defined to be, how that would be determined, who would be determining that, and all of those sorts of things.  The other thing that somebody else just made the point – there is a lot of background, a lot of information out there.  What examples exist on other university campuses that might be used – or is this patterned after something from other campuses?  Are there guidelines that we could follow from other universities, in at least in proceeding that something stronger or weaker, or whatever?

 

Janet Saunders:   The policy itself has been taken from several other campuses.  Some of the examples that I just mentioned to you are situations that occurred on other campuses where I worked.  There are, as a colleague said earlier, there are law books full of cases dealing with inappropriate relationships between supervising faculty or administrators and students.  So, there is no shortage of cases.  Maybe we can figure out some way to make that information available to you, so that I am not making it up.  The cases are there; the universities have indeed lost lots of money, lots of prestige, the educational process has been impacted by some of these relationships.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton:  I guess I do want to not close this until I have an understanding of where we need to go.  There doesn’t seem to be a lot of disagreement with the fact that we need a policy.  Is that accurate?

 

Darrel Hankerson, Discrete and Statistical Science [Not at microphone]: I would vote against it.  [Inaudible]

 

John Mouton:  Okay.  We have one senator who is not in favor of a policy at all.  What I am trying to figure out here is – my intention is to bring it back to Steering and review it.  What we had originally given was the AAUP statement, which I believe this document is consistent with, and we will go back and review based on the transcript and the comments from today and bring it back to Steering, and maybe we will look at some policies from some other campuses and then bring it back to Senate.  Please.

 

Cindy Brunner:  Senate policy says that you have to go to the mike.  [Laughter]  John, I guess all I would ask is that we just heard a report from the Academic Honesty Committee that included a listing of sanctions – so that we understand what the sanctions are that are being imposed on students who violate the Academic Honesty Code.  All I would ask is that there would be some thought put to the procedure through which a complaint would be pursued with this policy – whether that complaint comes from the aggrieved student or whether that complaint comes from someone who is not involved in the relationship.  How is that supposed to be handled?  If I am a student in a class and I see a classmate of mine having what I suspect is an amorous relationship with the instructor, who do I go to about that when I am not the person being harassed?  What would the University consider reasonable sanctions on the individuals involved in that relationship?  What are we looking at here?

 

John Mouton:  Well, thank you and we will bring that specifically to the Senate.  Please go to the microphone.  We will bring that to the Steering Committee.  Thank you.

 

Janet Saunders:  In that situation Cindy, often the student finds their way to our office and voices a complaint.  The University is obligated to investigate.  There is no standard set of sanctions – but we have to take the complaint seriously, and we have to investigate it.  It is not any more structured than that.

 

Sadik Tuzun, Entomology and Plant Pathology: I would like to continue where [Inaudible] just left.  I think it is unfair if husband and wife are working together. It is unfair for the rest of the faculty, too.  There are cases that I can bring you that wife working with husband is given very much sustainable amount of money which comes to the same household – because the money comes to the same home.  If a supervisor is giving his wife, or her husband, then that is unfair to the rest of the faculty – because in that case also, some sort of money issues involved which should be included as a part of the policy.

 

John Mouton:  There actually is a Nepotism Policy that is on the books that deals with those issues.

 

Sadik Tuzun:  Nepotism policy in the College of Agriculture – okay, Nepotism Policy just passed a couple of years ago by grandfathering all of the cases that has been happening since now and not allowing all of the further ones coming.  I think that there are some issues that we have to deal with in this university that may not be correct.  I mean, what is grandfathering to all cases.  If somebody has a husband and wife working together, we cannot grandfather this issue.  We cannot grandfather that is happening because that is nepotism.

 

John Mouton:  Well, what I will tell you is that we will look at that under the Nepotism Policy.  That is a different issue than the one that is up here today.  So, we will get the Steering Committee and look at the Nepotism Policy and begin work on that also.  Anybody else?

 

[Name deleted], Not a senator:  I would just like to clarify the point that was made about two individuals earlier.  I ran over to the department and checked.  [Comments deleted]  So, there was no violation of the Nepotism Rule in that case.

 

John Mouton:  Thank you.  Okay, anybody else?  Is there any new business?

 

Discussion Topic

 

John Mouton: We are going to move on to the Discussion Topic, which has to do with the Presidential search. In the Steering Committee meeting, we had a discussion some months ago about – kind of a test in regards to resolutions that had been passed sometime previously in the Senate.

 

BOT Resolution - August 9, 2002 "The formation of a presidential search committee will begin in 2003, with a national presidential search to be initiated in 2004."

Senate Resolution - April 17, 2001 Resolution calling for Board Assessment before a Presidential Search

Senate Resolution - April 17, 2001 Resolution calling for Resignation of Board of Trustees

Senate Resolution - May 29, 2002 Resolution opposing removal of "Interim"

 

So what I would like to do is just open up the discussion here is put us three Senate resolutions, read them real briefly, and move through them, and then a Board of Trustees resolution. This resolution is from April 17, 2001.  It is a resolution calling for the Assessment of the Board performance before a Presidential search.  There is a statement on the bottom that says “therefore be it resolved that the Presidential search not proceed until an external assessment of Board performance as recommended by the Joint Assessment Committee has been accomplished in compliance with the recommendations of that assessment had been agreed to by the Board.”

 

On the same day, there was another resolution that is quite lengthy and again, I am going to read the salient points.  This is a resolution on April 17, 2001, that called for the resignation of the members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees, and the last statement says, “Be it further resolved that the Presidential search to select William B. Muse’s successor be suspended until the members of the Auburn University Board of Trustees have tendered their resignations and those resignations have been accepted.”

 

On May 29 of last year, in a substitute resolution concerning the removal of the Interim from the Interim President’s title – the statement says, “Be in further resolved that once the SAC investigation is complete, the Board of Trustees will work cooperatively with the faculty to conduct a search for the new President, abiding by both the letter and the spirit of the Auburn University Equal Employment Opportunity Policies and the tenants of Shared Governance.”

 

Those are the three Senate resolutions and then finally, this resolution is dated August 9, 2002. This is the appointment of the President and the second to the last paragraph says, “Be it further resolved that the formation of the Presidential Search Committee will begin in 2003 with a national search to be initiated in 2004.”  So, those are the relevant resolutions and documents that have been passed, and I will open up the topic up for discussion.  Would anybody like to start?  Well, going once, twice …? Well, there being no discussion, then the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

 

[The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.]

 

Adjournment