Auburn University Senate Meeting

December 11, 2003

9:00 a.m.

Members Absent: John Jensen, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture; Saeed Maghsoodloo, Industrial & Systems Engineering; Vivian Larkin, Rehabilitation and Special Education; Thomas White, ROTC-Air Force.

Members Absent (Substitute): Jefferson Jones (Kim Key), Accountancy; Mario Lightfoote (Jesse LaPrade), ACES; David Bransby (Jacob Dane), Agronomy & Soils; Scott Fuller (Anoop Sattineni), Building Sciences; Ken Tilt (Fenny Dane), Horticulture; Christa Slaton (Jill Crystal), Political Science; Robert Norton (Joe Hess), Poultry Science.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the chair, John Mouton.

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate: Would all of the senators – please – we have got rows of seats reserved here for the senators. So, if all of the senators would sit in the reserved area, down here please. For our guests that are not senators, there may be more seats on this side – over here.

Okay, a couple of real quick notes; I am going to ask everybody that has a cell phone or a pager to please turn it off or put it in the vibrate mode. The seats from this point forward are reserved for the senators; we need all of the senators in this area.

We are going to use the pass-around microphone, so that you can ask questions from your seat – but please stand when you do. Then when we do the balloting, it will be easier to do it if the senators are all here. So thank you.

I would like to call to order the December 11, 2003, Special Called Meeting of the University Senate. The minutes from the last meeting will be approved at the next regular meeting on January 13. I have got a couple of comments before we start – at least a couple of announcements.

Announcements

John Mouton: The Executive Committee of the University Faculty has called a Special General Faculty Meeting on January 20, 2004, to address the SACS probation, its implications, the faculty role, and the oversight through the one-year probationary period. Given that the details of the probation are not complete at this time, a full agenda of the meeting will be forthcoming along with additional information. It seems a little strange to me that we have a decision from the accreditation association [SACS] that doesn’t site the specifics as to what we are going to need to respond to, but I assume that we will be finding that out relatively soon.

The other thing that I would like to address is that all of you have received a copy of a letter https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/riley_letter.htm that the Steering Committee sent to the governor in regard to the matter that we are addressing today, and I will address what is in the third paragraph. We have asked the governor, as the President of the Auburn University Board of Trustees, that given the involvement of top academic, as well as athletic administrators and trustee leadership, we welcome a prompt investigation and decisive action. The Steering Committee requests the opportunity to have input into your inquiry into the matter and expects that at the conclusion of that effort is likely to be a summary rather than a detailed report. I have been in contact with the Governor’s Office, and he has had an invitation to attend our meeting today and will not. I will keep you abreast as I hear from them, as to what the circumstance is.

In regard to today’s meeting, I would like to give a real brief overview, and then we are going to get started. The first order of business will be remarks by the President. We have provided a list of questions https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/questions_for_walker.htm

– the Steering Committee has – requesting that the President respond to those and, of course, add anything else that he feels to be pertinent. After that, we will have a question and review opportunity, with the senators having the first opportunity to ask questions, and then we will open it up to members of the Auburn University campus community. This is not for media or others. At the end of the discussion, we will consider each of the three resolutions individually. We will have discussion and then vote on each resolution before proceeding to the next.

Before we begin the meeting, I want to sincerely express my thanks to the Steering Committee -- Paula Sullenger, Willie Larkin, Debra Cobia, Leanne Lamke, Chris Rodger, Judy Sheppard, and Bill Gale -- for their guidance, and their dedicated effort in bringing forward this meeting as an opportunity for the senate, the President, and our university, to address these widely discussed matters before the senate takes action. It is evident that there are differing perspectives and opinions amongst the senators, the faculty, and others in this room. The academy should always provide a forum for discourse, where the discussion remains civil and focused on the issues and not on the individuals. The room is full; the matters we have before us have been widely discussed and debated. It is our intent to hear from those who wish to be heard, and in the end, reach a thoughtful course of action. Let’s be prudent in the use of our time and thoughtful in our comments. With that, our first order of business – I introduce our University President, William Walker.

Information Item

William Walker, President: Thank you, John, and thank all of you for being here today. I appreciate your inviting me to speak with you about the concerns and questions that have been raised. Your invitation is a great courtesy, and I am grateful for it. I am also very well aware that I did not extend the same courtesy to Coach Tuberville, and I have apologized to him accordingly. By the way, not everyone who has had concerns has contacted me about them or invited me to a meeting to talk about them. So I do want to thank the senate for providing this forum for public discussion. I also want to thank you for presenting your concerns as questions to which I can respond. I think the questions are most reasonable. They are appropriate and I think that the issues have been well framed. The ideas that run through these questions seems to me to fall, perhaps, into three main areas. I am going to try and relate my responses to those three areas.

These three issue areas are first: 1) What did I think I was doing when I visited Louisville, and how does that square with my statements on the matter? 2) What did the trustees have to do with this? 3) What courses of action might we consider that would best serve to repair damage and restore confidence in the university? Especially considering the actions we heard about yesterday or the day before concerning the Southern Association [SACS].

The background to my Louisville visit, quite frankly, is that in the last several months, I have received well over a thousand communications concerning our football program. Over half of these communications concluded that we needed to make changes – either at the level of the head coach or below. Typically those comments focused almost entirely on the won-loss record, and how that record compared to that of other coaches – principally within the SEC. A typical comment being that seven out of five, which is the number of games that we won this year, is a failing grade. The other communications advanced the opposite argument and said that the coach was doing a good job and should be retained. These advocates pointed to his many positive accomplishments; such as the outstanding quality of student athletes that we are now attracting. Some of those expressed complete confidence in the coach’s ability to improve our won-loss record, while others argued that wins and losses just do not tell the complete story.

The volume of messages served to show me that I needed to consider my options – which included asking Coach Tuberville to stay on, as I have done, or making a coaching change. Those who know me from my days as Dean and Provost know that when considering options, my approach is always to get as much relevant information as I possibly can, to identify and evaluate alternative courses of action, and then to choose what appears to be the best option based on this process. Let me hasten to add, that unlike those people who sent me the thousand communiqués, football – and in particular NCAA Division One football – is not an area of my personal expertise. I played a little football, and I have observed a whole lot of football over the last sixty-years; but I am by no means a student of the game. I could not tell you whether a player played a good game or not after watching the game take place. I just don’t look at it at that detail.

So, I felt that it was very important to get the best perspectives and advice possible and that is exactly what I did. I have talked to a lot of people. The Louisville trip was part of that process. My purpose in going there was first to get Coach Bobby Petrino’s assessment of the AU football program. He is probably as familiar as anyone who is not still here with the program. He is familiar with the coaches and with most, although not all, of the players. Indeed, in making the trip, I knew that searching for a new coach was going to be one of the options – so the visit also allowed me to consider the possibility that Coach Petrino might be a candidate if we were to go in that direction – which we did not. So, that is what my statements that I have made on this subject should have conveyed, and I apologize if they did not – but that was my intent.

Now, a second question that is on folk’s minds is whether I acted at the direction or suggestion of one or more trustees. With no slight intended for Coach Tuberville or anyone else, it seems to me that’s the most fundamental issue here. I think that issue goes to the heart of this institution, and to the heart of my objectives as President of the institution. When I took office, almost three years ago on an interim basis, there was a widely held belief that trustees were routinely intervening in administrative decisions – intervening to a degree that would be unacceptable by standards of the Association of Governing Boards or any other reasonable set of standards for corporate governance. While I do not believe that was entirely the case then, and I might add Bill Muse did not believe that was entirely the case then. I have done all that I possibly could in the last two and a half years to ensure that in my presidency the board sets policy, and that I carry out my duty which is to administer those policies. I believe that I have been successful in this effort. I am here to tell you that I just am not capable of letting the board run this institution for me. I would not stand for it and they know it. I am not capable of letting the board make decisions that are mine to make.

The strategic thinking that led to the Louisville trip was mine and mine alone. Ironically, perhaps, if I had sought the advice of some board members or acted at their behest, as some believe I did, I would probably have handled things quite differently. Now at some point within the next year or so, Auburn is going to have a new president. I assume that you are going to want as your next president, a man or a woman who will insist, as I have, on being in charge of this institution. If the search is successful and you have such a person, I would urge you to keep in mind another lesson; a very important lesson that is evident from this recent set of events – and that is the only way possible to avoid making mistakes is to do nothing or to let others make the decisions for you. Any president, who is truly in charge, is going to make mistakes. Some may be very serious mistakes – hopefully they will not be as egregious as mine in this case – but mistakes are going to be made, and they will be criticized. You will criticize them, and at least some of your criticism will be very, very appropriate; but in the role of constructive criticism is wrapped up the responsibility to make careful judgments about what the problems are that need to be solved, and about the consequences of alternative solutions that you consider.

That brings us to the issue of next steps and what we can do to move forward. I think here the principle issue is one of insuring stability and continuity for this institution, and maintaining the forward momentum that it has achieved – especially considering the recent actions by the Southern Association [SACS]. So, how could we go about doing this? My thinking has been, or is, to proceed along the lines discussed in June 2002, when the board removed “Interim” designation in my title. At that time, the difficulties associated with interim status for the president had become apparent, and the decision to remove that designation from my title was linked to an expectation that I would serve as President for about three years. We have just passed the mid-point of that period, and I think it is time to begin the process of a presidential search. I have discussed this informally with the board leadership, Mr. McWhorter, and I will raise it directly with the board as soon as possible. Specifically, I will recommend that the board begin with preparations for a national search. As you well know, searches take time to develop. Initial steps such as forming committees and deciding all of the myriad details – such as a search firm and so on – can get under way even though we are at present in a probationary status with SACS. In any event, I believe the original conception of a three-year term is the correct approach to take, and my plan is to complete my term of service as President on about June of 2005. From this point on, my overarching goal is going to be to work with the Southern Association [SACS] to address their concerns, and to see that Auburn is removed from probation just as soon as possible. In doing so, I would hope to hand off to my successor an institution that is fully accredited, financially sound, academically strong, and well positioned to solidify its position as one of the nation’s great universities.

In terms of insuring continuity for the institution, I invite you to look back to the time when an abrupt change was made in the President’s Office almost three years ago. This institution was in the grip of anger – great anger – and attention was riveted on the past. In the intervening years, we have worked very hard to redirect attention to moving Auburn forward and to strengthening the institution. I believe that there has been considerable progress in this regard. The level of communication throughout the institution has increased dramatically. Faculty representatives sit on the board. We have stuck to our five-year plan; we have achieved several of its key objectives. The students that we are admitting are stronger and more diverse than ever before. We are building hundreds of millions of dollars worth of much needed facilities, and faculty salaries have risen close to regional averages. Our financial picture is stronger than that of any other university in the state. In sum, Auburn is in a very strong position. As I have said repeatedly, this result is due to the dedicated hard work of our faculty and staff. I am going to stop there. I thank you for your attention, and I will now be pleased to entertain questions.

John Mouton: Before we start the questions, what I would like to do is real quickly put up some guidelines for how we are going to handle these. The senators will have the first opportunity to ask questions, followed by the faculty, staff, and A & P; media questions are not part of this meeting. We are going to have a pass around microphone for the senators. We will ask you to stand in place to ask your question. Please be recognized by the Chair before speaking. You must be at a microphone. The others that are not in the senate – when they are speaking they need to be at one of the microphones. We ask you to identify yourself for the record. We request that you ask a single question. If you have a follow-up question, then please ask it; if a question has been asked and answered, we prefer to allow more questions to be asked, rather than having the same questions asked repetitively. So, with that, is there someone who would like to start the question period?

Jim Saunders, Senator from Geology and Geography: Dr. Walker, I would just like to point out that I am one of the – probably the few – senators here who is also an alumnus of this university. So, I would like to speak with two hats on my head here. I would also like to point out that I have been in and around Auburn since I was born here in 1953. So, I have sort of a longer term perspective on things than maybe some of my colleagues in the senate or the rest of the faculty. I would point out that one person on our Board of Trustees has single-handedly, more or less, hired the last three football coaches – removed two of the last football coaches –and was involved, no doubt, in at least supplying the airplane to look into replacing this current football coach. I would also point out that a number of people in the administration probably owe their jobs directly to this one individual in the administration – and if that is not micro managing a university from the Board of Trustees standpoint …

John Mouton: Jim, is there a question?

Jim Saunders: Yes, the question is – do you actually believe that you can sit here and tell us that you acted directly on your own given the track record of this person on the Board of Trustees? And number two: what position – when you have only gone through one national search for a Dean’s job here at Auburn University – at what point did this person become your champion in the administration of Auburn University?

William Walker: What was the second part of that?

Jim Saunders: Yes, given the fact that your only national search that led to a job here at Auburn a few years ago was a Dean of a School of Engineering – at what point have you served in progressively higher levels of administration with first interim job titles, and then titles removed by the Board? Is this not a manner of micro managing a university as well – without consent of everybody else?

William Walker: I don’t profess to fully understand the question. It seems to me that the statement that you made at the beginning are the same statements one would make if one were going to participate in a lynch mob. That is that you make generalizations, and you say “everybody knows that, therefore “– that seems to be something that we do a whole lot of around here. I have not found, since I have been serving as President, one instance where Bobby Lowder has said to me, “I want this” or even “I suggest this.” I made it very clear, when I took this position, that I would take it for a limited period and that I would be in charge. Frankly sir, I couldn’t care less whether you believe me or not – but that is the fact of the matter. Again, I don’t understand the second part of your question because it didn’t make sense to me.

Missy Josephson, Senator from Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology: I am an alumna of this university and of the University of Louisville. [Laughter] If the trip to Louisville was about soliciting information; and I believe you at your word, why fly on a private plane to a New Albany airport, instead of flying into Standiford Field or Bowman Field on the university’s airplane?

William Walker: That is a great question. The answer is – we didn’t want to embarrass Bobby Petrino, and we didn’t succeed in that. I asked David Housel to get a plane, and frankly, I didn’t think very much about where the plane came from. I have used Mr. Lowder’s plane before, for other things, and so it did not at the time seem unusual to me that we would be taking another plane – but clearly that was not something that I am particularly pleased about.

Rik Blumenthal, Senator from Chemistry: Mr. President, you said in your statement that you would like to take full responsibility for the trip to Louisville. Can you explain to me, the logic by which you ordered the trustees to attend with you, and one of the trustees to supply a plane? Because as I understand, your authority doesn’t carry to them; and as I think – adults – they should be responsible for their own actions. Why are you claiming that it should all be you? Should they not answer for their decisions?

William Walker: Well, I think the answer – the simple answer – is “yes” they should. However, I told, early on, Mr. McWhorter that I was going to assess the situation in football because of all of these communications I have gotten, and to keep him abreast of what is going on. In the process of deciding who I was going to talk to – and deciding that I wanted to talk to Coach Petrino – I decided that the one person on the Board and the one person that I know who has an experience in football that I can count on – because he played at Auburn; he played in the pros – was Byron Franklin. Byron knows more about football than – he has forgotten more about football than all the other trustees put together ever knew. He is a student of the game. He knows a whole lot about it, and therefore I very much wanted him involved in my assessment of this. Subsequently when I decided to go ahead and go to Louisville, I asked Mr. McWhorter if he would like to go with us. He had some time, and he said okay. So, it was simply an invitation on my part. Who was aware of it – Byron, Earlon, and even though I never talked to Bobby Lowder specifically about it, obviously he knew about it.

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: Dr. Walker, I object to your characterization of the remarks by one of the senators as a “lynch mob” and generalization. When you frequently refer to the faculty who have tried to move this university forward as just a “hollering bunch of people” and as “just people who have an agenda” and “maybe some of them have just been here too long” – so, I don’t think that …

William Walker: I don’t recall ever characterizing the faculty that way, Judy.

Judy Sheppard: You don’t? I’m sorry – it is in the newspaper reports; I think it is there.

William Walker: Oh, well – then that makes it accurate.

Judy Sheppard: In some cases, yes sir, it does. The whole of the newspaper world is against you, I guess.

William Walker: No …

Judy Sheppard: No? Then what?

William Walker: Is that a question?

Judy Sheppard: Here is my question – besides my objection to that attitude. One of the chief reasons that the Board said that it needed to remove interim from your title was to advance this capital campaign – that the campaign was suffering so greatly. How is staying on until 2005 going to enhance our capital campaign at this point?

William Walker: I think that is a good question. I think the issue of, “Has this impacted the capital campaign?” is yes – it has. Practically every decision that is made impacts the campaign and fund raising. We have got people that are saying – if a certain action is not taken, they are not going to give money. Other people are saying that if just the opposite action is taken, they are not going to give money. It seems to me, that one of the things that we have got to do in our fund raising is to get people to focus, not on those sorts of questions and objectives, but the reason that we ask for money – and that is to help in the support of what this institution exists to do – and that is to educate these young people – typically young people; and to conduct research, and do outreach. So, I – I don’t – ever since I have been here – I have had people tell me that they are not going to give money because they are upset about something, and it distresses me when I hear that; but that’s the makeup of people. It just seems to me that we ought to be continually stressing the issue of – we are not raising money for an individual, for an individual Board member, we are not raising money for an individual faculty member, or a president – we are raising money for these students.

Judy Sheppard: Do you think that has gotten lost in what has happened lately and the [Inaudible] against you?

William Walker: Oh, I think it has gotten lost a long time ago. Yeah.

Judy Sheppard: What will you do to change that?

William Walker: Well, I think we have to keep delivering the message – why it is we are here. You and I may have severe differences of opinion about issues of this university. I would hope that we would agree that we are here for the benefit of these young people.

Howard Thomas, Senator from Textile Engineering: Since everybody else is pointing out where they graduated from, I went to Georgia Tech – who helped prompt your visit. [Laughter] I am asking for a clarification to one of the answers that you gave to Dr. Blumenthal. You stated earlier, if I am correct, that you had not sought the advice of any of the trustees.

William Walker: Right.

Howard Thomas: Is there a conflict in what …?

William Walker: Well, I sought the advice of Byron on, “Is our football program where it should be?” – based upon his experience.

Howard Thomas: It seems there’s a conflict in what you said. That you had at first, if I understand, said that you had not sought the advice of any of the trustees, and then you said …

William Walker: Well …

Howard Thomas: Then, you said that you had sought the advice of Byron Franklin.

William Walker: You are quite right, and I apologize for that. Byron Franklin is an expert; I probably would have talked to Byron Franklin had he not been a trustee. There are other pros out there that attended Auburn that I have also talked to – experts.

Howard Thomas: Did you also talk to Mr. McWhorter along those lines as well?

William Walker: No. No, I just asked him to join us to keep abreast of what I was doing.

Ruth Crocker, Senator from History: The flight to Louisville raises an issue that hasn’t been discussed yet and that is the fact that presumably, Dr. Walker, you were willing or possibly you were contemplating buying out the remaining time of Coach Tuberville for a figure that the press has reported between 3.8 or 4 million dollars. What does this fact suggest about the budget priorities of this administration?

William Walker: Well, I was not ready to buy out the contract. I was trying to determine whether we were ever going to get to that point; and that is a consideration – the budget situation. Had that happened, that money would have come out of our athletic reserves. It would not have come out of general fund reserves. By the way, that is a good point that you are making. You know, one of the things that I have prided myself on – and I hope people who support athletics pride themselves on – is the fact that the athletic program does pay for itself. So, in fact, the won-loss record does have some bearing on things; because when it – and I don’t know where it is – but when it gets to a certain point, ticket sales and all of that begins to fall off; income begins to fall off. So, that’s always on the minds of the business people in athletics. How much – to make sure that enough money is coming in to take care of contingencies like that.

Kathryn Flynn, Senator from the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: My question is a little bit different, I guess, because the use of the plane seems to me to be an issue; particularly if it is done on a regular basis. I would consider that a gift to the university and faculty are advised to be very careful in terms of how we accept gifts, and there are guidelines. Is it appropriate for one Board of Trustees member to routinely, or fairly often, provide that type service to the university, without there being some oversight into that? Does it make you beholden to him – or anyone in your position beholden?

William Walker: I think that is a good question; I don’t have an answer for it. I think that – I certainly didn’t feel particularly beholden; but if that is, you know – is that an ethics issue that we ought to ask a question about? I will be happy to raise that with the Ethics Commission.

Tom Smith, Senator from Human Development and Family Studies: Something that I haven’t heard you say something about, and it would probably help my, and maybe other people’s, thinking on this in relation to management – I liken this somewhat if it were an academic example. I think of Mr. Housel as the Department Head of Athletics. If we were potentially considering a search of issues about our department, if the Dean or a Vice President or someone further up in the university kind of took that over or seemed to be way out in front of that, my department head, I can assure you, would be very upset. I would like to ask you to speak to Mr. Housel and your relationship in relation to, I guess, hierarchy, with athletic decisions.

William Walker: That is a good question. The fact is that David Housel and I have been in – are in very close contact on these issues. I have had suggestions that because of all of this, David should be cut loose – and I am just not going to do that. The responsibilities are mine, and I take responsibility for them. That said, I think you need to understand there is a move today, and it is particularly true in the SEC, of the presidents getting much more heavily involved in athletics. The SEC has not done a particularly good job of maintaining its record of compliance with the NCAA, and that is a great concern to all of us who are presidents. Right now, Auburn has got an issue before the NCAA. So, you have heard about the situation at Georgia with Mike Adams and actions that he has taken. There is another SEC school where actions have been taken – although it has not made the headlines. I think that is something that you are going to see, not only in the SEC, but around the country. You are going to see presidents taking a much more active role because frankly – intercollegiate athletics has gotten out of control. I think that the feeling is – is that it is a valuable part of the educational experience; I certainly feel that that way, and it ought to be brought within the purview of the academic part of the university.

John Mouton: Are there any more senators that have questions before we open up the questioning? Please.

Virginia O’Leary, Senator from Psychology: I am trying to understand your comments in order to provide a context for these events that we are assembled to discuss. At the very beginning of your remarks, you stated that you have consulted a large number of people regarding – or had consulted – regarding the state of the football team as you thought about your various options regarding Coach Tuberville. What I would like to know is, did you take or invite any other trustees to accompany you in the course of these many consultations, and did you use a trustee’s plane in the pursuit of these consultations? I have a second part to my question, and that is – you said that you assume full responsibility for your actions, and that in hindsight perhaps you should have consulted some others because they might have cautioned you regarding the outcome of your – at least one decision. Did any of the trustees who accompanied you, or the Director of Athletics, suggest that perhaps this trip, several days before the much contested Alabama – Auburn game, might not be a good idea?

William Walker: I am trying to remember the questions. The answer is, “No, I did not ask them.”

Virginia O’Leary: But they didn’t – did they caution you; did they suggest that this might not be the best thing to do under the circumstances?

William Walker: I don’t recall that they did; but you made a reference …

Virginia O’Leary: You said you consulted many, many people over the course of the fall.

William Walker: I did; I did.

Virginia O’Leary: I wondered if any trustees had accompanied you in the course of those consultations, or if you had taken any trips on any planes – Auburn’s or one of the trustee’s – in the course of those consultations?

William Walker: No. I talked in person; I talked on the phone; I talked – I may have taken one other trip – I don’t even – on our plane, I think it was – yeah. But you suggested that I had said that I should have asked, and I didn’t. I said that if I had asked members of the Board, some of them might have advised me otherwise.

Virginia O’Leary: I also wondered why the Chair – the Trustee Chair of the Athletics Committee was not extended the same invitation as Mr. McWhorter. If he didn’t have much to do that day, maybe he’d like to come along as well.

William Walker: Well, I think, as you well know, the Chair of the Athletic Committee is in very ill health.

Virginia O’Leary: Yes, I had forgotten; I was confused about that, yes. I believe Jimmy Rane is Chair – that is actually what I had …

William Walker: No ma’am, he is not; Jimmy Samford is.

Virginia O’Leary: I thought he had stepped aside.

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Walker, first I want to express a personal statement and that is that I regret that we are having to spend this morning here talking about this particular incident because, as we know, we have got far more important, far more pressing problems that we really need to be dealing with here at Auburn. But, be that as it may, I have one concern that I am hoping that you might be able to address. If I understand correctly from what I have read in the newspaper, Coach Tuberville was extended a five-year contract about ten months ago – approximately a year ago – and now this seemingly short time later, there have been questions raised about his ability to coach our team successfully, and the competitiveness of the program, etc., etc. So, you decided to conduct an investigation of the program; presumably without Coach Tuberville’s knowledge, but certainly with the assent of Director Housel – and through the course of the investigation, you can see now that there was the possibility that you would have encountered or spoken with someone who might ultimately replace Coach Tuberville. Okay, my question is – if I draw by analogy, Mr. Housel being a Dean rather than a Department Head, Coach Tuberville being the Department Head and all of his little assistants being the faculty – what bothers me is the undermining of trust. Honestly, I am willing to concede that things are handled differently when we are talking about athletics. There are different rules, apparently. Some of those rules may in fact have been violated in this visit, i.e. contacting Louisville ahead of time – but given that – I am willing to admit that things are weird in athletics. What I want to know is, whether you would consider this an appropriate way of handling a problem in one of our academic units.

William Walker: No, I would not.

Cindy Brunner: That is where I need some reassurance, because that is the big picture here, I think.

William Walker: Let me point out the weirdness. The – and Auburn is consistent with other institutions – so the weirdness is universal. If we hire an Athletic Director, the person that we hire is hired with the approval of the Board of Trustees. In the academic area, that level of approval is the Provost. Only the Provost is hired with the – has to have the approval – of the Board of Trustees. So, when you say the Dean, you know, in this strange hierarchy, the Athletic Director is viewed by the organization, I suppose, as on a completely different level. So, when I have an Administrative Council meeting, and I have my Vice Presidents there, the Athletic Director is there. And it’s – you know, that’s, you know, not something I, you know, necessarily – I don’t have a better organization; I think that the –I don’t particularly care for the organization, but I don’t have a better one. The constraints under which we operate with respect to the NCAA – the oversight that is required by the administration over athletics is enormous. For example, there is a fund; it used to be called the Greater Auburn Fund, now it is in the Foundation –Auburn Foundation. That fund – according to the NCAA – the president has to have absolute control over it. That is unlike other funds, say, that even Dean’s have. It could be argued that, okay, as President, I have control over gift funds in Veterinary Medicine. As a practical matter; I don’t. I’m not going to interfere with how Boosinger administers those funds unless he does something just totally bizarre – buys a bird or something. [Laughter] But in athletics, I am responsible, and I have to essentially sign the paperwork on those expenditures. So, it is bizarre, and it is not something that I particularly like; but again, I don’t have a better way to do it, and the five hundred pound gorilla out there is the NCAA. Yes ma’am …

Cindy Brunner (Not at microphone): [Inaudible]

William Walker: Can she follow-up?

Cindy Brunner: Thank you. Okay, perhaps I didn’t make my main question clear, and that is the secrecy issue. I am concerned that if it is okay to pursue an investigation of a football program without contacting the football coach and letting him know that that process is underway – and even to the point of identifying possible replacements. I am worried that someone might decide to investigate one of our major academic units in secrecy without contacting the head or any members of that unit and even potentially find a replacement for the head of that unit. I would like to know that that is not how we are proceeding at this university.

William Walker: No, it is not the way that we are proceeding – and as I said at the outset – my most heartfelt apology in this whole thing has been to Coach Tuberville. Because the first thing that I should have done was to pick up the phone and tell him that I am going to evaluate your program. And I didn’t do that and that was an enormous error on my part. I really until this day can’t tell you why I didn’t do it – but no, that is certainly not a way that we ought to be proceeding and nor would anybody tolerate us proceeding that way in an academic area.

Jesse LaPrade, Senator for Alabama Cooperative Extension: My question to you is – give me your opinion, and your deepest, most inside information, as to what you think the benefit for you to continue 18-months versus if this process to find a president for Auburn University might be shortened to three or six months versus the detriment to this university?

William Walker: I think that those are questions that this body has to answer. Whatever

Jesse LaPrade: You don’t have any opinion?

William Walker: Whatever I say is – you’re going to interpret it as self-serving. I think that you’ve got to address those issues.

Dennis DeVries, Senator from Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture: Statements that you made shortly after the Coach Petrino trip – one was that the meeting was arranged by a search firm that was assisting you, and later I believe I heard that it was an individual that was the search firm. Was there a search firm; was there no search firm? If so, who was it? At whose authority was that firm...?

William Walker: We utilized a – and David set this up – we utilized an individual that we have utilized before. I believe that the individual has a company, whether it is incorporated or not, I really don’t know, I don’t even know the name of the company – I know the individual, and what he did was contact Coach Petrino and set up the meeting.

Renée Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Psychology: I don’t think everything that [you] did was necessarily a bad model in terms of – who you took with you. I guess I am looking at it from this perspective, and what I would like to know is, are we going to see the same type of enthusiasm on the academic side when we are seeking to fill positions that really exist? I’m not – [Laughter] – we have, as people said, a lot of issues before us, and one of them is the Dean searches. And we are going to have a hard time, now more than ever, filling those searches, but I believe we can, and I am particularly interested about filling those searches, not just with quality people, but also looking at the diversity of people that we bring in. Whether – and for me, that’s females and people of color. And it would have been hard to bring those in anyway; they would need to be convinced that if they came in as a Dean, they would have the support of the president, the provost, the faculty, etc. Why can’t we use that model where if search committees identified good people that we’re just simply going to have a hard time bringing – where the president, the provost, a vice-president like David Wilson, or other good quality vice presidents, a Board member, and Faculty Senate goes to those individuals and talks about what Auburn does have because we’re not all bad; there’s still a lot of good in us, and I think we don’t need to get tied down in this. We have a great future ahead of us, and I would like to know is – I mean are we going to have that kind of zeal? What’s wrong with using that kind of model, and that kind of excitement and zeal on the academic side like we do the athletic side? Everything that’s done on that side is not bad. I think – well, that’s my question. [Laughter and applause]

William Walker: [Laughing] I think I got the gist of the question. The last time we, as I understand it, that we did a – in fact the last, I believe the last two times – well the last time we did a search for a football coach, there was a Search Committee. Had there been a search for a football coach this time, there would have been a Search Committee. I don’t have any question whatsoever in my mind about that. I would have insisted on it. The trouble with searching for positions in almost any sport, but particularly football, basketball, and, I would probably say baseball, is that these are almost 12-month activities, and when you conduct the search becomes very – would become very important. If it was football – does it interfere with recruiting? Or do you want to do it at a time when it wouldn’t interfere with recruiting; or interfere with practices? It’s just, you know, essentially what I’m getting to, is that searches need to take place very quickly, but they need to take place where – in such a manner that all qualified candidates are considered; and I’m not sure that even in the last case here – I hoped that happened, but I don’t know. I mean, when a search takes place in two weeks or whatever, it’s – I’ve got some problems with it. The folks at Mississippi State did a great job. They, you know, Sherrill announced his retirement over there in the middle of the season. Of course, they lost a lot of games after that; but they did a full and complete search, and I think it paid off in a great way. Somehow, and I caution you, that at such point in the future, whenever that may be, whenever we have a search in any athletic program, that, indeed insist upon a Search Committee, and indeed insist that this tendency of the folks in athletics to rush it to completion, that you not necessarily buy into that.

Renée Middleton: I don’t – follow-up – I don’t think I made my question clear.

William Walker: Uh-oh. [Laughter]

Renée Middleton: Now let’s say, I’m in the College of Education, and our search committee identifies some strong candidates, regardless of their gender or ethnicity, but in those instances in particular, that I’m going to have a hard time convincing a female or a person of color anyway that if they come on as dean, they’re going to be supported by the faculty, they’re going to be supported by the provost, and they’re going to be supported by the president. If this – if our Search Committee recommends somebody to – they’re not going to apply because they don’t believe that’s the case. Furthermore, they’ve lost what even it is that Auburn stands for, but we’ve got a lot of good things going on. Why can’t you take the same model and zeal you used for athletics in taking that crew with you, and do the same thing on the academic side; where you go and you talk and you convince those people about the good things that are happening at Auburn, that we need quality people like them, and we’re serious about them applying? Just like when you went to talk to that coach in Kentucky, you said you were just going to feel him out, you weren’t going to make an offer. We’re not making an offer to these people, we’re not guaranteeing them anything. All we’re saying is, we want people like you to apply, and if you were to be selected and recommended by the search committee, you’d have the support of the Provost, the faculty, etc. That’s all I’m saying. Can’t you use that model on the academic side so I can, we can convince some people that we’re serious about what we’re saying?

William Walker: I would love to use that model, but keep in mind the question that Cindy Brunner just asked a while ago – how can I guarantee that we’re not going to do that? So, I mean, the fact of the matter is, if I’m invited to do that by the College of Education, indeed I would be happy to do it. But, you know, the thing that we get accused of all the time is that administration is interfering with what’s going on at the college or school level. I’m very sensitive of that. But if you, you know, if I’m extended an invitation, I will actively participate in it, as I believe the provost would.

John Mouton: We have another question.

Jim Gravois, Senator from the Library: Is this on? I’m a little confused about a couple of statements, and I want to get it clear. The trip to Louisville, I believe you characterized as an information-seeking trip – and not to go offer a job.

William Walker: Well, there were two parts to it. It was an information trip, but also it was very clear that Petrino has a reasonably good record and that if in fact – and if I said we’re going to make a change, then I would hope he would be a candidate.

Jim Gravois: I find that difficult to accept, just because I can’t imagine a situation where an athletic director, and a president of a university, and a couple of members of the trustees of a university would go talk to a coach, and it wasn’t already decided that they were going to offer him a job. I just find that hard to believe. Is it, am I just …

William Walker: Well, look at the results. [Laughter] He doesn’t have the job; Tommy’s got the job. Tommy’s got a – you know, contract extension.

Jim Gravois: Dr. Walker, I’m talking about the intention of those who went up there on the flight. I’m just not sure I can believe that.

William Walker: Okay.

Kathryn Flynn: I have one other question that – I think some of this is kind of a timing issue, but the SACS report which, based on the little bullet list that you see on the news and in the e-mails indicates that some of the problems there deal with Board interference with academics. So, my question’s a little bit different again. Given the situation we have with our board and the politics of the state, this comes – these two things coming together make it hard to get your hands around all of this and sort out different issues. My question is, given the reality of our Board, the processes around Board selection, removal of Board members, and the 12-month probation, what can we do as an institution to accomplish what needs to be done in 12 months? We can’t get rid of Board members.

William Walker: If it’s okay, I’ll say a few comments about SACS. Since, I think it is somewhat germane to this, and it’s a good question. We visited with SACS last Saturday in Nashville, met with a committee. It was about 20 members of the committee. Accompanying me were John Mouton, Dr. Ed Richardson, and Earlon McWhorter, along with our attorney. The Southern Association [SACS] has fortunately, over the course of the last year, gotten a lead attorney who is very, very distinguished - Griffin Bell, former Attorney General, former U.S. District Judge; and Judge Bell has done a great job of helping to bring some closure to this issue. We spent about an hour with that group; a lot of questions and answers. Good exchange, I thought, and then left. They have now issued their ruling. The interesting thing is that they issued the results, but you have to wait on the details for a week or two; and in fact, the probationary status frankly, I think, was to be expected. Now this is just my opinion, I’m not reflecting any bit of information beyond that. I was more or less expecting that considering what we’ve been through and the issues that have been raised. My sincere hope is that the issues that they presented are such that they can be addressed in very, very short order. One of the things they were interested in frankly was the succession. You know, we’ve got three trustees that are going off the end of this month. They wanted to know well how was that going to transpire – how is that – what’s going to happen? In fact, we told them what was going to happen, and how it’s going to play out. Well, you know, they didn’t just get off the turnip truck. They, you know, realize this is Alabama, and Alabama’s got politics. I think it’s entirely reasonable to speculate that one of the things they’re looking at is who, you know, who is going to be on this Board, you know, within the next few months. Now that’s my speculation, I mean, we’ll know the specifics within a couple of weeks, I presume.

Virginia O’Leary: Dr. Walker, not you specifically, but the quote that was widely disseminated following the SACS announcement of this institution being placed on one-year probation, was that the university was surprised and disappointed; and I’ve – given what you’ve just said about your personal view of what happened, and that you have shared that view with the trustees, I wonder who authored that quote, and who approved that that be the particular quote disseminated to the press.

William Walker: Well, that was one of those, you know – we do a great job with press releases when we have all afternoon to argue about them. Press releases on the spur-of-the-moment are not very good. There was a conference call with myself, Mr. Hachtel, and I don’t remember who else in my office, and that’s the best we could come up with – but those – I think you’re right in your observation.

Lynn Williams, Librarian (Not a senator): What has been disturbing to me is the values that have been conveyed by this whole incident; that the ends justify the means – that winning is all-important, and the values that are being conveyed to our students through that. I confess I am not a football fan, and I’ve tried very hard over almost 14 years that I’ve been here to understand the football culture that is here. And the statements that you have made after this incident emphasized the importance of having a winning football team. I wonder if you could tell us the reason why it’s so important for Auburn to have this winning football team, above all else. Is it because we have no hope of raising money in our capital campaign unless we have a winning football team? Is that the justification?

William Walker: That is a good question, and I think one that merits probably extended discussion by this body. The fact of the matter is, in all of the communiqués, the difference between – in the communiqués that I’ve received – on the one hand is the philosophy that won-loss is everything – that is how many games you win, and people kept raising before me in their comments the data on other institutions and other coaches. The one that has recently come about is University of Nebraska that after winning their final game, terminated their coach with a 9-3 record; and I think that is – the question you raise comes home right there. That is, what is it we want out of our football program? When I looked at it, what I found was that we’re bringing in some really outstanding young people. I was really honored Tuesday night – I was in New York at one of the most incredibly boring affairs – the Football Hall of Fame; but I was there because one of our students was being recognized, Dontarrius Thomas, a scholarship athlete. He is now in graduate school. He has an extremely good academic record; and that is the kind of student that more and more we are beginning to bring in. Now then, obviously I would like to be able to bring in students like that and win a National Championship. Frankly, that’s – I don’t think, personally think that’s what it’s all about – and that’s what those other people who said, “Keep Tommy” – were to the point they were trying to make.

But I really think this faculty needs to involve itself in that discussion, because at some point in time, that won-loss record is going to be a point of debate. Have we gone as far as we can, or can we do better? You know, he’s brought in good student athletes; we’re in good shape with respect to the NCAA; he is a quality individual. All of those things, I think, are very, very important. But what is it we expect is ill-defined. It’s not perfectly defined. Obviously, we want to have seasons where we win more than we lose, but how much I can’t – I really don’t know. I’m almost as confused today as I was before. I don’t think that it’s, you know, I would not want to put as a term on a contract that we have to win a National Championship. I just don’t think that’s realistic. Somewhere in there we’ve got to have something about the educational attainment of these young people. Graduation rates – well you can’t talk about graduation rates if you limit the term of the coach to less than six years. I mean, that’s when the official graduation rates – that’s the period of time that it takes. So, it’s not an easy question, and I applaud you for bringing it up.

Ann Presley, Consumer Affairs: I have a simple question – backing up a little bit. I know that, as a faculty member, if I need to go out and research and gather information from someone, my first option would be to pick up the phone and call. So, I guess my question is – why would a phone call or a conference call not have sufficed instead of a plane trip?

William Walker: Well, it probably would have, and it probably should have been done, but the same issues would have been raised, you know, I contacted a coach, and I shouldn’t have according to the tribal customs in athletics. The, you know, most of my contacts were telephone, some in person.

John Mouton: Do we have any more questions from senators? Please, no statements.

Cindy Brunner: Okay, I’ll phrase it as a question. Dr. Walker, first I want to point out the irony in the fact that we’re spending all this time talking about the athletic program, and I think many of us on the faculty would like to argue that is still an auxiliary activity of the university – an extracurricular activity. I’ve been here 21 years, I have season tickets, and I still haven’t bought into the culture. But, what I want to ask is, one comment from a colleague of mine in my department was, the thing that most distressed her about the Petrino-gate affair was a statement that you made such that having our football program competitive for the SEC Championship was of paramount importance to you. The word “paramount” really bothered her, and she wanted some reassurance that that really isn’t your paramount concern.

William Walker: I’m not particularly a paramount person. It is important. I’d like to compete for the SEC title; I’d like to win a National Championship, but again, I think we’ve got to take into account the total picture of what is taking place in this program – and I can’t emphasize enough, Cindy, this issue is going to come to the front again at some point. You know, no coach can perform at the level that some folks have expectations of this thing. It’s just – it’s an impossibility – and, you know, I think it is absolutely essential that the faculty of this university, rather than saying, “I’m in academics; I’m doing my research, and I’m not going to be a part of that” – I think you need to get involved in that discussion. What is it we expect from our athletic program? What is it we expect from the academic area? What do we expect from the students who happen to be athletes? And, you know, that needs to factor in to it.

John Mouton: We have another question here, please.

Rik Blumenthal: I would just follow-up right on that question. You’ve said twice now that we should have a role, and a say in what the role of football will be at this university and athletics. What’s our forum to do that? When have we ever been asked to have any input into the athletic department, and how it runs? It is a separate budget, it has its own provost – as you put it – I don’t see that we’re in any way related to that unit, and we’re never asked. I don’t think we’re consulted; I don’t think that John [Mouton] is asked if he thought it was a good idea to change the coach – I don’t know if he’s the one that you talked to. What’s our avenue? You want us to do this – give us an avenue. Thank you.

William Walker: Well, it seems to me that when the faculty want to do something, they have certainly expressed that and have essentially assumed the avenue. If you want a charge from me, I’ll be happy to give you one. But frankly, that’s like any other charge coming from the administration to the faculty. It’s only going to get done if the faculty want to do it. It seems to me that what you need to do is to decide – is this an issue that is important to you as a faculty? And if it is, then you need to say that we want to be involved in this; and when you say that, you will be involved. Now there is, and don’t get me wrong, there is faculty involvement in athletics. We have a very fine Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics [CIA]; it’s chaired by Marcia Boosinger. There are several faculty on that committee. But I’m talking about an involvement in discussion of where we want athletics at Auburn University to fit in to the real mission of Auburn University. Now I think those are conversations that need to be held over time; and in fact, I think members of the athletic department ought to be involved, and frankly I think members of the Board of Trustees ought to be involved.

Virginia O’Leary: Dr. Walker, I think we digress from the point of this meeting. As far as I’m concerned, the purpose of this meeting and the issue before us is not what we expect of our athletic program, and its mission and the context of the mission of this institution. It’s what we expect of our President. And for me, the most troubling aspect of this entire unfortunate episode is, from the student’s prospective, a kind of role modeling issue that they will carry away with them. The contradictions in the press, the “oh gee, I got caught so I’m sorry” – I’m not referring to you specifically in terms of statements. But, we are here, as you suggested at the outset of this meeting, to educate young minds. And all of us have a moral responsibility to conduct ourselves with integrity. And I guess I’d like to ask you if you believe that you continue to have the moral authority to lead this institution.

William Walker: Yes ma’am, I do.

Kim Key, School of Accountancy: Lots of individuals and groups are calling for your resignation, and today we have to go through a couple of resolutions along those lines. Has anybody come out publicly to support you? And if so, who has, and what information should that give us today?

William Walker: I’ve received e-mails and, you know, what not. It seems to me that the issues that you’re going to be talking about later on are issues that you have to settle on yourself. And are you going to – what is it you want, you feel is best in the best interest of this university? I guess, I guess I’m not – I don’t particularly feel that what somebody does or does not say outside the institution should be that important to your deliberation.

Jesse LaPrade: Dr. Walker, I’d like to ask a follow-up to the last question I asked you. I know you didn’t answer it but, you know, when we have a search, and when the search committee talks to candidates, as president, we are definitely going to ask them what they can do for this university. So, I’d like to ask that to you, you know, over the next 18 months, just tell us what can you and what will you do for Auburn University to make it a great institution?

William Walker: Well, I think you’ve got to look at where this institution was two and a half years ago and where it is now. If you think the university is in worse shape than it was two and a half years ago, then it seems to me that the course of action is one thing. You know, we’re in, by the indicators that typically one looks at, we have made a lot of progress. The problems that are facing this university, still the principal problem facing this university are financial in nature. We have – we’ve made significant progress in that. I think that there is still significant additional progress to be made. And it seems to me that the – one of the issues that ought to be involved in this is – do we want to continue that progress or to delay that progress for a period of time before we continue to move ahead? You know – the issues that are before you today are complex issues. I wish I had simple statements that I could make to you that would essentially tell you what to do, but that’s the decision you have to make. I am very proud of what we’ve been able to do in very difficult times over the past two or three years. That, you know, that journey has been painful, it has been difficult, and I have no doubt that the additional several months are going to be painful and difficult, no matter who is in this position. It’s going to be a decision that ya’ll are going to have to wrestle with.

Norbert Wilson, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology: President Walker, were there other coaches approached?

William Walker: Yes.

Norbert Wilson: Who were they?

William Walker: I’m sorry? Who? No, thank you! [Laughing]

Missy Josephson: You brought up the need for faculty to – the need for us to discuss what it is we value in our athletics program, and what is it we want for our student athletes; and you’ve given us a charge as faculty to address that. In fact, we have in the past, passing resolutions commending, for example, the swimming and diving teams for their national championships. What I’d like to know from you is, in the next 18 months as you resist the Board of Trustees trying to micromanage our University, could you also insure us your commitment to resist booster micromanagement of the university. My husband is one of those boosters, so I don’t say that out of any animosity. I just want to know that you will not be swayed by either the Trustees, unnecessarily, or by the boosters.

William Walker: Well, yeah, I seem to be on everybody’s list right now. The – on the issue of micromanagement, well the answer is yes, I certainly – to what you are saying. On the issue of micromanaging, let me – my experience with this Board is that they do not particularly want to be in the position of making decisions for this university. They sometimes tend to slip, and the job of the President is to put them back on track when that happens. I’ve been successful in doing that, simply calling attention to the fact that “that’s not your job, that’s my job” – and that’s easy with the Board. That’s an identifiable group, I know who they are, and they’re going to be the same, you know, tomorrow as they are today. The boosters are another situation. In intercollegiate athletics, that’s the most dangerous group in the sense that they can cause the greatest problems, they can get us in trouble. But we need them, in the sense that they do buy the tickets, they contribute to the various programs – and so we’re just continually looking at boosters, at who they are, what they’re trying to do, and making sure that they don’t have an undue influence on any of the decision making. I don’t know if that answered your question or not.

Missy Josephson [Not at microphone]: Well, I guess since the Louisville trip in part came about because of people questioning the success of our athletics program, boosters questioned that success...

William Walker: I’m not sure I would call all of those boosters. I mean, when the numbers get up in the thousands, these are just Auburn people who have strong feelings.

Missy Josephson [Not at microphone]: I used booster in a very broad sense.

William Walker: To me, a Booster is somebody with, you know, money or a potential benefit that could be used inappropriately, and that’s – I think that; however, that other group out there, their concerns and their views have to be taken into account somehow, or at least considered.

John Mouton: Do we have any other questions from senators, please? We’re going to open up the questions to the others in the audience. We’ve got three microphones across here. Again, I’ll ask you to please ask questions, and we’ll have an open discussion period later. If you have questions, please come to the microphone and identify yourself – three across the house.

Taylor Hill: Hello, my question is…

John Mouton: Taylor, what is your affiliation please?

Taylor Hill: I am a student at Auburn.

John Mouton: Okay, go ahead.

Taylor Hill: My question is, if you resigned today, would we have a greater chance of being re-accredited than if you served until the end of your term? And my second question is, if Robert Lowder resigned today, would we have a greater chance of being re-accredited than we would if he served until the end of his term? [Audience clapping]

William Walker: The specifics of the accreditation action have not been received. I believe that at least part of that question there is an answer that could be given, but I can’t give it because I have not seen in writing what it is SACS is going to send us. This faculty – a meeting has been called for the middle of January. We should have all the information by then, and I would assume students could be included in that meeting. At that time, I think everything would be discussed.

Robert Locy: Actually, my question, I think, can follow on to his question fairly nicely. The issue of trustee appointments being political sort of means that a good part of their job is really sort of a political job. I guess, maybe the reason, as Dr. Sheppard alluded to in terms of the article that appeared in the Anniston News that quoted you as saying that we had, as a faculty, had been hollering for a long period of time. Maybe the reason that we’re hollering is that politically speaking, the trustees and then with your actions in this recent incident, have created a problem where the appearance that things are taking place, whether in fact they are factually documentable is taking place, I’m less concerned about the legalistic version of it. The issue is, when the management of the institution, the administration of the institution and the Board of Trustees, are engaging in activities that keep generating this turmoil all the time. It seems to me that that’s what is damaging the institution. Then when you commented on the fact that maybe we needed an ethics investigation, and whether it was appropriate for a trustee to supply a plane, it seems to me, to the university, as a favor or bonus, and whether that might have possible conflict of interest in that regard. You know, that’s another example of a trustee doing things that, whether they’re legally damaging to the university, they’re certainly politically damaging to the university.

John Mouton: Bob...

Robert Locy: The question I want to ask is …

John Mouton: Please …

Robert Locy: I believe that yesterday in the press, I heard Governor Riley say that he was going to meet with you and conduct an investigation of this affair. Can you give us assurance that you would tell Governor Riley that you believe the fact that we have no mechanism for removing trustee members when inappropriate activities, politically or legally, take place that can be documented, and for review of their behavior and activity is an important and serious problem facing our Board of Trustees? And could you recommend to him, in your position of authority as President of the university, assuming that when you would talk to Governor Riley you would be that – that you would recommend highly that the State of Alabama proceed to either develop a constitutional amendment or an act of the Legislature, whichever is required, to create a mechanism to remove trustees? – and the obvious implications to this and possibly dealing with SACS consideration is certainly a critical part of this too.

William Walker: Actually, with SACS consideration, my understanding is it’s not. The SACS consideration, I believe and I hope Linda’s here to correct me if I’m wrong – I believe that what SACS says is that if there is a policy for removing members of the Board, it must involve due process. The fact is that – is that not correct, Linda?

Linda Glaze, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs: That’s correct; I brought the book. It said, first of all, policies related to removal of boards is classified as a “should statement” – that means it is not a requirement of the SACS criteria. What SACS requires is if there is such a policy, that the policy must include provisions for cause and must include due process.

William Walker: Do I think there should be a policy? Indeed I do. Do I think that one will be adopted, considering the fact that Auburn and the University of Alabama Boards are constitutional entities – it would require, and Lee [Armstrong] can correct me if I’m wrong – a constitutional amendment. Do I think politically that can be pulled off? I’m somewhat skeptical of it; but I certainly, you know, I think indeed yes, that’s the appropriate thing that we ought to have, and I think we’ve been hurt because we don’t have it.

Robert Locy: It strikes me that the wellspring of public opinion about what’s happened in this matter that I’ve at least seen in the press, certainly would provide the ammunition for trying to argue this through the legislature. Will you use the resources – the lobbying resources of Auburn University to try to accomplish that?

William Walker: Well, I certainly have no objection to try that but, you’ve – getting the constitutional amendment passed for the appointment of trustees was a three or four-year proposition that took a lot of support from a lot of people. It was very much a political affair. You know – politics and what’s right don’t always mesh. It seems to me that if, you know, if the people that invested themselves in that constitutional amendment would be willing to invest themselves in this, then I think it would stand a good chance of success. Now you – people who know more about the politics of this state than me might disagree with that.

John Mouton: Our time is running on, so I am going to ask you to identify yourself, ask a direct and specific question, and unfortunately, I am going to have to cut people off if they run on. So please, you are...?

Charles Thorne, Auburn Student: My direct question is: Your integrity, President Walker, is in great question. How do you respond to that?

William Walker: Well, integrity is in the eye of the beholder, and I think that what I have done, I have done with what I feel to be the best interest of Auburn University in mind. I have told the truth. I have acted directly. I have tried to make decisions based upon information that I have gathered. And, you know, in this situation whatever decision is made is going to offend somebody and so, I don’t have a problem with what I have done. My view of my integrity is sound. The – the issue is your view of my integrity, and I hope that it is okay. If it’s not, I’m sorry.

John Mouton: David, please.

David Laband, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences: Dr. Walker, you as well as most people here, will understand my deep and abiding interest and involvement in the SACS outcome. I have a question about job performance – sadly. We have a deep and abiding interest here in the next twelve months, especially, in resolving the probationary status, and who the president is that leads us through resolving that probationary status. You have served on search committees for higher offices at this university. If you were on a search committee, looking for somebody to provide guidance to lead us through, off this probationary period, during the next twelve months – and you had a candidate in front of you …

John Mouton: Let’s get to the question please.

David Laband: …who through commission had angered our accrediting agency, to a point where they made that a point in their statement to us – would you regard that person as a viable individual to lead us through the next twelve months?

William Walker: You bet I would. Somebody who will stand up for what they feel is right –absolutely, that is what I think you want in a president. If you want somebody who is going to knuckle under to every two-bit bureaucrat that comes along; no I wouldn’t.

John Mouton: Richard, please.

William Walker: Does that answer your question David?

David Laband: Well, it is an answer. [Laughter]

John Mouton: Richard..

Richard Penascovic: I find it deeply disturbing …

John Mouton: Let’s have a question, please.

Richard Penascovic: Yeah, you know everybody else – some people asked three questions.

John Mouton: We had senators.

Richard Penascovic: Yes, and some of them asked three questions.

John Mouton: Please – Richard.

Richard Penascovic: I find it disturbing that we are placed for the first time on probation by SACS, while other institutions in this state; like Troy State, received immediate accreditation. So you said in your remarks today that you would work with SACS. If that is true, why have you adopted an adversarial relationship with SACS? For example, initiating a million dollar lawsuit against SACS…

.

John Mouton: The question is: “Why have you established an adversarial relationship with SACS?” Thank you.

Richard Penascovic: Rather than try to work with and accommodate SACS. Moreover, in AU’s response to SACS, we have said in our press release – we will correct the legitimate concerns of SACS. Doesn’t this imply some of SACS concerns are not legitimate? It seems to be pure arrogance to say this. If SACS has a concern, then that concern is legitimate, or am I missing something?

John Mouton: This is a question period. This is not a discussion period. We will have a discussion after the questions. The purpose of this period is to have questions for the President. All of these statements can be made later. The question is why have you established an adversarial relationship with SACS?

William Walker: Well, the adversarial relationship with SACS was established a couple of years ago – two and a half years ago, by the fact that SACS did not follow their own rules. My sense is that with the legal leadership that they have now, that that is not going to be the case; that in fact, they are intent on following their own rules and that is all I ever asked for from them. The – our interactions over the last several months with SACS and been very good.

John Mouton: Your affiliation, and your question, please.

Greg [Inaudible]son, Admissions Office: It is an honor to ask a college president a question. I never even got to ask my high-school class president a question – so I appreciate that. A quick question for you – I love college sports, especially Auburn football, I want to see us win games. We lost five games – four, five of whom were – four of whom were top 25 teams; three in the top eight; two in the top two …

John Mouton: Question please!

Greg [Inaudible]son, Admissions Office:: So, my question is: “What is so bad about five loses to get rid of a football coach; no team in America – of the 117 – has won all of its games. I mean, I would love to go 12-0, but nobody has done it. So, why the haste in looking for a new football coach?

William Walker: Well, I think I addressed that in my initial comments concerning the communiqués that I received.

John Mouton: Over here, please.

Steve Brown, Political Science: I have just one question. You have mentioned a few times that there are some issues that we need to resolve here among faculty. There are issues regarding, whether it be the athletic team, we ought to get involved – things with the administration; we need to have our say in here and discuss those things. Will you abide by what we decide, if there is a resolution regarding your resignation? Would you abide by that? Would you encourage the Board of Trustees to abide by what we decide, by what we come up with – according to your encouragement here a few minutes ago?

William Walker: I think that you have to do what you feel that you have to do, and I have to do the same thing.

Steve Brown: If that doesn’t occur, does that mean that our participation or our discussion is meaningless? It is moot, for all intents and purposes if it doesn’t lead to anything – doesn’t it?

William Walker: Well, the faculty are a very, very strong voice in this university – there is question about that; but I serve at the will and pleasure of the Board of Trustees.

Steve Brown: Thank you.

William Walker: I mean, you don’t elect the President.

John Mouton: Please.

Jim Bradley, Biological Sciences: Dr. Walker, did you are any of the other three representatives from Auburn University who went to Louisville, carry a job contract for Mr. Petrino with you?

William Walker: No sir.

John Mouton: Please.

Charles Thorne, Auburn student: In light of the current atmosphere, President Walker, how do you expect to be an effective leader for Auburn University over the next eighteen months?

William Walker: Well, my sense is, the atmosphere at Auburn for the past two and a half years, has been pretty heated, pretty tense – a lot of strong feeling on the part of a lot of people. That seems to be the water in which this ship is sailing, and so, you know, to me, it is not completely unlike what we have had in the past here.

John Mouton: If that is all of the questions, Dr. Walker, I will give you the opportunity to make any closing comments that you might wish.

William Walker: Well, I appreciate all of you taking time to come here, and I appreciate the collegial nature of the discussion. You have got some decisions to make, and if it all the same to you, I will excuse myself as you make them.

John Mouton: Thank ya’ll. I think that we will allow for a moment; everybody to stand up and stretch if you would like to. We have been here for a couple of hours, so if you would like to stretch real quickly, we will get situated and keep going.

Intermission

John Mouton: We are going to get reassembled in about three minutes. Everybody get a stretch and do what you are going to do…

Open Discussion

John Mouton: We are going to go ahead and get started. We actually have three items remaining on the agenda. The first one is an Open Discussion in regard to Dr. Walker’s remarks. We will then have each resolution read, discussed, and voted on in order. If your comments are in regard to the resolutions, it would be beneficial to hold those discussions until the resolution is presented and you can discuss them. So, what we want to do now is open the discussion – did we lose a microphone here? So, we will open the discussion then; senators first – open discussion. The guidelines are that senators have the first opportunity to speak; be recognized by the chair before speaking; be at a microphone to speak; identify yourself; and address the comments to the chair. Please limit your remarks to three minutes and we are going to ask that no one speak more than twice. Please allow others desiring to speak, the opportunity to make their comments before returning to the microphone. Anyway, if speakers want to agree with the point that has been made, they can simply say – I agree with the point made on such and such – without necessarily restating it. With that, I will open it up to an open discussion. I’m sorry – we will begin the open discussion. Senators first please. Not seeing any senators that are wishing to speak.

Renée Middleton: What are we doing? Is this relation to the resolution?

John Mouton: No yet. This is an open discussion and once we close the open discussion, we will read the resolutions and begin the discussion on the resolutions. There are not any senators. Is there anyone else that would like to participate in an open discussion in regard to Dr. Walker’s remarks? There being none; we are going to move to the Action Items.

Jim Bradley: At the beginning...[Microphone distortion]

John Mouton: Would you come to this microphone please?

Jim Bradley: Near the beginning of his remarks, Dr. Walker cited continuity and stability as reasons for his deciding to stay for an extra 18 months. Then he used Dr. Muse’s departure as an example of what can happen – instability – when a president leaves suddenly. So my first comment is the conditions under which Dr. Muse left, that created instability, were very different than the conditions would be if Dr. Walker resigned today. I don’t see the same instability resulting. My second comment is about the continuity. I think over the past two and a half years, and especially our relationship with our accrediting agency – the lawsuit – the belligerent comments reported in the news media, made by President Walker, and those associated with him, and then the results of two days ago when probation was announced, in that one of the criteria cited was non-cooperation with SACS. This is not the kind of continuity that I look forward to during the next 18 months. So those are my comments.

John Mouton: Thank you. Jim, I don’t think this one is working; if you can go to the microphone …

Jim Gravois: I would have to say the most disturbing comment that I heard during that presentation was the reference to SACS as “two-bit bureaucrats” – that concerns me a lot, about – well …

John Mouton: Thank you.

Ruth Crocker: I didn’t get the exact words - context, but Dr. Walker referred to critics of his as a “lynch mob”. I think that is beyond bad taste and bad judgment; I think that needs an apology from him. [Applause]

John Mouton: Thank you. Please.

Virginia O’Leary: I think I would like to follow-up on that by suggesting that it is very important for people who achieve positions, be they elected or appointed, that they remember their roles – and I believe that a statement such as that one, as well as the statement that was widely reported in the press – that it is a few disgruntled faculty who have been hollering for a long time and probably need to leave – are completely inappropriate; not from an individual who may think that way, but from an individual who is an occupant of a role, such as the president of a major university. I want to express my great concern however, about one thing that President Walker said in the course of his comments this morning. He suggested to us that he has had no difficulty with micromanagement on the part of the Board of Trustees. That in his role of President, all he has had to do is to remind them of their role and they accede to his suggestion that they perhaps not be directly involved in something that they were perhaps tempted to involve themselves in. If that is the case, I find it odd that he anticipated probation.

John Mouton: Thank you. Please.

Glenn Howze, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology: We had a lot of good questions during the question period – but if I had to give an award for a question, it came from the student who asked, if we had the resignation of the President, and he mentioned trustee Bobby Lowder, would we have a better chance of being removed from the SACS probation. Dr. Walker refused to answer that question. He said, in effect, that we didn’t have the particulars. We do have some particulars on what – from SACS. They have a list of the standards for which we are not in compliance. One of them had to do with the micromanagement of the board; another had to do with the financial ties of board members to the business of Auburn University; and another had to do with the management of the athletic program. From my own point of view, if we see these trustees and we see the current administration in power a year from now, we may have a difficult time getting off of probation.

John Mouton: Thank you. If that is all of the comments for the Open Discussion, we will move to the Action Items. We have a resolution from the Steering Committee, and Judy Sheppard, will you…?

Action Items

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: Is this all right? The Steering Committee met three times last week to discuss what kinds of action should be taken, in terms of calling a meeting and what the agenda would be. On Friday, our chair, John Mouton, brought three resolutions to the Steering Committee and we agreed to, as a committee, to present these to you; and the first one is – I don’t know if I can read it actually. There we go, now here it is.

Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate censures President Walker for poor judgment and ineffective leadership in his handling of the flawed coaching search and the subsequent events, and further censures the President for the damage to Auburn’s reputation, stature, and good name resulting from his decisions, actions, and inaction.

Virginia O’Leary: I call to table the resolution.

Unidentified Speaker: Second.

John Mouton: We have had a call to table and second the resolution.

Virginia O’Leary: Do we need a vote now? It will take a simple majority according to Robert’s Rules.

John Mouton: Okay, so we will have – can we have a hand vote instead of a voice vote, so that it will be easier to do?

Audience: [Confused discussion]

John Mouton: There is a motion to table this resolution.

Jesse LaPrade [Not at microphone]: Do we just get to vote on one of those?

John Mouton: All three, sir.

Jesse LaPrade [Not at microphone]: Okay, let’s say that you have got a majority of one of them …

John Mouton: Keep going…

Virginia O’Leary [Not at microphone]: I am calling to table in order to reach the third resolution.

John Mouton: Okay. Well, do we have a discussion?

Audience: [Discussion inaudible]

John Mouton: All senators in favor of tabling this resolution raise your hand, please; all opposed, raise your hand, please. The “nays” have it. So, now, we will have a discussion on the resolution. Please, Jim.

Jim Gravois: Just two comments. Polling the library on this issue, I had a vote of 13 to vote yes and 4 to vote no. So, I am leaning to vote yes – I just want to remind everybody that one of the biggest concerns about all three of these resolutions is, what good will it do? So, nevertheless, I feel that it is our duty to vote what we would want to be, even if in fact, we may not get our desired results.

John Mouton: Anybody else, please? We are going to ask you to go to the microphone.

Jonathan McConnell, SGA President: The events that happened during Thanksgiving were embarrassing to our Auburn students, to our faculty, to our staff, to our administration and to the entire Auburn family. Dr. Walker made some grave mistakes when dealing with our university’s image and for that, I think a formal disapproval is warranted. So, therefore I will support the first resolution, and only the first resolution on the table. I do believe that Dr. Walker is the best person to lead Auburn for the next eighteen-months through the crisis that we are in.

Jessie LaPrade: I see what we are doing here as a message that we can send. It may do no good; but we can send a message – and as strong a message that we send, the better off this university is going to be. That is my opinion.

Tom Williams, Naval ROTC: I rise to speak in favor of the resolution. I believe that Dr. Walker’s actions warrant this, but I don’t think that passing this resolution necessarily stops us from passing any other resolutions. I don’t want someone to vote no on this thinking that it is an either/or situation.

John Mouton: We will vote on all three resolutions regardless of the outcome of this resolution. Please.

Virginia O’Leary: I will support all three of these resolutions; but I want to speak to issue of “what good will it do.” I am a fervent believer in democracy, and that means that it is incumbent upon each of us to exercise our right to speak, and to vote, or to provide evidence in support of our beliefs regardless of the direct consequences. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent upon this body to express its opinion on each of these three resolutions and not be concerned about whether or not something will magically occur thereafter, as much as we might wish that to be the case.

John Mouton: Thank you. Please.

Judith Lechner, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology: In the same vein regarding democracy; I noticed that Jim Gravois from the Library said that he had polled his faculty; I have done the same thing. I believe that Wildlife has done that – someone had told me. In other words we are not just expressing our own personal beliefs, but we are not just a few faculty who talk a certain way. So that I think that it needs to be told – that it is the faculty in general.

Unidentified Speaker (Not at microphone): Call the question.

John Mouton: Thank you. Please – is there anyone who will speak against this resolution? We have got a call and a second. We are going to do a hand vote please. All in favor of the resolution signify … Pardon.

Unidentified Speaker (Not at microphone): When someone calls for a question, don’t you have to put it to a vote as to whether or not you end debate, and it takes a two-thirds vote to end debate and call the question at that point?

John Mouton: Is that true?

Paula Sullenger (Not at microphone): You could ask if there are any objections to calling the question.

John Mouton: Thank you. Are there objections to calling the question on this resolution at this point?

John Mouton: All right, we will have the vote. All in favor of this resolution, signify by raising your hand. I don’t think that we need – do we want to count? Okay, all opposed … Thank you. Judy, I am going to need you back up here. I did find some larger copies of these – this is it.

[Motion passed on a hand count – There were no nay votes]

Cindy Brunner (Not at microphone): John.

John Mouton: Please …

Cindy Brunner (Not at microphone): Point of information. Could I ask that the result of that vote be accurately reported as being a vote without opposition, rather than unanimity? Some of our news media get that wrong.

John Mouton: Okay, that will be fine. Thank you.

Judy Sheppard: Okay, this is a case of “vote early, vote often” – we will make that dream come true today. [Laughter] https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/walker_conf.htm

Okay. Our second resolution is:

Resolved, That the University Senate does not have confidence that President Walker has the judgment and leadership required, nor the support of the Auburn community, to continue and be effective as President of Auburn University.

John Mouton: I would like to open the discussion please. We don’t need a second; it is a Steering Committee resolution. Please, Paula.

Paula Sullenger, Secretary: There were questions about what the effects of Dr. Walker staying would have on the SACS accreditation or getting us off of probation. I realize that a lot of people here feel that if he left, that would be best. I have heard indications that if he stayed, that would be better for SACS, because maybe some people there viewed him as correcting some situations. The thing is, I don’t really know, and I won’t know until we have more details about what SACS viewed as the problems are. I personally want to hear more details from SACS and get a better idea in my own mind if Dr. Walker staying or leaving would be better for the University before we voted for this. So, for that reason, I move to postpone the resolution until the next meeting.

John Mouton: Is there a second?

Marllin Simon (Not at microphone): I will second that.

John Mouton: Okay, so we have got a motion and a second. Let’s have discussion on the motion please.

Unidentified Speaker (Not at microphone): Point of information. When is the next meeting?

Paula Sullenger: January 13.

Unidentified Speaker (Not at microphone): That will be before the Called Faculty Meeting?

Paula Sullenger: Yes.

John Mouton: Right – the day we come back for classes actually. Is there any discussion on the resolution? Please – on the postponement.

Rik Blumenthal: Well, I think we are all here, and this meeting was called about the trip to Louisville incident, not the SACS – the SACS happened to come out in the result while we were in this process. I think that we need to make our decision on this resolution, based on our belief of what happened with the Louisville incident and whether that does bring question to the judgment and leadership of the President. I believe there is a serious question with respect to the truth. Was this a search committee? It was a one-man search committee who may or may not own a company. I don’t think that was still a truthful answer. I just don’t believe that is a fair description; I don’t think that is how a president should conduct himself. I think when asked on it by the faculty, he should answer clearly whether this was one man and if necessary, bring the name of that man up. He was volunteering, you know, I just don’t think it was truthful and that to me, questions his judgment and therefore I do not think that we should table this; we should answer it based on the Louisville incident. We should be voting on this. If we wish to do this again, over the SACS, we should reconsider it then – but I think we should bring this one to a vote.

John Mouton: Do we have anybody else that wants to speak on postponing …Please.

Howard Thomas: I think in a lot of ways, these two issues are very strongly intertwined. That this was an NCAA football-type issue, as it started out, and the effect of this on our continuation of our status of probation or being removed from accreditation – is very strongly a part of this question. I would like to enter in for the record and for our consideration, the fact that if we aren’t removed from probation, if we lose our accreditation – we also lose our membership in the NCAA. I don’t know if anybody is aware of that, but if you read and I will put this in for the record:

Section 3.2.53: Removal of Accreditation from the NCAA bylaws – If an active member’s accreditation is removed by his regional accrediting agency, it shall be reclassified immediately as a corresponding member.

And in Section 3.02.03.1: An active member is a four-year college or university or a two-year upward level collegiate institution accredited by the appropriate regional accrediting agency.

So, I think the thing to be considered here is if we resolve that we do not have confidence in President Walker and further ask that he would be removed from office – would this effect the way that SACS looks at us at the end of our probationary period. And, in effect, what instigated all of this to begin with – search for a football coach – becomes moot, because we are not part of the NCAA. John, I would like to enter this into the record.

John Mouton: Please… Is there anyone else that would like to discuss the motion that is on the floor, in regard to postponing this resolution? Please.

Tom Smith: I would like to speak in favor of Paula’s motion. In polling my department, and I think that it goes to the gentleman’s earlier comment about this starting out to be about Louisville and what happened – has happened, but it is very clear that we have now intertwined the SACS issues. But we don’t know the facts on the SACS issues. I believe that it would be very dangerous for us to go ahead with our speculations without really having the information. I don’t believe that would be a good example, of setting an example for the young people of the university that we are going to go on hearsay and broad issues right now, without having the facts. So, while I think it is very germane; I believe that it would be wise for us to postpone, to wait until January 13.

John Mouton: You are going to speak on the resolution to postpone?

John Rowe, School of Nursing: On the postponement. Before this morning, I might have agreed that we should postpone this. I heard enough in the answers that Dr. Walker gave that I have no problem voting for this at this point. When a man uses terms like “lynch mob” and “two-bit bureaucrats” to describe people who disagree with him, that calls into question his judgment and leadership. I am ready to vote on it now and I think we should.

John Mouton: Okay. Please. Is anyone else going to speak?

Virginia O’Leary: I cannot imagine why we would postpone a vote on this resolution. Because, I cannot imagine any detail that SACS might provide us that would have any bearing whatsoever on our individual or department wide confidence in President Walker having the judgment and leadership required to continue to be effective as President of Auburn University. There will be no detail regarding the stance of the President in those details from SACS.

John Mouton: Please.

Kathryn Flynn: An alternative approach to this resolution is that the possibility that this issue will raise more problems with SACS and by considering this resolution today, regardless of which way we vote, we may be seen as self-policing and it may be actually be a more favorable outcome than – and I see these, even though they are intertwined, it does stand alone, as a question, based on the recent actions – if that makes sense.

John Mouton: Would anybody else like to speak on the postponement. Please.

Jim Gravois: I really thought maybe Paula was referring to the third resolution, because I see no reason at all why this one would have any influence in weakening our position with SACS. I will even go so far as to say that I don’t think that the third one will either. But – so, I would not want to postpone this.

John Mouton: Thank you. Please.

Jesse LaPrade: We have got a window right now that we can make a little bit of name for Auburn University as the Senate. In the days to come, our Governor is going to be considering what went on here – and if we send the message, if we vote on this resolution and we vote positively for it – he will get the message that Auburn University, the senators, do the right thing for this university. [Applause]

John Mouton: Do we have anyone else who would like to speak? Any other senators? There being none, I think we should call for a vote. Again, we will do a hand vote. This is on the motion to postpone. Okay. A vote in favor would be for postponement and a vote against would be to vote on the resolution today. All of those who are in favor of postponing the resolution please signify by raising your hand; all of those opposed, please signify by raising your hand. Okay. [The motion failed.] Then we are back to discussing the resolution that is presented on the board. Please.

Jim Saunders: This started out being about football and we have made some academic analogies to how ethics and logic ought to be done in administration. I want to go back to football analogy, and that is, if Coach Tuberville’s program had been found in violations of his accrediting board – the NCAA Committee on Infractions – one of the first activities that a university normally does is get rid of the person where the buck stops, whether or not he was personally responsible for that, or the people that he hired to conduct it. So, I see no difference in trying for us to appease our accrediting board, to take the same action. [Applause]

John Mouton: Please.

Cindy Brunner: I would like to correct a statement made by the previous speaker. I believe that we actually have someone on the Auburn University payroll right now who was responsible for a football program that went on NCAA probation. [Laughter] So, we don’t always fire them. All right. I need to speak against this resolution, and the reason that I need to speak against it is because I too polled the faculty in my department. I have – and this was a verbal poll and an e-mail poll – I have three individuals of my faculty, of approximately twenty to twenty-five tenured and tenure-track faculty; three encouraged me to vote in favor of all three resolutions; however, two of those individuals, I believe, were offering that advice in the context of Petrino-gate. They were not aware at the time that they gave me that advice that we would be placed on SACS probation. And I would suspect; my judgment of my colleagues – that they would urge me to be cautious in extrapolating this lack of confidence in Dr. Walker’s ability in the sports arena to his ability to deal with other administrative issues. So, I would not venture that they would want me to vote in favor of this resolution – if we inferred that it referred to more than just athletics.

All right, I had three people encourage me strongly to vote against all three resolutions; because they actually, to the surprise of some of you apparently, have great confidence in Dr. Walker’s leadership ability. They are particularly pleased with the advances that he has made in supporting research and supporting graduate education, which were not particularly well supported under a previous university administration. Everybody else lies square in the middle. They want me to offer to Dr. Walker our deepest regret and unhappiness that he blundered so badly and that he committed a faux pas, that may be a violation of ethics, if not just a violation of our own internal moral standards – so I did vote in favor of the resolution to censure, but I am going to vote against the resolution, which in effect is a vote of no confidence of Dr. Walker’s leadership ability – because my department does not believe that that is the case.

John Mouton: Please.

Martha Taylor, Chair of the A&P Assembly: I would like to request that the Senate consider making a modification to this resolution by altering the sentence that says “nor the support of the Auburn community,” – I do not believe that the Senate should be voting on their level of confidence by bringing the entire Auburn community into it, unless you have evidence that that is accurate.

Paula Sullenger: Is that a motion to strike?

Martha Taylor: Yes.

Unidentified speaker: Second.

John Mouton: Okay, we have a motion to strike the statement that says “nor the support of the Auburn community,” and this has been seconded. We will have a discussion on that at this point.

Unidentified Speaker [Not at a microphone]: [Inaudible]

John Mouton: Let’s go ahead and have a vote then if there is not any discussion on it. A vote in favor would be to strike the statement “nor the support of the Auburn community,” – a vote against would be to leave the resolution as it is. So, let’s first have a vote for the amendment to strike the statement. All in favor raise your hand please; all opposed, please. Okay, the “ayes” have it. The resolution is back on the floor.

John Bolton, English Department Senator: I kind of want to echo what Cindy was saying earlier. My colleagues have – believe the majority, although I haven’t polled them – are in favor of all resolutions. I have had a strongly reasoned statement from a colleague who is pleading for a more moderate position on this issue, favoring probably censure, rather than a request that he step down. I think that the majority of my colleagues feel that this is a necessary step, given the pattern of events, but I think the voice of a more moderate position also should also be considered.

John Mouton: Thank you.

Jesse LaPrade: We have heard some of the senators offer their concern about what the members of their department want to vote. Now, let me tell you; they were not in here when Dr. Walker answered these questions. So, you may want to keep that in mind. I don’t think that anyone in here – if they had even been here – they would not vote to dismiss this important resolution.

John Mouton: Please.

Marllin Simon, Physics Department: I didn’t do an official polling; I talked to several members of our department. I was visited by a contingency that expressed extreme concern of the coupling of athletics and athletic dealings with academics. They would like to make sure that those were separated and I think, not voting on this today, would insure that that happens. I would not be a good senator to the department if I did not bring that up. They are very concerned that we are making decisions that are going to effect long-range academics and what happens to this university in an academic matter; based on something which happened regarding an athletic situation. That is why I was in favor of postponing this. Thank you.

John Mouton: Thank you.

Paula Sullenger: I am going to speak against this resolution because despite all that has happened; I do still have confidence in Dr. Walker. During his remarks, he several times mentioned that the Board is not micromanaging the university under his watch. I heard a lot of snickering at that and people are going to believe what they want to believe, but all I can tell you is that I have had monthly, or more often, meetings with him for over eighteen or twenty months now. I have watched at the meetings, I know the decisions that he has made and I think the majority of them have been in Auburn’s best interest. From my observations, I don’t see the trustee micromanagement. As far – every indication that I have – is that Dr. Walker is in charge of the university, and he is pretty strong willed and it can get him into trouble some times. He has been a bit intemperate – he made a couple of remarks today that I wish he hadn’t; but I do want to clarify – he didn’t identify all critics as a “lynch mob” – he identified one particular person’s remarks. Honestly, probably someone should have raised a point of order on those remarks; they were a bit out of line, in my opinion. But just to repeat, I do have confidence in Dr. Walker. I don’t think that the board is micromanaging, and everyone will just have to decide whether or not they believe that.

John Mouton: Please.

Paula Backscheider, English: First of all, I think this is….

John Mouton: Paula, I am sorry – are you a senator?

Paula Backsheider: Oh, I am sorry – I can’t speak?

John Mouton: We are only having senators speak on the resolutions. Thank you very much. Please.

Tom Smith: When I asked my department for guidance on this; I got almost a same voice from the people who responded, and that was they certainly believe that Dr. Walker should be censured, as this body has already done. That in relation to what happened, it certainly could have come out differently. But the statements had the sentiment – and I think this has somewhat been suggested – but the idea that athletics – a bad decision in athletics, which is a totally different arena. And we asked several questions about that today, and Dr. Walker certainly said that it is and it is one that he said that he did not have a lot of experience in – and “amen” it appears that way probably to the most of us. I have, in my department, thought this is was too serious an issue to talk about replacing the president right now, over the Louisville thing. I would reiterate that I believe when the SACS –all of the details come out – I would take issue that you may not be able to imagine things could happen, but I don’t want to imagine. I think that is irresponsible. Let’s see what was said about that. So, I am voting against this resolution at the behest of my department.

Sadik Tuzun, Entomology and Plant Pathology: We are academicians. Okay, certainly, I am outside of this culture; so this football culture is not very familiar to me. I don’t like football anyway. [Laughter] I do not want any issues with athletics involving the judgment of a president – whether he is effective as a president in academic issues or not. I think the Senate is going to make very bad mistake if they pass this resolution. I do not like Walker, personally, it is a different issue; but professionally it is different. I think that Walker has stood for this university. I have been watching him since I was chairing the Academic Standards Committee. If we are not today, merged by AUM because the Board pushed so much that Auburn University should merge with AUM and Academic Standards Committee voted unanimously and the Senate voted unanimously that the merger should not happen; and Walker fought for Auburn that Auburn University and AUM should not merge. It started from there. I have not liked some of his actions. I have not liked some of these actions that he took personally against me; but this should not affect a decision that we should be giving here. What his role in this university is an Academic Chief Officer. Yes, he made a mistake – a very big mistake. Today, he gave a very bad talk. [Laughter] I mean – yes, I think it was unbelievable. [Laughter] But he was talking on the sports issues and some of the events happened, you know, he is protecting Lowder, but I think that Lowder is our problem. If we censure our President, I think he had to be censured – that’s true. But I think we can only, if we are voting on that – we should only vote that we are censuring because of his athletic decisions. Either this should be changed to the evidence that we have on athletic issues that we don’t have confidence in Walker, because we cannot say that in academic issues, we don’t have confidence in Walker’s ability to lead this university. So, I will request that if we are going to move based on today’s discussions, we should be voting on only that we do not trust Walker on the intercollegiate issues. But, we have no evidence to show that Walker has been ineffective as the academic leader of this university.

John Mouton: Thank you. Please, here and then …

Judy Sheppard, Steering Committee: I don’t think this is just about athletics. It may or may not be about SACS. I think it is hard for us to even imagine that we are going to pretend that the probation hasn’t happened and so we are not voting about that. What this resolution says is: Do we believe that he has the judgment and leadership required to be effective as the president of the university? So, if you want to link it simply to the Petrino incident – look at the way the statements that the President has made right after that, today, in news reports, look at what he said today – for instance – in that he didn’t, you know, winning a championship would be nice, but it is not that big of a deal to him. We as a faculty should take on deciding what the role should be, and the statement that was put out everywhere – that this was a paramount concern. They are contradictions; they’re duplicity – I have a hard time saying I can trust what he says – and that is why I am going to vote for this. I don’t know that it has to be simply about, well did he make a bad decision, he should have called this athletic director or whatever. I am not a football fan either; that’s not where I am judging it. How did he behave to the faculty today? Can we rely on his trust and his respect in us? Do we have the same for him? Can he be effective? That’s to me what this is about – so I say, let’s vote on it.

Willie Larkin, Chair-Elect: Thank you. Our chair has decided to participate actively in the discussion, so by Rules of Robert’s Order, he has to relinquish control of the chair; he cannot resume this until we complete our vote on this. Yes.

Missy Josephson: While I can’t say I have full confidence in Dr. Walker regarding athletics; I do agree with the fellow who spoke one time before, I’m sorry I don’t know your name, and with Paula – that I think for the most part, he does want to do what is right for the university, even though he puts his foot in his mouth; which I am guilty of, too. I will not vote for this moreover, because I know that his term is limited and that I have a responsibility to press that it be limited. We had the opportunity to actually discuss this at our last Senate meeting and there was no discussion on the Presidential Search Committee that was supposed to have been formed this year. So when that comes up again – I certainly will have polled my constituents to find out what their feelings are on forming the search committee.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. If there are other senators who wish to speak on this resolution; if you will go to the microphones and be prepared, we will call on you in a few minutes. John…

John Mouton, Chair of the University Senate: I’m going to speak once, and I guess it deals with both of the resolutions that are ahead of us; but anyway and maybe leave Willie at the chair. I drafted these three resolutions because I thought that you as a Senate needed the opportunity to make your decision. My role is really not here to influence your decision; my role is to share with you some experiences that I have that maybe others haven’t had. I spent the last twenty-one months exposed to and experiencing what’s going on within the administration of the university as a faculty member. I am included in the Administrative Council meetings. We have met with Provost on a weekly basis, and we have met with the President very frequently. Numerous things have come up which were resolved in that environment without coming back to the Senate floor for resolutions. I have not been very vocal about those, and I am not going to be vocal about them now.

The trustees’ behavior has been deplorable for years. Let us not forget that the JAC complaint deals with issues that took place prior to Dr. Walker’s tenure. The probation that we face is based – as near as I can tell, and there has been a lot of speculation and conjecture today – but as near as I can tell, that is the origin primarily for those actions; I guess we will all find out. I think that the trustees as a whole – the trustee dynamic is better than it was a few years ago in watching them interact. I do believe that Dr. Walker is in control. One of the things that kind of concerns me, is both the NCAA and SACS require the president to have control over the athletics of the university, and I certainly hope if we start this search that is not the primary expertise that we are looking for. Not that I think that somebody else should be in control – and I believe that Dr. Walker botched this – and I have had as many discussions about this as anybody else has, and it was botched. To me it was an engineer trying to do something else out of the engineering realm.

So, what we are dealing with now, what this question is, this question is about confidence in Dr. Walker, and what I am going to tell you is that I have not agreed with him on a number of fronts; there are some actions that he has taken that I wish he would have taken different action on, but one of the things that I will tell you is that he is decisive, and he is data driven. If you can give him the data – we are having debates now about enrollment management because I brought him a question, a serious challenge about enrollment management that he stopped and listened to and is giving us the opportunity to move forward. I sit on the Enrollment Management Group, not because they wanted me, but because I went to Dr. Walker and explained to him my role on it and I got it.

I think the other thing that we need to think about is that a lot has been bantered around about perhaps we should change presidents. Well, according to Dr. Walker, we are going to change presidents by having a search and going forward and getting a president, and I am very much in favor of that. So really, what the question is today is the interim president. Do we retain Dr. Walker for this period of time or do we get an interim president? And to me that is really what the question is. When I look at the 2005 budget and the negotiations that are going to be required in that, yes, we have a huge problem with our capital campaign that we have to turn around. We have these issues to respond to with SACS. We also have a new provost, and we are getting three new trustees, and there are a lot of positive things in our university, and a lot of great work going on in our university. I would challenge all of you in the press sometime to write a story about what the faculty do. I am sick and tired of reading only the dirt that you guys can dig, and it is about time for us to start acting positively about the things that we do. So, from my position in the last twenty-one months, and I guess the next three that I need to serve, I do have confidence in Dr. Walker. And I do think that as we move forward out of the people that are available to us in this university to lead us through the SACS probation and the rest of it, I think that Dr. Walker is the person to do it. Thank you.

Willie Larkin: Thank you John. Virginia…

Virginia O’Leary: I just want to remind us, given John’s comments about his experience; that as we mentioned in the course of this discussion earlier, we are not voting on whether we have an interim president or whether we have a resignation. We have no reason to believe that any particular outcome will be associated with this vote. We simply are expressing our collective opinion. So, let’s not get confused between opinion and outcome.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes…

Emmett Wynn, Department of Communication and Journalism: I would like to move that we have a paper vote on this resolution, when it comes to a vote.

Audience: [Inaudible discussion]

Willie Larkin: Let’s wait until we get to the actual vote on it, and then you can bring that back.

Cindy Brunner: A statement made by the previous speaker, not the one who called for a paper ballot, but the previous speaker – I guess distressed me more than anything else that I’ve heard this morning, and that is that “it really doesn’t matter if we pass this – it really doesn’t matter whether there is any impact of it because there won’t be.” I mean “we can concede that nothing is going to happen, nothing is going to change; we are just voting our conscience here.” It really disturbs me that we are considering resolutions without regard to any potential impact; therefore, we are immune to their effects.

Virginia O’Leary: Senator Brunner, I believe that you have misinterpreted my comments.

Cindy Brunner: Excuse me, I have the floor. Senator O’Leary….

Willie Larkin: Hold on Virginia; hold on. Speak to me please.

Cindy Brunner: Thank you. I have the floor; I believe, sir. Is that correct?

Willie Larkin: Go ahead.

Cindy Brunner: It is suggested that we are voting on these resolutions with impunity, and I resent the implication that these resolutions have no impact and we are doing this just to voice opinions.

Willie Larkin: Okay, address your issues and comments to the chair. Yes…

Virginia O’Leary: I simply would like to clarify that I never said that we were voting in impunity, nor did I say anything about consequences. I simply wish to remind the body that this vote was an expression of opinion, and it was not a consequential vote in terms of our power.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes…

Jim Gravois: When I came this morning with a vote of no confidence from my colleagues in the library of eleven “yes” to this resolution, and four were opposed – I certainly felt that I would vote yes on it. I have heard some very interesting and compelling arguments to think otherwise, and I appreciate that. I appreciate everything that people say, even though I don’t agree with them sometimes. I am still tending to vote yes on this. I don’t see that this is going to affect SACS at all. I just don’t see that. However, this is more complicated than I thought.

Willie Larkin: Are there senators who have not spoken, who wish to go to the mike? Yes, please.

Kathryn Flynn: I have to admit that I am really torn on this resolution. It is not an easy one to decide one way or the other on, but it looks to me like it is on three issues. That he has the judgment, and that we have confidence that he has the judgment and leadership required to continue, and be effective as President of Auburn University. I guess for me the issue that I am grappling with is the effective part; because your professional actions and how they are perceived in the public are going to have a huge impact on how effective he can be over the next year and a half. I think to make a vote one way or the other, we have to each decide with input from our faculty or considering comments made here by others and President Walker, whether we believe that his actions have harmed his job so much – or his name so much that he cannot be effective in leading the capital campaign; in helping us to recruit deans. When we have search committees, and we are asked to tell new faculty, fresh out of grad school –Auburn’s a great place to come to build a career – you know, to me it is not so much the judgment and leadership. I think he is able to make decisions, and I think he has some leadership skills. My question is – is he still going to be effective? So, that is the key to me on this. I think that we all have to think about that and it has to be now, not past. You know, he may be been effective in the past, but can he still be effective in the future?

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Are there other comments? Yes…

Dan Mackowski, Mechanical Engineering: Perception is a lot of this and might be all of it. I just want to say that President Walker’s ability to lead will depend a lot of whether or not he has the confidence in the Senate and in the faculty. I guess my point is, is that this is a very, very important decision that we make. It is more than just an opinion that we are expressing. If he is to be an effective leader, he must have our confidence. If he does not have our confidence as a Senate, it is going to send an enormous message, and it is basically going to add on to what has already transpired – all of the negative comments. I think this is just something that we need to consider very carefully when we make this vote.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Other comments? Are you ready to vote on this issue? Let me read the resolution as it has been amended, and then at this point if you still care to you can go to the microphone while I do this.

Resolved, That the University Senate does not have confidence that President Walker has the judgment and leadership required to continue and be effective as President of Auburn University.

Emmett Wynn: Surprise. I move that this be a paper ballot vote please.

Willie Larkin: Can I get a second?

Unidentified Speaker: I second.

Willie Larkin: It is been moved and seconded that we use a paper ballot to vote on this resolution.

Unidentified Speaker [Not at microphone]: Are we voting to table this until the next meeting?

Willie Larkin: No, we passed that one; yeah. All of those persons in favor of voting by paper ballot, please indicate it by raising your hand. All right; those who are opposed to paper ballots, raise your hands. Okay, let’s do this by paper ballot. It is going to take us a moment to get this ready. If you need a ballot, please raise your hands.

Willie Larkin: If I could have you attention please. While those ballots are being tallied, we are going to move on with the third and final resolution.

Paula Sullenger: Can we have a short recess, while we are counting ballots please? I think we need to know the results of this before we go on.

Willie Larkin: We have had a request for a short recess. So, why don’t we take – let’s take a five minute recess, and then we will reconvene.

Recess

Willie Larkin: Can I have your attention please. The final tally for this resolution is: 37 – Yes; 31 – No; and 5 –Abstained. It passes 37 to 31. [Applause]

Judy Sheppard: Okay, here is our third and final resolution. https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/walker_resign.htm

Resolved, That the University Senate calls for William Walker to immediately resign as President of Auburn University for the good of Auburn University.

Willie Larkin: Okay, discussion on this resolution. The microphones are open for senators. If you will, if you think that you are going to speak, proceed to the microphone; if you change your mind, then you can go sit down; but microphones for this resolution. Yes, Paula.

Paula Sullenger: I guess, obviously if I have confidence in him, I don’t want him to resign. This next year is going to be difficult – there is no doubt in my mind. It seems to me that asking him to resign, or him resigning on his own, in some ways is an easy solution; but I don’t think that it would solve anything. I don’t think that we are better off if he resigns. I’m not quite sure who would step in the interim position. We have had strong leadership, and as I have said before, you have to take the bad with the good. Someone who is strong and confident sometimes gets a little over confident and missteps. I was worried the first few days of the football scandal, because I did not like the public statements that were coming out. It bothered me that it didn’t seem like Dr. Walker got it as far as what people were upset about; what the perceptions were –and I think he gets it now. I think he has gotten it for quite a while. We have censured him, and he deserved it. We’ve sent – we’ve put him on notice that with a no confidence vote there’s a lot of questions about his abilities, and he has a lot to overcome; but, I still see him as President of this university, and I think he should continue and I think that we should not ask him to resign.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Other comments? Yes, Jesse …

Jesse LaPrade: You know, I spent thirteen and a half years in the industry before I came to Auburn University. I worked for a major corporation, Union Carbide, and I was in on some of the affairs of Union Carbide, and I have seen presidents come, and I have seen presidents go. When we hired a new president, our company always grew for the first two to three years. We need to think about Auburn University. We need to think about our students, and our faculty, and I think that we need to vote positive on this resolution.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Other comments? Microphones are open.

Jim Gravois: The results that I got from a faculty poll in the Library were a little more split, but still the majority was positive on this resolution. One strong argument made, however, was that – would it be beneficial if somehow we could get the president to announce his resignation to take place next summer or something like that? That somehow that would work better, and in the meantime, have an expedited search for a replacement. I’m just throwing that out as another point of view. I am not making an amendment.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes, sir...

Jonathan McConnell: I would like to thank the senator from Extension for considering the students. To me it is really important not to – I do not think that this resolution is honestly going to carry much weight in action. I do not think that Dr. Walker will resign; to be honest – if it does pass. But, the perception that the nation is going to get when we try to do a national search for a president, and we voted no confidence in the president – obviously a few minutes ago 37 to 31, and now we are going to be calling for his resignation. What president in his right mind, a quality president, would honestly consider coming to Auburn? To me that is the question that I am asking right now. As a student, what kind of perception are we putting out there for that? Not just for the next couple of years – because really that is what we are talking about right now – is when we start this presidential search which Dr. Walker said will start in a few months. If we go, and let’s say that he did resign, and we had to replace him with an interim president, you know, you are just adding more stress to it. I think that we should put as much confidence in him and vote this resolution down.

Willie Larkin: Thank you, Jonathan. Yes, Judy…

Judy Sheppard: Well, I am going to say that I don’t agree with that particular point of view. Because we have a real problem with any president wanting to come here that we would want and we have known that for some time. And that is one reason that the faculty, I don’t remember if it was the Senate or the General Faculty, voted and asked the board not to start a presidential search at the time that they were going to do that, because we feared that there would be no quality candidate. I don’t think that the word is going to get out any worse about the situation here if we say that we would want this president to resign. I don’t want people constantly assuming that it is our fault for the perception of what is going on. You hear that all of the time; “it is just a few of us who are hollering”; “it is the JAC that got us in this trouble, if they hadn’t complained everything would be okay”. ”If we, the faculty, would step up to the plate and tell the athletic department what to do, then athletics would assume the proper role.” This is really easy to say and it dodges responsibility and it is important I think. We have no constitutional way to hold the Board of Trustees accountable, and we don’t have any actual power as the Senate; but we do have our voice, and we can say that we do hold people accountable for what they have done here. I really – it boggles my mind to think about, this President trying to get people to donate to this university, when the Alumni Association has called, not only for his resignation but for a search committee with no ties to this President or to this Board of Trustees to conduct a presidential search. That is the level of public trust that we have right now. I don’t think that this resolution would do anything but say we recognize the problem; and we have a governor who is in this strange situation of approaching this. He really has very little power himself. I think the strongest voice that we can speak with is what we need to do right now. If we won’t step up to the plate, who will?

Willie Larkin, Chair-Elect: Thank you. [Applause] Yes, John…

John Mouton: I think that regardless of the outcome, this was the whole measure that we got to today. We are the only group that invited the President to speak to us, and interact with him in a question and answer basis. Regardless of alumni and others who love this institution, we are the ones whose credentials are tied to this university. That is we go elsewhere and the rest of it. And so, people start laying claim to our university; I believe that this university, more than anything, is ours because we have tied our professional reputation – our professional stake here. I guess in looking forward, I think it is very important that we can bring others who are willing to do that and go into the future. I have been here twelve years and it has been on a cycle pretty much this whole time. I have not ever been in what I thought was really a calm sea in Auburn University. I really do look forward for a positive search for a new president, and I think that is absolutely critical to get one and get it done. I don’t know that I agree with what the Alumni Association wants to do, but I am in favor of doing something that is very positive in the presidential search. But I am going to state what I stated before. I spent twenty-one months in the midst of this, and I do have confidence, and I do think that the best thing for our university, all things considered – everything that was said and brought forward today – is for us to sustain Dr. Walker as the President of the university, and I will vote against this resolution. Thank you.

Willie Larkin: Okay, other comments, please.

Missy Josephson: In my mind, would it be good for the university if he were to resign immediately? Would it be good for the university to have another interim president appointed by the Board of Trustees? Would it be good for the university for him to resign, knowing that we are going to initiate a search – I hope starting today? I have to vote no on this resolution.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes. Cindy.

Cindy Brunner: Because I spoke against the previous resolution, you probably would predict that I would speak against this resolution as well. I agree with my esteemed colleague in the College of Veterinary Medicine. I cannot agree that we can consider these sorts of actions in isolation without regard to their consequences and their impact. If we vote to call for Dr. Walker’s immediate resignation that sends a clear message – as most of us would concede; and I don’t think that message is either appropriate or even safe at this point. We have made our point. We voted censure. We voted no confidence. I don’t think that we need to add this on to the pile because I do believe that if I vote for this resolution, I am saying that I want Dr. Walker to resign, that I want him to resign immediately, and I am prepared to deal with the aftermath. I do not want those things to happen, and I think that for Dr. Walker to immediately resign would put this university into chaos.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes, Jesse.

Jesse LaPrade: You know I have heard concern about who we would get as a president and who would apply. I think we would be surprised; I think that you would be surprised who we could get at this university if we stand for the things that are right. If we stand up and talk to this university, that we think that this university can move forward under new presidential leadership, and that is why I ask you to vote for this resolution. [Applause]

Tom Smith: I agree with that sentiment. That is going to happen anyway regardless. We are going to have a new president, whatever happens with this, in eighteen or so months. The concern that I have, and I think that it has been expressed by exclamation, is what are we going to have tomorrow if Dr. Walker resigns, and who is going to make that choice? It won’t be a search committee, it won’t be us.

Willie Larkin: Yes, Paula. If you want to speak, come to the microphone please.

Paula Sullenger: Someone earlier mentioned Governor Riley was at least talking about doing some kind of investigation. Again, we still don’t know exactly what the problems were with SACS. If we vote immediately resign today, that would be awfully hard to take back. If we don’t ask him to resign today, in a month or two when we have more information, and we want to reconsider – we can – but it would be very hard to take back a resignation vote.

Willie Larkin: Thank you. Yes, Jim…

Jim Saunders: I would just like to make one point; and that is – let’s just say that we do call for him to resign – which I am going to vote in favor of and which shouldn’t come as any surprise. And also that, and if he does, and let’s say some Board of Trustee member appoints his successor tomorrow; and let’s just say, happen to say, that it might be our new provost. I will say our new provost went through a national search to be hired by Auburn University, and the last national search that our standing President went through was to be the Dean of the School of Engineering at Auburn University. So, I have a lot of qualms about confidence in him running this university, because he was never hired in this capacity by anybody other than one or two Board of Trustees members. So, I say let’s get somebody that at least has some legitimacy in going through a national search, who was hired at this university by a national search, and then my confidence would be a lot higher than in the current administration.

Willie Larkin: Thank you.

Paula Sullenger: Point of information. Dr. Walker did go through a national search when he was hired as provost.

Gary Martin, Curriculum and Teaching: I just wanted to pick up on what Paula said and say that a vote in favor of this cannot be taken back; but there is also a message in a vote against this. Therefore, I would like to move that this be tabled pending further information.

Willie Larkin: We have a motion that this resolution be tabled pending additional information. We have a second. Is there any discussion on this? All of those persons in favor of this motion being tabled until we can obtain further information, let it be known by raising your hand. [Delay for counting votes.] There is a discrepancy in the count. So, if you will raise your hands and hold them high, we will recount. Thank you – good exercise.

Those persons opposed to tabling this resolution, raise your hand. What was the actual count? Write that down for me. Those for this resolution being tabled – counts 34; against 28. So, this resolution is tabled. I want to thank you for your civil participation in this discourse.

Audience: [Confused discussion] Wait, wait…

Willie Larkin: Hold on everyone. We are trying to find out whether it requires a two-thirds majority vote in order to table. [Delay for research] May I have your attention? According to the Senate Bylaws, it takes a two-thirds majority vote in order to table this resolution. So, are there any final comments about this resolution before we proceed to vote? All right, there seems to be a general consensus that we need to do this by paper ballot. So, we will ask Paula and Debra to pass those out. Then we will proceed to vote on this. If you do not have a ballot, raise your hand. Once you have completed your ballot, if you will pass it to either end. Are there other ballots that need to be turned in? All right, give us a few moments to get these tallied and we will make the announcement.

Willie Larkin: May I have your attention please? The vote on this resolution is: 27 - Yes; 42 - No; and 5 Abstentions. [Applause] This meeting is adjourned. Thank you. [The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.]

Adjournment