Auburn University Senate Meeting

September 9, 2003

3:00 p.m.

 

 

Members Absent:  Barbara Struempler, Immediate Past Chair; Bob McGinnis, VP for Development; David Wilson, Associate Provost and VP for Outreach; Lee Evans, Dean, School of Pharmacy;  Richard Brinker, Dean, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences; John Jensen, Interim Dean, College of Agriculture; John Pritchett, Acting Provost; Sheri Downer, Acting Dean of Libraries; Kathy Harmon, A&P Assembly Chair; Jefferson Jones, Accountancy; Representative for AAES; Mario Lightfoote, ACES; Scott Fuller, Building Sciences; Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders; Dennis DeVries, Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture; John Rowe, Nursing; Marllin Simon, Physics; Robert Norton, Poultry Science; Vivian Larkin, Rehabilitation and Special Education; Thomas White, ROTC - Air Force.

 

Members Absent (Substitute):  Ted Tyson (Oladiran Fasina), Biosystems Engineering; Charles Gross (Richard Jaeger), Electrical and Computer Engineering; Sadik Tuzun (Jim Bradley), Entomology and Plant Pathology; Ken Tilt (Raymond Kessler), Horticulture; Kem Krueger (Bruce Berger), Pharmacy Care Systems; Tom Williams (W. J. Redenius), ROTC – Navy.

 

Call to Order 

 

The meeting was called to order at 3:02 p.m. by the chair, John Mouton.

 

John Mouton, Chair of the Senate:   This is the September 9, 2003, meeting of the University Senate.  The first business of order is the approval of the minutes of July 8, 2003.  The minutes are on the Senate Home Page.  Are there any corrections or additions?  There being none, we shall approve the minutes.

 

Before I introduce President Walker, I’d like to recognize and welcome all of our new senators and maybe ask them to stand so we can see who they are please.  The new senators for this year, would you please stand? Let’s welcome them. [Applause] Okay, the next order of business is the President’s announcements.  Dr. Walker …

 

William Walker, President:   Let me welcome everyone back to the University.  My first comment today has to do with acknowledging the accomplishments of a colleague and one that I think is richly deserving of recognition.  Last Friday, the Lee County Youth Development Center out in Opelika was officially named the “Barry R. Burkhart Psychological Services Building” in honor of Barry Burkhart and his over twenty-seven years of service to the youth of Lee County.  I was privileged to be at that ceremony and that entire series of facilities out there devoted to helping the youth of Lee County, is a testament to the devotion and dedication of Barry and his associates.  So, if you have an occasion to see him [I hope] that you will give him congratulations and a pat on the back, because that honor, as I said, is richly deserved. 

 

The fall enrollment figures, which are almost finalized, are here.  We have reduced the total enrollment of the institution from a year ago by 103 students.  Fall of this year, we are at 23,173 students, and of course a reduction is what we were trying to do.  The undergraduate enrollment is down by 279 students and that places the undergraduate enrollment at 20,067.  The graduate enrollment also went in the right direction; it went up by 176 students, with that enrollment being 3,106 students.  So this year, we have 3,716 new freshmen, which is down from the over 4,100 that we had last year and this is what we were trying to do. Last year, as I recall, [AU] had planned to let in about 3,800 students and about 4,100 showed up.  So this year, we were determined to keep it to the 3,700 figure and I think our Enrollment Management people did an outstanding job in doing that.  The transfer students are about the same level as they were; we have 1,329 students.  One statistic that I think all of us should take some small pride in is the fact that the average ACT score of those entering students has gone up from 23.5 last year to 24.1.  Similarly, the average SAT went up from 1101 to 1117.  So I am very pleased with the makeup of the class and again, I think that the Enrollment Management people have done a particularly good job. 

 

As I presume everyone in here is aware, Provost Dr. Tom Hanley has been named.  Tom is from the University of Louisville.  He will be on board probably no later than the first of November; although, that is still a little bit up in the air.  He is already interacting with various groups and individuals on campus and is coming to campus about every ten days it turns out. 

 

With respect to Dean searches … there are four Dean searches underway and all of those are just about at the same point in the process of writing up position descriptions.  Three of the four are using outside search firms and I would expect that we would have visitors on campus in the February to March timeframe. 

 

There will be a Board of Trustees meeting on September 26.  I have had some questions concerning what we are going to do with respect to the 2004 Budget.  The honest answer is – I don’t know.  I hope everyone here today has voted, because the outcome of that vote today will have some outcome on the budget situation. The situation that we find ourselves in is the following, if the tax and situation is approved today, then we have in place a budget based upon a 6.34 percent budget reduction that has already been worked out.  I feel confident that if the tax package were to pass today, we would be inclined to put that budget through; although Don and I are still having discussions about that.  If the tax package does not pass, then the stories that I am hearing about the 2005 budget are nothing short of a horror story.  We seem to be completely unable to predict what next year’s budget will be, so talking about the budget the year after; I have even less confidence in that.  But the point is, I am not sure that I am going to feel comfortable going to the Board and recommending salary increases when the situation with respect to the 2005 budget will be so, so unresolved at this point.  One thing that we might do and we have talked about this – is to simply have a carryover of the current budget – at least through the first of the year – through January 01 – so that we can have a better prospective on what is out there in front of us with respect to the 2005 budget here.  But those discussions are still underway.  I would suspect that Dr. Large would reconvene the Budget Advisory Committee to try to solicit their advice on the budget situation and to make whatever recommendation they want to me. 

 

I would say that as an indication of the dire financial situation that we are seeing, both the Experiment Station and the Extension System have offered an early retirement package. And in the Extension Service, seventy individuals have opted to take advantage of that and forty-eight from the Experiment Station.  That is well over one hundred colleagues with many, many years of experience that we will be losing out of the Extension System and out of the Experiment Station operation. 

 

The SACS investigation, you may recall that Mr. Bradley had submitted a report to the Southern Association.  They came back to him and had two or three questions, or they said that they wanted some more information.  He came back and did that investigation and has submitted that final report to SACS.  I have yet to make a response to it, but in the meantime, the judge has sealed that report and so I really can’t say anything about it. I guess – let me just see … do you have any questions? I will be happy to try and answer them.  Yes sir.

 

William Gale, Materials Research and Education Center, Mechanical Engineering: Dr. Walker, I have a question regarding the new computer contract which Purchasing has entered into.  A number of us have some rather grave concerns about this.  The first thing that worries me is – from what information that I have been able to glean from the vendor …I am very concerned that they are not able to provide for the needs for those of us who have relatively advanced computer requirements – those people in Engineering and a number of other disciplines.  Secondly, it is very unclear right now exactly what the scope of the contract is – what it does cover and what it doesn’t.  The third problem is that as soon as this came out, I tried to find some information from Purchasing on exactly what the scope of this is – exactly what we can and can’t do.  As of just before the meeting, I had still not yet received a response.  So, I was wondering, could you please encourage Purchasing to at least clarify what the situation is and explain what the options are for those of us whose needs aren’t likely to be met by this particular vendor?

 

William Walker: Well, your inability to get response is more recent than mine – mine, was dated eleven o’clock this morning.  I am not sure that I fully comprehend what the situation is.  The state – what’s the man’s title?  The State Examiner has told us that we have to follow certain procedures, and in fact, your ability to go out and select a computer from whomever you want, in fact, may be at risk.  We are still looking into that.  I am not sure what all of the implications are, but I raised the very question that you raise – that is for example – what about Computer Engineering – where in fact they are interested in building computers. Can they only buy a certain kind and that doesn’t make any sense.  So, I think that it is probably a situation that we need to simply take a little bit more of a cautious look at, and hopefully I can report something back to you.  I don’t have an answer for you right now. 

 

William Gale: It would be nice at least, if we could have something in the interim in place so those of us that have got orders which are just frozen right now because we don’t know what to do, at least have some temporary advice.

 

William Walker: Well, let me suggest that you … What? You [Don Large] better come up with something quick. [Laughter] Let me suggest you call Dr. Large. [Laughter]  Your time ran out. [Laughter]

 

Don Large, Executive Vice President [Not at microphone]:   I will quickly refer you to Marcie Smith. [Laughter] I don’t agree with what the State Examiners have said either. [Inaudible]  University of Alabama and most universities – and I assume that the other universities [Inaudible] that you just simply cannot go out and purchase a particular brand of computer that you wish to buy. There are bid laws that you have to go out [Inaudible] certain levels of computers and basically viewing them as [Inaudible]. They are the ones calling the shots right now and we are going to have to accommodate the requirements.  It is a criminal act to violate the state Bid Law, so it is not something that the business office can just say, well it is okay, just go ahead and do it the way that you want to. So it is still a work in progress.  I don’t have great answers either.  I will be happy to work with anyone that we can to work within the system. But right now, it is just …

 

William Gale:   Well, I am begging, because I really don’t want to have to explain to my sponsors when I next see them, that the reason I am not doing their work is because I can’t buy a computer.  I am not even sure that I can buy a hard drive right now.

 

Don Large:  Well computers are not the problem of buying – it is the buying of the ones, particularly, what I am hearing the most of is, I want a Dell but the IBM won the bid and there is not a lot that I can do about that.

 

William Gale:   Well, it is the case of there being things that they just don’t even offer.  If you look at what the vendor is offering, there is a problem … but I won’t go into the details here.

 

William Walker, President:   It is true … is it?

 

Don Large:  In particular, if computer needs are not compatible with what the [Inaudible] supplier is going to provide, then we don’t have to buy it from them. The problem is what we are finding out is that everybody out here now seems to have their own sets of criteria needs, so we are going to have to work through that to the extent that we can.  It is probably going to be on a case by case basis [Inaudible]. If it doesn’t fit, then we can go out and do it with no problem.

 

William Gale: Do we at least know, does this just apply to computers, or does it apply to software, does it apply to peripherals, does it apply to everything? Does it apply to everything?  Do we know the scope of what this applies to?

 

Lee Armstrong, University General Counsel [Not at microphone]:   I’m not familiar [Inaudible].

 

Don Large: I am not familiar with the details. It does deal with computers and peripherals – whether it deals with software or not, I [Inaudible].  The intent would be anything that this institution knows that it is going to purchase that [Inaudible] – and it is not on an individuals purchase, it is on [Inaudible].  So, we clearly know that we are going to buy computers in excess of $7500 dollars at the University – and probably peripherals and everything else. So, my guess is that [Inaudible] caught us totally off guard.  We don’t have good answers yet either and really we are discussing whether we should challenge it in some other form, because there are arguments that the Bid Law is not always about getting the best price – but in this case, it may be costing us [Inaudible] service that some vendors offer that you don’t see in the Bid Law.  So, we will continue working with the State and trying to work with individuals that clearly the policy can not meet your needs.  I know that these are not great answers for you.

 

William Gale:  Well, thanks for trying.

 

John Mouton [Not at microphone]:   [Inaudible] small advisory group [Inaudible].

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology [Not at microphone]:  You already have [Inaudible] … because what I am hearing is whoever drew up the specifications, [Inaudible].  Whoever put together servers and laptops on the same bid request  was not thinking about the [Inaudible].

 

Unknown Speaker [Not at microphone.]:   [Inaudible]

 

Jim Bradley, Biological Sciences:  I’m subbing for Gary Mullen [Sadik Tuzun], Entomology today.  Hello, Dr. Walker – I haven’t seen you in a while.  I have two questions … first,

 

William Walker:  I remember you Jim … [Laughter]

 

Jim Bradley:  I’m glad you do.  My questions are coming back to a couple of years ago and the first has to do with the Weary Report – Bill Weary Report, and that was, I believe, submitted in January almost two years ago – and then that June there was a committee established with Jack Miller heading it to look at the recommendations and he had that one committee meeting in June – and had told the committee members that there would be extensive discussions with faculty groups to look at each one of these recommendations before any one of them was implemented.  That is the last time there has been any discussion, any committee meeting, and  the reason that I am bringing this up now is that it seems to me that during the past year there have been some signs that some of Dr. Weary’s recommendations are actually being implemented – and it concerns me that that implementation may be without faculty input.  The other related question is to ask you what has happened with the University Directions Committee? 

 

William Walker:  The first issue – If some of the recommendations of the Weary Committee are being implemented, it would simply be that those are some common sense recommendations.  The – and I am going out a little bit on a limb here in trying to speak for Jack Miller – but Jack has become Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board, as you know.  He is trying to get that group to focus on the entire academic programming area of the institution.  I suspect that his response to that question would be that he is going to fold the Weary deliberations into that committee.  I will be happy to raise that issue with him, because I thought there were some good recommendations in that report, and I think that it would be a serious mistake to not pay attention to them.  Your second question was what?

 

Jim Bradley:  The second question had to do with the fate of the University Directions Committee.

 

William Walker:  I appreciate your mentioning that.  When I mentioned the budget while ago, in fact I will be speaking to the faculty next week – talking about the financial plan of the University, which is about the past five-year plan will be finished in year 2004 – and the fact that the planning must begin again for the next five-year period, and we will be folding the directions planning into that.  A lot of work has already gone on.  I will be putting together a committee with several faculty members on it to help devise the plan for the next five years. 

 

Jim Bradley:  My question on that one came because I was checking the Home Page – Auburn’s Home Page – and I saw reference to the Directions Committee, and I clicked on that and I saw all of the committee members listed and my name was still on there and I haven’t received notice of any meetings in quite a long time – and so that was my interest.  So, you say that you will be reconstituting that group and calling it something different.

 

William Walker:  Yeah, yeah – the work that has already done – I don’t want to lose that.  But we need to do some very serious planning for the next five-year period – establishing some priorities and setting some goals and so on.

 

Jim Bradley:  Okay, and thank you.

 

Jim Gravois, Library:  Maybe we are the only faculty group that was thinking about a raise coming – so I want to address the statement that you made, which I think was, you would not be comfortable recommending a raise for faculty this year, and I just want to get a little more about that.  I came on in the spring as a new representative and heard a discussion from Dr. Pritchard [Pritchett], I believe, in which it was pointed out that the increase in salary was – can I use the word “earmarked” for faculty salary?  Excuse me – increase in tuition was intended for faculty increases.

 

William Walker:  No.

 

Jim Gravois:  So, as these – this five-year tuition increase has occurred, I just would like to hear a little bit more about why you would say now that – well, come to think of it …

 

William Walker: The most accurate way to answer that would be to simple say that it is the uncertainty that is problematic. I went to a meeting yesterday with Drayton Neighbors, the Governor’s Financial Advisor – where he was telling us what to expect – some of the university Presidents – what to expect if the tax package did not pass.  This was not a public meeting of any kind because he is not trying to create any publicity on this. This was a very serious discussion from the Governor’s Office to us as to what to expect – a lot of things they are looking at. One of the things is to eliminate several line items, for example; the Shakespeare Theater which is about $800,000 that the State puts into this to support that activity – which  of course has nothing to do with Auburn University.  Another thing that he said they were looking at is to require the universities to pick up the PEEHIP, that is the retirement insurance for the retired employees of the University and that is currently paid by the State.  That could cost this university three million? ... Six million dollars annually if we had to pick that up. It is that uncertainty that is out there that I think I would be derelict if I said we don’t care what is going to happen in this election, we are going to press on with those raises.  I assure you, I want to have those raises there.  I take a lot of pride in the fact that this university has been able to position itself well financially in spite of what has happened in the State the last several years.  But we may be looking at an ‘05 budget – well the Governor himself has said that State Government is going to be dysfunctional in ’05 if some intervention is not made.  That is not a cheery response to your question, but it is really a very serious situation.

 

Jim Gravois:  Thank you.

 

Paula Sullenger, Secretary:   Dr. Walker, there was an announcement late last week about a new position, Special Advisor to the Provost for Women’s Leadership.  I was wondering if you could tell us how that position came to be created, and what it is intended to do.   It mentions a Search Committee, who is on it – it says “we wish to appoint a special advisor” – who is the “we”?

 

William Walker:   I can’t answer.  I don’t know anything about it.  Is Dr. Pritchett here?  I got an e-mail today about that, and this is the first I have heard about it – somebody congratulating us for doing that. [Laughter] You know, that was a nice e-mail compared to some of the ones I have been getting after this weekend. [Laughter]  Do any of you have any coaching experience? [Laughter]

 

Ruth Crocker, History:   Dr. Walker, I am not on that committee, but I was aware of its existence, and I think that it started up about April or May of this year – the Women’s Advisory one – I guess that is what you were referring to before the sports comment.  It is part of the University’s attempt to be more diverse.  An effort that you have given a great deal of leadership and discussion about and so, it is connected to the growth of the Multicultural Affairs and other office, which name – I have forgotten at the moment. 

 

Unknown Speaker [Not at microphone.]:   [Inaudible]

 

Ruth Crocker:    Thank you. It is looking at a big constituency on this campus of faculty, staff, and of course, our student bodies – and looking to appoint – it is amazing to me that you didn’t know about this.  But the idea is to have a kind of an ombudsman, I believe, who would channel – not exactly grievances – but issues and concerns related to women’s access to opportunity and so on, salary differential, etc. to the administration – hopefully to get some action about that. So, my colleague, Larry Gerber, is on that committee.  I think Mary [Inaudible] of Women’s Studies is also – [Inaudible] is chair.  

 

William Walker:  Do not interpret my response to be that I don’t think that is a good idea.  I do think it is a good idea, and in fact, I have been very pleased with the progress of the Diversity Leadership Council in developing a diversity plan for this campus – and I encourage that group to continue.  When we talk about having difficult financial times, as you well know, that doesn’t mean that we are going to stop doing the things that need to be done in the University.  You will hear the dirty word “cuts” and all of that, but we are going to continue to provide the services that we feel are essential to this great institution.  Thank you. 

 

John Mouton:  Renée, please go to the microphone.

 

Renée Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Education:   Dr. Walker, you mentioned being proud of the work that the Diversity Leadership Council has done with developing a plan, and I’m not sure that many of us – we probably would be just as pleased, maybe it is just me – but I am not sure what the plan is that they developed – when is that plan gonna be made public to the faculty? 

 

William Walker:   It is my impression that I should see it within the next month or so.  I was talking to Mr. Clayton the other day and he has indicated that he felt that they were making good progress.  That is all I know.

 

Announcements

 

 

John Mouton:   The next business of order is the Senate Chair announcements, and I am going to start with the one that I have had the most inquiry with and some interest on and that is the Intellectual Property and Patent Policy.

 

The status of it is, right now the University Committee is reviewing and revising the policy that was brought to the Senate this summer.  I don’t have a timeline for that process but I would ask you to submit questions and comments to that committee.  The discussion that we have had in the Steering Committee, and the conclusion that I think that we have, is that our plan is to establish an ad-hoc committee to review the final draft when it is ready on behalf on the Senate – and to report to the Senate.  We will engage a Patent Intellectual Property attorney as needed. This ad-hoc Senate committee will submit their findings, suggestions and recommendation to the Senate for our consideration and action.  So, that is where we are with the Policy.  We are going to let that committee finish their work, and then we are going to respond to it and when I get a timeline on that, I will give it to you. One other thing, anybody that is interested in serving on that ad-hoc committee, please contact Paula at your convenience, because there is not a need to establish it right now, but we will act as it gets closer.

 

On August 29, the Executive Committee met with the faculty representatives to the Board of Trustees committees, and we had all of the faculty members that sit on Board Committees there.  The discussion was good.  The faculty report was generally good; they said that they’re being included in discussions and actually feel like they are having more and more influence as time goes on.  Some of the things that were brought up is some of the committee members have not had contact with Senate Committees as we need for them to, and we are developing a process for them to do that.  The other thing is that those faculty representatives had not been involved in the Cabinet meeting which is where the agenda for the Board meeting gets developed, and we are moving to have them involved it this.  Dr. Walker has already said that would be okay, as soon as we get a couple of other things resolved.  So, in general, the report is real good from those folks.  We are going to pull them together from time to time, because I think that they learn from each other – talking about what their experiences were on the Committee. 

 

Next Tuesday, September 16, is the Fall Faculty Meeting.  We are asking all senators to please encourage their entire faculty to attend.  The agenda for this meeting will be out, I guess by the end of this week. 

 

On Tuesday, September 30, the new senators – we are going to have New Senator Orientation.  The meeting will be at the same time as the Senate Meeting.  Information will be sent out in advance.  All senators that are interested are invited.  We are just going to try and make sure that the senators are oriented so that we can keep participation up where it needs to be.

 

The Steering Committee will meet September 24 to set the agenda for the October 14 meeting.  So, if you have items for the Senate Meeting, please get in touch with us before September 24.

 

I think that the last thing, I would like to remind all of those who have not had the opportunity to vote, to please do so, and to thank all of those who have had the opportunity to vote.  Are there any comments or questions from the Senate?  Okay.

 

 Information Items

 

John Mouton:   We have two Information Items. The first Information Item, I am going to do the presentation on.  In February of this year, the Provost issued the document that is shown here and it was linked to the agenda, so maybe some people read it ahead of time.  [Projected on Screen]

 

ANNUAL TENURE REVIEW GUIDELINES

 

 All non-tenured, tenure track faculty will be reviewed by the tenured faculty of her/his academic unit each year relative to progression toward tenured status and that the assessment of that progress be reported to the non-tenured, tenure track faculty member annually. The mandated third-year review described within the Faculty Handbook will serve this purpose for non-tenured, tenure track faculty in their third year. Annual tenure reviews should be commenced in the Spring of 2003. The process should be conducted in concert with the currently mandated annual review. In implementing this process, department heads/chairs should design processes that provide for the following:

 

1.         Dissemination of information (possibly an updated curriculum vita and attached biographical data form) to all tenured faculty.

 

2.         Input from tenured faculty to department head/chair relative to adequate progression toward tenured status. This input should include issues of concern as well as recognition of accomplishments.

 

3.         Communication by the department head/chair (as a part of the annual review process) to the non-tenured faculty member relative to adequate progression toward tenure. This communication should be a part of the written evaluation provided for in the annual review process and should include issues raised by the tenured faculty.

 

 

The intent was that it was to serve as a guideline for Deans and Department Heads in regard to the existing policy regarding the annual evaluation of probationary faculty.  People have questioned and the Steering Committee has decided to bring to the Senate, basically the question of whether or not this is actually a separate policy – if it establishes a separate policy – that we need to develop and get the Senate to review to move into the faculty handbook.  So, the question at hand is – is this separate, or is it in fact just an operational guideline underneath the existing polices?  I will open it up for discussion if anybody has a comment on it. 

 

Jon Bolton, English:  We have talked quite a bit on this issue, John, and I think clearly that it constitutes a new policy.  It contradicts guidelines as they are set out in the Faculty Handbook, which call for a third-year review of un-tenured [non-tenured] faculty by tenured faculty. I think that it is especially a new policy because it was implemented in the spring, and we were required to review a dossier of all un-tenured [non-tenured] faculty – probationary faculty – whether or not this was their third-year of probationary term.  It seems to me that it does constitute a new policy.  It does contradict the Faculty Handbook.

 

John Mouton:   Anybody else?  Please …

 

Debra Cobia, Secretary-elect and Faculty Member in the Counseling and Counseling Psychology Department:  When this information came to our department, we did view it as a procedure rather than a policy – a suggested guideline.  It’s my understanding that there are a number of units on campus who already enact this kind of annual review. So, just to present another perception …

 

John Mouton:   Please …

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: If the question is – is this a policy or is this just suggested guidelines?  The interpretation that my department head has used is that this is a new policy.  I understand from our discussion in the Senate when this was put forward that the Provost’s Office did not intend that this stipulate that there be a meeting of the tenured faculty to review the pre-tenure candidates.  None the less, my department head has interpreted these guidelines as requiring a meeting in order to be equitable.  I think one of the alternatives would be that the department head could consult selected faculty members or could invite submission of comments.  I suspect that individuals failing to achieve tenure could challenge that approach as not being equitable – not being fair.  So, we are using it at the other extreme, and I have to admit that my department in general thinks that it is an unnecessary burden. We just met to review the candidacy of a person who had been here for ten months, and we had a really nice meeting – but we all pretty much agreed that it really wasn’t necessary to call together fifteen or twenty tenured faculty members to look at this person’s CV when we just hired him ten months ago.  And we really couldn’t expect much in the way of progress toward his tenure five or six years later. 

 

John Mouton:  Please …

 

Norbert Wilson, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology:   The way that my department is handling this as a non-tenured faculty – I was required, this is my third year, to complete a full-on tenure package, and also my colleagues who have been here for six and seven months –almost a year – were also required to do this.  It was one of these things where they spent a lot of the time just trying to put this together in addition to all of the other things that they have had to do.  In addition to that, we already have a one-year review that we have with our chair anyhow. So, I am not sure how that all works out, but the way that I understand it is this was policy and we were required to do this.

 

John Mouton:   I am not going to weigh in on this on either side.  What my intention here is to make as neutral of a statement as possible.  As the Senate, our role is basically to share in the governance of the University.  One thing that is certainly within the governance of the faculty –it is not within the governance of the Administration or the Board of Trustees – is that we make every decision on who gets selected to be on the faculty of this university.  We also make the decision somehow in the process, third year or at the tenured process of whether people continue or get advanced to the rest of it.  So, certainly we are engaged overall in the process. One of the things that we worked on last year that came through here was a process for Non-Continuation. When faculty are hired early on and we get before the third year review and faculty are not going to be continued, what is the process?  What was missing in that process was a faculty vote and what we added into the process – I think rightly so, was the faculty vote – faculty participation in that process.  So, when we get to this, whether it is a guideline or a policy, you know what I look at in my department is that we are not necessarily doing a good job mentoring or getting feedback to the young faculty because we were relying completely on our department head to do these reviews, and as faculty we have not participated.  So, in looking at this, and in listening to what I hear, unless someone has something different – we ought to look at it as what the policy statement would be if it went into the Faculty Handbook and bring it to the Senate and get a vote on it as to whether or not they think this ought to go forward as part of the Handbook Regulation.  Anybody counter that?  Does that seem reasonable?  Okay. We are going to move on. 

 

The next business of order is an Information Item.  Is there a technician in the house? Jonathan needs you to turn back on whatever you need to turn on.  Jonathan McConnell, the SGA President is here to make a presentation for us.

 

Jonathan McConnell, SGA President:  Today, I was going to talk to you about the two things. One of the many things that I actually ran on when I ran for SGA President –the two things that I told the students that I would bring to Auburn is: Pick-A-Prof and the other is SGA test files. [Projected on Screen]

Student Government Association

 

          Pick-A-Prof Online Evaluation

          SGA Test Files

 

I guess today, I will be discussing the benefits of Pick-A-Prof at Auburn, and the services that it has available to students, and also the services that it has available to actually you, the professors.  As far as SGA test files, I will be discussing the programs or how we will accomplish putting the test files up and also the benefits. [Projected on Screen]        

Pick-A-Prof

            Serves over 200,000 students nationwide

           “Pick-A-Prof provides students with a set of Academic Tools to aid in making an educated decision about what courses and   professors to take.”

Pick-A-Prof, most of you are probably wondering what it is.  Pick-A-Prof is a company that SGA would hire that would collaborate class evaluation, student evaluations, and professor information into an online database.  As you can see, it serves over 200,000 students nationwide.  Many of our peer institution do have this, and it is a pretty neat program.  From a lot of the feedback that I have been getting, a lot of the students do like it. [Projected on Screen]

What does it bring?

 

            Professor Comparisons

            Student Reviews

            SGA Customization

            Professor Information

            Possible Grade Histories

 

  What does it bring specifically?  First of all, it brings five things: Professor Comparisons, Student Reviews, Customization – by us and you, Professor Information, and Possible Grade Histories.  We are not going to actually take advantage of this at this time. [Projected on Screen]

 

Professor Comparison

The Professor Comparison, which you can see right now, basically what a student would do to get to this is to go into the main web site, and they would look at the class they wanted to take.  It would have a list of every professor who taught the class and then it would have basically the evaluation of the class to the immediate right of it. The average GPA, as I said earlier we would not be putting the GPA’s and the average score received in the class on there. 

 

The next thing is the Student Reviews. [Projected on Screen]

 

Student Reviews

 

            Online Forum

            Information Available

            Exam Type

            Attendance Policy

            Lecture Style

            Homework Load

            Quality Control

            No Personal Character Attacks

            No Profanity

 

First there will be Online Forums.  This is a great way for students to find out which professor is right for them.  For the most part right now, students that have great networks – basically students who are in prominent organizations and stuff like that – will go up to their friends and say,  “How is professor so-and-so?”   Most of the time the response is: Oh, they are good; Oh, they are great; or Oh, they are horrible. The thing is that this is hopefully going to make it constructive and I guess a better way to evaluating the teachers and that way they can find the one that they like.  One example of information available – this is one of its most valuable tools and it provides is this.  You have two students, one who was great in math and one who was horrible in math.  If I was a student and I knew I needed to be held accountable and I knew that I was going to mess up in test grades and stuff like that, I wouldn’t want a class that had more quizzes and more homework that is graded and an attendance policy that was required.  On the other hand, if I was great in math, I would want to take three tests and then get out of there and never have to go except for those three times, so I could move on to an upper level math and be challenged.  This web site would provide this information.  I know most of you are thinking, I do not want my evaluations published on the Internet, and I do not blame you.  During the elections, I got lit up on the Plainsman’s Message Boards about every day. So trust me, I know what you are talking about. 

 

If you went to www.rateyourprofessor.com right now, you would get something like, “The most horrible teacher I have ever had. Makes mistakes all of the time, laughs when I ask about extra credit and does not curve tests.”  This is something that will never show up on this web site.  I am confident of that because when students submit a response or a review about a professor, it is submitted and not posted.  Then, this company has someone who goes through every single review and comment about a teacher. They do not allow personal character attacks and is not going to allow anything like, “Oh, this class is awful!”  You are going to have to say why.  You are going to have to say, “Hey, I really did not understand anything.”  So therefore, I am pretty confident that it is going to be a pretty good effective tool for us.  It is also a great way for professors to evaluate themselves.  We all know that none of us feel out the evaluations at the end of the semester.  The next thing is Review Customization. [Projected on Screen]

 

Review Customization

 

We have the opportunity; the SGA would be able to make its own review that is required before submitting any response.  Therefore the students would have to fill it out and we would be able to post those results.  Of course the results would be available to all students.  [Projected on Screen]

 

Professor Information

 

            Student Feedback System

            Personal Review

            Profile Information

            Description

            Syllabus

            Personal Bio

            Link to Homepage

 

Professor Information – you have the opportunity for student feedback. [Projected on Screen]

 

Feedback

 

You can poll your students who actually use this information.  Let’s say that you had a guest speaker, you could actually ask them what they thought and was it effective at all. [Projected on Screen]

 

Student Feedback

            You can create polls for your students to fill out during the year.

            Polls can be customized to fit your needs.

 

The next thing that is offered is the opportunity to tell a little bit about your class and that way thirty students don’t drop after the first day.  [Projected on Screen]

 

Personal Bio

 

They know what they are getting into beforehand and kind of what to expect.  It also has the opportunity for you to submit your personal bio.  Believe it or not, students actually do like to know what kind of teacher they are going into to know a little bit about you.  You would have an opportunity to just link it to your main page, if you would like to.  Grade histories – which is what I mentioned earlier – we will not putting grade histories up there.  [Projected on Screen]

 

Grade Histories

 

            Grade Histories Could Be Provided

            How many A’s, B’s, C’s, D’s, and F’s per class.

 

Just because after talking with several people from Student Affairs, we decided that was not in the best interest academically at Auburn right now.  The benefits of SGA, this is one of the one things that we will do that will actually benefit every student. [Projected on Screen]

 

Benefits to SGA

            Benefits the entire campus

            Customization

            Professionalism from a 3rd Party

 

There are few things out there that we can get all of the students interested in.  Eighty-three percent within the first year is the average participation rate at other universities that have tried it.  Customization and also a third-party is the one who is going to be evaluating this – not students, so we would have no way of showing favoritism.  Benefits to faculty … [Projected on Screen]

 

Benefits to Faculty

          Promote yourself and your class online

          Get rid of personal character attacks on other websites.

          Allow you to have access to a wealth of information.

 

As you can see, you will be able to promote yourself and your class online and let all students get to know you a little bit better.  This is a great way also to get rid of www.rateyourprofessor.com.  Nobody would have any use for it and therefore the negative comments that are up there about some teachers would not be up there anymore – because of lack of use.  It will allow you to also have access to a wealth of information through that poll.  Benefits to students … [Projected on Screen]

 

Benefits to Students

          Allow information to get to all students

          Educate students on the class they are taking

 

Once again, it allows information to get to all students.  I am an independent student – before I was SGA President; I really wasn’t anything on Auburn’s campus.  I did not the access to the wealth of information that most students have.  I don’t have the automatic friends that some organizations do provide.  It also would educate students on the classes that they are taking.  The next thing was the SGA Test Files.  [Projected on Screen]

 

SGA Test Files

Facts

 

          Four years ago, the SGA collected tests.  One of the smallest fraternities turned in

almost 600 tests. 

          Many organizations on-campus have test files

          Students who have tests that other students do not have access to, have

a clear advantage over the rest of the students. 

 

Let me just go ahead and bring some facts to ya’ll.  Four years ago, the SGA actually collected tests.  One of the smallest fraternities on Auburn’s campus had over six hundred tests that they turned in.  Many organizations on our campus actually have test files and it is my personal belief that anyone who has tests or access to tests that the rest of the students don’t have, they have a clear advantage over the others. [Projected on Screen]

 

What is SGA doing?

 

          We are calling for all tests to be turned in.

          By email, we will contact each professor whose test we receive to notify them

that we have their test.

          Post all tests online on the SGA Website.  

 

By the SGA being able to call in tests, we are actually equalizing that benefit between everybody else.  What we are going to do is we are going to call for all tests to be turned in – just a copy.  We will let people keep their original.  By e-mail, we will contact the professor whose test that we have and let them know that we have it and then we will post it online.  That way, it is available to all students. [Projected on Screen]

 

Advantages

 

          Allows no student to have an unfair advantage over another. 

          Allows students who have tests or study guides, to feel better about having

them knowing that the professor knows that they are out there.

 

The advantage is that no students are ever going to be able to have access to the test that no other students have.  The second advantage is that it is going to allow all students who have tests and study guides to feel better about having them, knowing that the professors knows that they do have them.  Do ya’ll have any questions?

 

Ruth Crocker, History [Not at microphone]:  While I admire your energy … are you going to move on and give us [Inaudible]

 

Jonathan McConnell, SGA President:  Well, with the Classroom Behavior Policy, you can just kick them out if you don’t like them – I guess.

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology:  I think what Ruth is suggesting is that we establish our own online Bulletin Board, and we post hearsay about our students and our classes and maybe rate them with a nice little pie chart like that and that way we can determine ahead of time whether we want them enrolled or not.  I have got some serious problems with your first proposal, and I will be mean and say that I am disappointed to hear that that is one of the major initiatives that the SGA is undertaking this year.  For one thing, you have suggested that – you have implied that students might be more interested in participating in this online version of faculty evaluations and under your breath you said, after all we never fill out the forms at the end of the term.  Why do you think that students would take this online format more seriously than they do the one that we submit ourselves for our own evaluation? 

 

Jonathan McConnell, SGA President:  The reason is honestly – and this is something that came up whenever I was trying to talk to some professors about – trying to figure out what questions you were going to ask – the reason that online is so much more effective – you know that most of the time when ya’ll pass those out for us to fill out, you pass them out at the end of the class.  Any minute that we can get out we love to get out of class a lot faster – that’s just the typical student.  This would provide – and I did not mean that in a snide way at all – I mean, I do usually try to fill out those surveys that are given.  The thing is, my professors tell me that the most important thing to do is just don’t sit there and bumble-in the letters at the end of the semester – to actually write down what they did that could make them more effective – at least the good professors that – I thought that is what they asked me to do.  This would give that opportunity for us to do that.  It would give us time to do it.  Students could actually go back in and resubmit something – they could change their response. Because I know that sometimes right after the end of the semester, right after taking my finals, sometimes I may be a little more bitter.  Some of the hardest classes I have taken, I would go back and reevaluate right now, and I would say that was the best professor that I have had.

 

Cindy Brunner: Second question.  You have also implied that officially sanctioning this format – this third party vendor – would result in a decline in the use of www.rateyourprofessor.com and other online slam books – I guess you could call them.  What would happen to the Plainsman’s Bulletin Board – in which people can post anonymously what they think of their Auburn professors?  

 

Jonathan McConnell, SGA President: What would happen to that?  I would hope that the user – I mean, I get lit up on the Plainsman’s Message Board more than each and everyone of ya’ll – I promise you that. I mean, if you want to go back and look though the archives and check through elections, I was not supposed to win this election.  But, if you look at it, the user ship of those Plainsman’s Message Boards should go down.  I am not saying that it will.  But to me, if you want to trade the Plainsman’s Message Boards, which is where they can say anything that they want to and they can post it anonymously for something that is sanctioned – they are not going to say stuff like, “Hey, you know what? I think that Jonathan McConnell is an idiot.”  Well, they will probably say that, but they are not going to sit there – and they can’t post it on line.  They cannot post it for other people to see.  It has got to be constructive and it can say, “You know what? That person did not verbalize well – she talked quietly in class; therefore I could not understand her lectures.”  I think students have a right to know that, but, the thing is though, is that if the professor got on there and read it, they’d be like, you know maybe I need to speak up in class. 

 

Action Items

 

John Mouton:  Okay, the next order of business is an Action Item.  Paula Sullenger is going to present a resolution from the Steering Committee.

 

Paula Sullenger, Senate Secretary:  First of all, just as a reminder, especially for the new people.  We do need people to sign in that they attended today.  So if you forgot to on your way in, please sign in on your way out.  That includes all of the Deans and Vice Presidents also.  I put that roster together in a hurry, and I realized that I left off one or two departments – just fill it in and we will get that fixed for next time.  Back in April of this year, the Senate passed a resolution regarding the Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee asking them to do their work quickly. Also, what was most important to the Senate, I think, urges the Committee to give due consideration to all candidates, to identify nominees who as a group satisfy the need for diversity for race, gender, and expertise.  As you know, the Trustee Selection Committee did do just that, I think it was last month.  So we thought that since they did actually do what the faculty hoped that we would do that we could acknowledge that in some way.  So, the resolution reads Resolved – and the wording is directly from the April resolution.  [Projected on Screen]

 

Resolved, That the Auburn University Senate commends the members of the Auburn University Trustee Selection Committee for their success in identifying nominees who, as a group, satisfy the need for diversity of race, gender, and expertise to serve on the Auburn University Board of Trustees.

 

I am going to move that we adopt this resolution.

 

John Mouton:  No second is required because the motion comes from the Steering Committee.  So we will open it up for questions or comments please.

 

Cindy Brunner:  [Inaudible]

 

John Mouton:  Okay, we have had a call for the question.  All in favor signify by saying Aye.

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

John Mouton:   All opposed Nay.

 

Senators:  No response.

 

John Mouton:  The Aye’s have it.  [The resolution passed on a voice vote with no opposition.]

The next business of order is an Action Item and William Gale is going to bring forward a report that we as a Senate are going to look at approving the report.  You will have to explain them …

 

William Gale, Chair, RSIP Committee: Thanks, John.  Well, let me see if I can explain why I am back, what we are voting on, and what the issues are underlying this vote.  Well, I back.  This will be the third time I have spoken to the Senate about this issue.  So, the question is why am I back?  Well, this time you finally get to vote.  The most obvious source of confusion is what are you voting on?  So, before I come to that, I would just like to remind you how we got to this point, so that I can place this in a little bit of context.   

 

Back in November of last year, Dr. Moriarty presented a document, which he called the Research and Scholarship Incentive Plan or RSIP to the Senate as an Information Item.  This was a proposal that he had come up with.  Following that, the Provost formed a committee, which I ended up Chairing; to look into this document and make a report to him on suggested modifications, on safeguards and things like that.  At my request, this was also expanded to include the wider implications of this policy.  Come January of this year, we made a short presentation to the Senate to explain what the Committee was, what its job was, and more than anything else to request input from the Senate and Senator body, and also from the faculty in general.  Based on that input and the Committee’s own work, we came up with a draft report.  That draft was discussed here in the Senate back in March.  We then had another call for general comments, and based on that, in March we submitted our final report to the Interim Provost.  Now there things set until some time this summer, when the question was raised; does the Committee’s report have the backing of the Senate?  Now, the only way that I know of determining that is for the Senate to vote.  I was reluctant to bring this up during the summer since this has been a controversial issue, and I really thought it should be voted on when everybody is here; hence I am back again.

 

So, the next question is and this is the big source of confusion, is what are you voting on?  Okay.  The first thing that I must emphasize is you are not voting on the Policy.  Why are you not voting on the Policy?  Because is does not belong to me.  I cannot bring that policy up for vote.  That policy is the property of Dr. Moriarty, and he will need to bring it up for a vote – if he so chooses.  The Committee is not a policy making body.  We have no authority to make policy; all we can do is give our opinion.  So, you are voting on our opinions.  The issue is our report, which hopefully everybody has had a chance to read.  The question is, do you consider this report to be a reasonable response to a charter which the Provost gave our Committee?  Do you think that this is fair and balanced, bearing in mind that there are very much conflicting concerns with this whole issue of the Incentive Policy, and we had to try to produce something that was a fair and balanced report?  Do you think that we have done at least a reasonable job of placing the report in the context of some of the wider issues which follow on from this kind of policy?  I must emphasize that it is entirely possible to endorse the report, while at the same time, not supporting the Incentive Policy. Conversely you can think that our report is the biggest heap of junk known to man and be entirely in favor of the Incentive Policy.  I must stress – they are two separate things.  So, what are we moving today?  What we are moving is for the Senate to endorse the report of the Committee, and I request that you punch away.  Thank you.

 

John Mouton: We have a motion.  Do we have a second?

 

Unknown Speaker:  Second.

 

John Mouton:             We have a second.

 

William Gale: My apologies for the typo – I thought I had eliminated that.

 

John Mouton:  We have got a second. So, we will open it up for discussion.

 

Renée Middleton, Counseling and Counseling Psychology:  Bill, I was reading the language of the report – and our faculty endorse the report on the whole – the one question that I had was: what about those grants and contracts that are classified as Outreach Grants? Are those included, and if so, shouldn’t there be language in there that those grants would then fall under the auspices of the VP for Outreach?  Do you understand that I am asking? 

 

William Gale:  Sure. The answer is, so long as they are not funded by State Funds, yes they are included, in our opinion of the Policy – and there is language in the document that addresses precisely this point.  This was one of the reasons why we wanted the name of the Policy changed to the Incentive Plan – was precisely to address things like non-state Grants for teaching and Outreach activities which we feel very strongly should fall under this same policy.  That is in the document.

 

Renée Middleton: I saw general language, and I thought it was, but it still to me leaves open the question about whether or not it is included – and I think our faculty would feel better if we also – there is a portion – and I can point directly to the report where it says something about reporting through the VP for Research, etc. – that maybe if the VP for Outreach were added there, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity as to whether those kinds of grants were included.  Can I …? Can I …? Is that a …?

 

 

John Mouton:  Renée, Renée, one of the things to remember in this process, is that what is going to happen – is there is a two-year pilot program, and then it is going to be evaluated. Am I accurate on that? That’s a big piece of it – and I think that what is going to happen is that all of the administration during the two-year process is going to go through one office – regardless of the source of it I think they are going to have to centralize it to evaluate it and the rest of it.  So, I agree with your idea, but one of the things is that I don’t know how it is impacted by the two-year test period rather than the full implementation. 

 

Renée Middleton:  What are you going to do with this report after we say yes or no – we agree with it and the report itself?

 

William Gale:  Well, what has happened with the report already is that this went to Dr. Pritchett, and the question then is that there was some question from Samford Hall as to whether this is endorsed by the Senate.  So, if the Senate chooses to endorse this, it will go back to Dr. Pritchett or to the Provost, depending on the timing, with the comment that the Senate endorses the report.  I would be more than happy to add riders saying that there are some specifics that people are concerned about.  But the question was, is there overall support for the general tone of the report?

 

Renée Middleton:  We can’t make a friendly amendment to the report at this point and time?

 

William Gale:  I would have no problem with that – if it falls under the rules of the Senate procedure it wouldn’t bother me.

 

John Mouton:               Well, I think that [Inaudible]

 

William Gale:  We can’t amend the report, but we can put the comment in.

 

Renée Middleton:   I just know how things track and paper and all that – and you’re saying – okay, it doesn’t need to be at this time – but this is a report that’s going to somebody and our faculty would very much feel comfortable if the VP for Outreach were listed there with the VP – and I understand that you’re saying that it is included – but that would be a friendly, I would think, amendment given what you are telling me. 

 

John Mouton:  Let’s hear from the VP of Outreach …

 

Robert Montjoy, Assistant Vice President for Outreach – and not a Senator: The first thing is a question.  I picked this up on the way in. It was being passed out – it says, a Proposal for a Research and Scholarship Incentive Plan.  This is not the Report.

 

William Gale:  No, it is not. That is not a document which I wrote. The Report has my name on the front.

 

Robert Montjoy:  Okay. We were out of those when I came in – although we had discussed changing the title …

 

William Gale: We left the title. We suggested that we should change the title of the Policy and to avoid confusion – we left the title of the report the same as it always was.

 

Robert Montjoy: The reason that I am going through these questions, Renée, we had a fairly lengthy discussion about making sure the Policy was inclusive, would include Outreach – and the report that I think that we signed off on was pretty good on that score. It does leave the Vice President for Research’s Office in the administrative role – just as the office of sponsored program plays that role. My concern was having picked this up when I came in – and having it be very different from what I saw.  If you are reading this thing – this is not what we are talking about. 

 

William Gale: Let me make two comments that might set your mind at rest, Renée.  One is that under our proposal, ultimately the Provost has responsibility for this document.  The reason administratively this falls on a day to day level under the VP for Research – is that people like Martha Taylor are the ones who are going to have to make this work on a sort of Engineering level – and they report to Mike.  So, on the level of the mechanics of it, this would fall under Mike’s office in our proposal.  But the ultimate arbiter of what stays and goes in the Policy would be the Provost.  So, this would be at a high enough level so that it is not meant to be tied to any one area, and the language in the report is quite explicit to say that Outreach is acceptable – and this is mentioned in more than one place in the report.  If you are worried, I can find the exact wording.

 

Renée Middleton [Not at microphone]:   No, Montjoy has satisfied my concerns [Inaudible].

 

William Gale: No, I stress that our report is the thing has my name by me and the Committee on the front.  The other document which some of you have been looking at is not something that I wrote – or indeed anybody else on the Committee wrote.

 

Missy Josephson, Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology:  As I understand it, if a professor – a PI – participates in this plan and reduces the State portion of their salary by some amount and that is replaced with externally funded money – they freed up that amount of money for use in the department – that still comes from the State.  When you look at the PI’s salary, now let’s say, they make 50%  and they are going to get 25%  -  20% of their salary from this Research Grant. They’ve gone from a $50,000 state hard money salary to a $40,000 state hard money salary.  How is that going to effect contributions to retirement programs?

 

William Gale: The question did come up, and this was an issue which was raised.  The best advice that we got was that it would not because – it certainly isn’t going to effect – this does not affect your baseline salary.  There is some ambiguity as to whether the bonus that you get will count as salary for the purpose of your pension.  But it should not – at least the financial wizards that we consulted told us.  Where your baseline salary comes from, as long as you get your paycheck from the University, it doesn’t change things.  It is a good job, because if not, I, who has been very heavily on soft money, would never be able to retire – and none of the people in Outreach, or 100% soft money people would ever be able to retire.  So, I don’t have a good answer.  I don’t think that we every got a truly unequivocal answer as to whether you could use the additional pay to bump up your pension.  Probably ultimately the retirement system would have a say on.  It is very unlikely, based on advice that we got that where your nine-month salary comes from would have any effect on your pension –

because it is still paid by the University regardless of its ultimate source.  I hope that has cleared things up.

 

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry:  Bill, I have several questions that are not necessarily, I guess from your opinion and I guess I am addressing the Policy more than the report on the Policy. But, I hate to support a report on a policy that I think may be flawed.  In principle, I want to say that I am prepared to support any reasonable proposal to allow Auburn to position itself to be able to retain top-notch faculty.  I personally have never had the opportunity to apply for grants that would have soft money and academic year money, so this really wouldn’t apply to me I think at any time.  Regardless of that, I would like to support this.  However, I have one serious concern about this.  On the face of it, I find that the University requesting funds for academic year release, a reduced work-load for a faculty member and then not exercising the reduced work-load and handing the money instead to the PI as additionally salary to be fraud.  How does this differ from requesting money for a laser and buying a less expensive one that will do the job and pocketing the difference?  How does this differ from faculty members, I guess, a President might get these too … I went on a trip and I had to present my credit card bill to the University to actually prove that I actually paid my ticket – rather than just my receipt from Delta.  Apparently people have been committing fraud by saying they were going to take trips and not taking them.  This to me is fraud.  I just don’t see it.  And what concerns me is if one agency, one small little group who gives you money, or gives someone money on this campus – for academic release time, sees it as I see it – what kind of black-eye is this university going to get? What kind of sanctions do we all face in Federal Funding?  If you can satisfy me that this is really isn’t fraud, I am more than happy to support it.  I mean, I want to enhance everyone’s salary.  Before I walk away – I have a couple of more questions.  I will hand you this, if you want to answer.

 

William Gale:   It might be best to break it down to make sure that I can answer all of your points – if that is okay with you. To answer your first point – one of the things that you mentioned, in passing perhaps, I would like to comment on.  One of the things we felt is that this is not a universal cure-all.  There is nothing in here for people who are highly meritorious but cannot attract non-Federal funds.  We felt that something else should be done for those people.  That is the first thing that I would like to state is that this is not a universal panacea.  Secondly, if we are using funds for academic year release time and people are not being released from their duties – that clearly is a problem for the University.  However, if we are using funds for academic year release time, as they stand and people are not being released, it would be just as much of a problem.   What you are speaking about could become a real issue I think – personally I am no expert in the law, but I don’t think that it becomes any larger of a problem as a result of this.  It might conceivably become more of a visible problem – that is the one extent I could …

 

Rik Blumenthal:  Do you think that this is something that is happening right now?  That people are getting money for academic release time and then not getting their release in the same fraction?

 

 William Gale, Chair:  Well, I suspect that it is subject to perception.  The definition – there were two problems that I would state that underlie all of these things.  One is that we don’t have uniform polices about these things across the campus and that is captured very clearly in the report.  There is no definition of workload. That is one part the problem and so there are very different perceptions of what constitutes release.  In some places their release actually involves reduced teaching loads and other places it does not.  The other problem is that if one did try to impose the uniform workload policy – well it is very difficult.  Engineering tried some years ago and it was very hard.  I was informed that I was doing the work of two and a half people.  None of my colleagues were informed that they were doing the work of less than one half person, which is fine, but inevitably we understand that there are only so much of us and the work needs to be done.  I think what you are discussing are real problems, but I don’t think that they are real problems necessarily intended by this policy.  It is possible – I can’t say it is for sure – that the Policy may make these more visible.  I am absolutely sure under the cost accounting standards, if we cannot satisfy the Federal Agencies – this is why we have all of this paperwork. This is why you have to sign these Personal Action Reports on everybody that we employ.  If we cannot satisfy these Federal Agencies that we are using the money honestly – and what we are saying it is being used for, it is being used for we are in big trouble.

 

Rik Blumenthal:  I am just looking at this and on the face value, it looks like we are saying that we are not going to. It looks like we are saying very openly that we are going to take release time.  For instance, I am 60% appointment on research. Now if you give me release time, you can only release me out of the 40% that I am not on research currently. Okay, that is the way my appointment is balanced in my department – the way that we do our bookkeeping.  If in fact then for the last year, I have been teaching – as for my 40% including service – I have been teaching one course per term – which would be the facts.  If I get academic release time and I continue to teach one course per term, I have not gotten academic release time.  You cannot justify that as being reducing that 40 percent so I could do more than 60 percent of my time on research.

 

William Gale, Chair: I think that there are two issues here.  One is time spent on the project and the other one is release time.  In many places those two are not one and the same.  This is a complicated issue.

 

Rik Blumenthal:  Well, I agree with you there.

 

William Gale:  If I sign to say that I have spent a month of my time on a project – when I have to sign that piece of paper that comes around from accounting – say if I spent a month of my time on the project – the answer is yes, I have spent a month on the project. Does it mean that I was released to do it?  No, it means that I did it in the middle of the night and on the weekend.  Unless somebody would care to contradict this, so long as I have spent a month on the project, whether I have done it at two in the morning, is my own affair.  What you are – these things are calculated on – some agencies I think calculate this on man hours and some on man months, but my understanding and perhaps some of our more financially aware people could correct me if I am not phrasing this very well – that as long as you are spending the time, it is okay.  What the Policy doesn’t allow people to do is both receive a salary incentive and receive a reduced load at the same time.  We thought that was double dipping.  You can’t use the – we didn’t think that it was right for those people to get two benefits from the same dollar of contribution – but that is a University matter.  I think as terms of definition, as far as the agencies are concerned is, are you spending time on the project?  If you said that you are and you are not, that would be fraud – yes – that was my understanding.

 

Rik Blumenthal:  Well, I guess I take a more restrictive view of what academic release time is.  We all have to on our annual evaluations – if I am not wrong – everyone else also has to list what their percentage is of their appointment.  That percentage of your appointment actually I’ve had calculate that I could not in a cost share situation with EPSCoR justify enough cost share and had to go to real dollar cost sharing because I didn’t make enough and I couldn’t justify enough time on cost share because of the actual percentage that was being used there.  Those numbers are used for hard calculations on things like cost shares for EPSCoR programs. I would think they would be used just as hard for release time.  If you are right now performing (x) duties and you are getting listed as 40% academic time and then if you perform those same (x) duties and you’re – then you have the same amount of academic time.  You have not received any release time from the University.  That is my problem.

 

John Mouton: That is not the Policy that [Inaudible].

 

Rik Blumenthal: Well, my question is that if the Policy is a commission of fraud on the part of the University, then the report should reflect that – I guess that would be my comment.

 

John Mouton:  Evidently they didn’t find that.

  

William Gale: I don’t think that we found any evidence of that this was of dubious legality. Indeed we actually took the trouble – Martha Taylor, who is the Director of Sponsored Programs, was kind enough to have the company who advises her on legal matters look, and they said that they consider this to be legal – and not just legal – but within the rules of federal agencies.  We did review this in terms of – there may be issues in terms of equity and fairness – but, I don’t – which there are – I mean there are and we have tried to capture some of these. There are some issues there, but I don’t believe in terms of baseline legality that there is a problem – at least that is not the advice that we have received.  If we have taken the advice out of context, then maybe we are wrong about this.  But all we could do was seek professional advice because I am not …

 

Rik Blumenthal: That is what I wanted to hear – is that you have done that.  That satisfies me that we have got some sort of expert saying that it is not.  I am not the expert.

 

William Gale:  Well, I don’t think that Mike would want to be out of the research business – let’s put it that way.

 

Rik Blumenthal: My other question was in the beginning of the report, you stated that this program was originally designed after the program at West Virginia and a survey of other schools has been conducted.

 

William Gale:  Which was not one we did.

 

Rik Blumenthal: It was not at all mentioned in the report where that survey – what did that survey show?  Are other schools doing this?

 

William Gale:  Well, it showed – to give you two parts.  One is one of the things that we mentioned in the report was the difficulty getting the information out to other places.  Most of the places that do this have a big medical school – of course that they have access to large amounts of soft money.  The interesting thing about the West Virginia case is, financially they are not that different from us.  It is very difficult to make a direct comparison to most of the other places that have a big medical school and someone like UAB – they have access to very large amounts of soft money.  Even a well-funded typical institution doesn’t have that kind of access that a medical school would have.  So, yes, there was not a very good response on the survey, which Dr. Moriarty got back and of that not very good response of the institutions that are doing this, the medical schools just aren’t really comparable to us and the West Virginia case, which is the one that Dr. Moriarty modeled his policy on – our report is not modeled on anybody’s policy – but that is what Dr. Moriarty used as a baseline.  I think that the reason that he did, was he felt like this was the closest model program that seems to be successful was the institution like Auburn.  I think that is where that came from.

 

Rik Blumenthal: Thanks.

 

John Mouton:  Any more comments? Please …

 

Jim Saunders, Geology and Geography:  This being my first duty as a Senator, I decided that I would poll my constituents and discuss it with them.  Some of the more cynical of my constituents felt that perhaps that the Vice President for Research was being a little disingenuous in wanting to recruit and retain good faculty and that he might have a vested interest in himself in this issue.  My colleagues question is – were there exit interviews presented to the Committee that documented that a particular faculty member left because he couldn’t pay for any of the salary during the year. And if so, how did that rank with people who thought that maybe the Board of Trustees or Administration wasn’t up to snuff – or overall faculty salaries are too low – or these other issues? 

 

William Gale: To answer your questions – let me begin by declaring an interest of my own.  I have said from the outset, every time that this has come up, that I would benefit from a policy like this, which is why I personally can’t take a neutral stance on it.  I don’t think that I should overly defend the Policy itself, because I would do very well out of it – I have to say that.  The kind of exit interviews that you are talking about, I don’t know of anything like that.  The only people that I know that we do exit interviews with are students.  I think it would be a good idea if we did do exit interviews. 

 

Jim Saunders:  So, we are operating in a vacuum here – just an assumption that this is running off good faculty – that we are not doing this.

 

William Gale: Well, let me say two things.  We are relying inevitably to some degree on anecdotal evidence.  All we could do was to seek the widest input possible –and we have made great efforts to consult with people, and to encourage those people that know of people that have left – I think and I would hope that you would have heard – but what we heard of course, were opinions on the Policy –some for and some against.  I am not sure – that if you ask somebody why they leave – I think that is a complicated question. 

 

Jim Saunders: Well, the whole intent – if you take the Vice President for Research at his word was to recruit and retain faculty.

 

William Gale:  Firstly, I cannot speak for Dr. Moriarty. You must ask him what is in his mind.  It would be very wrong of me to speak in his behalf.

 

Jim Saunders:  It is in his proposal.

 

William Gale: Yes, but I am not responsible for his proposal.  He is.  Please understand that I cannot speak for Dr. Moriarty.  I don’t work for him and so I cannot. I can’t say what is in his mind.  He would have to answer that question.  If you ask me, am I sure that this would help retain faculty?  No.  Do I think that this would reward productive faculty? Yes.  Do I think that this would reward all productive faculty? No.  Do I think this is a step in the right direction? Yes.  Do I think this is where we want to be ultimately? This is only a small part of it.

 

Jim Saunders: Certainly we would like to have the option to vote on this – not just the report and it seems, particularly in my colleagues thought – they are ambivalent as to what we do with the report – but they would also like to balance this with a – since the Senate at this point – because otherwise we may never vote on this again.

 

John Mouton [Not at microphone]: No. It is not a policy [Inaudible] If there is a pilot program [Inaudible] providing input for the design and development of the pilot program.  If at the end of the pilot program, it has become a permanent part of the University, then the Policy will be brought to the Senate for voting.

 

Jim Saunders: Okay.  Somehow, I don’t feel real comfortable with that.  [Laughter]

 

Tim Boosinger, College of Veterinary Medicine: A member of the Committee but not currently a Senator – I am Dean of the College.  I had the pleasure of talking to the Vice President at West Virginia on behalf of the Committee, and the things that he shared.  He did address that he felt like that had enhanced their recruiting and retention.  That was brought up.  I think in our College that I can make a case that this will enhance our ability to retain some really outstanding individuals.  The other was that they have had this program in place at their university for a number of years, and they have seen a significant increase – I think it was in the 200 to 300% range of extramurally funded support.  So, whether we like it or not, I think some faculty at Auburn University are asked to accept a significant overload.  I see this as a way to reward faculty that take that kind of overload on.  Our committee went around and around on the legality of this, and all of those things and I think that has been cleared up in my mind.  I am comfortable that this is a very reasonable thing to do.  The other is – and then I will sit down – is that we all realize, even within my College, that this program is not a perfect fit for every unit and just like other – we have research tract programs, clinical tracts, and they work great in some departments – they don’t work in others.  I think that we need the maximum amount of flexibility as we head into these very uncertain fiscal times in the next two years.  So, I would encourage you to support it.  

 

John Mouton:  Any other comments?  Then we will go ahead and have the question.  The motion is the Senate endorses the report of the RSIP Committee.  All in favor signify by saying Aye.

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

John Mouton:   Opposed Nay.

 

Senators:  Nay.

 

John Mouton:  The Aye’s have it.  We have extended past our normal hour.  What I would like to do if there is not an objection – is to bring the Discussion Topic back at the October meeting because we have people that are leaving already.  We will try to get the agenda to where we can have adequate time to have a discussion before time runs over.   So with that, we will adjourn the meeting.  Thank you very much, and if you haven’t voted, please do so before the polls close.  Thank you. [Adjournment at 4:47 p.m.]

 

Adjournment