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
John Mouton, Chair of
the Senate: This is the
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
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
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
William Walker: Well, your inability to get response
is more recent than mine – mine, was dated
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.
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
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
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
Adjournment