Auburn University Fall Faculty Meeting

                                                September 14, 2004

 

 

 

Dr. Willie Larkin, Senate Chair: May I have your attention, please?  Thank you very much.  I call this Fall Meeting of the Faculty to order.  I want to thank all of you for being here.  We have a short agenda; however, it may wind up being as long as all of the other meetings.  I’d like to refer to the minutes of March 16, 2004.  They have been posted on the Senate website.  Hopefully you’ve had an opportunity to review those.  At this time, I’ll entertain a motion to approve those minutes.  This is not a test.  Renee Middleton and then Connor Bailey seconds.  Any discussion?  Those in favor of approving the March 16, 2004 minutes please indicate by saying Aye.  Opposes, nay.  The minutes are approved. 

 

This is a good time of the year because it’s the fall and it gives us the opportunity to invite our President to come and present a State of the University Address, and then it gives the faculty an opportunity to pose questions to him as we work in partnership and collaboration to make Auburn University better.  This is a meeting where anyone who is a faculty member can come to the microphone and they can speak.  We’ve got a microphone on this side of the room and right in the middle here.  If you think you are going to ask a question, we ask that you go to the microphone, even if you change your mind and have to go and sit back down, and that will keep things moving just a little bit.

 

Dr. Richardson, I assume that you’re ready, and if you’ll come forward, we’ll entertain your comments.

 

Dr. Richardson, Interim President: Thank you, Dr. Larkin.  I’d like to make a couple of introductory statements and then get straight into the program.  Obviously I’ve added one additional item dealing with the hurricane and I’d like to talk to you about that straight away.

 

I think most of you understand the nature of the changes that occurred in January and the, I guess, the limitations of why I’m here.  In that case, that I’m referring to, is that my role is basically to address certain issues, such as SACS and so forth, so that at some point in the future, a search can be conducted and therefore I would save my comments in regard to the State of the University-one would be presumptuous, after only being here seven months-I thought I could offer something in a very comprehensive way.  So what I’d like to do is to identify several issues which I think are of mutual interest and then, as Dr. Larkin said, I’d be glad to respond to any questions.

 

First-Hurricane Ivan.  I’m sure you’ve watched the Weather Channel, just like everyone else and I would say to you, Dr. Larkin that I would like to leave after these comments because we have a meeting immediately after this one with Emergency Management dealing with several things, one of which is about classes.  I would not want to speculate at this point, but just to, and we will make an announcement this afternoon late as to just what we will do.  According to the most recent information that I have, the hurricane has moved a little bit further to the west, entering Pascagoula, Mississippi as opposed to Mobile Bay.  Obviously, further west for us, at least, that’s better.  It still is on a track to arrive here sometime on Thursday, and depending on just where it enters the coast, would obviously affect how severe it would be.  We have several decisions to make.  For me, I had planned to make several introductions to the Board of Trustees this Thursday and Friday.  I know some of you participate on those committees, and the Trustee Meeting, including the dinner and so forth, has been cancelled for this week, and we will try to schedule within the next ten days.  Dr. Davis is polling the Board at this point to see when we could find an alternative date.  So the Trustee Meeting for Thursday and Friday this week has been cancelled and will be rescheduled.

 

The second aspect of that is obviously the classes.  If the brunt of the storm, and assuming that it would still hit us in a major way, is on Thursday, I just don’t believe we can wait until Thursday to make a decision.  So we will make a decision this afternoon.  And without saying this is final, I would anticipate that classes would be cancelled effective tomorrow, but I would, for the rest of the week.  But I would like to work with the EMA people, Alabama Power people and all those we’ve got with us to finalize that.  We anticipate, John, you’re here, we should make an announcement; we’re shooting for around 6pm?  Between 5 and 6 this afternoon we’ll make a final call on that.  As we all know, as you’ve watched hurricanes over the years, for those of us who have grown up on the coast, you understand that sometimes they have a mind of their own and we just don’t know exactly what to expect.  So, that has...the Board Meeting has been cancelled.  We anticipate that classes will have to be cancelled.  We’ve had a number of calls, within the hundreds today, from parents dealing with their children and so forth, and we believe that if they’re going to leave campus, that certainly they need to leave ahead of the storm.

 

The third issue that we’re dealing with that is unresolved is, obviously, the football game itself.  We are involved in discussions with both the Southeastern Conference officials.  It is a televised game; we obviously have another team, LSU that is of interest there.  As I understand it, LSU will not leave Baton Rouge until the afternoon of Friday.  So we’re going to try to make some decision no later than Friday morning as to the game.  Now obviously if the storm follows on its predicted track, by Thursday night it would be past us.  So, obviously it’s somewhat incongruous, but that’s the life we live-we cancel classes but we play football and what’s new?  And so, nevertheless, I do think the fact that the storm is to be here early Thursday morning, if it follows the same track, we just cannot take a chance in that regard.  We’re going to have as much security as we can.  Most of the power, as you know, is underground, so we feel reasonably confident that we’ll have power for those who choose to stay on campus.  So, Hurricane Ivan.

 

Second, SACS.  I saw Dr. Glaze here and I think she could confirm that on September 28th, which is not too far off just a couple of weeks, we will have a visit, if it’s ok to say that, from the SACS team, consisting of about four people who will be coming primarily to confirm whether or not we’re doing what we submitted to them in written form.  We are, and hopefully it will be sufficient.  I anticipate that this team will not be as visible as others and they will be checking certain documents, as they have already requested minutes of the Board Meeting and things like that, and they will be interviewing people, such as Trustees and, I’m sure, myself and others.  But then they would leave sometime that Thursday morning on the 30th.  As to the exit conference, I’m not sure how that will be handled at this point.  I’m sure we’ll find out shortly.  So again, I would simply say to you that has been my number one priority, to remove SACS.  It is a blemish on our record and I have done everything that I could, including submitting to SACS any policy or recommendation that I submitted to the Board, submitting to SACS in advance to make sure that it was sufficient.  Having been given that assurance and as a result of that, I feel comfortable that we have now been able to move on. On the legal side, obviously we’ve withdrawn the suit.  We had one of our people that had entered that suit, that has been removed at this point, so I think that was a holdup on finalizing that, and we’re continuing to work on that legal side of it.  But other than that, I believe that we have substantially met, or fully met would be a better term, that which SACS would require of us.

 

When we have our next Trustee meeting, this is item number three for me, we’ll include some of the standard items that you’ve come to expect in terms of construction and certain policies, faculty handbooks has one item on there, very minor item dealing with what’s constitutes a majority, that sort of thing.  But in addition to some of the suggestions that I would make, I will include six initiatives that I would place before them.  These are not earth-shaking types of initiatives, although most certainly one or two will create some controversy.  Wanted to just describe for you, and the reason that I’m not prepared to list those for you now, I have not submitted those to the Trustees; I believe I saw Virginia Thompson, you’ve come in as a member of the Trustees, thank you so much for coming; so I would prefer to just wait until we have our next meeting, which will be within the next ten days, and then we’ll start the process of reviewing those initiatives.

 

I wanted to talk about two or three aspects of that and what I’m trying to accomplish.  In regard to my success, I have only one criteria and that is that my successor will have a very long and productive career as President of Auburn.  And it’s very easy to pass policies and get everything in place so that we’ve done what we need to do.  That’s the easy part.  The most difficult part is what I choose to call a pattern of behavior.  That is, we’ve come to understand: this is what Trustees do, this is what Administration does, and in that context, over a period of time, certainly 12 months would be what I would project, you should be able to come to grips with that and establish that pattern of behavior.  In that way, when the new person does come on, there won’t be a discussion.  And hopefully some of these issues, of the six initiatives, and the issues embedded in them, are somewhat problematic in some areas and that would enable the new person to not to have to deal with those and hopefully again would make, or ensure, his or her success.  It is my intention, then, and I encourage the faculty committees to be prepared, and I think those are fully staffed-is that correct, John? It’s pretty much up to speed?  OK, so certainly within the next couple of weeks then, all of them should be fully staffed and what we would do then is to put all of the information on the table, which would include the data that we would use to make our recommendations, and what I would anticipate then, is when we have our annual meeting in June 2005, is to be prepared at that time to make specific recommendations, assuming I’m still here, I will make the recommendations in June 2005.  That does not mean that everything starts immediately.  I would anticipate that there will be several years before full implementation of some of these ideas will occur, and of course, that would require additional discussion.  But I do want to emphasize again, we’re going to look at these six initiatives for the reason that I mentioned, that pattern of behavior, and we’re going to be reviewing those over a rather limited period of time between now and June.  There will be full discussions, starting with the Board of Trustees, with this November meeting.  And then I hope that we can, in those recommendations, include the implementation schedule.  Some will be almost immediate-one of them is the research park-well, obviously that’s on a fast track and we know where it’s going.  Another is Gulf Shores; that’s got its own momentum.  So there’s not as much to deal with as some of the others.

 

So, I hope that you understand the reason for the taking of initiatives.  I had a good question as I spoke to a large civic club in Birmingham a week or so ago, as to whether or not it conveyed the impression as to whether or not I intended to stay a long time, and the answer is no to that.  And so I would say again, the intent is to establish that pattern of behavior so that my successor will have a great chance of success.  That’s it and I believe this is the only way to get at it.  We can talk about it all we want, but until we get into some of those hard and controversial discussions, we won’t know whether or not people will adhere to those standards.

 

I wanted to talk about several projects currently underway.  First of all, we are obviously very concerned about state funding for education.  You may remember that the chair of our SACS committee was Mr. Casteen, as President of the University of Virginia, and as I talked with him, and now I see it was in the paper this week-with Virginia Tech, University of Virginia with William and Mary-have all gone together to petition its legislature within Virginia to say ‘If you give us the flexibility’-the legislature has some very serious restrictions on tuition and so forth in Virginia-‘that if you give us the flexibility to operate, we will not ask for anymore state funding at all.’  And they have gone to the legislature with that.  I thought it was very interesting that Mr. Casteen was talking to me, I had been on the job a couple of months at that point and he was very helpful to me, is that he said only 8% of his budget came from state funds at that point.  So I think we can reasonably predict whether your South Carolina-which substantially cut its higher ed funding this past legislative session, the same state where the Governor has announced that: ‘We will give you your buildings debt-free, just don’t come back and ask us for anymore state money’-to Colorado, which is going through the same thing.  I think we can reasonably predict that a state like Alabama, with its immense needs and very limited capacity that will put a great deal of pressure on funding for higher education in the future.  In that regard, I don’t believe that’s something we just throw up our hands and in resignation say: ‘We’re through.’  I believe the major problem with Auburn’s not receiving its fair share, if you will, from higher education and it has not received its fair share, is that it has never had a legislative plan.  And what I mean by that is it has never determined that these are the two or three or four things that we think we need to support and we go to Montgomery with some capacity to stay there every single day and night to make sure that we are successful.  That’s the only way it works in Montgomery, whether you like it or not, that’s the way it works and that’s something with which I have considerable experience. 

 

I would say then that we have concluded our polling-I have not seen the results yet.  We have conducted four focus groups of representatives of the population and I would anticipate sometime in the near future that we will use those data to fashion our legislative plan.  The reason, the rationale behind that is this: most people in Alabama don’t have a college degree.  I don’t know what the percentage is, low 20s is what I’ve seen before, and many people are not close to a university so they don’t readily see the impact.  And if we’re successful in the legislature, we’ve got to have a broader appeal than those that may understand some of the economic predictors.  So that’s why we’re trying to find out what resonates across the state to fashion our plan around that.  That’s our objective.  So I would anticipate that certainly within the next couple of months, we should be able to develop that plan.  I would have to tell you that this is something that requires more secrecy than perhaps you would prefer, but again I will give you at least two reasons that I find acceptable for that not being as public as most would prefer.  We have four levels of higher education in Alabama: post-secondary education, historically Black colleges, regional universities, and the Auburn and Alabama.  When the Auburn and Alabama get together, the other three turn 180 degrees away and do everything they can to fight that coalition.  And so I’ve already had requests from regional institutions, because obviously they would like to know what our plan might be so they can fashion their opposition to it.  So, I would say to you that what we’re after is not at the expense of a Troy or a South Alabama that is not the objective.  I really believe that if we’re successful, if Auburn and Alabama are successful at working together, if we are successful, then everyone in higher education will benefit.  So we’re not asking you to take 10% from Troy and 10% from Jacksonville; that’s not it at all.  So I believe that we cannot be quite as public for that reason.

 

Secondly, the work with the legislature has to be done prior to the start of the legislative session, and if we’ve not done our homework, if you will, by mid-January, then we will have wasted a lot of time.  And so we will be working very hard, as soon as that plan is fashioned, to make the necessary contacts, to push that plan forward with the idea that we want to focus on what we think would not only resonate with the general public but that is compatible with Auburn’s priorities.  And that’s what I’m after and I assure you that we will have, I believe, considerable success in that regard.  I would be surprised and disappointed if we did not.

 

The other area that we’re working on deals with a stronger presence in Washington, D.C.  I believe we’ve got to look at every possible avenue, whether it’s grants, research grants, contracts, and although Dr. Moriarty and company have been doing a reasonable job in that regard-and I don’t mean to say reasonable in the sense of not a good job-I think it’s got to have a broader push from the University as a whole if we are to be successful in that regard.  It’s a different set of rules in Washington than Alabama, than Montgomery.  It’s a different set of standards by which you make your appeal.  So we are working on that and hope to have that one resolved by this fall in time, so that we’re be there in time for the start of calendar year 2005. 

 

So as far as lobbying again, it’s not something that I don’t believe anyone in this room, certainly not I, would wake up in the morning and say ‘Gee, this is something I really want to do’, but I would tell you that it’s something that we have to do if we’re to reverse that trend line for state funding and I believe we can and I believe we will.  But it’s also something we’re going to have to stay after.  We’re all going to have to come together.  What we’ve had in the past is a couple of pretty good ideas and then having half a dozen other people in the University working on their good ideas.  So we ended up stumbling all over each other and looking like the right hand didn’t know what the left hand was doing.  That’s not the recipe for success.

 

Space management-this is another item.  We have, I don’t know exactly, the numbers that I’ve been given, somewhere in the excess of $400 million dollars in construction projects on the campus at this time.  If you look at all the roads torn up and all that you could probably come to understand that.  What we have not had is a full-blown space management plan that will enable us, one, to determine whether or not we’re effectively using existing facilities, whether or not we actually need new buildings, renovations, or whatever the answer might be.  And the reason that I mention that to you is we anticipate that the additional cost of the new buildings that will come off within the next year or so will increase the operation costs to the University-Don, if I’m correct-will be $8-$10 million bucks per year.  So that’s a hidden cost, and that’s a 5%-6% tuition increase within itself, just to handle the new buildings.  So I think it’s time we looked at our facilities, time we looked at maximizing their use, and to make sure that if we can convert existing buildings, it would be more productive, or if that building is beyond repair, we take it out of operation so that we don’t continue to pay for it.  So, that’s not heavy thinking, I realize, but I simply tell you, we do not have such a plan at this point.  Hopefully, Dr. Hanley and office are working to bring some type of closure to that and certainly we’re going to be working with him to do that.

 

One thing I’ve picked up as I’ve come here, I’ve acquired a number of nicknames, none very positive.  But, that’s life and I’ve been called worse than those nicknames.  I would tell you that I wanted to talk to you just a minute about some reorganization efforts.  In Samford Hall, we have substantially completed those efforts and I would hope now we have people in position that will demonstrate that they are ready to assume major leadership responsibilities and that we can settle down with new assignments and I believe that’s necessary.  I realize that when I spoke to the Faculty Senate, I saw Dr. Penascovic today, that there may be some disagreement as to the tact, not attack, as to the tact that I’m taking.  But I believe that it’s absolutely essential and I believe that in the process of this, we will be able to offer all the services that we’ve had in the past at a savings of some $3 million bucks.  And I believe in this environment that is going to help us dramatically, if we were cutting services that would be a different situation.

 

It’s been my experience in dealing with bureaucracies that when Administration changes, you keep who you had before and you simply add another layer on top of that.  I have to tell you that has been my observation here.  So hopefully we are addressing that in a way that will enable us to not only become more productive but to not spend money unnecessarily on other projects. 

 

Athletic and Administration are substantially complete.  There are, were a few cuts there, and we continue to look at issues such as operations, leasing cars, all the things that are associated with that, so that we can effect additional efficiencies.  I would tell you that the reason that this is necessary is because I frequently have found that people are under the impression that the Central Administration and Athletics get preferential treatment.  So that’s why I went there first, so there wouldn’t be any doubt about that.  But I would also say to you that in Athletics, that’s going to be a tough job.  Most programs today, athletic programs, do not break even financially.  In fact, Auburn has 21 Varsity sports and has only one, and you can guess which one that is, that makes money.  That’s the only one.  So we have 20 of our 21 that are loss in terms of finances.  So in order to sustain the balance that we want and the diversity we want in sports, we going to have to continue to look at ways to increase our revenues for sports.  I think with the saturation of television and so forth, I don’t think we can reasonably predict that enthusiasm and attendance is going to go up.  If you look at professional sports, the attendance at those has been declining for at least the last 5 to 10 years.  So it’s just an issue that I wanted you to understand that.

 

We have one other that we’re trying to finish up with and that is Facilities.  And I would say that the reason that we’re looking at Facilities is we’ve looked at these massive construction projects.  We’re doing a good job in Facilities, and I’m not in any way being critical, but we’re not doing as good of a job in the area of managing our construction projects.  Now admittedly, that’s an awful lot to do at one time.  So we’re trying to come to grips with campus planning and assessment as part of that so that we will have adequate review through the various academic departments as well as the architects and so forth so that we will know what we’re doing, we’ll know that this is the right thing to do, we know this is not too costly and that we can afford it.  It will take a little longer for us to do that but we will be able to accomplish that division of responsibility with fewer people than we currently have so it won’t be a costly item.

 

I don’t know whether you have any interest or not, but other than when the eagle will fly, a question that I’m getting most frequently now is ‘Who’s going to be the Athletic Director?’  I simply will comment to you that we have a firm that’s looking.  We will conduct our interviews, hopefully starting as early as next week.  Those have not been scheduled and obviously this week has disrupted that.  But we hope, certainly by the end of October, that decision would be made.  Other than what you’ve read in the paper of the names, all of those are certainly legitimate names, but I don’t think the media has put any name in there that really hadn’t been considered, but there will be obviously some additional names that are Athletic Directors in other conferences and so forth that will also at least be approached.  One of the things that I’ve learned in my seven months here is that at least half the people with whom you speak; speak to you because they’re leveraging bigger salaries for themselves back home.  So that’s, sometimes you think you have a good pool and you find out that half of the pool is simply trying to squeeze more money out.  I had a call from a President this morning who asked me that very question.  This is a person that’s on the list and whether or not he was going to have to get into a bidding contest.

 

Another area that I’d like to, and then I’ll be coming to a conclusion here, and then respond to questions as best I can, dealing with Alumni Affairs.  I remind you, that if you’re a member of the Alumni Association, to vote.  Vote your conscience.  Since it has somewhat, I don’t know whether it’s been misreported or misunderstood, I wanted to just clarify my position on that, so that won’t be any doubt about it.  I’m not particularly concerned who’s elected.  That is of no consequence to me.  What I am concerned about is the direction in which that President and that Board would take the Alumni Association.  If they are interested, and obviously one of the candidates has made that known, in becoming a separate institution from the University, and being totally independent, then obviously that’s when I would have to become involved as to whether or not that’s satisfactory to us, and at least to me, that is not.  And you would try then to form an Alumni group that would be supportive of the University.  I said to the Alumni Board, and I would say to you, they don’t have to agree with me.  But as long as we’re focusing on the University, I think we can find some common ground out there.  At least I can-we’ve got three or four of my central staff here-every one of them has disagreed with me at least once.  So I would say that’s healthy.  So it’s not a question of whether they do my bidding, which it’s been before, that’s totally false.  It’s not a question of whether or not they want to establish some priorities.  Nothing wrong with that.  I would prefer that not occur.  Whatever time I have left, it would take all of that time just trying to rebuild an alternate organization and I do not wish to do it.  So I hope that can be avoided, but I wanted you to be aware of that.  I think the deadline as I looked at the notebook today is, for voting, is September 28th.  So if you intend to vote, that would be the time to do it.

 

Now, just in conclusion.  I believe the initiatives that will be put on the table will accomplish the objective that I intended and I hope that you would begin acknowledging at least the continued purpose.  This is not intended to extend my stay here as Interim President.  Secondly, I hope that you would understand that what the universities are going to be subjected to, whether its accountability, at some point in Alabama, heavier standards of accountability for higher education will be either handled internally by higher education, which is not too likely, or will be mandated by the legislature, which is not a good choice.  So we’re going to have one of those two choices.  And I would say to you that is not something Auburn or Alabama should have any concern about whatsoever, because whatever accountability standards would come forward, I don’t think would impact on us at all.  There are some duplication issues that we could look at, but I would say to you that as you see accountability, I’m saying in advance that I intend to support strong accountability standards for higher education.  And I believe that it will help us, and the standard example, depending on who’s counting, five or six institutions that offer engineering programs.  In a poor state, that’s probably not a good idea.  We have 29 teacher preparation programs.  Probably we need half that many.  So I would say to you that I would be pushing that and there will be some additional changes that will come down, but I’m quite confident that the future of Auburn is very bright and certainly we all will wait with grand anticipation for the first week of December when SACS will meet and give us its verdict.  Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to make these comments and I’ll just pause at this point to see if there are any questions.

 

Dr. Larkin: Thank you.  If you’re going to ask a question, please go to the microphone.  While they are doing that, Dr. Richardson, there were two observations that I made early on in your comments.  You talked about establishing a pattern of behavior and you only mentioned the Board of Trustees and the Administration.  Do you think it would be wise to include the faculty in that scenario?

 

Dr. Richardson: Right, but the relationship with the faculty didn’t get us on probation.  So that’s the reason I mentioned the Trustees.....

 

Dr. Larkin: Well, if I’m not mistaken, I think some of the faculty wrote a letter that helped us to get there.  What I’m getting to, I guess is, when you think about shared governance, it’s the three-prong approach so I would say the faculty, I wouldn’t use the word behavior, I would say pattern of engagement, something to that effect, but I would encourage you to use that.  The other question, you made mention about some of the decisions that you made will save like $3 million dollars.  For a lot of us, just to hear $3 million dollars doesn’t help us that much and I’m wondering if you were to say $3 million dollars and here are the places that it will help us to save.  Does that encumber you in terms of your leadership here or does that help us accept and understand these decisions a little more?

 

Dr. Richardson: Well, I may not fully understand your question or questions.  But as best I do, I would say this: I’ve been through this type of effort in other places.  And it’s never initially taken well.  You have all the standard comments that you’ve heard here.  The nicknames are different, same intent, same fear that you can’t walk down the hall.  All of that is proffered, creating this atmosphere of fear.  I would say to you that it is my intention, and again I may not fully have your question, Dr. Larkin, to shift these monies more toward whether it be scholarships or support of our academics, because once we look at those this coming year, I believe we’ll find that additional support will be needed.  I think also, it’s been my experience, that if you have a person that’s sitting beside you that’s paid the same thing or approximately the same thing but is not nearly as productive, it not only is an impediment to progress, but it actually creates a considerable amount of resentment.  And so I would hope that would help us as well.  Now if I’ve left out part of the answer or missed it all together, maybe you can try it again.

 

Dr. Larkin: Well, if you think that was a tough question, Connor will ask you a question and then we’ll move forward.

 

Connor Bailey, Chair-elect: Dr. Richardson, thank you.  And I hope others will be following with questions as well.  Dr. Richardson, a number of faculty colleagues have expressed concern that your reorganization efforts will soon shift to academic programs, program consolidation and this has of course has raised certain concerns among the faculty.  My particular concern is that the, if at such time we start looking at academic programs, what assurance can you give the faculty that the faulty will indeed be in the driver’s seat making such determinations of program reorganization, if any?

 

Dr. Richardson: That’s a good question, Connor.  I need to offer perhaps a perspective.  I think it was either 5 or 6 years ago that we had a Role Commission which I co-chaired with Dr. Walker.  That effort was being driven by the need that we need to make cuts here or there.  We’re not in that mode at this time.  That is not what we’re going to do.  Now to presuppose that we’re going to do consolidations, eliminations, I don’t see that at all. 

 

Now to your basic question, I believe, and I said this to such a meeting about a month or so ago, that it is far better on a periodic basis that the “we” being faculty and administration, conduct such a review to present to the Board of Trustees.  Before there was great resistance to that, and the resistance lasted for over three years and eventually the Trustees said ‘Well, ya’ll are not going to do it, we’re going ahead with it.’  And that’s when you get to surgical decisions versus meat-ax type of decisions.  So I would say to you that all of the data will be put on the table.  Originally it was scheduled for this Thursday; it will be sometime within the next ten days.  The committees will be fully staffed.  I and other members of our staff, each one of those initiatives will, in case of academics, obviously the Provost will be leading that discussion, will be prepared to come before you.  We’ll have a full year for those discussions.  I don’t like secrets so if the faculty is prepared to enter into the discussions in terms of positioning Auburn University for the future, I would welcome that.  I think the Trustees would welcome that.  And I think we would have a better solution if we do.  But if it’s coming in to say ‘Well, how can I slow this up?  How can I create enough controversy to make sure nothing happens?’-I’ve been through all of those and I’m not going to be sympathetic at all.  Well, now you say that just because you disagree with me?  No.  If we come up with a good recommendation, I think it will be apparent to all of us and I think we’ll have a great chance to accomplish some of the objectives that we all would like to accomplish.  So the key is, keep in mind, we’re not going into this and my comments will reflect that, with the idea that we need to make cuts.  That’s not going to be brought up.  I’m not going into it nor am I making any additional recommendations that we need to do any consolidations.  So whether that occurs or not, I think, depends to a large extent would be dependent on the discussions we have with the Board of Trustees, but certainly the faculty committees as well.

 

So I hope that you will actively participate, I know that you individually will, but if we can get broader participation, as I said, I will personally stand ready to respond to any questions and I personally assure you that when we meet in November; the meeting in September when we do meet, is simply to say ‘Here are the ideas’ and then in the meeting in November, there will be heavier discussions and then at that point, hopefully the committees will be fully staffed, the data will be presented and everyone will have access to the same numbers.  Yes ma’am?

Dr. Larkin: Yes?

 

Patricia Duffy, Secretary-Elect: When you say the committees would be fully staffed, could you elaborate a little bit?  Not names, but by what type of people, staff, administrators, trustees, faculty, all of the above, some of the above...

 

Dr. Richardson: The staff, I recognize may be misleading, staff sometimes means you have secretaries to report and all that.  I am assuming, John, that you could probably answer that.  If you looked at the composition of a faculty committee, the membership is generally consisting of what type of people?  If you don’t mind, go to the microphone that might help.  Thank you, Dr. Larkin.

 

John Heilman: My understanding of this is as follows: for each of the initiatives that Dr. Richardson will be discussing with the Board of Trustees, there may well be a standing University committee, the subject matter of which might make it quite suitable to engage in discussion of that issue in shared governance in respect to that issue.  When Dr. Richardson says that those committees will be staffed, what he’s getting at is that we, my office, is in the process of completing the appointments to those committees for the coming year.  The question, a very good question, was asked: ‘Well, what do these committees consist of?’  The answer to that question depends to some extent on what the subject matter of the committee is.  For instance, I can stop....

 

Patricia Duffy: So these will be the standing University and Senate committees.  When you say the committees will be fully staffed, you are not talking about special Ad Hoc committees that are being formed?  That was my question, I wasn’t aware that’s what you meant.  I’m aware of the composition of the University and Senate committees, but it wasn’t clear to me that was the type of committee you were meaning.

 

Dr. Richardson: Yes.  I appreciate you bringing that up because I’m not trying to confuse it and I’ll certainly avoid that in the future.  But in some cases the committee had either not met in some time or there were vacancies, and that’s what I meant, we’re trying to get them up to speed and active.  Thank you very much.  Thank you, John.

 

Richard Penascovic, Philosophy: I’m disappointed with the hire of John Waggoner as Special Counsel to the Office of the President.  Now he may be a brilliant attorney and may be a very good person himself, I have no idea, but of the thousands of attorneys around, it’s curious to me that you hire someone with the ties to the law firm of one of the Trustees, Mr. Jack Miller.  Could you...I’d be interested, too, in the process involved in this hire.  Is this something that the Trustees suggested to you or was that a decision you made by yourself?  How was that done?

 

Dr. Richardson: Fair question.  First, I think we have to look at several, there are many attorneys.  Many are making far more than I can afford.  Mr. Waggoner came to me; for the first couple of weeks he was doing work at that time for Tigers Unlimited, just trying to get that charter fixed up, at no cost by the way, and he said: ‘I have two young children and I love Auburn and I need, they’re getting ready to go to school.  If there’s ever a vacancy...’  We had a vacancy, a long-standing one.  Mr. Samford’s death led to a vacancy.  The primary-he’s under a contract for three years-it’s not the standard employment.  The reason for that is I believe it will take approximately that long to deal both with the research park and the Gulf Shores project.  He is especially well-versed in those areas.  Some attorneys are not as well-versed, and I’ve found him to be extremely helpful as late as today as I’ve dealt with the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources dealing with Gulf Shores.  I would say to you that if guilt by association is going to be the standard, then probably half of us need to leave the room.  I would say to you that once Mr. Waggoner came to work with me and I made the decision solely.  Then I would say to you that he works solely for me and not anyone else.  The cost of us hiring an outside attorney for both the research park and Gulf Shores would greatly exceed the salary that we’re paying him.  So we had a person who wanted to come, we had a family situation that was compatible, he had a great affinity for Auburn, he had the type of specialization for those two major projects, and so we signed a contract for three years in that regard and that’s it.

 

Dr. Larkin: Other questions?

 

Dr. Richardson: Well, unless there aren’t other questions, oh, one more.  Excuse me.

 

Dr. Larkin: If you intend to speak, go to the microphone because the President does have to leave and get back to his meeting.

 

Dr. Richardson: Right, because we have a meeting at 4 to make that decision on the hurricane and we’ll try to make some final decision between 5 & 6 today and John Hachtel will get that out.

 

Connor Bailey: I was not stepping up because I don’t want to dominate the microphone.  My question I’m sure will take you very little time to answer.  It has to do with diversity on this campus.  Two questions: one is that last week the University Senate put forward a resolution requesting a release of the study on diversity.  Can you tell us, please, what is the status of that report?

 

Dr. Richardson: Thank you.  Yes, that report has been given to the Provost.  Tom, do you wish to acknowledge where we are in that regard?  It has been released and will be posted on the web.

 

Connor Bailey: Thank you.  The second one is: Can you tell us please the thought process that led you to eliminate the stand-alone office of Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity and to incorporate that within the Office of Human Resources?  How does that move us forward in terms of diversity?

 

Dr. Richardson: Well, let me, say, I think perhaps, Lee, you could best answer those steps for us.  But I cannot, just being candid, just be totally frank and open with you because you’re dealing with a specific personnel issue and I think we all understand the potentials there.  I would think that we have not lost anything in terms of the separation for if there is an appeal or a complaint.  Lee, you were talking to me coming over.  I would prefer if you would go through that because it made a whole lot more sense than I think I could make in response.  Good question and I think he can give you the best answer.

 

Lee Armstrong, General Counsel: Thank you, Dr. Richardson and Connor.  There are several considerations that led to the decision, one of which was there had been a lot of concern on campus, among faculty and others, that the process for initiating recruitment for faculty and others took too long and we were passing too many forms from one office to another.  This restructuring/realignment hopefully will address that and streamline that process so that we can get those things turned around a lot quicker than we did in the past.  The structure that we’re using now is not unfamiliar to higher education.  It’s not unfamiliar to industry.  In fact, it’s my understanding that it’s common in industry and it’s also not unique to Auburn.  Back in 1988, ‘89, ‘90, in that area, we were without an AA/EEO director for some period of time, in fact, the Associate Director for Human Resources acted in that capacity during that period of time.  So that’s not unusual.  There is no loss in terms of our commitment to the AA/EEO process.  The complaint or the AA/EEO function will continue to reside in Quad Center, and they act pretty autonomously.  There is a provision set up so that if there is a conflict, and I want to address that, because the idea of conflict is misleading, that the Compliance Office will have direct access to the President’s Office to ensure that the head of HR, acting in an HR capacity, somehow doesn’t interfere.  But the important thing to remember is that HR doesn’t do hiring and firing on this campus.  Hiring and firing goes on from a division level, a department level, and the faculty level.  What HR does is purely advisory to those departments.  So they’re not making those decisions that people will be complaining about in most instances.  It’s going to be the divisions and departments that are doing that.  So we don’t really see the conflict that has been discussed.  I think those are the major points.

 

Dr. Richardson: Thank you, Lee.  I would again, since I do have a 4pm meeting with Emergency Management and others, I would ask if I could just be excused and again, between 5 & 6 we’ll issue an announcement in regard to classes for the next week.  Thank you so much.

 

Dr. Larkin: Thank you very much.  I was prepared to make an announcement in regards to fully staffing this Ad Hoc Committee for the Presidential Search Process.  Some things happened today and I have some question marks about two persons that we had planned to introduce to you today, so I’m going to hold off on that and if you will continue to check the Senate webpage, then you will get that.  I’m not making these decisions independently; I’m running them through the Executive Committee, the Rules Committee and also the Steering Committee.  The advice is given to me, the input, and then we take and make a decision after that.  So that will come later.  Is there any old business that needs to come before the faculty at this time?  Is there any new business?  Thank you very much.  Be careful in the next few days.  This meeting is adjourned.