Minutes of the University Senate

March 8, 2005

Send Comments to Patricia Duffy

Click here for Meeting Notes

Present: Willie Larkin, Conner Bailey, Debra Cobia, Patricia Duffy, Bob McGinnis, David Wilson, Dan Bennett, Wes Williams, Michael Moriarty, John Tatum, Mike Leslie, John Varner Harriette Huggins, Isabelle Thompson, Leanne Lamke, Garnetta Lovett, Jefferson Jones, David Cicci, Charles Mitchell, Werner Bergen, Eleanor Josephson, Barry Fleming, James Guin, Rik Blumenthal, Ann Presley, Renee Middleton, Gary Martin, Randy Beard, Judith Lechner, Charles Gross, Jon Bolton, Sadik Tuzun, Christoph Hinklemann, Robert Weigel, Kathryn Flynn, Jim Saunders, Thomas A. Smith, Tin-Man Lau, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Jim Gravois, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Daniel Mackowski, John Rowe, Robin Fellers, Cindy Brunner, Bernie Olin, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Norton, Roger Blashfield, William Shaw, Tom Williams, Howard Thomas, Tracey Oleinick, Sarlyn Smith-Carr, Dave Pascal, Vivian Larkin

Absent, sending a substitute: Debra Worthington, James Shelley

Absent, no substitute: John Mouton, Don Large, June Henton, Larry Benefield, Timothy Boosinger, Thomas Hanley, Sheri Downer, Robert Locy, Diane Hite, Mario Lightfoote, John Pittari, Raymond Hamilton, Joe Cherry, Ted Tyson, Jeff Tickal, Larry Crowley, Sridhar Krishnamurti, Alvin Sek See Lim, Dennis Devries, Ruth Crocker, Ken Tilt, Richard Good, Joe Sumners, Forrest Smith, Kem Krueger, Marllin Simon, Paul Starr

Dr. Willie Larkin, Chair: May I have your attention please? We have reached the appointed hour, so we will go on and get started. I call this meeting to order. We don’t have a quorum yet to approve the minutes. We will do that later if we do get that quorum. Although this does not relate directly to Senate business; I would like to take this opportunity to express appreciation to Coach Frank Tolbert, who is the high school basketball coach. I don’t know how many of you have had kids to come through the Auburn school system and played sports, or even if they just attended; perhaps in some way Coach Tolbert touched them, but he has been working for over 30 years to try and win a State Title. He has been to the final Championship game four times and on this fourth time, he was successful. They are going to have a parade next week and I encourage you to participate in that to show not only the high school, but the Auburn City community, how much we appreciate those efforts. I also want to make a comment or two about the consulting policy. In my haste to get this started, I referred this to the Handbook Review Committee. I still think that was a good choice, but I should have gone further and I should have added people in other collages and schools who have experience in the area of consulting, to that committee, so that we would have more of a comprehensive voice, in terms of the input. I had anticipated that we would have that committee reporting at this meeting, but we have decided to not do that. I am going to ask Conner, in his leadership role, starting next Tuesday, to assume the responsibility for shepherding that committee through. We will work together hopefully to reconfigure the components so that we do have broad representation.

I want to very quickly make some comments about the Provost Search process. I am sure that Dr. Richardson will outline his strategy, but I want to speak to it in regards to the faculty’s involvement.

First of all, I want to share with you, and I hope that none of the candidates have backed out, but this is the list of candidates. Jim Bradley – Department of Biological Sciences; John Cochran – Department of Aerospace Engineering; Christine Curtis – Department of Chemical Engineering; Larry Gerber – Department of History; John Heilman – Senior Presidential Assistant; Clark Lundell – Department of Industrial Design; Lewis Payton – Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering; William Sauser – Associate Dean and Professor of Business and Engineering Outreach; Holly Stadler – Department of Counselor Education Counseling and Psychology and School of Psychology; David Wilson – Associate Provost and Vice President for University Outreach; and Willie Larkin – Immediate Past Chair of the Auburn University Faculty Senate.

At this point, I would like to remove my name for consideration and I will let the other ten go forward.

I want to share with you very quickly the fact that Dr. Richardson has invited the Senate Leadership to be actively involved in this process. The five of us, the Executive Committee, will meet with Dr. Richardson on Wednesday from 3 o’clock until 5 o’clock. We have been given copies of the curriculum vitas for each of these persons. They are two to three page letters of interest, as well as their vision statement. We will meet with Dr. Richardson to discuss each of these persons, express our opinions about their strengths and even perhaps their weaknesses, and then give him our input on those candidates. From what I understand, Dr. Richardson will be meeting with Deans and Vice Presidents, and these are in separate groups, and then of course, the Senate Leadership and then the Multicultural Diversity Commission. So, he will meet with four different groups. Those of you who are representing staff and also A&P, as well as SGA, as well as the Graduate Student Group; you are a member of the Senate and therefore we are going to be moving forward with representing this entire body. From what I understand, the process will go forward and these individuals will be narrowed down from perhaps two to five individuals and they will be asked to make presentations; I am assuming during the week of the 14^th, I believe. You will have an opportunity to attend those public presentations and you will have an opportunity to respond to an evaluation form and you will turn it in and those comments will be looked at by the President and I am sure…well – I know by the President. Then, interviews will be conducted of those individuals by him and eventually a person will be named. So, I think that we have ample opportunity to provide input. I know that the five of us have been going over those documents and making notes and really thoroughly studying that, opposed to the description for the Provost. You can go on the internet and you can look at the Auburn web page and you can look at the requirements for that particular position.

(Not identified): Willie, can I ask a question about that process?

Dr. Willie Larkin: That will be fine.

(Not identified): There are lots of stake holders in this, but the faculty certainly is the key one; because the Provost deals with tenure, promotions, raises; all that sort of stuff. If our interim President in his infinite wisdom decides to take input from Board of Trustees members and football coaches…whoever…in this process; I want our faculty elected representatives input a matter of public record before any short lists are actually designed; so that if the President is ignoring faculty input, we will have a record of that. It is one thing to say that you want input…it is another thing to actually thumb your nose at it and do whatever you want to do. Will this be a matter of public record; who you guys listed at your top candidates, or is it just going to be four or five of you just going to say what you think or are you going to ask us what we think?

Dr. Willie Larkin: Well…he asked us, I mean I don’t think we were requested to rank order of the people. Basically we are looking …

(Not identified): I am not surprised.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Okay. Basically what we were asked to do is to review the credentials. We have got people who are full professors, I mean, I am the only one who is not a full professor on there and all of these people have gone thorough these ranks, we have dealt with Provosts before…and so I think it is a matter of us evaluating, from our vantage point, compared to what the job description is, and what those credentials represents. Now, I can't force the President to allow us to…

(Not identified): We can certainly as a faculty say…

Dr. Willie Larkin, Chair: We can request, if you want me to do that.

(Not identified): who we feel, and there is some good people on this list. Somehow I, being here 14 years, have an idea that those people are not going to be finalist or are not going to get the job in the end. So if the President and the Board wants to pick from that list, whoever they want, then it needs to be a matter of public record, who the faculty is at least supporting and that they did it against the wishes of the faculty, if that is what they are going to do.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Okay. I hear your points and we will bring that forward to him.

(Not identified): Okay.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Let me make a couple of other comments. The Ombudsman position has moved forward through this body for quite some time, but what has happened is the draft has been carefully looked at by a number of administrators as well as those of us representing the faculty. That document is ready to come back to Conner and myself so that we can look at it. I am not sure that, we debated it a long time, and unless you really wish this to happen, I’m not sure that bringing it back before the Senate to debate it is a very good idea. So, what I am anticipating is that Conner and I will sit down with a couple of administrators and we will review that document to make sure that it has not changed drastically from what it was; certainly the intent of it when it left this body. If we find that it is, we will bring it back before you, but I really think that the administration wants to move this position forward; particularly given a lot of the incidents that have occurred recently and we can get that forward. I will answer any questions that you have about that in a minute.

The Intimate Relations Policy – I am bringing it up simply because I want you to know that it has been moved forward. There was a situation where the staff and the A&P had some questions about some of the language. That has been talked about. I think that those two groups have language that doesn’t depart too far from what the original language was, but we have got to make sure that their concerns are incorporated in this. I was hoping, and they may get me for saying this, but since they are a member of the Senate, I hope that in the future that staff and…well, let me back up…they still have to take it back to their people and they have to look at it…so I don’t have any problems with that. I guess the point that I will make is that I think this is about where it needs to be. I think it is probably going to take one or two more meetings with some constitute groups to look through it to make sure and then before we move it forward to the Board for its approval, then what we will do, I don’t know, Conner will have to make this decision…but hopefully we will pass it back through for you to look at. The reason that I am afraid to bring things back after we have had lengthy discussion and debate is that a lot of times it will go forward, it will be treated by a lot of different people and then when you bring it back if there are any changes at all, then we sort of open up and renew that discussion and that debate and it just drags on and on. Unless it is really a significant kind of concern, then maybe we need to move it forward. You will be hearing from those two pieces; the Ombudsman position as well as the Intimate Relations Policy and probably you will hear about it on the Senate Web Page before our next Senate meeting.

I want to make a comment about the coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. If you will recall at our last meeting, this body approved Auburn’s Senate Membership in this. We indicated that the Senate leadership; particularly the Chair, and that will be Conner, at that point would represent us. The Steering Committee met recently and the way that we have decided to do this, is that every time that we get correspondence from this organization – we will put it on the Senate web page and you will be able to review that and then you will be able to counsel and advise us, the leadership, on how to vote and how to respond on that. Hopefully you will trust that we will do our homework and be ahead of the game, in terms of understanding the content and the context in which it is presented of this organization, so that we represent Auburn well. I want to read very quickly a couple of decisions or agreements that were made during this Steering Committee meeting.

It was suggested that we inform Senators, you, as soon as a COIA statement is available for review and solicit comments. Then, there is a current statement that is on the Web site and I think Conner communicated to you all, and the statement focuses on academic integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics, principles, and proposed rules and guidelines. We have to vote by April 1^st, I believe. So, if you plan to make input or give us any kind of directives on that, you need to go the Web site that was sent to you and review that. The second thing is to provide opportunity at the next Senate meeting for a discussion for this statement…we don’t have it on the agenda today....that will be forthcoming. Is that right or wrong? We won’t have a Senate meeting by the time this is…so you need to go on the Web site, read it, and then make comments via E-mail to the Senate Leadership. The third thing is that the Senate…well, I think that is it. It is just the vote on the current COIA statement is needed. It will be cast by April 1^st and your comments need to be in before that particular time. Are there any questions about anything?

Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: Willie, I think we were planning to have, not only the Senate officers discuss and finally decide on how to vote, whether in favor or not of a particular COIA statement or document, but to have the Senate Steering Committee acting on behalf of the Senate, advising and directing how that vote should take place. So, we are trying to open the process up. If the body as a whole decides that a special meeting should be held before the April 1^st deadline for the vote on this case; that can be done. If it is the will of the body that in the future that we should always bring these kinds of statements for full discussion – that too can be done.

Dr. Willie Larkin: I stand corrected. I appreciate that Conner. Cindy…

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Willie, there were two things that you talked about, I didn’t bring my reading glasses, so I hope I can see…the Ombudsman position and the Intimate Relations Policy, in which it sounds like we need a committee to look at the change – I’m speaking figuratively, a committee to look at the changes that were made in the original document. What I would like to suggest is because the Intimate Relations Policy was so controversial when it did go through the Senate that you do give us an opportunity to see this revised document when it is in its final form. It is nice being the first group in line, but it is also not a bad idea for us to be the last group in line to look at these things. The Ombudsman position policy was not controversial, if I remember, but some of my colleagues had questions about the way it was represented in the local news media, because it was tied with a policy that would allow a whistle blower situation – anonymous complaints being filed, resulting in investigation and changes. If that kind of language is newly embedded in the Ombudsman position policy, I think we need to see that too. I don’t mean that we need to bring it to a vote, but I think given the time that we spent talking about these things; we at least should have an opportunity to look at the final form before it goes forward.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Thank you, I appreciate you comment. I know that the Ombudsman position, Conner and I will have that in our hands, maybe later on tonight, but certainly by tomorrow. The Intimate Relations Policy, I am going to have conversation with Administration about that tomorrow…but I heard every thing that you said and I wrote it down. I hope that the whistle blower thing is not a part of the language as well, but I am going to have to go back and look. Other comments or questions? Okay, let’s move forward. I don’t see Dr. Richardson here. At this time, I want to ask Debra Cobia; she is going to be assisted by Patricia Duffy and also Isabelle Thompson, in regards to the Rules Committee Election.

Debra Cobia: Thanks Dr. Larkin. According to the procedures outlined in the Handbook, we did have nominations for three Rules Committee vacancies at the February meeting. Those nominees were: Charles Mitchell, Howard LaVann Thomas, and Judith V. Lechner. I have circulated a brief Bio for each of these three folks when I sent out the agenda. At this time, I would like to as if there are any additional nominations for Rules Committee? Hearing no additional nominations, I would like to ask that we suspend the rules for a secret ballot vote and accept this slate of nominees by acclimation.

Dr. Willie Larkin: We have a motion on the floor that we accept this list of nominees by acclimation. This report is coming from a committee thus not needing a second. Is there any discussion? All of those persons in favor please indicate by saying Aye – Aye. It passes. Why don’t you proceed.

Debra Cobia: Congratulations to the new Rules Committee members. It really is a time consuming and very important task, so thanks to all three of you for agreeing to serve in this capacity. These are two-year appointments, or two-year assignments. The next item is an information item about the election. As I am sure many of you read in the AU report, the election for faculty officers will take place between the 10^th and the 14^th. I will be sending out an E-mail through AU profs. tomorrow to inform everyone about the procedures. The ballot will be active online at 7:30 a.m. on the morning of 10^th and will remain active through the afternoon of the 14^th; so you have lots of time to vote. I think that the directions are clear. There’s always potential for problems when we are dealing with technology. I have had my share today, but hopefully things will go well and smoothly. Please encourage everyone to vote in the election. As my last Senate meeting, I would like to say thank you for all of the support that I have experienced in the Senate and thank you for your cooperation with this election today.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: I thought it was kind of interesting that Debra would go through the election process and then at the end say this Committee requires a lot of work. Perhaps she should have said that in advance. I will properly thank Debra on the 15^th for her contributions to this whole administration during the course of the year. I want to remind you that we did have a glitch in the roster. Some of the names were dropped off, and it wasn’t intentional. It was just a faux pas. If your name does not appear, we encourage you to make sure you sign it or put your name on there before you leave, and if your name is on there, you need to check it off to make sure that you’re here. We have a quorum now, so what I would like to do is to reverse ourselves and go back to address the minutes of February 8^th, 2005. We will see whether we have a quorum in a few minutes.

Debra Cobia: I sent an e-mail out to everyone, I think Sunday afternoon, with the most recent one advising you that I did not have the minutes from the transcriptionist, so that we would not be doing that today. For those of you who are unaware, Ms. White, the Administrative Assistant for the Senate, who is our transcriptionist, has given birth since the last Senate meeting, and even so, I did get the minutes yesterday afternoon by special delivery from her husband, but I knew that we would not have time for people to review them, so they will be on the agenda for approval at the April meeting, and I will have those up by Thursday afternoon for your review.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: Great. I apologize, ladies and gentlemen. Let’s move on. Dr. Richardson, if you will come forward and make your presentation.

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Thank you, Dr. Larkin. I’m sorry I’m late, but we’re dealing with a group on the Gulf Shores Project, and they were talking so fast, that I was afraid that I was going to agree to something before they finished, and so I had to stay a little longer than I intended, so it’s nice to be able to get something that will cost you nothing and you’ll make plenty of money on, so Dan, I’m sure you want to invest in that immediately afterwards. I really have only four items that I wish to bring to your attention, of course I will respond to whatever questions that you might have. I wanted to first indicate that we’re in the process now of the internal search for the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. We will meet tomorrow with the Senate leaders, present and future. Is it present and future or present and past? Present and past, I think. Okay…mine has future…I thought it was past, and then on tomorrow we’ll meet with the Deans and others and then also we will meet with the Multicultural Diversity Committee in terms of representatives of that group. The procedure, of course in terms of qualifications, were identified in consultation with Dr. Larkin and Dr. Bailey in terms of a tenured full and some academic experience, and that says academic but it should be administrative experience. This is the first time I have seen this note. It would hard to be tenured and full with little academic experience, I guess, and agree not to be a candidate for the full-time position, so those are the qualifications. We have several that have applied and have submitted their letter of interest, and we’ll start that this coming week. Sometime during the week of the 14^th, next week, we will have the candidates that have been narrowed down to the final group, and I don’t know what number that would be. I would assume anywhere from 2 to 4, something like that, would make presentations to the University community, and that would give those in attendance a chance to also give me some input into what you thought. The following week, I will evaluate the evaluation forms, or review the evaluation forms, and interview the candidates myself and hopefully then be ready to submit the name of the person to the Trustees for their April 22^nd meeting. I would just remind everyone there are a few positions. This is one that requires that the Board of Trustees must agree to it. It’s not one that I can present to them and then is automatic. This is a case where obviously they may choose to vote one way or another. Just again being candid with you; what I would do is once I get that down to the final person is to make sure that I talk individually with the Trustees to make sure that there would not be some embarrassing situation, like I nominated someone, and then it didn’t work out. So that is pretty much it, so by the end of March, we should have that position ready to go and by the Board meeting on April 22^nd, is when the official vote would be taken by the Board of Trustees. I have three other items, but I’d like to just pause if I could to see if there are any questions on that Provost search. Yes, sir.

Dr. James A. Saunders, Professor, the Department of Geology and Geography: I’ve got a question about the search, and I was discussing a little bit of this with Willie before you were here, but part of…you had told us last time that this University, in your opinion, is a dysfunctional body…

Dr. Ed Richardson: I believe I said disconnected; that’s for sure.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Disconnected body…

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Yes, sir.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Now part of this disconnection goes back to the first time we hired a Provost. Were you on the Board when we hired the first Provost?

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yes. I actually interviewed him. Yes, sir.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Okay. As I understand it, and maybe now that I know that…I did not know that – I remember coming here and you were the Board of Education guy here at Auburn, and we talked about science and math curricula and those sorts of issues, and maybe we had a disagreement about some of that sort of stuff, but that is okay…that is water under the bridge. But let me ask you this. In the first Provost search, we had a list of 10 candidates. I don’t know if you recall the details or not. And this was a national search. We had a search committee for our first Provost, and the number one candidate was not acceptable to the Board; is that correct?

Dr. Ed Richardson: The…where I usually came in…again, I served on 9 university Boards of Trustees at the time – was that when the final person was brought around, but I do remember the discussion, and I’m assuming…are you talking about the lady from Michigan University?

Dr. James A. Saunders: Associated Vice President for Academic Affairs…

Dr. Ed Richardson: I believe she was.

Dr. James A. Saunders: of the best academic public university in the country? Right?

Dr. Ed Richardson: Just as good as you get.

Dr. James A. Saunders: That’s right. Okay.

Dr. Ed Richardson: If they could…just play football…

Dr. James A. Saunders: -- she was not acceptable to our Board; correct?

Dr. Ed Richardson: That’s what I understood, that for some reason it did not go through. I was not involved in any discussion which said the majority of the Board said yea or nay, but for some reason that nomination did not go forward.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Okay.

Dr. Ed Richardson: I wasn’t involved in those discussions.

Dr. James A. Saunders: All right. Now I understand who the second selection was, was not even on the list of 10 candidates on the short list by the selection committee; is that correct?

Dr. Ed Richardson: I have no idea.

Dr. James A. Saunders: So, if some of us on the faculty are a little bit gun shy about this Trustee intervention with the Board of -- you know, with selection of administrators and taking stake holders advice into account, then that is where it goes back to and you…and you know we did not..

Dr. Ed Richardson: I understand.

Dr. James A. Saunders: and you know that we did not have a Provost before Dr. Muse said we need a Provost; right? That’s where that comes from, right? Am I correct?

Dr. Ed Richardson: I believe that’s correct.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Okay.

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Yes.

Dr. James A. Saunders: So for a leader to be effective on this campus, he has to have the credentials, and he has to have credibility. Okay? And, so, I am hoping that in this process that when you’re seeking input that you are actually seeking input and not just saying that I’m seeking input, and that there are some metrics that are there that we can look at that you looked at. Like, for example, who did the faculty Senate say were the best of the group of 10, and I’ll say there are some good people on there and --

Dr. Ed Richardson: There are.

Dr. James A. Saunders: …so we’re going to get a person, I hope. So, , I just want to be sure, given the track record of what happened with the first time and then not to mention what has happened all along before with all kinds of interim people becoming interim Provosts, interim Presidents, and that sort of thing. The Provost is a very important position for the academic running of this university, and it should not be taken lightly by – just because somebody is or not is in the AAUP or something that like, and so I just want to make sure that you understand that that’s the way the faculty feels, and I’m not a member of AAUP, and I don’t have any rope with me like the last interim President accused me of having. So, can you just give us some warm, fuzzy feelings that this is actually going to happen and this isn’t just a done deal and that the input not only will be solicited, there will be a record of what that input was, and then if you choose not to go by that, then we’ll have a record of that too?

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Yes. Now -- Okay. I would say, Dr. Saunders, a couple of things. This is a position that could last as long as two, maybe three years, the Provost, not mine. So, if you have another year for me, a year for the President, come on. Then he may or she may choose to wait a little while before the search. I don’t know. So it is an important position. I think it’s even more important with a person that is a nontraditional candidate such as myself to have a first class Provost, so I can tell you that. So it is very important to me. Number two, I would say in regard to this, you’re just going to have to refer to my previous messages. It is absolutely critical to me that we establish this concept of institutional control, and that’s why, I believe it’s essential that we follow a process that’s totally on top of the table. You know who the candidates are. I have told you the process. We are going to follow that. There won’t be any candidates come forward from my recommendation that’s off that list, and as to who it turns out to be, I don’t know. I mean, I’ll just wait and see. In fact, I could not tell you who the final two to four will be because that will be predicated really on those groups with which I will start my conversations tomorrow.

Dr. James A. Saunders: Okay. But one aspect about why do you see this as a three-year sort of thing?

Dr. Ed Richardson: I said it could be two to three. I’m talking about at the first they are going to get a President on and then the President would come…you know, the search would be conducted by the President. Whenever that person comes on, may wait as long, according to what I’ve been told, as much as a year before the search starts or start searching in six months and then it take six months to a year. So it depends on when the President chooses.

Dr. James A. Saunders: The only reason I’m asking is, when I ran against my friend here, Willie, for the Chair for this group, one of my suggestions was that we should suspend hiring a new Provost, short of not having a nationally search for a President and nobody listened to me, and you know I could say, I told you so or whatever.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yeah.

Dr. James A. Saunders: You know. So we could’ve saved a lot of money if that, I think what you’re talking about, is right; that we have to have a president who has some credibility and integrity in the community here to pick a Provost, and we should have done that the first time, and we did; so what we got, I do not know. I don’t know the details. I don’t want to go into the details, and I know you don’t want to discuss them, but all I am saying is that this an important position, and we do need to get somebody good in there because it does deal with a lot of faculty issues and student issues and that sort of thing, and so please, I beg you to make sure that you are taking the suggestions to the faculty to heart.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Well, again, as you know, there will not be a strong majority if…just looking at the faculty…to be different opinions. We had a number of people on the faculty nominate each of the people that are on the final group, are on the list. So certainly, we’ll do that, and certainly I intend to look at that carefully, and you know I have my own credibility here, and I don’t operate the way you described, and so I’m going to make sure that it is on top of the table, as I said, when we look for the qualifications. I met with Dr. Larkin and Dr. Bailey and really they are the ones that came up, I think, with the word about not a candidate for the permanent position, and I think that’s the best way to go. Now, there is another opinion out there that says we ought to go ahead and get a good person on now, so that the new President, upon being selected, would not have to go through that very heavy decision. I don’t agree with that position. I really believe that we ought to have someone that could answer the questions. For instance, I think John Mouton is in the other meeting that I just left, but as we talked this morning, just dealing with facilities, I can’t tell you how many times…Drew, you were there…how may times the term Provost and Vice President came up; that person was critical in the decision making process, so I understand how important it is. I understand if there’s unnecessary controversy, it would set me back in terms of what I think we’ve accomplished. I’m just not going to let that happen, but now, again, you may not like the candidate that comes forward, but at least you’ll have a basis for knowing why I made the decision. Connor?

Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: Dr. Richardson, if you could clarify between, call it April Fools day and the 22^nd of April…let’s say that we have by the 1^st of April a Provost that you have already decided that this is the person I am going to go forward with. Will that person step into the office pending final approval?

Dr. Ed Richardson: That would be my intention, but I have got to do…yea, the things are behind now. We’ve got a lot of things that have stacked up and this person is really going to have to scramble. Again, as I have mentioned before, I authorized, last spring, two additional positions in the Provost office to assist in that regard. So, I assume those would be filled as well. But yes, again, being candid with you…what I intend to do, is once I have got this person ready to go, I am going to do my legwork with individual Trustees just to make sure. If there is some concern, then I am going to try and persuade them that this is the way we need to go. At some point, they may just have to vote me down; but I don’t think that is going to happen. I would tell you that in the previous search, Dr. Saunders you mentioned, just being candid…that was not the majority choice of the Board. They conceded to the President at the time. That was his recommendation and so they decided to let it go. That may provide some insight into it. But to answer your questions, I would assume that the person will be ready to go full speed as soon as we can make that appointment. Okay. Two or three things that I would like to comment on and then if there is some general questions. I guess you recognized John Tatum of the SGA, or will at some point…

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: I did not, so you can go forward.

Dr. Ed Richardson: John, we are glad you are here. He has been in a couple of meetings with me today and has just been selected. I have seen him around for this last year in so many volunteer activities with alumni, Head of the Student Alumni Affairs and Association. We are just very pleased John. He is a solid individual and is going to make a great contribution. John, you might want to stand up so everyone can see you. You are tall enough that most everybody can see you. [Applause]

Three other things: This one won’t take long; it deals with the legislative session. Most of you may not know, but Sid McAnnally, in the very back of the room – he got as far away from me as he could – Sid, if you would just raise your hand, I would like for people to put a name with a face. Sid is a person with whom I have contracted to carry this initiative forward and is doing an absolutely superb job. We believe that those priorities that were previously identified and I have identified them for you; so I won’t repeat them unless you have questions later. We are in a very good position to see those fully funded and we are very optimistic that what we though might be AEA’s push to unnecessarily drain…those funds are available…it is now starting to back off a little bit, and that is better for us. That may be, and I have been in this 40 plus years, and that may be the first time that I have ever seen that. I would say to you that legislatively I think, if we can hold on to what we have got, will be the best budget that Auburn has seen in at least 20 years. I think that has great potential for us in so many ways. I just wanted you to know that this is the first year, we had to have some success, this is what I call breaking the ice. This is something that we will have to do every year from this point forward; but if we are recognized as an entity this time and recognized as an entity that cannot just be trampled…and I have had experience with getting trampled…if we can do that; then future years we should be able to hold our own and do even better. So, this is a switch in priorities. For the last ten to twelve years, priorities have been K-12 and higher education has just said, well do it your way. I think people are starting to realize that higher education should be a higher priority and I feel very optimistic about it. I want to thank Sid, because I can't tell you how long he works and I can't tell you how much ground he covers in a short period of time; but it is nothing short of remarkable about the switch – because just a year ago, I was on the other side of the fence and what he has accomplished has been remarkable…so I would say, stay tuned. Sid, I believe that May 16^th or something like that, that the session ends. Beg your pardon.

Sid McAnnally: Mid way.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Mid way and there will be a break week after next that they take a mid break. After they come back from break is when things really pick up. We are going to do the very best that we can to make sure…and I would just again remind you…that this budget that we proposed is fair to all institutions of higher education; it is not at the expense of others. I really believe that’s something that hopefully we can keep all of our institutions together for the first time. Okay. Third…I understand that you are going to have a report on the Diversity Committee and Dr. Alley and I have met with her. I won’t attempt to deal with the specifics on that. I would simply say this to you as to where we are going. I actually have another report that has been submitted by Dr. Bunnell and Dr. Wilson and many others, signed the report, making specific recommendations to me. I will be meeting with that committee, probably as soon as I get over the crunch time with these Provost interviews and so forth. I will also be spending a great deal of time reviewing and talking with Dr. Alley and others concerning the perhaps scheduling or what needs to be the top priority in that regard. Now, bottom line – just to cut through it; this is an area in which Auburn has not really consistently established as a priority. We have said it, but we haven’t. To me, diversity is broader than just black and white. I think what we have got to do is to recognize that the only way that this is going to happen is to establish a very clear plan that everyone understands, or at least most everyone. That is, fold it into a recommendation that I intend to bring to the Board, certainly no later than with the strategic plan and we will start other things before then, but the plan would be attached to the strategic plan, which would enable us to say that the Board has adopted it. So, whoever replaces me, that plan is locked in. As a result each year thereafter, we would be able to say: did we make progress in goal 2? – Yes or No; and so forth, throughout that. So, I want you to know that this is a priority – it has actually been a priority of mine for a long time and we are going to work on that very hard. I think the best way to do it is to have a very clearly defined plan, based on good advice, which we have got…, and we have gotten some good advice from these reports…and then to lock it in so that we are forced to measure it each year. I would say that is what is going to happen; I commit to that and I think the only point that might be in disagreement as to what we start first and in some cases, how we go about doing it. To do it in acrimony and finger pointing simply polarizes the discussion and nothing happens. This is something that we need to do. This is the future of this country, this state, and this world. As you well know, this is a role that the University should play well. It should play a very important role in this and I believe that we can develop a plan that accomplishes all of our objectives. So, this is a commitment. It is going to be a high priority. I think as you see us coming into the end of this term, you will see it stated in very specific terms. You will see it start to be embedded in the strategic planning process that we will have available. Since I have mentioned that; actually Bill Sauser is doing the design work for us and that strategic plan design will be presented to the Board on April 22^nd. Now, that doesn’t mean the results…it just the design about how we’re going about it. I will keep you posted on that. Finally on the initiatives, I just want to repeat and I know that you have heard those until you are sick of them…actually I think I have heard about them enough myself, but I just want to point out that we have two meetings left between now and the end of June. The April 22^nd meeting, we will consider three of the initiatives: that is the research part, which is well down the road and I thank Dr. Moriarty for his work in that regard; Gulf Shores, which we are in heavy discussions both with the State and developers and so forth, the RFI is already out…so that is going to be an issue; and then third, the airport governance will be brought up as well. There are several important issues in regard to that. None of those may be of particular interest other than perhaps the research part, at this stage; but again, I offer this explanation. These initiatives are being offered to make sure that we convey that the institution is driving the agenda and not being driven by someone else’s agenda. What I am going to be able to do is to try and tailor these in such as way as to ensure success, but also represent substantial recommendations. I realize that some of you are saying, why is an interim doing this, but that is the reason. Finally, on June 17^th: this is a very important meeting for several reasons – that is an annual meeting, that is when committees are formed, that is when the officers of the Board are identified, all of this – that is when the budget will be finalized, for all practical purposes, the session will be over and so we are about a month or so ahead on the budget schedule. I wanted to point that out to you. In addition, what I consider to be the three heaviest of the initiatives will be presented to the Board. Now, that doesn’t mean that all three will be complete. For instance, in the Academic Review, obviously that won’t be complete, but will we have a schedule clearly identified, some criteria for such an Academic Review identified? Yes, I hope both of those at least and then we will identify at least the questions that would be considered during the next academic year. The other two deal with College of Agriculture; I anticipate some substantial changes in that and we can talk about that if you like and then finally the AU/AUM. I believe that we are two or three years away from having legislatively mandated accountability standards for higher education. They already started last year there again. That happens because the people within the respected institutions don’t respond to what they know that they should do and that is why an institution such as Auburn that moves at a very slow pace, or does as much as it can to resist change, is doing itself in. So, in terms of the AUM, I see us as really integrating more of our academic functions. We already have a lot of that…I don’t see AUM being weakened…and I don’t see us being weakened; but I wanted you to know that obviously that has some implications. I have met with Mayors and Chambers of Commerce already in Montgomery in that regard. I see that as establishing some accountability, so that as we go forward in the future, because I will play a role in that if it starts this next year and I want to be able to say that Auburn’s house has been handled in a responsible way and that we don’t have as much redundancy perhaps as we once had. So, I wanted to say to you, the AU/AUM, that’s really where I am going in that regard and I see both institutions being strengthened rather than weakened in that issue. So, that is the schedule…that is what is going to happen. It is going to be a busy next several months and I hope all of the cards will be on the table, so if you have some thoughts, I certainly would welcome them. That is about it…Dr. Larkin.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: Any questions? Go to the microphone and identify yourself and state who you represent. Dr. Richardson, while they are coming, have you given consideration to making diversity a # 7 initiative?

Dr. Ed Richardson: I have been encouraged…

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: I went to Las Vegas awhile back and I shot some dice through a 7 and won 58 dollars, and so 7 is a lucky number, if you need that background information. [Laughter]

Dr. Ed Richardson: And your question was – Laugher]. No, I think, several people Dr. Larkin have identified that or made that suggestion. I am not opposed to that. I think what I need to do is get through this initial review with the various groups and then we will see if a 7^th initiative would serve us best in that regard. If that is a general opinion, then I would. I would like to walk it out a little bit further and see. If we can imbed it and cover more ground that way, then I would rather imbed it. If we think a stand alone 7^th initiative, then I am not opposed to that.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: Let’s go to these two people and then we will come back to Jim.

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Richardson, the other five initiatives, and maybe Dr. Larkin’s 7^th initiative, seem a lot more important that the one I want to ask you about, which is the Auburn Airport. The reason that I am asking about the Auburn Airport is because I have a very close colleague of mine who keeps a plan at Auburn and flies out of there quite frequently. What I an wondering is, as an example of the process you are using to work on plans for your initiatives, could you briefly describe to us the process you are going through to develop a plan for the management or governance of the Auburn Airport?

Dr. Ed Richardson: Sure. I think my role has been Cindy, to identify it as a priority and I could list several reasons why I think we need to work on that airport and just for lack of just a better term, is it is not an attractive airport; it is not functional in many respects, so I will leave it at that. I have assigned other people, Dr. Large is coordinating, but we have a consulting firm and if you want the name, I just couldn’t pull it up off the top of my head…I don’t know if Dr. Large is here…what is it Lee? Newton and Associates. They also did a study of the airport about five or six years ago, so they are coming back with that. We are going to bring forward some recommendations. It will not be completely resolved either, but in terms of what we are doing…for instance: we have already approved the terminal on the other side of the runway, we just within the last few days have assurances that funding for the access road that would come off of that airport exit to the terminal on that side, has been approved. That would improve it. We have also had some congressional support for extending the runway, which it needs to be done and would also include doing that. We have also had a number of people who have said that I would pay to rent a hanger, if I could have a hanger…the equipment and so forth…and all of that. What we are going to be looking at is hopefully having some type of governance…now that is Auburn University’s airport…and it is in two city limits, as you probably know. The cities don’t put much into it. I am going to ask them to put more into it. I think that if we have got a group there that works on a plan, says here’s priority one, here is where we need to go…I don’t think we will let that airport deteriorate to the point that it has, in my opinion. The Newton and Associates are doing that. Lee, didn’t that report just come in? I haven’t seen it, but I think Don told me today that it had just come in.

(Inaudible)

Dr. Ed Richardson: Oh, is that right. As soon as we get that final report, we will let you look at it. But that is really it in a nutshell. Is that okay? Okay.

Jim Gravois, Senator from the Library: Before you became President, when Dr. Pritchard was Provost, a national search was conducted for a new Dean for the Library; so that is about 2 ½ years ago. This year, as you know, we have had another search…it was incomplete a couple of years ago. We have had an interim Dean for three years and I am just wondering, the new situation with the Provost, does that mean that that search is delayed further, or where does that stand? Thank you.

Dr. Ed Richardson: No. Thank you; that is a good question. As I understand it, the candidates have been interviewed to the point where a recommendation is ready…so I anticipate that recommendation coming forward within the next month; certainly by the end of this month I would hope. I would say that there was also a debate whether that was; I have forgotten what they called I it other than a Dean (Director of Libraries) but it is a Dean, and that would stay. There were some missing pieces in that in terms of doing reference checks and all of that. That hopefully has been finalized at this point; so I do not anticipate a lengthy delay. I would hope by the end of the month; that one is closer than the Liberal Arts or Education, so I would anticipate the Library position being recommended by the end of this month.

Dr. James A. Saunders: You can relax…this is easy.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Thank you.

Dr. James A. Saunders: I am really seriously interested in your input on this, because it is an area that I don’t have any expertise in but I have some questions. As a long-term Alabamian, I have always wondered what went on down in Montgomery and whatever and certainly the issue of higher education and us having 16 universities…is a big problem for funding and all that sort of stuff.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yes sir.

Dr. James A. Saunders: I just wonder, some of our other neighboring states, for example Florida and Georgia, don’t have any problem naming say Florida and Florida State and a Georgia and Georgia Tech. as their flagship universities within the state and funding them appropriately.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yes sir.

Dr. James A. Saunders: You have a new strategy money and it seems to be working to get us more money…more power to you, but at some point, it seems like to me…that if we are going to move forward and educate the people of the state about the mission of research universities and higher education that we ought to say that it is okay that Auburn and Alabama need to be funded at a higher level so that we can move this state forward. Everybody else is going to have to buy into that, I would imagine. As long as it doesn’t cost them any money, it is always going to be a win-win situation for the whole state and I just wonder at what point we can get to that sort of strategy.

Dr. Ed Richardson: You have made one classic mistake when you go to Montgomery and that is that you are thinking logically [laughter] Yea. Scratch that if you will; and I am speaking from a long experience there, as I said earlier, of getting trampled on many times. First, Alabama for all practical purposes has no governance system for higher education. I have just gotten word in the last week that special congressional allocation for another institution to have an Engineering Collage. We have already got six, so I’m sure that seven won’t make any difference…right. Well, or course it will. It would be nice if we had one, certainly two at the most. Until we get some type of governance system, it is going to be who can get to the plate first. It is not – and Sid could really answer this better than I – but it is not so much the numbers, as to who you are. So, if your institution is in a location where say, the Speaker of the House or somebody in a major position is there, that is really all that you need. It doesn’t really matter if you are over here and I have got ten votes…if none of them really count in terms of when you are really doing your budget…so I would say that it is going to take legislative action – both and Alabama and Auburn are constitutional entities and that creates some problems in that regard. I am supportive; I have mentioned in my conversations with Governor Riley on two occasions that I am ready to take an active role in that regard. I think it is long overdue. We have got 29 teacher preparation programs. We have six or seven; we will have seven, certainly if that other one comes through. Everyone has got a business school packed to the max and we have two public medical programs, where most states would have one…so when you start looking at it, we are a very poor state and we’ve, by almost in a self-destructive manner, which I have seen so often, we have diluted our resources by responding to the political whims of the day. So, I would say that the solution, in my view, will come within that two to five years max, of legislative and or congressional action. The way it works, is that it starts building momentum. It has been building now for three or four years. Then the National Governors Association will come up with proposed legislation…that is the way it works. Each Governor will go up there and get very enamored with it and attempt to pass it and that is what I foresee happening. Unfortunately, it is like taking the meat ax rather than selective surgery. So, it is not what I would recommend and that is why I think if we can handle it internally. We have four levels of higher education in Alabama. We have Community Colleges, we have historically Black, we have Regional and we have the research institutions. One reason why Auburn and Alabama is working together and I think the advantage of that…I serving on the Board of Trustees of Alabama…and Sid, the fact that he is widely respected by them, has allowed Auburn and Alabama to come together on this agenda, which is generating money, so far…nothing is in the bank yet; but on the other hand, I think it will give us the clout necessary to see that this type of accountably would be handled in a more responsible way. So, I am optimistic about that. I am optimistic about Auburn and Alabama continuing to work together in that regard.

Howard Thomas, Textile Engineering: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions or personal interest about the airport, because I am a pilot in the area and I make use of that airport. First of all, I do think that our Aviation Management Program is doing a real good job of managing that area.

Dr. Ed Richardson: No question.

Howard Thomas: I was curious when you said they are going to put a terminal up. I assume that is over there where Rushton Air is…

Dr. Ed Richardson: No, it is on the other side of the runway. Actually your access will come from the airport exit from the interstate, you know by that filling station and there is a little…you will come up that way.

Howard Thomas: If we are talking about a terminal, are we also talking about putting in a tower?

Dr. Ed Richardson: The terminal is the only one that has been approved at this point. We have numerous other areas of interest for people that fly and would come in that are yet to be addressed. That is why I think we need a body that becomes very knowledgeable of airports, what we need, and can recommend at some coherent way, this is why we need a tower…whatever it turns out to be next.

Howard Thomas: I would sort of recommend against a tower. If we put more class C airspace…we have already got Columbus and Montgomery and it would hurt our students who are trying to learn to fly…so that would be my personal observation.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Thank you very much. I would say to you, that the educational component…that’s not going to be effected. Auburn will still be the dominant entity on this governance system. Well good. I would suggest E-mail Don Large in that regard, any specific recommendations that you might have, because that one will come up on the 22^nd. Again, it will not be fully resolved, but we will have at least answered those questions that we can and frame those that will take a little more time.

Howard Thomas: Thank you.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yes sir, thank you.

Rik Blumenthal, Senator of Chemistry and Biochemistry: The last time you talked about a disconnect between different parts of this University.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yes, sir.

Rik Blumenthal: Pretty much, I think you meant between the faculty and the administration.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Far more extensive than that but certainly that is a good example.

Rik Blumenthal: Now, you also then mentioned later that you had this initiative you wanted to make some changes to the core curriculum, some idea of a common course for each college.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Yeah.

Rik Blumenthal: I think that is an interesting idea, but I think this could be a wonderful way to actually generate – one of the problems between – right now is, between those two groups, is basically trust. We do a lot of things, and we get ignored as the faculty, and we feel like our opinions really have not been counted for anything in, oh, let’s say, the past five or six years or longer.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Okay.

Rik Blumenthal: And something you could do in this manner is simply, we have a standard Core Curriculum Committee. I mean, why would it not be perfectly reasonable for you to make a presentation to the standing Core Curriculum Committee and leave it to the Core Curriculum Committee? What has happened to us before when we were talking about academic forgiveness is we were ramrodded with academic forgiveness. We were told by a Trustee in the newspaper that we would have an academic forgiveness policy, and if the faculty didn’t approve it, it was going to be forced on us by the Trustees in some way, and this is what creates, that kind of behavior, is what creates the distrust and the lack of connection, you know, with this initiative. Why – is this your possible plan? Just present to the faculty Core Curriculum Committee and let them decide what they do or don’t want to do and not force this on us. I mean, to me when I hear it, I think the past, and I think you said it, and now we are going to have to figure out how to do what you said; maybe in some way that is more acceptable to us or less acceptable to us, but we are going to have to do it.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Well, you’ve raised a good question, Rik, and I am glad you did. Let me just clear it up. You know, I feel reasonably confident in some of things that I am doing, but I also understand there are some things that I am not competent to do. I am not competent to be a Provost. I am really no competent to tell you what should be in the core curriculum. So the committee will clearly be there. Now I would tell you I have also brought that up to the Deans. I think this is going to end up being one of my brilliant ideas that never gets off the desk, you know. They were not fired up about it either, to tell you the truth. So what I am really after is one thing in dealing with the core curriculum. It is not the content. I do think that that had some promise, but I seem to be the only one, so I am willing to concede in that regard. You also may have some concern about six or seven years ago when we had the Role Commission of which I was a Co-Chair, and that was handled in a more heavy-handed way, and what I want us to do is to make sure that we do have a process, so that if it is every five years or whatever the period of time turns out to be that we ought to look at our core curriculum, both in content and organization, and that is the people within – represented in this audience here. So I do not intend to tell you what to do. I was trying to promote this idea, but it just doesn’t have much window, so forget that, but the committee will be involved, but I do want us to have a schedule of review. I want us to have some criteria for review, so we all know about it, so that if we have a course that pops up over here in another year, and it creates a lot of controversy, we won’t suddenly have people descend on Bill’s course over here and say, well we need to get rid of that. We say, well that is going to come up in two years on our regular schedule, and by then hopefully the controversy would have moderated, and we will have a more objective review of Bill’s course, to use that as an example. Now, I am not going to ramrod it through at all, Rik.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: Thanks, Rik. If there are no more – Well, come on – pressing questions after these two, we probably need to move to the next agenda item. Dr. Martin.

Gary Martin, Curriculum and Teaching: I just wondered if you could comment on the trajectory for the search for Dean of the College of Education.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Well, obviously that is an area in which I have some interest. I have also – that was an expression of concern – in fact, I think Connor raised that question, since I do have some experience, but that is also I’m arm’s length from. Let’s see. Is Stu Schneller here? June is Education, Steve? Well, I don’t think she is here. Steve, do you know where we are? To answer your question is I – Gary, I do not know where we are on that.

(Not identified): Not at a microphone. Where we are is that we have a list of candidates but our search firm [inaudible] come up with a couple of first [inaudible] candidates, and so we are in the process of trying to bring them into [inaudible] and at that point, then the Search Committee will start the evaluation and [inaudible] recommendation, so we certainly are moving forward, but that is where we are right now.

Dr. Ed Richardson: So just so I would understand in case someone else asked me. Where are – how much time are we talking about before we would get to the point that you think someone would be recommended?

(Not identified): Not at a microphone. Well, right now we are on [inaudible] of waiting A.J.Carney to identify the first few candidates; identified and get them to us…get them to us agree to come public – allow their names to be at least publicly; so, however long that takes, once that is [inaudible] will be in the process of inviting the people on campus and generally that takes four to five weeks after that before we actually – four to five weeks to go through that process with the identified clients.

Dr. Ed Richardson: So do you think we could finish that – I know – I understand we do not know about the candidates yet, but do you think that could be handled before the end of the semester?

(Not identified): Not at a microphone. That is the plan.

Dr. Ed Richardson: That is the plan? Okay. Gary, that’s – I have learned something too. Thanks for asking the question. While we are up now, we have Liberal Arts II. Steve, do you – no one’s asked that, but do you want to just comment on that.

(Not identified): Not at a microphone. Where we are with Liberal Arts – Is Stu here? [inaudible] I will speak for him. Where we are with Liberal Arts is, frankly, several candidates have backed out. The change in Provost has perhaps decided [inaudible] that – so we are still delaying slightly to see if we can – if A.J. can come up with some [inaudible] candidates for us, but it is a more diverse pool. So, again, we are waiting a little bit to see in that regard. A.J. Carney has promised they think they can come up with some others, but that one I am not so sure about just because of the difficulty we are having here -- Excuse me. Two of the finalists dropping out.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Okay, but there were four finalists? So there are still two that is stuck. Okay. And so you’re – what you are really saying, I guess, Steve, is you are not as optimistic by the end of the semester that we would be in a position on that one.

(Not identified): Not at a microphone. [Inaudible]

Dr. Ed Richardson: Thank you.

Dr. Willie D. Larkin: Yes, sir.

Anthony Gadzey, Political Science Senator: I have two questions, both relating to race. I know race is a sensitive issue, but I think, these two issues need to be addressed in some form that will give some official response to. First, the incident about three weeks ago of the dismissal of two African-Americans from the Department of Athletics. I want to have your official response to that event. Secondly, I have been going through these commission reports on that strategic diversity plan, and I am somehow concerned that this is just yet another of those very well-stated plans, very well-stated programs, very well-stated problems that never get addressed because, for example, it is recommended that all departments include consideration of diversity in hiring, but I cannot remember any time since I have been here in Auburn, since 1994, that that has not been a major priority, and yet 11 years later, the same. We are sort of just going through a revolving door of saying there is a problem, then we draw up very big plans, and then a year, two years, or three years later we are back to the same starting point. To be more specific, if you look through the various analyses that has been presented in this plan of who responded, what they say about the problem of diversity on campus, you find that it is the minority groups that have responded most followed by women. The least intense of responding is white faculty, and if I go to some of these meetings meant to force a climate of diversity, the same level of representation is obvious, is dominantly just the minorities, and I am afraid we will go through this exercise – I appreciate very much your personal commitment, but I am afraid we doubt acknowledging the problem as a problem pertaining to all and having a plan that involves all in trying to create that climate of diversity, we will end up in the revolving door that I just described. These are very, very sensitive issues I can understand, but I appreciate your response.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Sure. Let me just take it in reverse order. I am at the stage of my career where I am not interested in wasting time. Obviously, if I wanted to just sugar coat this I could have overridden the Athletic Director and said hire the three people – remember there was a white person also dismissed – back, and then we would have been fine and gone on and then we would have been fine and gone on, and we would have been no different. None. So I don’t operate that way, and what I am saying to you, we are going to have a specific plan. We are going to be able to put it on the table, and we are going to be able to measure our progress, and I think you are going to see progress being made, and I think to expect a silver bullet that would progress within a month or two would be unrealistic. It will take time. I have been around Alabama a long time, and obviously our history does not work in our favor in that regard, and I think that is something we have got to overcome, so I would say to you there is not going to be a revolving door. I think this gives us a good starting place. There are some specifics; maybe we will have to add to later. The other report to which I refer also has some good recommendations, and I think between the two of them, there is more than enough fertile ground for us to get started, and so I would not be concerned. Now if we come up toward the end of the fall semester and you have not seen something very specific, in some cases already implemented, then ask me that question again because I think you will see a different report. In regard to the others, I don’t see where that really is appropriate for me to respond, but I will give you as best I can. First, I have employed an Athletic Director. That person has a right, because I am holding him responsible for Athletics which is a rather volatile area, to form the team that he thinks appropriate, and if I do not support him, then I might as well get rid of him. So I would say to you that those positions were eliminated not to be rehired, and I think you will have to keep in mind that he did promote – I do not know how we get two black men and one white female, and so I would say that all in all it wasn’t a total negative report. I would also say to you in regard to these three individuals, that they are all entitled to due process. They all have an opportunity to afford themselves. For us to get involved in it before the due process is totally inappropriate and in some cases which you have heard in the newspaper are people trying to intimidate you to make a decision. I am not going to respond to that. I mean, I’m – they are not going to intimidate me in that regard, but we are going to see that everybody gets a fair shake, and if there is something there that is clearly discriminatory, then we will take appropriate actions at that time. Finally, it may not mean anything to you; I have had several surprises in this position. One is the number of positions that I have felt necessary to take personnel actions on, 15 on my part, 3 for the athletics, or 18 total, of which 15 were white and 3 were black. So I would say to you, you are going to see a pattern, I believe, from this point forward that will show a fairness, but you are going to see a commitment to performance, and you are going to see a commitment to everyone having due process. There are other personnel decisions, I’m telling you are going to happen within the next two or three weeks. Those people already know who they are, and so I would tell you that they will be afforded the due process just like everyone else. So, this is an institution that I think has some tremendous faculty, no question about that. We have some tremendous administrators, and I think part of it is to pull this together in such a way that I can delegate to them more fully, and that they can then do what they think best and once that occurs, once we get that comfort level that somebody is not going to override them, then I think you will see progress in the second part of your question; that is, minority representation. Women certainly are underrepresented in this equation too, and you are going to see us move in that direction. Okay. Dr. Larkin, that’s it.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Yes, it is.

Dr. Ed Richardson: Thank you so much.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Thank you. Thank you.

Dr. Ed Richardson: All right.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Over the years, Virginia O’Leary did a magnificent job of Chairing the Multicultural Diversity Commission. She is no longer in that position. Instead, Dr. Kelly Alley has taken over and she has not missed a beat. I’m going to ask her as Chair of that Commission to come and give a preliminary report on the Multicultural Diversity Commission.

Dr. Kelly Alley, Multicultural Diversity: I am happy to be here to briefly present the report. I would encourage you though to download the report from the Web and send additional comments to me within the next two weeks. I really can’t go through all of the strategies and the tactics here, but if you’re concerned about making any final comments to use, please do so. As Dr. Larkin mentioned, I just entered this very long journey in January when I took over from Virginia O’Leary as Chair of the Multicultural Diversity Commission. So I just wanted to provide a summary of the events that have taken place over the past couple of years. We certainly owe a lot to the Diversity Leadership Council. All of the members of that council worked for over two years to compile the main substance of the report that we have recently worked on in our committee. They conducted site visits to other campuses. They compiled reports on those visits. They also had numerous meetings and debates about very substantial issues. They completed their report in April 2004 or a bit before that; there is a debate about when that was actually completed. It was posted on the Web in late spring of 2004. Then in the fall, the Provost asked Dr. O’Leary if she would bring it to the University Committee, the Multicultural Diversity Commission for final response. That was started in late fall. To do that, she also tried to broaden the Multicultural Diversity Commission by including the former DLC members into that. The broader group was called the Diversity Inclusive Group. They had a couple of meetings divided into subcommittees and tackled each of the five goals. They then came back and provided their recommendations to Virginia O’Leary. She complied a brief report, and then all of that was kind of passed on to me when I came in, in January. What we just recently did was to merge the original DLC report and restructure it based on recommendations made in the DIG report. We also did a couple of new things: We added attention to people with disabilities. The Committee on Disabilities contacted us, and they went through the original DLC report and asked us to make some changes. They also attended a couple of our meetings – the representatives did and we added those changes. We also included more attention to women’s leadership and work life issues. We clarified the inclusion of sexual orientation into the existing anti-harassment and nondiscrimination policies. We got a very good report from Becky Little on that regard. In that report, she mentioned that most of the major institutions that surround us in the Southeast have sexual orientation already in their policies in one way or another, so we’re pretty far behind in that. We also clarified the roles regarding recruitment, retention and training, and Lynn Hammond was very active in that. If you have questions afterwards about that, I would defer to her on that.

We also had a good bit of discussion about Search Committees. I thought about that when you were raising the question earlier, because a lot of times I think we state that we want to have a diverse pool. But that’s a statement and then we reverse back to our kind of normative decision-making process and things go on in a different way. In one of the strategies, there is a tactic that says that on every Search Committee, there should be at least one person who’s trained properly or officially in diversity issues. That would have to again be cleared through Human Resources as to how that training would take place, but there should be that kind of representation on every Search Committee. It shouldn’t sort of be a last minute decision to go out and find diversity candidates, which happens a lot.

Okay, we added additional partners to many of the tactics. This took a long time; we had to make sure that we had the capabilities within the departments we were identifying. We then cleaned up the language and did some other stuff. I really don’t know how to proceed with this except to just sort of maybe outline the summary, the strategic goals, and take your questions if you have any on specifics in the report. If you’ve seen the report, after you get through the introduction, which was written by a number of different people over time, you’ll see that each goal has a strategy and a tactic, and then partners that would implement that tactic, and then a measure that would be some way of sort of assessing whether implementation has occurred. We took out the original timelines that were in the DLC report because those had already expired. We decided that those would have to be sort of the first thing to be done when the plan is implemented fully. Yes…?

Dr. Willie Larkin: If you have any questions…if you’ll go to the microphones, identify yourselves, and state the department that you represent. What do you see as the next steps in this process? Is this a final document?

Dr. Kelly Alley: Well, I see a few typos, so…but I think it’s been accepted by Dr. Richardson and a lot of people have conveyed to me the interest in really getting this adopted by the Board and all of that. I think we see it as a final document.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Because you had a number of people coming together to compile this document, do you think that the style of writing is consistent all the way through or does it need to be word-smithed further?

Dr. Kelly Alley: It could be.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Okay. Any questions? Yes…?

Sadik Tuzun, Senator, Entomology & Plant Pathology: I have brought up ethnic diversity should be a part of this plan spelled out because there are some ethnicity, especially issues happening in the mosque and attacks. We are a University and ethnic diversity is one of the most important diversity in this culture, I would say culture of the University. I would like that ethnic diversity should be included as a part of, like sexual orientation, like other, as a part of this report all throughout the report.

Dr. Kelly Alley: Yeah…We wrestled a lot with the terms to use in this report, because people of color and minorities were used interchangeably in the DLC report. Towards the end, we had a discussion where it was mentioned that people of color did not…some groups didn’t consider it to be the most inclusive category. Minorities also, some people considered to be an outdated term. In the end we ended up, as you can see in most places except it’s missing from this summary sheet: “People of color/minorities”. The issue of ethnic minorities came up also. But, you know…I think maybe Lynn might have a comment to make also about how the categories are measured through her office, because that was also an issue. If we have certain language, it should conform to the way that we’re actually measuring our population.

Sadik Tuzun: Especially in graduate school…

Dr. Kelly Alley: Sorry?

Sadik Tuzun: Especially in graduate school. Almost more than 50% of our students have ethnic diversity and just 1/10 of the faculty has ethnic diversity

Dr. Kelly Alley: Right.

Sadik Tuzun: We represent a culture that we are not grown in that particular culture, and this is a very major issue in diversity and especially after September 11^th events. Ethnic diversity became more important that we should respect ethnicity and different religious beliefs and things like that as an overall…and this is as important as color diversity, I would say. Maybe in the next century it will be more important, and it should be included in a part of this report.

Dr. Kelly Alley: Would ethnic minorities be an appropriate term?

Sadik Tuzun: I would say ethnic minorities would be an appropriate term, yes.

Dr. Kelly Alley: Because that was also something that was discussed.

Sadik Tuzun: I think minorities with color, yes.

Dr. Kelly Alley: Okay.

Dr. Willie Larkin: So, if you have input…well, we don’t want to rewrite this, okay? But based on the report that was given, if you have some suggestions that would clarify some things like Sadik just brought forward, then you could forward those to Dr. Alley. I think that in discussing this early on, in writing the plan that was an attempt to be specific and focused yet broad enough and comprehensive enough so that when you get ready to implement a plan like this, you have more buy-in from a larger number of individuals. Because the plan itself is not written for a specific group; it’s written for the University. So it has to be comprehensive, but it also has to take into consideration those specific things and those more focused things as well. That’s the most difficult part, I think, to pull it all together so that people buy-in to it in large numbers. Yes…?

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I think I’ve probably exceeded my quota of questions today and Dr. Richardson, I believe, is gone but…correct me if I’m wrong and help me out here. Did I not hear Dr. Richardson refer to some other report? That there is this report, and then he has received some other report? Between the two of them and whatever else he gathers, that will then generate the University’s plan. What is the other report?

Dr. Willie Larkin: Without going into a lot of detail, we have the Diversity Leadership Council Report. We have the DIG report, which was a Diversity Interest Group that was led by Virginia O’Leary. Then we have the Commission, pulling those two together, and then there was another report that was submitted with 18 recommendations, that is not duplicative of this report, that came from a number of black administrators on campus. I was one of the authors of that. There were about maybe eight or ten people that signed this, and this came as a result of some of the incidents recently with some of the firings, press conferences, and things like that. The document hopefully will be made public. We presented it to Dr. Richardson and thought that he should be the one that brings it forward. If he doesn’t in the next few days, then we’ll make it available so that people can see those recommendations. Thank you.

One more major report and then we’ll start bringing closure…for a very long time I have been interested in making sure that Junior Faculty at the University got attention and were given opportunities to grow professionally so that they could remain at the University. Therefore, I put together an Ad-Hoc Committee entitled “Mentoring Tenure-Seeking Junior Faculty”. I asked Dr. Jim Groccia to Chair that, so I will ask him to come and give his initial report at this time.

Dr. Jim Groccia: Thank you, Dr. Larkin. I will try to make this brief. It is an initial report. We will hopefully be able to make a final report at the next Senate meeting. The Committee was formed in mid December. Our first meeting was in early January. The Committee charge, and I will just read a part of this:

The purpose of the Junior Mentoring Program is to enhance Auburn’s ability to retain all talented young tenure track faculty. Once developed and approved by the Administration, the initiative would be open to all junior faculty. With special emphasis on women, African-Americans, and other people of color, this Ad-Hoc Committee Chaired by Dr. James Groccia will be asked to study the best faculty mentoring programs in the country and presently at Auburn University, and design a model that is conductive, broad, and comprehensive for Auburn University. As I mentioned, we met a number of times…we’ve met three times. The Committee distributed a number of articles dealing with mentoring and some national surveys of new faculty and junior faculty mentoring. We collected some data, both on-campus data. We looked at initial needs assessment of faculty within teaching at Auburn for less than five years that the Biggio Center did about a year ago. We looked at some faculty retention data supplied by Drew Clark. We created and distributed a survey of department chairs asking them to report on their current status of mentoring in their department and some opinions about the need for a University wide mentoring program. All these data and articles I have in a packet that I’ll give to Willie that he could distribute to the faculty. We formulated some initial recommendations for presentation today. We will fine-tune these initial recommendations and present them hopefully at the next Senate meeting. Just for your information, we surveyed all of the department chairs and we had over a better than 30% response rate on the survey. Just summarizing some of the key findings of this survey: Most respondents indicated that they did have faculty mentoring programs in their department, but that they focus primarily on research. There was general satisfaction on the success of new faculty receiving tenure and promotion. The respondents indicated that they would support the campus wide mentoring program if it were developed. They certainly focused on the need for more mentoring in teaching, and also there was agreement that intradepartmental socialization or networking support and mentoring was also needed. So some of our preliminary recommendations…we’re going to recommend a broad range of mentoring options including developing a trained group of mentors across campus to continue and expand the New Faculty Scholar’s Program, which the Biggio Center initiated this year. We would want to focus some attention on mentoring faculty to mentor graduate students, and the mentoring programs we would recommend will also be topical or will focus on research, teaching, and outreach. We will also recommend the continuation of data collection. We need to find out what our peer institutions are doing. We have not had time to fully research this. We need to develop a continual needs assessment of new faculty when they come in, and we need to get some advice from the University Tenure and Promotion Committee on how they perceive new faculty documentation and success. And another recommendation will be that we are probably going to recommend that this Ad-Hoc Committee be made into some form of standing committee that can visit this issue, this very important issue, on a regular, ongoing, continuing basis. We hope that by the next meeting we will be able to prepare a final report with recommendations to the Provost. We will also recommend the issue of what resources would be needed to support these mentoring options. We will address more fully the concerns of women and minority faculty, and we will address developing mechanisms to recognize effective mentoring. That’s our initial and preliminary report. We will give you further information at a later date. Thank you.

Dr. Willie Larkin: That was an excellent report. I appreciate it. Does anybody have any questions they’d like to ask Jim? I would like to thank him and the Committee for that preliminary work and I’m sure that it will be even greater work coming forth as we proceed.

The next person up is Patricia Duffy. She’s going to talk a little bit about the call for volunteers. Shortly after that, we’ll be leaving.

Patricia Duffy, Secretary-elect: I’ll make this quick. All of you (all of the faculty in the room) should have received via e-mail account that you use officially at the University a call for volunteers for committees, both Senate committees and University committees. What I would like to ask all of you who are Senators to do is when you go back to your departments, would you please check the Senate web page? We have a list that Debra compiled of committees that need representation, and especially if it needs representation from a specific college or unit. Some of the committees need representation by college or unit. If your unit needs representation on a specific committee, please urge your faculty colleagues to sign up via the campus system. The campus system can be accessed by Internet Explorer only at this point. That is maintained for us out of Dr. McFarland’s office. It’s handy software for people to volunteer. There’s several weeks left to volunteer and we will probably be sending out a reminder towards the end of the period if we don’t get good sign-ups. Please urge your colleagues in the department to sign up for committees because shared governance requires sharing, and to share we have to be on the committees. Thank you.

Dr. Willie Larkin: Great. Thanks, Pat. I appreciate that. Govern yourselves accordingly. Just think, seven more days and then I will give my farewell presentation here. I’ll take five minutes and you don’t want to miss it, because I’ve been writing on it from the day that I got elected until this time. So it’s really going to be good. Is there any unfinished business? Any new business? Unfinished, hold on. Yes Sir?

Gary Martin, Curriculum and Teaching: I just wondered if you could give us a quick update on the electronic privacy policy? You kind of mentioned a few other things that have been in the hopper and gave us an update with that. Is that moving at all?

Dr. Willie Larkin: It is moving, but I don’t have enough definitive information to share with you right now. I do have meetings with John Heilman tomorrow, and that’s one of the things on the agenda. So as soon as I get some definite information, I’ll make sure that gets posted and you know where to go and look for it.

Okay, if there is no other business, this meeting stands adjourned. Thank you.