Minutes of the University
Senate
January 17, 2006
3 p.m.
Broun Hall Auditorium
Submitted by Patricia
Duffy
Present: Conner Bailey, Richard Penaskovic, Patricia Duffy, Kathryn Flynn, Willie Larkin, Don Large, Debbie Shaw, Dan Bennett, Paul Bobrowski, Stewart Schneller, Dick Brinker, John Heilman, Zachary Bryant, Harriette Huggins, Garnetta Lovett, Ronald Clark, David Cicci, Diane Hite, Mario Lightfoote, Charles Mitchell, Werner Bergen, Charlene LeBleu, Robert Chambers, Rik Blumenthal, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Alvin Sek See Lim, Ann Beth Presley, Suhyun Suh, Gary Martin, Randy Beard, Judith Lechner, Charles Gross, John Bolton, Sadik Tuzun, Claire Crutchley, Michel Raby, Larry Teeter, Ken Tilt, Chris Arnold, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Daniel Mackowski, Richard Good, John Rowe, Robin Fellers, Cindy Brunner, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Norton, Virginia O'Leary, Vivian Larkin, William Shaw, Carole Zugazaga, Howard Thomas Scott Phillips, Saralyn Smith-Carr
Absent, sending a substitute: Barbara Kemppainen, Jim Saunders, Alice Buchanan, Ruth Crocker, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Randy Tillery, Tom Williams
Absent, no substitute: David Wilson, June Henton, Michael Moriarty, Bonnie MacEwan, John Tatum, Jennie Swaim, Roger Garrison, Jack DeRuiter, Bob Locy, Barry Fleming, Raymond Hamilton, Anthony Moss, Anoop, Sattineni, Sridhar Krishnamurti, Allen Davis, Joe Sumners,
Conner
Bailey called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and reminded Senators to please
sign in at the back. He said that he
would continue the practice of allowing anyone present from a represented group
to ask questions or take part in discussions from the floor. He asked that
Senators have precedents if many people want to speak and reminded speakers to
go to the microphones and state their
name, whether or not they are a Senator, and what unit they represent.
Conner Bailey then called for approval of the November 8 Senate minutes. Rik Blumenthal moved that the minutes be approved. They were approved by voice vote without opposition.
Conner Bailey informed the Senate that Dr
Richardson was unable to appear, but that Provost John Heilman would bring
forward announcements from the President’s Office.
Announcement from Senate Chair
Conner Bailey announced that the Board of Trustees
will meet Friday, February 3rd, at Auburn University Montgomery, and
that the agenda will be set this Thursday.
He said that it appears that the report by Dr Larry Fisher will occupy a
central place.
He said that Dr Fisher’s team visited
campus late last year, during finals week.
He noted that some of those present had met with members of that
team. He said that the Senate leadership
has not seen the Fisher team report but that it is expected it to be available
when the Board meets in February.
Also, he said, since our last Senate
meeting, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) met in
Conner Bailey said that the subject of
post-tenure review has continued to occupy the time and energy of the Senate
Executive and Steering Committees. He
said the Senate leadership had been prepared to call a special meeting of the
University Faculty next week to provide an opportunity for faculty to express
their views through continued discussion and a vote, if it had been believed
that such a meeting had been needed in that time frame. He said that the Senate leadership has made
the argument that the first order of business should be ensuring that annual
performance evaluations are done in a systematic and effective manner and that
such annual performance evaluations would be the foundation of any post-tenure
review process established here. He said
that in his view effective annual performance evaluations would answer
questions of accountability that have given rise to the idea that post-tenure
review is necessary. He said that the
administration is aware that improvements need to be made to annual performance
evaluations but continues to have interest in adoption of a post-tenure review
policy. He said that the faculty
leadership has been assured that no decision on this matter will happen in the
near future, removing the necessity of a special called meeting of the University
Faculty. At this point he anticipates
the matter will be on the agenda at the March 14th meeting of the
faculty.
He said that, in keeping with plans he had
announced at the October meeting of the University Senate and again at the
October meeting of the University Faculty, the Senate Executive Committee in
consultation with the Senate Rules Committee appointed an ad hoc Senate committee on Patents, Inventions, and Technology
Transfer. This committee met for the
first time in early December. Dr Cindy
Brunner served as the convening chair of this committee, and she was
subsequently selected to serve as chair.
Other members of the committee include Eugene Clothiaux (past Senate
Chair, chair of the SACS Self-Study Committee, and professor in CoSAM), C.
Robert Taylor (Eminent Scholar, College of Agriculture), Bill Baird (Emeritus Professor,
Education), Yvonne Kozlowski (past Senate Chair and Emeritus Librarian III and
department head Emeritus), Roy Broughton (Professor in Engineering), Jacob Dane
(Professor, College of Agriculture). He
said that the charge to this committee is: “To evaluate policy and policy
implementation related to patents, inventions, and technology transfer at
Conner Bailey noted that the University
Senate has forwarded to the administration two recommendations over the past
couple of years, including a proposed policy on Electronic Privacy, and a
recommendation to create the position of ombudsman.
With regard to Electronic Privacy, he said we
are very close to an agreement with the administration that is similar to what
the Senate proposed. He said that the administration
is fully supportive of the principle of electronic privacy. He said that the recommendation forwarded
from the Senate contained certain procedural features that the administration,
and in particular the University’s General Counsel, felt were problematic. He said the Senate Academic Computing
Committee, chaired by George Mitrevksi, has been working diligently on this
subject and that John Heilman, Lee Armstrong, Rich Burnett, Rich Penaskovic,
and he himself also have been involved.
He said he believes that
Similarly, he said, there has been progress
on the ombudsman position. Lin Inlow from
He noted that at the November Senate
meeting there was some discussion of changes to the payroll system, concerning
paying 9-month faculty over a 10 month period, and that a variety of concerns
were expressed at the meeting and in subsequent communications between faculty,
Senate leaders, and the administration.
He asked Dr Claire Crutchley, chair of the Senate’s Faculty Salaries
Committee, to look into this matter. The
committee met last Thursday. He said
that Ed Thomas from Physics and David Cicci from Aerospace Engineering attended
as guests and took an active role in discussions. He said that Don Large, who is a member of
this committee, listened to concerns and made a decision to drop the original
proposal of 10 paychecks a year for 9-month faculty, and instead to adopt a
variant of the current practice of half-month salaries being paid at the end of
September and the middle of May and full month salaries paid each month from
September through April. The variant is
this: each month from September through
April two salary payments would be made, one on the 15th of each
month, and the second at the end of the month.
He said it is his understanding
is that the new Banner system cannot without modification handle individual
payroll payments that involve both bi-monthly and monthly periods. The system could be modified, but each time
the Banner system was updated, there would be programming and testing
costs. He said that the press of time
and the need to prepare for the July 1st implementation of the new
Banner system left virtually no time for broader consultation with faculty on
9-month appointments, but that the consensus of those at the meeting on
Thursday was that splitting salary into 18 equal payments was the best
approach. He said he appreciates the
willingness of Don Large and his staff, many of whom attended the Thursday
meeting, to listen to faculty concerns and work to address them. He also thanked Ed Thomas and David Cicci for
their persistence and their constructive comments and gave special thanks to
Claire Crutchley for organizing and chairing a productive meeting.
He alerted the faculty that the call for
volunteers to serve on Senate and University committees will be issued soon via
email. He said the process will be much
the same as last year, but that we are starting earlier so that most
appointments (for Senate committees) and nominations (for University committees)
are done before the end of spring semester.
He said he has asked the Senate’s Academic
Standards Committee to examine the grade forgiveness policy and determine if it
should be continued. He said he hopes
that committee, chaired by Dianne Hall of the Department of Management, will
report back to the Senate later this semester.
He expressed appreciation for the helpful assistance of Drew Clark and
Linda Glaze in the Provost’s office in providing data to the Senate
committee.
He said that the Nominations committee
responsible for recruiting and selecting candidates for the position of Chair-elect
and Secretary-elect is making good progress and that we should expect a report
in the near future from Howard Thomas (Textile Engineering), who chairs that committee. Conner Bailey said he will share that report
through AUPROFS as soon as he receives it, and that we can expect to read
candidate statements in the AU Report at some point before the March 14th
meeting of the University Faculty.
(Secretary's Note: The candidates are Cindy Brunner and David
Cicci for Chair-elect; David Sutton and Ann Beth Presley for Secretary-elect.)
Questions
and Answers for the Senate Chair
Carole Zugazaga asked how deductions will be made for health insurance and retirement on the two-check per month system.
Don Large said he did not remember specifically how these deductions would be handled, whether once per month or split evenly across the two checks.
Remarks
from Provost John Heilman
John Heilman wished everyone the best for the year to come. He said he knows Art Chappelka will present Academic Program Review. He said he has met with Art Chappelka and talked about the plans and recommendations that will be coming forward. He said he appreciates the hard work of the committee and looks forward also to the presentation to be made by Joe Molnar on administrator evaluations. He said that in talking with deans, some questions and concerns arose regarding assurance that individuals won't be identified in material that is released publicly.
He said that there will be a meeting of the Board of Trustees on Feb 3 at Auburn University Montgomery.
He said
that previously he had indicated that before end of calendar year, he would
make recommendations on the Initiative for
Questions
and Answers for Provost Heilman
Rik Blumenthal asked John Heilman to comment on the presentation he made to the Board of Trustees on academic program review and post-tenure review.
John Heilman said that the Board was engaged with the issues. He said he thought it was a good discussion.
Action Item
Isabelle Thompson, chair of the Non-Tenure Track Instructors Committee, presented a resolution to change the name, membership, and charge of the committee. She noted that when the Senate committee was established we didn't have clinical and research faculty categories. She said Conner Bailey asked the committee to look at broadening its charge and that she agrees that the charge should be changed.
She read the Resolution for Changes to the Name, Charge, and Constituency, of the Non-Tenure-Track Instructor Committee and moved that the resolution be adopted.
Conner Bailey opened the floor for comments.
Dawn Booth (substitute for Barbara Kemppainen) asked if proportions of instructors versus other non-tenure track faculty in the proposed committee structure represents the population of non-tenure track faculty at the university.
Isabelle Thompson said that one of the things the committee needs to do is enumerate the population of non-tenure track faculty and instructors.
Dawn Booth asked if there was a mechanism to change the numbers if the committee structure does not reflect the population.
Isabelle Thompson replied that there could be another resolution.
Conner Bailey said that Rules Committee always tries to make even representation of affected groups on committees.
Cindy Brunner (member of Rules) said she would like to urge the Senate to approve this resolution even if we need to change the composition of the committee later on. She said that increasingly we face issues that affect non-tenure track faculty other than instructors and we need a committee that such issues can be referred to.
Conner Bailey called for a vote. The item passed on voice vote without opposition.
Report on the Meeting of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA)
Richard Penaskovic, chair-elect, presented a report from the
annual meeting of the COIA at
He said that the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA)
is an alliance of faculty senates, welcoming membership from all Division 1A
schools. It was established in 2002 to effect long-range, comprehensive reform
in intercollegiate athletics. About 28 representatives from 24 member senates of
the COIA met at
Report on COIA from Rich Penaskovic
Conner
Bailey noted that
There were no questions for Richard Penaskovic.
Academic
Program Review
Conner Bailey invited Art Chappelka to give a presentation of the draft report on Academic Program Review.
Art Chappelka noted that this is a draft report and thus there would be no vote today, but rather a discussion. He asked those with specific comments to please share them with him and he would ensure that the full committee received the comments. He said the committee will meet next week (week of January 23) and try to come up with another draft for a future meeting.
Academic Program Review Draft Report
Visuals displayed covering draft report
Conner Bailey noted that program closure is not the point of Academic Program Review. He said that the schedule for a vote will depend on the amount of comments and how quickly the committee can revise the document.
Werner Bergen asked about implementation of plans after a review is completed.
Art Chappelka said that the committee can't come up with an implementation plan. He said review does give the Provost a good idea about where strengths may lie.
John Heilman said that if recommendations are made for certain things to be done, which cost money, then that is a matter of priorities and thus involves the strategic goals of university. He also noted that programmatic priority involves the views of the deans and how they invest their resources.
Dawn Booth asked if the intent of academic program review is written into the document, and if not, she encourages the committee to include it. She said that what is meant by strengthening a program needs to be defined. She also asked if Academic Program Review would cover research and outreach as well as instruction.
Art Chappelka aid that research and outreach would be part of the review. He said there would need to be dialogue between chairs and deans about what the unit does.
Administrator
Evaluations
Joe Molnar gave a presentation on administrator evaluations.
Richard Penaskovic said he was concerned about confidentiality for the faculty, especially if small numbers of faculty in a department fill out the evaluation forms.
Joe Molnar said the committee will look at the question of small numbers and may need to think about suppressing data if only one or two people in a unit respond.
Conner Bailey said that the best protection is widespread participation.
Holly Stadler asked whether deans would be able to identify the comments in the dean's evaluations by department.
Joe Molnar said that it was not planned to give the deans departmental identification for comments about the dean's office.
Holly Stadler suggested adding a line about contributing to diversity goals.
Harriette Huggins asked if A&P could contribute comments.
Joe Molnar said that at the moment it is a faculty evaluation.
Conner Bailey said that nothing prohibits A&P and Staff Council from doing their own parallel evaluations.
Harriette Huggins asked if Joe Molnar would share mechanics.
Joe Molnar said he'd be glad to work with her.
Werner Bergen asked if we can preview the template and expressed concern about being timed out of a long survey because of interruptions.
Joe Molnar said there would not be a feature to time people out before they finished. If there is a problem , he said faculty could email him to get help.
Werner Bergen asked for a sample webpage.
Conner Bailey and Joe Molnar said that one would be provided on the Senate website.
(Secretary's note: The page is available at https://auburn.edu/administration/governance/senate/website/powerpoints_&_presentations/sample-evaluations.htm)
Cindy Brunner also said it would be a good idea to have the template available to preview.
Cindy Brunner asked if the evaluation would be platform specific.
Joe Molnar initially said that he believed that it would be platform specific. However, after consulting with the programmer, he corrected his previous statement to say that the evaluation forms would not be platform specific and that the evaluation forms should work in a number of platforms.
Kathryn Flynn asked if the unit associated with an administrator see the results of the evaluation.
Joe Molnar said that general faculty would see only a Senate report (without names identified).
Dan Bennet said the process was a great improvement and expressed appreciation for the work of the committee. He said it would be helpful for deans to see comments identified by department so deans could improve relations with departments.
Darrel Hankerson said we continue to see a specific platform shoved down our throats. He said that faculty in his unit would be less likely to respond if they had to use a specific platform.
Joe Molnar responded that the committee will try to make the form work on anything possible.
Darrel Hankerson said that trying was not sufficient.
Drew Clark noted that the director of ACES does not report to the Provost. He asked how the committee would handle feedback on ACES.
Joe Molnar said the data will be given to the Provost, who may pass responses to the President.
John Heilman noted that Drew Clark was correct and that the extension director does not report to Provost and thus would suggest that feedback go to the president. He said he would talk with Joe Molnar about this issue.
Conner Bailey said he is convinced that if we have a high participation rate, John Heilman will pay attention to the results. He urged faculty to take this seriously.
There was no unfinished business and no new business.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30.