Minutes of the University
Senate
February 14, 2006
3 p.m.
Broun Hall Auditorium
Submitted by Patricia
Duffy
Present: Conner Bailey, Richard Penaskovic, Patricia Duffy, Don Large, Paul Bobrowski, Dick Brinker, John Heilman, Michael Moriarty, Harriette Huggins, Roger Garrison, Garnetta Lovett, Robert Locy, David Cicci, Diane Hite, Mario Lightfoote, Charles Mitchell, Barry Fleming, Charlene LeBleu, Anthony Moss, Timothy McDonlad, Anoop Sattineni, Sridhar Krishnamurti, 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, Jim Saunders, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Chris Arnold, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Daniel Mackowski, John Rowe, Robin Fellers, Joe Sumners, Cindy Brunner, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Norton, Virginia O'Leary, Vivian Larkin, Carole Zugazaga, Howard Thomas Scott Phillips, Saralyn Smith-Carr, Bonnie MacEwan, Cate Giustino
Absent, sending a substitute: Debbie Shaw, David Wilson Barbara Kemppainen, Alice Buchanan, Ken Tilt, Tom Williams
Absent, no substitute: June Henton, Dan Bennett, Stewart Schneller, John Tatum, Jennie Swaim, , Zachary Bryant, Jack DeRuiter, Ronald Clark, Werner Bergen, Raymond Hamilton, Robert Chambers, Allen Davis, Richard Good, Kathryn Flynn, Willie Larkin, Randy Tillery, William Shaw
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 precedence 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 January 17 Senate minutes. Rik Blumenthal moved that the minutes be approved. They were approved by voice vote without opposition.
Announcements
from President's Office, Interim President Ed Richardson
President Richardson said he wanted to talk
about the Fisher Report and three other items.
He said that at the legislative session, the substitute budget
introduced last Wednesday was a budget Auburn University and the
For his second point, he said he wanted to
remind everyone that we are trying to establish an environment in which the
next president will have an excellent chance of success, so that the new
president is in a position to execute presidential authority and stay for an
extended period of time, meaning five to ten years. He said he wants to make sure the next person
has a high possibility of success and that it may not be easy to do so.
He said when he came on as interim president, he saw a three year process: The first year to remove SACS probation, the
second year to establish institutional control, and the third to conduct the
search. He said the second task,
establishing institutional control, is the most difficult, but that he believes
progress is being made and he is optimistic.
He pointed out that Bob McGinnis was
at the Senate meeting and mentioned the capital campaign, with its goal of $500
million dollars. He said over $332 million
has already been pledged, showing a tremendous commitment to the
university. He said the kick-off event (on February 3) was
well appointed and well choreographed, compatible with accomplishing this
goal. He said Sam Ginn
and Buddy Weaver are chairpersons for the capital campaign.
He said the third thing he would talk about
is the Fisher report, but that he is not here to talk specifics. He cautioned those present not to form
opinions about specific aspects of the report too quickly. He said that forming opinions before the (Board
of Trustees) committee meets might be polarizing. Further, he said some of the recommendations
won't even be discussed until a new president is on board. He said that faculty representatives will
have an opportunity to participate at the appropriate time. He said the first discussion of the Fisher
Report by the Trustees will be during the April meeting, and that it would also
be discussed at the June meeting. He
said it was appropriate (for the University Senate) to discuss it, but that he
would advise us to wait before making specific suggestions. He said the Fisher Report is a template and
that there will be choices. He said some
things in the Report are for the Board of Trustees to do, some for the interim
president, and some things for the next president. He said he anticipates the Board committee
will meet in the next week or so and that the Board will complete its work by
June 30. He said he believes we can stay
on track with the search for a new president, to have a new president by the year's
end.
He said the final item he would talk about
is student assessment and where the Board of Trustees is going in that
regard. He said it may sound as if a few
of the board members are being critical of what is going on at
Questions
and Answers for President Richardson
Ruth Crocker said that last year President
Richardson told this body that diversity was not a priority. In view of what the Fisher Report had to say
about diversity, she asked if he is prepared to say that diversity is a
priority, and if, for example, he is prepared to move Affirmative Action out of
HR.
President Richardson replied that if he
said that diversity was not a priority, he was wrong. He said he thinks we have moved forward in
that regard. The Fisher report discussed
diversity and he said he expects us to continue to move forward. He said he thinks it is an issue that affects
us in many ways. He said we will look
carefully at those Fisher Report recommendations.
Bob Locy asked
about President Richardson's comments concerning the Fisher Report, in terms of
outlining what is Board of Trustees responsibility and what is the president's
responsibility. He said it is not clear
to him what the faculty role will be in instituting outcomes of the Fisher
Report.
President Richardson said the Board committee
consists of four people. Earlon McWhorter and Sam Ginn are
co-chairs, with Sarah Newton and Charles McCrary as the other members. He said he anticipates there will be an
organizational meeting, and he will give advice to the Board of Trustees on
what issues are germane to the Board, which are germane to the Interim
President, and which for the new president.
He said he can't yet answer the faculty involvement question. He said the Board committee will operate
under open meeting rules and that the Board committee knows faculty involvement
is critical for success.
Rich Penaskovic
asked about the time line of the search for a permanent president. He noted that it is getting late in the year. He said that the April Board meeting will be
devoted to the Fisher report, and thus the Board may not discuss the presidential
search. He said he realizes that the decision
on when to start the search is the Board's but he said he would like President
Richardson's opinion on the issue.
President Richardson responded that Earlon McWhorter said that he would form a search committee
later this spring and that Dr. Kuhnle has said his
efforts are on-going. He said he is optimistic
that the search is on target for getting a decision by the end of the calendar
year. He said he thinks it would be a
mistake to start earlier. He said that some
of issues in the Fisher report need to be addressed. He said that he believes that will happen in
April and June and that by the fall an intense process will be started. He said that applicants would look at the
current Board of Trustees and would look at the tenure of the current president
and that they will need to see some stability.
He said we need the Board to look at the recommendations and confirm
that the president is in charge, and then a search can be productive. He said a person would need to feel there was
enough stability to come here.
Rik Blumenthal complemented President Richardson
on his success with the legislative agenda.
Then he asked about assessment in terms of SACS. He said that in his department, they instituted
testing of students, so we may have already addressed this issue.
President Richardson said he hopes that is
the case. He said that the short-coming
is that we have not presented the data in a consistent way to confirm that it
is being done. If there are accrediting
requirements, he said we will look at that first. He said that we don't have to go to the outside,
but we do have to confirm. He said another
question is whether we have assessed what we want to assess, such as the
overall success of the core. He said the
Board is not aware of such an assessment.
Rik Blumenthal said his department's data is
in the SACS report.
Announcement
from Senate Chair Conner Bailey
Conner Bailey said the Fisher Report
recommended that we not move forward rapidly on some items, one of which is
post-tenure review. He said we don't
know how the university will respond to these recommendations. He said that this body has discussed
post-tenure review at great length as well as Academic Program Review and the Initiative
for
He said that as previously announced, the Nominations Committee chaired by Professor Howard
Thomas has brought forward a strong slate of candidates for election next month
as Chair-elect and Secretary-elect. He
announced that Cindy Brunner and David Cicci are candidates
for Chair-elect, and Ann Beth Presley and David Sutton are the candidates for
Secretary-elect.
He said that the call for volunteers to
serve on Senate and University committees has been issued. He said that if there is one thing that has
impressed him as chair-elect and as the current chair, it is the central role
many of these committees play in governance of
He said that earlier this month
He said the Senate leadership continues to
press the administration on decisions related to the ombudsperson position and
the electronic privacy policy. He said
there is nothing yet to report, but that he is assured we are very close.
There were no questions for Conner Bailey.
Action Items
Rules
Committee Nominations
The first action item was nominations for
Rules Committee.
Conner Bailey put up the Handbook
description of the rules committee.
"Rules Committee: The Rules Committee shall consist of the chair of the Senate as chair, the chair-elect, the immediate past-chair, the secretary, the secretary-elect, and six members elected by the Senate. Elected members shall serve two-year staggered terms. Election of members to two-year terms shall be held by secret ballot at each March meeting of the Senate. Candidates who receive a majority vote shall be elected, and their appointment shall become effective the following August. Nominations shall be made from the floor at the Senate's February meeting. Information about the candidates shall be distributed to all Senators with the agenda for the March meeting. All members of the committee must be members of the Senate at the time of their election…. The committee shall serve as the Committee on Committees. All questions concerning Senate procedures shall be referred to this committee …."
He noted that the Rules Committee is one of three key faculty committees. Subject to Senate approval, Rules appoints faculty to Senate committees and nominates faculty to such important University committees as the Promotion & Tenure Committee.
Charline LeBlue nominated Claire Crutchley from Finance,
Larry Teeter nominated Andrew Wohrley, Libraries.
Diane Hite nominated Bernie Olin,
The three nominees are current Senators.
Resolution
Concerning Administrator Evaluation Committee
The second action item was a resolution for
a change in constituency of the administrator evaluation committee to include a
faculty member designated by the provost.
Rich Penaskovic
read the
resolution, which came from the Steering Committee, and moved for its adoption.
Rik Blumenthal asked for the motivation for
the change. He said that the committee
was originally set up to have no administrators on it to avoid letting an
administrator see the raw data, which might be identifiable by respondent.
Rich Penaskovic
said the Provost is the person with the ultimate responsibility to evaluate
administrators.
Conner Bailey added that the request came
out of the Steering Committee. He said
that we want the provost's office, which is responsible for evaluations, to feel
confident in the process. He said a high
degree of coordination or cooperation can be achieved and complemented Drew
Clark for his assistance this year. As for identifying faculty, he said that
the identity of individual evaluators is never available to the committee in
any form, anyway, so he doesn't see it as an issue.
Conner Bailey called for the vote. The motion carried.
He invited Don Large to come forward to
speak about the tobacco user surcharge program.
Smoking Surcharge
Don Large began by providing background.
Don Large noted that we are self-insured on
health insurance, and that Blue Cross administers the program. Each year, he said, costs have gone up
because we use more and more services and buy more and more pharmaceuticals and
there is rapid inflationary pricing of health care. He said employees pay 20, 30, or 40 percent of
the costs of the coverage, depending on their income level. In aggregate, he said, employees pay 35
percent of the costs, and the university pays 65 percent. He said that each year the University
Insurance and Benefits Committee, which has representatives from all covered
groups, brings forward recommendations on how to increase premiums to meet
costs for the next year. In recent
years, he said, we have tried to mirror the PEEHIP plan of the state, which covers
our retirees. PEEHIP instituted a
tobacco surcharge a year ago. He noted
that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death, and the recommendation
was designed for cost containment. He
further noted that the state employees and PEEHIP had gone to this plan.
Don Large said he recommended that the surcharge
go into effect. He then discussed why
the surcharge targeted tobacco when there are many bad habits that affect
health care costs. He said that the
committee noted that tobacco use is the leading preventable cause.
He then apologized for the questions and
concerns relative to the form sent out.
He said he told the administrative group to use the PEEHP form, but in
hindsight he wishes he had studied the form more. He said the language of the form is not
consistent with the intent of
He said he intends to ask the Insurance and
Benefits Committee to review the form that was sent out and to make
recommendations for better wording that is consistent with the intent. He then said we will use the current forms
this year. He said there would be no
kind of testing except in extreme cases and for cause. He said that in the next few months, there
will be a new form and that there would be another chance next year to sign off
on the new form.
Conner Bailey thanked Don Large for his
presentation.
Questions
and Answers for Don Large
(Secretary's
note: The tobacco surcharge discussion
was extended and these notes are a condensed version to get across the most
important points. The transcript for
this meeting will contain exact wording and all the details of everyone's
questions.)
Rik Blumenthal said he fears many colleagues
have tossed their forms in the trash, not knowing what it was. He asked if there is a place online to get
the form.
Don Large said he didn't know the answer,
but that he will cover it.
Anthony Gadzey
noted that it should not be difficult to find out who is cheating, and that
there should be a policy that smokes out those who are cheating and levies
heavy penalties on them.
Don Large said he'd like the Insurance and
Benefits committee to advise him about penalties.
Cindy Brunner asked about the date of
implementation of the plan, which appeared to be in error on the form.
Don Large said the date of implementation
was July 1.
Cindy Brunner suggested that the Insurance
and Benefits office send out a note about the date. She then asked what kind of testing would be
done. She said that even though this is an
honor system, employees might have to demonstrate that they don't smoke and
they may be exposed to second-hand smoke or to nicotine in research and would thus
test positive.
Don Large asked if there was any test that
would prove conclusively that someone smokes.
Lee Armstrong said that there is a breath
test, which detects near-term use. He
said a urine test that can discern long-term use.
Dan Szechi said
he is deeply troubled that we will start investigating private lives. He said he concedes that there are plenty of
deaths from smoking related cancers, but there are many deaths related to other
causes that could be surcharged. He said
he doesn't believe we should be doing this.
Don Large doesn't disagree that this is a
concern.
Dan Szechi said
the surcharge undermines the idea of insurance, which spreads risks across all
the population. He said he does not feel
comfortable signing something that says that they can go through medical
records or authorizes private testing. He
asked if he could score out terms he doesn't like.
Don Large said he doesn't have a problem
with people marking things out so long as the terms are consistent with what he
has discussed today.
Dan Szechi asked him
to look again into the PEEHIP form. He
said he was told that the PEEHIP form was entirely about an honor system.
Lee Armstrong said he had personally looked
at the PEEHIP form and it is word for word what was sent out at
Larry Crowley asked about the additional revenue
that would be generated from the surcharge.
Don Large said it would be about $400,000 a
year.
Larry Crowley said he is not a smoker, but that
a colleague is a smoker. He said the
colleague fears that this surcharge is not driven by economics, but is instead part
of an anti-smoking agenda and suggested that we have a surcharge for being
overweight.
Don Large noted that the 16 person
Insurance and Benefits Committee has five faculty members. He said there is not a good solution to problem
of increasing rates. He said the smoking
surcharge is a policy the committee felt was beneficial.
Conner Bailey noted that the chair of the
Insurance and Benefit Committee could possibly talk to Senate.
Carole Zugazaga
asked if there was any reassurance that other things won't be next.
Don Large said he will not pioneer any new
initiatives, but that he can't guarantee it will never happen. He noted that if PEEHIP adopts another
cost-containment policy, it could be recommended here.
Carole Zugazaga
asked if PEEHIP is the gold standard.
Don Large said that we don't want to be way
out of line with them, but it is not for him to make such decisions.
Gary Martin noted that even non-smokers
feel ill at ease. He said that to avoid
being surcharged, you have to waive some rights and that there are some
non-smokers who will not sign the form to avoid intrusion into their personal
lives.
Don Large agreed that we would penalize
non-smokers if we actually did the kind of testing that the form
suggested. But he said that if someone
reported a person, the first step would be to talk to the individual. He said that in such a case we might have to
go to the testing, but that the system is not set up for random testing.
Teresa Hawkins asked about the 12-month
rule (for being tobacco free). She asked
if the time limit could be changed for an incentive to give up smoking.
Don Large said that the surcharge follows
PEEHIP. He said it would be possible to look at a change.
Teresa Hawkins asked if the second-hand
smoke issue had been considered.
Don Large said that further policy
developments would depend on where society goes.
Sadik Tuzun noted that
in
Don Large said he will look into it.
Robin Fellers said she is disappointed Don Large
isn't willing to revise the form this year.
She asked if a corrected form could be put up on the web.
Don Large said he will discuss with payroll
and benefits the consequences of a revision given that 2000 forms have already
been received.
Scott Phillips asked if an employee has a
smoking spouse, but that spouse is on another insurance plan, does the $20 fee
still apply.
Don Large said the fee is only for those on
our plan.
Tony Moss asked about people who work around
fumes, such as welders. He said he wants
to know if he test discriminates sufficiently.
Don Large said for them to be tested,
someone would have to report them as misrepresenting their situation to the
university.
Lee Armstrong said that test would be one
part of the analysis. He said there
would be an opportunity to talk to the person who could then say he is a
welder.
Conner Bailey noted that it was 4:40 and
asked if we should proceed with discussion of the Fisher Report. Noting nods of yes, he said he would proceed.
Discussion of Fisher Report
Conner Bailey noted that the Board of Trustees commissioned an institutional assessment by a team led by Dr Larry Fisher and that the Fisher report, as it is has come to be known, was accepted but not discussed by the Board at its February meeting. He said the administration has been conspicuously silent, not wanting to get out ahead of the Board, which, after all, commissioned the Fisher report.
He said that few of the 142 recommendations and observations contained in the Fisher report are directed exclusively at the Board. He said that the University Senate seemed an appropriate place to begin an open discussion of the Fisher Report, as it is through this body that all campus constituencies – faculty, students, staff, A&P, and central administration – are represented.
He said he wanted to draw special attention to a few matters which relate to the Senate and the state of shared governance on this campus.
He said it should come as no surprise that the central focus
of the Fisher report was what a new President could mean to
He also noted that the Fisher report contains many positive features, and that among the many recommendations which resonate positively are calls for greater emphasis on diversity, limiting the growth of undergraduate enrollment, becoming more selective in admissions, and expanding both research and graduate education. He said there are a number of interesting curricular comments, including inclusion of diversity training and foreign language requirements. He suggested that the comments of the Fisher team related to academic and curricular matters should be compared to those made during our recent SACS review.
He said that one of the strongest set of recommendations contained in the Fisher report related to certain of Dr Richardson’s initiatives, including the strategic plan, restructuring of agriculture and related programs, and post-tenure review. He noted that in each case, the Fisher report recommended that no decisions be reached until the new President has had opportunity to review them.
Conner Bailey said he commended the Board, both as individuals and collectively, for not acting defensively at the strong criticisms contained in the Fisher report. Similarly, he said he thinks it appropriate that the Senate refrain from acting defensively to comments critical of the Senate and its leaders. He said that the Rules Committee has recommended that a short survey of faculty be conducted to assess whether the Senate and its leadership represent faculty views. He said that the comments in the Fisher report make it clear that the concerns extend well beyond the current leadership.
He noted that a recommendation came his way that the Senate express support for the report as a whole.
He opened the floor for discussion.
Gary Martin said he likes idea of a voice of support from the Senate for the overall report.
Cindy Brunner asked about the process relative to two
specific recommendations: 1) that this
body be renamed Faculty Senate with changes in composition, and 2) that
Conner Bailey said he can't answer at this time. He said the Executive Committee will meet with Ed Richardson and John Heilman soon.
John Heilman said he has asked for departmental input on the Fisher Report, via deans to department heads. He also suggested we make use of standing committees. He mentioned that service on these committees is tremendously important.
Conner Bailey said he is aware that deans are gathering information. He asked John Heilman how he plans to integrate the information from deans and departments and from the faculty leadership with that of the Board of Trustees committee.
John Heilman said the process is to be determined.
Conner Bailey noted that this is uncharted territory and that the Fisher Report is an important report with many recommendations, many of which are specific to faculty or to faculty-administrator relations. He said that we heard President Richardson say we don't want to get ahead of the Board. He said he is sure there will be opportunity for faculty, staff, and student involvement.
Bob Locy said he was struck by the
breadth of the document, but in some areas, it was lacking in depth. He said the faculty could be informing
administration of where we need more depth of information and that using
standing committees to do that is a beginning approach. He noted that the processes used in the
Initiative for
Saraylyn Smith-Carr asked whether there would be another forum where more faculty could come and speak, such as March faculty meeting.
Conner Bailey said that the Steering Committee meets this Thursday. He said he will recommend we continue this discussion.
Tom Smith (Human Development and Family Studies) requested that given the exodus of the discussion and the short time left, that we move this discussion to another meeting. He said he would be more prepared in March for a serious discussion, after his department has met to discuss the report and suggested that we adjourn.
Conner Bailey noted that there were people still at the microphones.
Virginia O'Leary aid that the AAUP met to discuss the Fisher Report and that the spring newsletter will contain a discussion. She said the AAUP reached consensus that they broadly supported the Fisher Report and wished to join the Senate and Interim President Richardson in changing the climate. She said she believes we are at a critical juncture.
Rich Penaskovic said he finds our students are insular and he would like them to be world citizens. Thus he said he likes the Fisher Report recommendation on foreign languages. He said he would like us to have overseas campuses as well.
Conner Bailey called the meeting to an end at 5 p.m.