Minutes of the Senate Meeting
July 18, 2006
3:00 p.m.
Broun Auditorium
Submitted by Kathryn Flynn
Present: Rich Penaskovic, Kathryn Flynn, Ann Beth Presley, Conner Bailey, Don Large, Debbie Shaw, John Heilman, Drew Burgering, Roger Garrison, Robert Locy, Charles Mitchell, Werner Bergen, Charlene LeBleu, Barry Fleming, Timothy McDonald, Anoop Sattineni, Robert Chambers, Rik Blumenthal, Debra Worthington, Alvin Sek See Lim, Suhyun Suh, Jon Bolton, Claire Crutchley, Larry Teeter, Alice Buchanan, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Daniel Mackowski, Richard Good, Robin Fellers, Cindy Brunner, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, Bernie Olin, Francis Robicheaux, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Norton, Tom Williams, Scott Phillips, Saralyn Smith-Carr
Absent, sending a substitute: Ronald Clark (Duane Searcy), Diane Hite (James Novak), Mario Lightfoote (Sandra Parmer), Anthony Moss (Bob Locy), Judith Lechner (James E. Witte), Charles Gross (J. K. Tugnait), Jim Saunders (Lorraine Wolf), Ruth Crocker (David Carter), Chris Arnold (Shea Tillman), Joe Sumners (Mike Easterwood)
Absent, no substitute: David Cicci, Royrickers Cook, June Henton, Dan Bennett, Paul Bobrowski, Stewart Schneller, Dick Brinker, Michael Moriarty, Bonnie MacEwan, George Stegall, Ethan Trevino, Maurita Walker, Jack DeRuiter, Garnetta Lovett, Winfred Foster, Barbara Kemppainen, Raymond Hamilton, Larry Crowley, Sridhar Krishnamurti, Gary Martin, Randy Beard, Sadik Tuzun, Allen Davis, Ken Tilt, Thomas A. Smith, Darrel Hankerson, John Rowe, James Shelley, Virginia O’Leary, Vivian Larkin, Randy Tillery, William Shaw, Carole Zugazaga, Howard Thomas
Rich Penaskovic called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. He reminded the audience that any person from a unit represented in the Senate is welcome to speak during the meeting.
Approval of the Minutes: Rich Penaskovic noted that the minutes of the June 6 meeting had been distributed by email and would be posted on the Senate website. The minutes were accepted as received.
Remarks and Announcements:
Dr. Richardson had not yet arrived so Rich Penaskovic proceeded with comments from the Chair.
Rich Penaskovic called for a moment of silence for three emeritus faculty members who died during the last month: Joe Ansell (Interim Dean, Liberal Arts), Dean Ed Hobbs (retired in 1988), and Jan Wojcik (Associate Professor, Dept. of Philosophy). Rich Penaskovic called on Kelly Jolley, Chair, Department of Philosophy, to make a few comments about Jan Wojcik. Kelly Jolley stated that Jan Wojcik taught at Auburn from 1992-2006, had published a book on Robert Boyle’s Philosophy of Science and died in Paris, France during the first week of July. A moment of silence was observed for Joe Ansell, Ed Hobbs and Jan Wojcik.
Rich Penaskovic announced that his request for $250,000 for sabbatical leaves had been denied. He stated that he was greatly disappointed but will pursue the issue as a member of the Budget Advisory Committee this year.
Rich Penaskovic said that the idea of the Agriculture Institute had been accepted in principle by the Board of Trustees at the June meeting. He reported that details of the Institute are still to be worked out. He said it will include the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station, the Alabama Cooperative Extension System, the College of Agriculture, the School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, the Biofuels Initiative and the AU Environmental Institute. He noted that other units may be added to the Institute at a later date.
Rich Penaskovic said that the Executive Committee has taken the position that Post Tenure Review should not be undertaken at this time. He also said that the Post Tenure Review policy presented to the Board by Dr. Richardson was accepted at the June 30th Board meeting. Rich Penaskovic said that the Executive Committee was considering calling a special meeting of the University Faculty to discuss and vote on the document presented at the June 30th Board meeting. He said that the Executive Committee feels the faculty should have a vote on this policy. He said that it has been the position of the Executive Committee that Post Tenure Review is duplication of effort if a good annual review process is taking place and with the cyclical renewal of Graduate Faculty Status, should not be undertaken at this time and should be a question for the new president. Rich Penaskovic told the audience that the policy is on the Provost’s website and he hopes it will soon be available on the Senate website as well.
Rich Penaskovic opened the floor for comments and questions.
Dr. Richardson said that he would address several issues in a summary fashion: the Presidential search, the Presidential Initiatives, and the recent controversy related to directed studies. Dr. Richardson said that he wanted to address the rumor-mill associated with the Presidential search. He said that the search is being conducted in an open and professional manner and that he is not involved in the process. He said the process should be on target for completion by early next year. He said that there are no favorites in the search. He said that the search is being done as the consultant advises and Dr. Richardson is confident that the Board is moving through this and doing it’s best to keep the process open. He said that we should see much more progress by December and that there would be opportunity for input when the final candidates come to campus. He also stated that no pre-determined typed (traditional versus non-traditional) has been identified and that the job description was developed to encourage many people of both types to apply. He has been told that there is considerable interest in the position and he is anticipating a timely selection. He reiterated that he is not a candidate and encouraged people not to embellish rumors because this will work against a credible search. Dr. Richardson said that Conner Bailey is on the committee and is a valuable source of information. Dr. Richardson said that we should feel free to email him with questions and that he will respond in a general way but that he is not involved with the meetings of the search committee or in the search process. He said that he is staying informed and that we should all continue the great job we are doing. He said that this position is one many will find attractive.
Dr. Richardson said that Rich Penaskovic has been consistently opposed, in a professional manner, to Post Tenure Review. Dr. Richardson stated the process used for his initiatives is consistent with the Fisher Report and will not tie the hands of the next President. He stated that no final decisions will be made on any of these initiatives until the new President is here to make them.
Dr. Richardson said that the Academic Program Review process and the Post Tenure Review Process was developed through the Provost’s office with input from a number of people. He said that both will be tested during the next academic year to see if the criteria accurately describe the intent. He said that the Provost will report to the Board, probably in April, about each process. The next President will make the final decision on full implementation and whether changes are needed for each process. He said that the growing accountability movement for higher education is speeding up and will impact on these criteria. He said anything short of full and objective review would serve to be rejected next year. He said that the two processes will be piloted this year, recommendations made in the spring and the new president will make decisions about each process.
Dr. Richardson said that the same format will be used for the Agriculture Initiative except that there will be an internal search (within the AU system) for the Vice-President who will serve as Director of the Institute. He said that Don Large is working on the job description and that an announcement calling for applicants should be out by the end of the week. He expects roughly two weeks during which interested faculty can submit their applications with names of finalists to be made public sometime between Aug. 15-21. He said the process will follow the same format as other termed positions and should include public presentations. He hopes to name the new Vice-President at the Sept. 1 Board meeting.
Dr. Richardson said these three initiatives will be impacted by a Strategic Plan. He does not anticipate adoption of a formal plan during his tenure. He said that the external consultants will complete their review of the University, personalize the external factors that could or will impact Auburn and present their material to the Board at a workshop on Aug. 31.
Dr. Richardson said that Auburn is once again facing controversy—one that goes to the heart of the University—its academic integrity. He said that this is not an athletic problem but is in the academic domain. He said that an investigation is on-going and will not be ready in the next few days. He said that this controversy threatens self-governance unless there is a substantive response. He said that he is not accusing anyone and this controversy would best be solved at the academic level but the publicity it is receiving means that there are others outside the University who will offer to help. He is hopeful that this issue can be dealt with internally. He stated that he does not believe it is as serious as some newspapers imply but that it must be dealt with.
Dr. Richardson said that the investigation is on-going, he has no progress to report but assures us that he will take whatever steps are necessary to repair AU’s academic reputation. He said that Auburn’s strength through the last 20 years of various controversies has been and it’s academic integrity. He said that our problems have always been related to other issues. He said that this situation requires additional steps to show we can take care of our business or issues of accountability will creep in. He said decisions related to this controversy will be, to the extent possible, made public in a timely manner. He will issue a report, certainly by the September Senate meeting. He said the report will describe the nature of the problem (if any) and the steps taken to correct it. Dr. Richardson said that Dr. Allen from SACS contacted him on June 5 and asked for a report summarizing the investigation when it is completed. Dr. Richardson said that he sees this as a more serious issue than just an athletic problem and that he cannot tolerate anything that hurts the academic integrity of the University. He said the investigation will go forward and the information gathered will be used to make decisions.
Dr. Richardson opened the floor for questions and comments.
Dr. Richardson said that the Institute would be piloted for one year in much the same way as Post Tenure Review and Academic Program Review. He said that at the end of a year someone (the Provost or a termed Vice-President) would make a report to the Board and the new President after which a decision would be made about the future of the Institute. He said that if the decision is made to continue the Institute there would be a broad search. He said that there would be no substantive changes in the units included in the Institute over the next year. Dr. Richardson said that Don Large and Dr. Heilman will be screening the applicants, select 2-3 who will make public presentations and then, Dr. Richardson said, he would select the new Vice-President.
Dr. Richardson noted that there had been recommendations made by the last two Deans from the College of Agriculture concerning Experiment Stations. He said that there are 15 Experiment Stations of which 3 are mothballed. He said the new Vice-President would decide over the next year which of the remaining 12 should remain open, what their specialties should be and how money might be generated for the Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station from the ones mothballed. Dr. Richardson said that the external Commission had also made recommendations. He said that most of the recommendations were not new and that we will see, over the next year, what is practical for the Experiment Stations. Dr. Richardson said that even if the Institute had not been formed these decisions would have to have been made.
Dr. Richardson said that Rik Blumenthal had made a valid point and that he agreed with Rik. Conner Bailey stated that his report later in the meeting would cover some of the things Rik had mentioned.
Dr. Richardson said that the outcome of the internal process had been given to the consultant and to the Board. Dr. Richardson said that the next step was for the consultant to meet with individual Board members. He said that the consultant is personalizing to AU 10 factors that will be impacting higher education and will present them to the Board. He said the Board will decide if the process will proceed. Dr. Richardson said if we go forward to development of a full-blown plan it will require the involvement of many more people. He said the on-campus effort collapsed on us and current efforts are an attempt to reclaim the process. Dr. Richardson said that without a strategic plan some of the decisions we are making are being made in isolation and may not be consistent with the future role of Auburn.
Dr. Richardson said that the academic integrity of AU, as evaluated in the SACS review, has been seen as generally strong despite the controversies of the last few years. He said the issue we face is the growth of the external drive for accountability. He said that by developing our own process we are shortstopping that external pressure. He also said that we are missing opportunities to recognize outstanding performance and that post tenure review will improve our chances of giving this kind of recognition. He said that post tenure review will show that we can handle our own business and allow us to recognize high performers.
Dr. Richardson asked that Rik Blumenthal send suggestions to Dr. Heilman.
Dr. Richardson said that, philosophically, he supports this position. He said that he had hoped to resolve the question about terms with the Attorney Generals opinion and avoid the situation we are now in. He anticipates that, regardless of the outcome, we will not see a ruling by the Supreme Court before January, 2007. He said that this is an election year and that will slow the process down. He said that this situation is bad for the presidential search. He said that the only thing at issue is Mr. Carlisle’s standing. He said Judge Walker’s court will review documents and then the case will go to the Supreme Court.
Dr. Richardson stated that it is the Board’s call as to whether challenges are made. He said that he hopes for a speedy resolution but does not see this happening before early 2007. He said this is an appellate review of the documents and we could have avoided the cost by going with the Attorney General’s opinion.
Dr. Richardson said that it is his understanding that it is a mechanism for anonymous complaints. Conner Bailey stated that Kevin Robinson, Internal Auditor for the University, made a presentation on Ethics Point for the Senate last year. Conner Bailey said that it is a web-based site on which people can log anonymous complaints through a private, third-party company that sends the complaint to Auburn for follow-up. Don Large said this was in response to Oxley-Sarbanes.
Dr. Richardson stated that he agrees and supports this view and noted that there are legal implications that will slow the report down. He said that he is doing all that he can to accelerate the process. He stated that the problem is not widespread and that corrective action can be taken without too much difficulty thus resolving this. He said that the issue of athletics has added to the complexity. He also stated that this is a slow time for sports news so this issue will get more coverage than it might have. He regrets this but believes that AU will come out of this stronger.
There were no further questions for Dr. Richardson and Rich Penaskovic thanked him for his remarks.
Action Items:
Approval of appointments to Senate Committees (Kathryn Flynn, Secretary, University Senate)
Kathryn Flynn acknowledged the work of the Rules Committee members. She noted that there are still a few vacancies to be filled and that she will be back at the September meeting for approval of the last of the nominees for Senate committees. She made a motion that the slate of nominees for Senate Committees be approved. The motion required no second and the slate of nominees was approved without dissent.
John Mouton delivered a power point presentation on parking issues and the new parking deck. He stated that, from a planning perspective, there are three primary issues: the total number of spaces, the total number of permits, and the location of parking. John Mouton said that location is one of the things people are dissatisfied with. He mentioned that the University is in negations with the city of Auburn to acquire additional parking by leasing it. He said there will be transit-linked parking and he also mentioned that parking at no cost will be available at the CDV site until redevelopment occurs at some point in the future. He said parking would also be available at the intermural fields and the Museum with transit service to campus. John Mouton said that D zone passes would be distributed for those people applying to park in the new deck. He said that with a deck the circulation of people looking for a space is a problem. He said for this reason the number of spaces will equal the number of permits. John Mouton said that people holding D zone passes will also be able to park in C zone parking but not in A or B. He said if D zone parked in A or B it would leave a deck space empty and displace someone holding an A or B pass. He said the A or B zone person would not be able to park in the deck. He said that if requests are not made for all of the available D zone spaces they will be given to GTAs.
John Mouton opened the floor for questions or comments.
John Mouton said that was an interesting idea. He stated that the University is trying to encourage students to park at distant locations. He said that other Universities have indicated that you cannot raise fees high enough to stop students from driving.
John Mouton said that the spaces were physically counted at 9, 10 and 11 o’clock on every lot on campus for one week and averaged over time.
John Mouton asked if Bob Locy would rather see zoned parking. John Mouton also mentioned that there be a consultant here in the fall to conduct an open forum to address parking issues.
John Mouton said that there were a lot of problems and that he will do his best to address them all.
John Mouton said that there would be two people at the entrance of the deck all day to ensure that only D zone gets in.
John Mouton said that motorcycle and bike committees exist. He also said that motorcycle spaces were increased by 60% last year and have been put in locations wanted by the users.
John Mouton said that there had also been a decrease in the number of permits issued over that time. He said that the number of A and B zone permits has decreased as well.
John Mouton said that he would check on this.
John Mouton said that the zones would not be enforced after 5:00 if they are adopted. He said the point of zone parking would be to divide the campus into smaller areas and issue permits within each area at a reasonable rate based on the number of spaces available.
John Mouton said that when a new building is built money goes into a parking fund for parking resources campus-wide. He said that there would be a deck built near the new Forestry and Wildlife Sciences building at some time in the future. He said that there are many changes coming to that area of campus, including construction of a new OIT building. John Mouton said that the resources are not available for construction of another deck at this time.
John Mouton said that the Traffic and Parking Committee will meet in the early fall and he will bring this question up.
John Mouton said that gated access creates a cueing problem. He said that the University is looking at recognition software that could be used in controlling access and avoiding lines at the deck entrance. He said there is a need to avoid cueing and that he is hopeful we will have software that can read optical stickers by next year.
John Mouton said that we know we need spaces for residential student parking. He said that he has not seen the information she is referring to but will ask for it. He said that if consultants recommend more parking we will add more parking. He said that if the current study is wrong we will redo it. He asked where should we build if we build new parking?
There were no more questions or comments for John Mouton and Rich Penaskovic thanked him for his comments.
Update on the Presidential Search (Conner Bailey, Immediate Past Chair)
Conner Bailey recognized Cindy Brunner as the other faculty representative on the committee. Conner Bailey said that Mr. Charles McCrary, who chairs the committee, was unable to attend the meeting but hoped to be able to speak to the Senate in the fall as the search process picks up momentum.
Conner Bailey noted that all meetings of the search committee are open to the public and that information on these meetings can be found through the AU website under “Presidential Search”. He said this website contains summaries of meetings that have already occurred. He said that the Secretary of State’s website also has a list of public meetings involving Board members. Conner Bailey stated that he is confident that the process will be honest and will follow the law on open meetings. He said that Alabama has a new open meetings law that has not yet been tested in the courts. He said we do not want this search to end up as a test case and for that reason, University Counsel Lee Armstrong, is advising the committee to ensure compliance with the law. Conner Bailey said that the committee faces the challenge of following the law while protecting the confidentiality of candidates especially during the early phase of the search. He said that public knowledge at this early stage could harm the current job situation of potential candidates.
Conner Bailey said that once all files have been reviewed a short list of candidates will be publicly announced and these candidates brought to campus. He said the confidentiality of those candidates who do not make the short list would be protected to ensure they do not experience negative consequences in their current jobs. He said failure to do this would result in a weaker pool of applicants. Conner Bailey said that Mr. McCrary has reported that Dr. Kuhnle is still collecting application materials and expects this phase to be substantially complete by the end of July. Conner Bailey said that at the last search committee meeting on June 23rd Dr. Kuhnle reported that he had approximately 36 complete applications and more than that number who have expressed interest in the position. Conner Bailey stated that he anticipates that the committee will review 50-80 candidates.
Conner Bailey said that there are no “front-runners” and that the committee has not yet seen either a list of candidates or information on individual candidates. He said there are good candidates out there and we need a dynamic leader. He said that the committee will review all completed applications; the search firm (Korn/Ferry) will not filter applications. He said that Dr. Kuhnle is acting in support of the committee but the committee is driving the process. Conner Bailey said that Mr. McCrary is a good committee chair. Conner Bailey said that there is no firm schedule for completion of the search, the time needed to do the job right will be taken with the knowledge that Dr. Richardson has stated that he would like to complete his tenure at the end of the current calendar year. Conner Bailey said the details of the on-campus visits have not yet been worked out.
Conner Bailey said that if the initial pool of applicants is reviewed in August, background checks are done on those applicants of particular interest, we might see on-campus interviews by the end of September. He said that once the search committee has made its recommendation to the Board it is the responsibility of the Board to make an offer and negotiate with the candidate. He also said that if the candidate is employed there may be some delay in an effective start date for the new president. He said it is unclear if we can have a new president on-board by Jan. 1st 2007 but doubts that availability by a particular date will loom large in consideration of potential presidents. He said that Dr. Richardson is willing to remain in his present position until the new President is on campus.
Conner Bailey concluded by thanking those who attended the open forums and encouraged people to visit the AU website and go to the “Public Input” button leading to auburnpresident@kornferry.com to send comments on the search. He said that comments could also be shared with him or Cindy Brunner.
Information on the Banner System (Don Large, Executive Vice-President)
Due to the lateness of the hour the presentation by Don Large was deferred to the next Senate meeting.
Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any old business. There was none.
Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any new business. Rik Blumenthal asked about the information sent out this week referencing a $40 insurance charge for foreign travel. He said that he and other faculty members had questions about this issue and he would like them to be addressed. Rich Penaskovic said that the Executive Committee has spoken to John Heilman about this and there will be presentation on this topic at the next Senate meeting. There was no other new business.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.