Minutes of the Senate Meeting
October 3, 2006
3:00 p.m.
Broun Auditorium
Submitted by Kathryn Flynn
Present: Rich Penaskovic, David Cicci, Kathryn Flynn, Ann Beth Presley, Conner Bailey, Royrickers Cook, Overton Jenda, Stewart Schneller, Drew Clark, Fran Kochan, John Heilman, Bonnie MacEwan, Drew Burgering, Roger Garrison, Gary Martin, Ronald Clark, Winfred Foster, Norbert Wilson, Keith Cummins, Barbara Kemppainen, Charlene LeBleu, Barry Fleming, Brian Gibson, Anthony Moss, Timothy McDonald, Anoop Sattineni, Rik Blumenthal, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Carol Carruth, Alvin Sek See Lim, Suhyun Suh, Jon Saye, Dan Gropper, James Witte, Scotte Hodel, Jon Bolton, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Michel Raby, Jim Saunders, Alice Buchanan, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Darrel Hankerson, Bart Prorok, Robin Fellers, Don-Terry Veal, Jim Wright, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Voitle, Dan Svyantek, Tom Williams, Carole Zugazaga, Howard Thomas, Todd Axlund
Absent, sending a substitute: Debbie Shaw (Keith Camp), Maurita Walker (Wendy Pechman), Charles Mitchell (David Weaver), Peggy Shippen (Rebecca Curtis)
Absent, no substitute: June Henton, Johnny Green, George Stegall, Ethan Trevino, Jack DeRuiter, Jim Bradley, Sondra Parmer, Robert Chambers, Carol Centrallo, Allen Davis, Larry Teeter, Thomas A. Smith, Chris Arnold, Hugh Guffey, Richard Good, John Rowe, Bernie Olin, Randy Tillery, William Shaw, Scott Phillips
Rich Penaskovic called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. He reminded Senators to sign in.
Approval of the minutes: The minutes of the September 5, 2006 meeting were approved without change.
Remarks and Announcements:
Remarks from Senate Chair Rich Penaskovic
Rich Penaskovic reported that the ad hoc Patents and Inventions Committee was meeting to select a new chair. He noted that the Parking Forums went well and that a number of good suggestions had come out of them. He reminded everyone that the fall University Faculty meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, October 10 and that the Post-Tenure Review policy would be discussed and voted on. He said that all faculty would receive a Post-Tenure Review document for review in the next 24 hours. The document, entitled “Auburn University Faculty Development Review Program”, was developed by the Provost with input from the Senate leadership and the Deans. The process will be field-tested this academic year and implemented next year.
Rich Penaskovic announced that there were some problems with the Calendar for Summer, 2007. Rich Penaskovic said that Stan Reeves, Chair of the Calendars and Schedule Committee, had notified him that there is a need for a third day of exams in the first mini-semester because of the number of class hours being offered. Rich Penaskovic said that there were three options: 1) move the first day of class back to May 16; 2) get by with one less class day if this violates no SACS requirement; 3) schedule a single Saturday class and suggest faculty can make up the class on some other day to avoid meeting on Saturday. The Calendar and Schedules Committee is getting input from Linda Glaze and considering the three options.
Rich Penaskovic reported that the Rules Committee is working to select faculty for membership on an ad hoc committee to explore the scheduling of classes. The growth of campus has made the 10 minute break between classes too short for many students and there has been a proposal made that the break be extended to last 15 minutes. He asked that anyone interested in serving on this committee email him. He has a volunteer from Biological Sciences and still needs additional volunteers.
John Heilman had not yet arrived. Rich Penaskovic moved to the Action Items on the agenda.
Action Items:
Approval of nominees for Senate Committees (Kathryn Flynn, Secretary, University Senate)
Kathryn Flynn presented nominees recommended by the Rules Committee for three Senate Committees. She noted that she had neglected to include the list of nominees with the agenda. Bill Sauser, Senate Parliamentarian, suggested reading the list and, if there were no objections, to go ahead with the vote. The nominees were: David Weaver to replace and complete the term of Yolanda Brady who is the Agriculture representative on the Curriculum Committee. David Weaver is the new Chair of the College of Agriculture’s Curriculum Committee and they traditionally have the person occupying that position serve on the University Curriculum Committee. This will be an appointment to complete a term that ends in 2007. There are two nominations for the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: Rebekah Pindzola who would replace Bill Trimble as one of the Department Head/Chair representatives. Bill Trimble has stepped down as Chair of the History Department. This will be an appointment to complete a term that ends in 2007. Matthew Campbell is being nominated to serve a second term on the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee as the Central Administration representative. This will be a full term, expiring in 2009. The final nomination is Jan Kavookjian to serve as the Pharmacy representative on the Teaching Effectiveness Committee. This committee requires a representative from the School of Pharmacy and the term would expire in 2007. These nominations did not require a second and were approved by voice acclimation.
Information Items:
Space Utilization Update (John Mouton, Senior Advisor to the President)
John Mouton presented a power point presentation on the Office of Space Planning and Management. He said this effort was initiated by Dr. Richardson as a way of determining needs for new buildings and efficient management and use of new and existing space. John Mouton said his office has an advisory role: the assignment of academic space is the responsibility of the Provost’s office and the assignment of administrative space is the responsibility of the President and the Executive Vice-President’s offices. He said that representatives from the Office of Space Planning and Management have meet with each unit on campus. He said that each unit now has a space representative and this person has access to the space database being developed. John Mouton mentioned that anyone can be given access to the database but that it is preferred that the Dean’s give access to a single individual. He said that the data being collected from each unit would be used for a variety of purposes including providing information for federal and state government reports on space charged to grants. He said collection of this data is a collaborative effort and his office is working with academic units primarily at the Dean’s level, business and financial offices and the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.
John Mouton said that the database being developed would be updated each year and gives the University the capacity to do campus-wide GIS mapping, work-order management, and facilitate setting priorities for planned deferred maintenance. He said that it would also provide information on the types of AV equipment in different rooms. He said that the database would continue to be expanded. He said that the initial development of the data is difficult but maintenance and updating of the database will be easier. He said that this database would help track maintenance needs and repairs.
John Mouton said that one goal is to find under-utilized space and make it available to units needing space. He said that there is a goal of increasing the density of academic units in the core of campus while moving the non-academic units out thus increasing the density of use in the core of campus.
John Mouton reported that Parking Services would be re-located to the Parking Deck once a facility is built there. He said the Dawson Building would be converted to an autism facility. He stated that all properties belong to Auburn University as a whole and that ownership is centralized in the President’s office. He said that the stewardship of this space is decentralized to the Deans and the central administration. He said the goal is to do the best job possible at utilizing the space we have. He said some space is costing $8-9 per year to operate and this means it must be well-utilized. He said the use of space should be consistent with the purpose for which it was assigned. He said the as-yet-undeveloped Strategic Plan will drive the use of space in the future.
John Mouton said that there is an Academic Space Planning Template (part of the Provost’s office) that will document any need for space and quantify that need within academic units. He said that the Board and others ask about the continuous building of new space that occurs without obvious increases in capability or capacity. These space studies will provide a way to estimate how much space will be needed for target enrollment and the answers about space must be accurate.
John Mouton opened the floor for questions.
John Mouton responded that Sasaki had recommended two committees to replace the single Campus Planning Committee. He said draft proposals for the reconstituted committees would come before the Senate. He said the first committee would be the Master Plan Committee that will review planning issues at the macro-level. The second would be the Design Review Committee that would review projects at the micro-level. John Mouton said the intent is to have the planning committees reflect the fact that planning involves two issues: large scale issues and small-scale issues. He said there would be a proposal that faculty representation on each committee come from specific disciplines having expertise in areas related to the tasks of each committee.
Remarks and Announcements:
Remarks from Provost John Heilman
John Heilman said that a meeting had delayed his arrival and noted that Dr. Richardson was off campus today. He remarked that the two presentations heard today were important and reflected a move towards data-driven management.
John Heilman said he wanted to address two topics. He said the first topic was the comprehensive resolution on scholarships, recruitment and admissions processes and the quality of students recruited that was passed by the Board of Trustees at their last meeting. He said that President Richardson had made a strong commitment to this process. He said his second item was the Post-Tenure Review document. He said that he called it the “Faculty Development Review Process” rather than Post-Tenure Review. He noted that he had met with the Deans and the Senate leadership about two weeks ago and had received good suggestions from both groups. He said the document would be available on the web very soon—prior to the October 10 University Faculty Meeting. He said the suggestions had resulted in the draft document calling for a simplified list of materials to be submitted and a single University-level committee for reviews. He said the revised draft clarifies the difference between the field test and full implementation scheduled for 2007-2008. He said the field-testing process would take place in late 2006. He said this field test is intended to determine what works and what is practical. He said the proposed process would be discussed at the University Faculty Meeting next week.
John Heilman opened the floor for questions. There were no questions.
Information Items:
Student Assessment (Drew Clark, Director, Institutional Research and Assessment)
Drew Clark used a power point presentation to provide an update on student assessment. He said the Joint ad hoc Committee on Assessment, established for a one-year trial period, was made up of representatives from committees involved in academic issues. He said the intent is to see if an assessment seminar might be of use to various committees on campus.
Drew Clark said that assessment is being done for three reasons and each reason leads to a different type of assessment. He said type 1 (certification of individual student achievement) looks at grades, GPA, and entrance exams. He said that type 2 (assessment of student learning in degree programs) had started late here but Auburn received a commendation for its program in 2004.
He said that type 3 (institutional assessment to measure accountability) is taking place. The new models look at key educational processes and key learning outcomes associated with most degree programs in the USA. He said that Auburn is currently conducting the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA). He said this is a performance task given to randomly selected incoming freshmen and graduating seniors and it measures analysis, critical thinking, reading and written communication skills. He said the assessment is based on realistic problems not multiple choice questions and students are induced to participate. He said that his office can demonstrate the CLA if units are interested. He said if you are interested in a demonstration to contact him.
Drew Clark said that a second type of assessment at the institutional level is also being carried out at Auburn. He said this second type is the National Survey of Student Engagement. He said this assessment is intended to measure how much and at what level students are practicing things that we know increase learning. He said that 5,000 randomly selected students (2,500 freshmen and 2,500 seniors) have been surveyed. He said that the survey has had approximately a 40% response rate. He said this survey shows the AU campus environment (how the environment helps them do their best) rates very well but the level of academic challenge is consistently shown to lag behind that of other campuses similar to ours. Drew Clark said all three kinds of assessment take place at Auburn. His office will unveil a web-based reporting mechanism in the next few days.
The floor was opened for questions.
Drew Clark responded that it was 40%.
Drew Clark said there had been studies as to whether those who respond are more or less motivated. He said that other studies, conducted via telephone interviews, have shown that non-respondents are more engaged on a national level than those who do respond. He said the explanation is that those who do not respond are busy doing schoolwork so te data may underestimate the engagement level of students. He said there is also systematic gender bias because women always volunteer more than men.
There were no more questions.
Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any old business. There was no old business. He then asked if there was any new business. There was no new business.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.