Minutes of the Senate Meeting
November 7, 2006
3:00 p.m.
Broun Auditorium
Submitted by Kathryn Flynn

Present: Rich Penaskovic, David Cicci, Kathryn Flynn, Ann Beth Presley, Conner Bailey, Debbie Shaw, Royrickers Cook, June Henton, Overton Jenda, Stewart Schneller, Drew Clark,  John Heilman, Wendy Pechman, Drew Burgering, Gary Martin, Ronald Clark, Winfred Foster, Sondra Parmer, Charles Mitchell, Keith Cummins, Charlene LeBleu, Barry Fleming, Anoop Sattineni, Rik Blumenthal, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Carol Centrallo, Suhyun Suh, John Saye, Dan Gropper, James Witte, Scotte Hodel, Jon Bolton, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen Davis, Michel Raby, Larry Teeter, Alice Buchanan, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Chris Arnold, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Andrew Wohrley, Hugh Guffey, Bart Prorok, John Rowe, Robin Fellers, Don-Terry Veal, Salisa Westrick, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Anthony Gadzey, Peggy Shippen, Tom Williams, Carole Zugazaga, Scott, Phillips, Todd Axlund

Absent, sending a substitute: Norbert Wilson (Conner Bailey), Brian Gibson (Ray Hamilton), Thomas Smith (Jamie Andersen), Jim Wright (Cindy Brunner), Dan Svyantek (Elizabeth Breslan)

Absent, no substitute: Don Large, Johnny Green, Fran Kochan, Bonnie MacEwan, George Stegall, Ethan Trevino, Roger Garrison, Jack DeRuiter, Jim Bradley, Barbara Kemppainen, Anthony Moss, Timothy McDonald,  Robert Chambers, Carol Carruth, Alvin Sek See Lim, Jim Saunders, Roger Wolters, Darrel Hankerson, Richard Good, Forrest Smith, Robert Voitle, Randy Tillery, William Shaw, Howard Thomas

Rich Penaskovic called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.  He reminded the Senators to sign in. 

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of the October 3 Senate meeting were approved without change and without opposition.

Remarks and Announcements:
Remarks from Senate Chair Rich Penaskovic
Rich Penaskovic addressed three major issues in his remarks to the Senate.  The first issue he addressed was security on campus.  He noted there had been 3 burglaries on campus last week (Engineering, Langdon Hall Annex, and the main office of the Sociology Department).  He mentioned that there had been other burglaries over the last year and believes there have been other thefts that were not reported.  He asked if we have a problem on campus.  He said Haley Center has no nighttime security and noted the presence of Auburn City Police is non-existent except police on bikes.  Rich Penaskovic asked if we were better off now than when we had our own police force.  He noted that he will comment on this at the January meeting and mentioned we might get someone from Don Large’s office to comment at that time.  Rich Penaskovic asked if anyone would like to comment or ask questions.

Gary Martin said he thinks this is a big problem.  He said three hidden and locked up laptops were stolen in his department and there had been no follow-up by the police.  He said one of his colleagues had a computer stolen from his locked office last week and that things like this need more attention.

John Heilman said the Deans had raised the same questions at the last Provost’s Council meeting.  He said this would be on the agenda of a meeting he will have with Don Large tomorrow.  He said the people in Samford Hall know there is a problem. 

Rich Penaskovic then commented on his second topic: the report on the directed readings/independent studies scandal that was submitted on November 2.  He said the report found that in a small number of cases students in Sociology and Criminology and in Adult Education independent study classes received grades without doing the work.  He said the report indicated these problems were related to poor record keeping, poor judgment and poor administrative oversight.  He asked if there were any questions. 

There were no questions.

The third issue addressed by Rich Penaskovic in his comments was post-tenure review.  He read prepared comments after which he opened the floor for questions or comments.

Prepared Comments:
Remarks on Post-Tenure Review by Rich Penaskovic, Nov.7, 2006, Senate Meeting

For the past two years the Senate leadership has adamantly and consistently opposed Post Tenure Review for Auburn University. Our opposition has, in part, been based on these considerations:

  1. The Annual Review process cries out for improvement. Some Chairs/Heads of departments have simply not done annual reviews over the past six years. Others have done them but the documentation on them has been incomplete and wholly inadequate.
  2. Student evaluations, in particular, have not been meaningful since the evaluation instrument itself is faulty.  The Teaching Effectiveness Committee has been working on a new instrument but this is still a work in progress.
  3. The Senate leadership believes wholeheartedly in accountability and feels that we need a tougher dismissal policy. This, too, is a work in progress emanating from the office of the University Counsel. We also feel strongly that there needs to be faculty input into this new dismissal policy.
  4. It may be the case that other SREB schools have a policy on PTR. However, There’s a significant difference between AU and these other schools. There still exists on the AU campus a pervasive climate of distrust, in part, because we are without a permanent President chosen by all constituiency groups since the year 2000.
  5. We wonder why the rush to inaugurate a PTR policy with a  President about to leave office in a few months rather than to ascertain the thoughts on PTR of a new incoming President who will be on board in a few months time.
  6. Despite these reservations the Senate leadership has given significant input into the revised PTR policy, although we have been intellectually opposed to such a policy. We did cooperate with the administration on this because we were told that the policy would be formulated without us if we did not participate in the process. In working with the administration on this PTR policy we tried to safeguard faculty rights as much as we could.
  7. The administration intends to begin a trial run of PTR this academic year. There will be no sanctions for those who are reviewed this year.
  8. The Senate leadership wants input from faculty on the question: Where do we go from here? Should we have another specially called meeting of the University Faculty on Nov. 28th to focus on this new policy? 

 

Conner Bailey, Immediate Past Chair, asked if Rich Penaskovic knew whether the document mentioned today, and distributed to the faculty yesterday, had been reviewed and approved by Dr. Richardson.

Rich Penaskovic said he tended to think so and mentioned that John Heilman would comment on Post-Tenure Review and would possibly answer this question during his comments.

Gary Martin remarked that the document showed evidence that efforts had been made to tighten it up.  He noted there were still issues remaining as discussed at the October Faculty meeting and some response was needed to a number of points in the current document.

Transcript of Scotte Hodel’s statement:

The consistent pattern in all of these events is that faculty input was largely excluded from the process.  I am grateful to Dr. Heilman and Dr. Penaskovic for their hard work; I have spoken with each of them personally and to others who work with them, and I know that each of them has given all diligence to this topic.  However, this policy has wide and varying impact across every college and department, and that impact is, in my view, harmful to our institution.

Consider the following comments from within my own department:

One of my senior colleagues, now retired, used to say that “being an Auburn professor means that you can work any 70 hours a week that you want.”  My senior colleagues in my department firmly believe that PTR is de facto and end to tenure at Auburn University.  Such suspicions make problematic the retention of our young faculty, especially when they have opportunities to take of industrial jobs that, which just as stressful, can be much more lucrative than an academic position.

As my department’s senator, I’d like to get input from my department and represent their opinions in this Senate.  I’d like to give encouragement to the younger faculty who are frightened by this policy.  However, due to the timing of distribution and due to what appears to be squelched communication channels in the development process, I can do neither.  There’s something very wrong with that.”

Rich Penaskovic replied that there would hopefully be a specially called meeting of the faculty on Nov. 28.  If this meeting is scheduled, the faculty will be given time to review the policy prior to the meeting.

There were no further questions or comments made on this issue.

Remarks from Provost John Heilman

John Heilman stated that the issue of post-tenure review had been discussed extensively with Dr. Richardson and the field test of Post-Tenure Review would proceed.  He said the Senate leadership should not be tarred with the brush of Post-Tenure Review because they have represented and articulated the concerns expressed here and at previous meetings well and effectively.  He further stated the draft distributed to the faculty had been completed over the weekend after discussions with Dr. Richardson which is why the draft was not distributed sooner.  John Heilman noted that he had met several times with the Senate leadership and these meetings sometimes included Dr. Richardson.  He said the draft document reflects those conversations and the comments from the general faculty meeting.  He stated a commitment to strengthen the annual review process and the teaching evaluation process.  He said approximately 40 faculty members will be selected for review; half will be reviewed by a University-level committee and half by departmental (local) committees.  He said the four performance categories are gone and the field test will proceed.  He said that he had additional comments on enrollment management but would hold those comments until questions about Post-Tenure Review had been addressed.  John Heilman said he would be happy to attend a specially called meeting and answer questions if such a meeting is called.  John Heilman then opened the floor for questions related to Post-Tenure Review.

Conner Bailey, Immediate Past Chair of the University Senate, asked what problem post-tenure review will attempt to solve.

John Heilman said he had tried to address this question at the general faculty meeting.  He said instituting this process would place Auburn in the ranks of its SREB peers.

Gary Martin remarked that the continued insistence on a one-year timeline for improvement is the most troublesome aspect of the proposed policy.

John Heilman said he understands the concern and spent time discussing this with the Senate leadership.  He noted the evidence for improvement could be a lot of things.

Gary Martin asked if the purpose is to improve the performance of unproductive faculty.  He said if this is the purpose a multi-year plan with initial steps to take place during the first year would make sense.

John Heilman stated he did not think Gary Martin’s comments are inconsistent with what is in the policy because he will be looking for evidence of improvement.

Gary Martin stated that more improvement might be seen if a multi-year plan was used rather than a single-year plan.  He said we should address the problem using benchmarks rather than quick-fix approaches and compared the differences to those seen between the business and academic environments.

John Heilman said the business world differs from the academy and this plan tries to bridge the gap.

Rik Blumenthal agreed with the comments made by Gary Martin.  He commented that wording about one-year benchmarks could be worked in to the policy.  He noted that, while some problems can be addressed in one year, completion of research and publication of the research in one year was not possible.

John Heilman stated he would be looking for evidence of improvement and used participation in a conference panel as an example of such evidence.

Rik Blumenthal said we have two competing cultures and asked if we hadn’t been on SACS probation because the business culture people were trying to run things.  He asked if this isn’t the same problem again.

John Heilman said this was not the same problem.  He stated that Post-Tenure Review is the appropriate way to proceed—it is an initiative of the President and the Provost.  He added that Rik’s point is a good one—one year does not make sense to academicians.  He said this is a field test and after the test is completed we will sit back and discuss the results.  He said we should have a meeting after the test and call in people who participated in the test.  He said Dr. Richardson has deviated from this process being a  test in only one area: after the test he will go back and look for extra high performers and they will be acknowledged in some manner.

Anoop Sattineni from Building Science asked about the timing of the test on the eve of the Presidential search.  He asked if this would tip the scale towards candidates who support this policy.

John Heilman said he did not know because he is not connected to the search in any way.

Rik Blumenthal said there was a lot of mistrust on campus and asked why the first sentence of the policy didn’t refer to a “review for possible implementation” but rather to “field testing for implementation”.  The wording indicates the decision has already been made.

John Heilman said his experience is in Political Science and he assumes a field test is meaningful.  He said once field tests are completed in his field the results are reviewed and helpful issues are incorporated into the process.

Rik Blumenthal said the field test includes no option to decide that we do not need this policy.  This is a tune-up, not a test.

John Heilman said the weight of the evidence from peer institutions that have adopted post-tenure review provides no reason to believe it is a mistake to adopt this policy.  

Keith Cummins, Department of Animal Sciences, asked if there are data on the outcome of this type of review at other institutions might calm some fears.

John Heilman said the knowledge of results at other institutions is anecdotal and include few cases of dismissal due to post-tenure review.  He said this anecdotal evidence suggests some acceleration of retirements seems to occur.  He said the point of the process at Auburn is faculty improvement.  He does not believe there is a large base of solid empirical data providing evidence of improvement at other schools.

Charlie Mitchell, Department of Agronomy and Soils, commented that the annual review process is serious in his department but he has the feeling this may not be the case in some other departments on campus.  He said perhaps we would not need post-tenure review if annual reviews were taken seriously in every department.  He said that, as a member of the Rules Committee, he shudders at the thought of how hard it will be to come up with nominations for the University-level review committee and thinks the department-level committees will consume a lot of time that could be spent on research, teaching or extension.  He said he thinks adequate annual reviews could accomplish what is needed.

John Heilman said the Senate leadership had shared similar concerns about the annual reviews and said this is an important point.  He said evidence gathered this year indicated the process had worked reasonably well.  He said it is important to strengthen the consistency of the annual reviews.  John Heilman said that 5-10 years down the road the best outcome of post-tenure review might be the strengthening of the annual reviews and the teaching evaluations.

Keith Cummins noted that his annual reviews seem to be reflective more of his relationship with his department head than with his performance.  He asked how the method will be selected after the field test of the University-level and department-level committees.

John Heilman said it would be done by random assignment.

Keith Cummins said that was true for the field test but when the policy is implemented how will the decision be made as to which method will be used. 

John Heilman said it is likely that one will work much better than the other.

Keith Cummins asked who would decide which one worked the best.

John Heilman said he would get input from all constituent groups and make recommendations to the President.

There were no more questions for John Heilman on post-tenure review.

John Heilman said that at their last meeting the Board of Trustees had endorsed a resolution calling for scholarships for students of high ability and state of the art recruitment and admissions functions.  They asked for a report on progress in developing this effort at the next Board meeting scheduled for Nov. 9.  He said Kent Hopkins of Noel Levitts, the leading firm in enrollment management, was hired and he would speak at the Board meeting this week.  He said the Noel Levitts consultants have come up with an organizational structure to respond to this charge.  John Heilman said the oversight of recruitment and admissions would be the responsibility of Dean Wayne Alderman who will report directly to the president.  John Heilman said an enrollment management council would set enrollment targets.  This council will be chaired by Sharon Gaber, Associate Provost for Academic Administration; Wayne Alderman will serve on this council.  John Heilman said those parts of the Registrar’s Office related to enrolled students would report to the Provost’s office.  He mentioned that Wayne Alderman was in attendance and willing to address questions. 

Conner Bailey noted that many hours and much effort had been spent on this but there had been no faculty involvement.  He said he had been unaware of the search for a Dean and learned about it when he was told the position had been filled.  He said the 1966 Statement on Shared Governance passed by the Senate and the Board of Trustees describes faculty involvement in academic issues and noted the standing Senate Academic Standards Committee is involved in scholarships and enrollment.  He asked why there had been no such involvement and how the search was publicized.

John Heilman said the internal search was not done out of his office but he knew it had been announced in the same manner as at least one other internal search.  He said the search was speedy due to the Nov. 9 Board meeting and the requirement for a progress report.

Scott Hodel, Electrical and Computer Engineering, said he served on the Curriculum Committee and there was a need for this effort.  He thanked those involved for doing something about a problem that needs to be dealt with.

David Carter, Department of History, said he had a question about an item unrelated to enrollment management.  He said he was concerned about the strategic diversity plan, specifically the dropping of the sexual orientation language in the diversity statement.  He said the issues date back to early 1990s and in this instance we have been outpaced by our SERB peer institutions (examples included Universities of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and North Carolina State).  He stated he would like to see us emulate our peers on this issue.  He asked if we have some indication that Auburn will move forward in a proactive way on this in the immediate future.

John Heilman said he had spoken to Dr. Richardson about this matter this week.  He said Dr. Richardson was committed to putting that language into the policy.  He said the immediate and central issue right now is the conclusion of the Knight litigation that has placed Auburn and other universities in Alabama under court order for the last 25 years and cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.  He said the Board will endorse the diversity policy this week and this endorsement is key to bringing the Knight litigation to an end.  He said the sexual orientation language is controversial and having it in the policy at this time could be problematic.  Dr. Heilman said many people at Auburn had worked for years on the diversity plan and many must have wondered if it would have any impact.  He said it is, in fact, now a model for other universities in the state and central to ending the Knight case.  He thanked all who have worked on it through the years. 

David Carter asked Dr. Heilman if he expects Dr. Richardson to add the other language after the Knight litigation is ended and before he leaves office.

John Heilman said he does expect this to happen.

Suhyun Suh, Department of Counseling and Counseling Psychology, said one of her constituents had asked her to find out when we could expect to see University salaries posted on the web site.

John Heilman said this information is there now or will be very shortly.  He said Banner had been problematic and an alternative method of posting information was developed to allow the information to be made available.

Conner Bailey noted the information is there in pdf format that is not user friendly and may cover only Division I.  Conner Bailey then asked is Lee Armstrong was present because he had asked Lee Armstrong for information about expenditures related to legal services related to the Carlisle lawsuit and estimates on any additional future costs.  Lee Armstrong was not present.

John Heilman stated he did not have the answer to those questions.

Conner Bailey said he had notified Lee Armstrong 10 days ago of his intent to ask this question at this meeting and asked if anyone else from the President’s Office was present and able to answer the questions.

No one could answer the questions.

Information Items:
Capital Campaign Update (Bob McGinnis, Vice-President of Development)
Bob McGinnis used a power point to provide a report on the progress of the Capital Campaign.  He noted it is a challenge to get support for graduate students and asked for help from the faculty in identifying potential donors.  He said the Faculty/Staff campaign was the most successful of any he has ever been involved with. 

He thanked all those who participated in the campaign and opened the floor for questions.

Rich Penaskovic yielded the Chair and asked if the Deans set the monetary goals for each unit in 2000.  He also asked if there was any chance for money to support a sabbatical program since we are well on our way to exceeding the $500 million goal.

Bob McGinnis said the unit priorities for each unit were set by the Deans; the goals were not.  He said $350 million had been the low-end goal and $500 million the high-end goal.  He said most gifts are restricted and are based on relationships with faculty, alumni and students.  He said there is some unrestricted money.  He also said if the faculty would help him find donors who understand the value of sabbaticals he will go and try to raise money for that purpose.

Bill Sauser, Department of Management, not a Senator, remarked that he had worked with a number of development officers this year and was pleased and proud of them.

Bob McGinnis said most of our development officers are alumni and are passionate about Auburn University.  He asked faculty to give him and the other development officers ideas so they can go look for funds.

Cindy Brunner, Department of Pathobiology, noted the graduate student support goal was not being met.  She asked how this target compared to our sister institutions and what suggestions he has for increasing the enthusiasm in this area.  She said she was concerned that this could be a reflection of the history of weak emphasis on graduate research at Auburn. 

Bob McGinnis said he did not know the answer to how this target compares to other institutions.  He said money for graduate education must be raised with the help of units rather being done centrally as was originally planned.  He said we must target corporations and individuals who understand the importance of graduate education and research.  He said people have a warm, fuzzy feeling for support of undergraduates but this same feeling is not present for graduate support.

Rich Penaskovic thanked Bob McGinnis for all he is doing for Auburn.

-
Conner Bailey provided an update on the Presidential search.  He provided a handout giving an overview of progress to date:

 

At the September Senate meeting, Mr. Charles McCrary, who Chairs the Presidential Search Committee, reported on progress of the search.  I am here to give a brief update.

1.         The Presidential Search Committee has reviewed material on nearly 60 candidates.  The search remains open, so that it is possible additional candidates will make themselves available for review.

2.         At this point, the Committee has narrowed the search to 16 individuals.

3.         We are in the process of meeting with these individuals with a view to identifying a set of candidates to bring to campus.

4.         I was hopeful that on-campus interviews would have taken place this month, but this has not proven to be the case.  I anticipate that on-campus interviews will take place in the first half of Spring semester.

5.         Dr. Richardson has agreed to continue serving until the search is completed and a new President is on campus. 

6.         At the September Senate meeting Mr. Charles McCrary made it abundantly clear that Dr Richardson is not a candidate and will not become a candidate.  This point also was made abundantly clear at the Board meeting on September 1st. 

7.         It is in the nature of this campus to generate rumors, but this is one we can put aside.

8.         We can also put aside any notion that the search is window dressing and that a decision has already been made.  I do not believe this is the case, and nobody else on the Committee believes this is the case. 

9.         We have a strong set of candidates in the group of 16.  It is clear to me that many highly qualified candidates understand that Auburn’s presidency offers an opportunity to make a mark in higher education.  Our institutional history is well known, but so is our potential at this point to move beyond this history. 

10.       Our Committee is committed to maintaining confidentiality of these candidates until such time as the public phase begins, that is when a small set of candidates come to campus. 

He said the search is open until the position is filled so if anyone knows of a good candidate they should refer the name to the committee.  He said small groups of committee members are meeting with each candidate and that all names are still confidential.  He commented on the question about how post-tenure review might be used as a criterion for selecting the next president.  He said the candidates are aware of the discussion on post-tenure review.  He said the position of candidates on this issue is not one of the criteria being used to screen candidates.  He said the Search Advisory Committee is looking for the best person for Auburn. 

Rich Penaskovic thanked Conner Bailey and Cindy Brunner for their work on the Search Advisory Committee.

Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any unfinished business.  There was none.  He asked if there was any new business.  There was none.  The meeting was adjourned at 4:29 pm.