DRAFT MINUTES FOR JUNE 5, 2007
AUBURN UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

Present:  Dave Cicci, Ann Beth Presley, Sue Barry, Debbie Shaw, Drew Clark, Wendy Pecham, Drew Burgering, Roger Garrison, Ronald Clark, Norbert Wilson, Charlie Mitchell, Barry Fleming, Anthony Moss, Alevin Sek See Lim, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Carol Centrallo, Scott Hodel, Jon Bolton, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen, Davis, Michel Raby, Jim Sanders, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Chris Arnold, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Bart Prorok, Robin Fellers, Jim Wright, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Voitle, Dan Svyantek, Peggy Shippen, Howard Thomas, and Scott Phillips

Absent with Substitute:  Robert Gross (Winfred Foster), Evert Duin (Rik Blumenthal),  Annette Klual (Suhyun Suh), Hywownkhoo Kim (Dan Gropper), Judith Lechner (James Witte),  and Mike Fortenberry (Tom Williams), Ivan Watts (Fran Kochan)

Absent without Substitute:  Robert Locy, Richard Penaskovic, Don Large, Royrickers Cook, June Henton, Overton Jenda, Johnny Green, Stewart Schneller, John Heilman, Bonnie MacEwan, Matt Jenkins, Ethan Trevino, Jack DeRuiter, Gary Martin, Jim Bradley, Sondra Parmer, Keith Cummins, Barbara Kemppainen, Charlene LeBleu, Brian Gibson, Timothy McDonald, Anoop Sattineni, Robert Chambers, Carol Carruth, Alice Buchanan, Thomas Smith, Richard Good, John Row, Don-Terry Veal, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Randy Tillery, William Shaw, Carole Zugazaga, and Todd Axlund

Meeting started at 3pm

David Cicci Comments:

No one from Provost’s office or President’s Office was able to attend.  Dr. Heilman was out of town and Gabor emergency.  Any questions on campus issues?

Interim Dismissal Policy

Not looking forward to this meeting. Faculty in difficult situation.  Forced to address in very short time frame.  This policy was put forth from administration with no faculty input.  Current and interim policy hand outs available in back

Time Line to explain situation forced into by in few minutes

Lee Armstrong statement. Quote”

JUNE 1, 2007

REASONS WHY THE TENURE DISMISSAL POLICY SHOULD BE REVISITED

            The policy was last reviewed in the early 90’s.  Apparently in Auburn’s history it has not been used frequently. It has been invoked several times recently and experience, being the best teacher, has shown that at a minimum certain ambiguities need to be addressed. However that experience has also revealed some significant issues.

1. The current policy does not explicitly address termination for misconduct.  While the better argument is that it does implicitly, AU is better served to eliminate any ambiguity.  (Remember that litigating these sorts of issues is expensive and protracted even if AU prevails.)
2. The current policy has yielded what can at best be described as curious results. Confidentiality issues prevent discussion of specifics but certain recommendations were simply inconsistent and impossible to explain.
3. A significant problem was a misunderstanding about the role of the inquiry committee.  There appeared to be confusion about the respective roles of the inquiry committee and the dismissal hearing committee. The inquiry committee’s role was to make a recommendation as to whether the evidence met a minimum threshold to continue the process in a formal hearing before the dismissal hearing committee. At least from the administration’s perspective what were in effect final judgments were being rendered prematurely and without consideration of all the information that would be presented in a formal dismissal hearing. That creates additional hurdles in any future litigation, even if the administration were to reject the inquiry committee’s recommendation. (Again, AU might prevail in any subsequent litigation but at a significant resource cost. I’m sure most would agree that the money could be better spent at an institution with a history of limited resources so let’s address the problem.)
4. Decisions of the “home” faculty were given too little weight.  A department’s decision to seek dismissal was “second” guessed by the inquiry committee.  The processes within the policy failure to work effectively discouraged use of the process by faculty and administrators.
5. The terminal pay provision effectively rewards bad behavior. It results in conversations about informal resolution that started with a floor of one years pay to secure a resignation.  There is no rational basis for paying someone anything to resign who has engaged in misconduct and much less a year’s salary. “ Unquote

From those reasons and much discussion, came up with improvements to dismissal policy:

1.  Misconduct needs to be addressed directly

2. Charges inquiry, review, inquiry, review committee need to be clarified and processed
            and improved.

3.  Timeliness of processes need to be improved

4.  Guidelines need to be for terminal pay need to be clarified

5. Possibility of long delays by attorneys needs to be addressed.

Why do we have to rush into this?

Dismissal Policy Timeline

April 6, 2007:               Administration-generated Dismissal Policy
                                                presented to Senate leadership.

April 11, 2007:                         Formal complaint regarding the administration’s            
                                                policy lodged with Provost.

April 18, 2007:             Request made to Dr. Richardson to delay policy 
                                                implementation and allow faculty to create                                
                                                interim policy.

April 26, 2007:             Formal request made to the Board of Trustees to
                                                delay implementation of administration’s policy
                                                and allow faculty to create interim policy.

May 1, 2007:                           Senate informed of Dismissal policy status.

May 3-7, 2007:                        Input received from faculty, administration,                                                                                AAUP leadership regarding needs of new policy.

May 9, 2007:                           First draft of Interim Dismissal Policy completed.

May 10-15, 2007:                    Review and modifications based on further                                                                                faculty and AAUP recommendations.

May 16, 2007:                         Second draft completed and sent to General                                                                              Counsel for review.

May 29, 2007:                         Input received from General Counsel.

May 31, 2007:                         Third draft of Interim Dismissal Policy completed.

June 5, 2007:                            Senate meeting discussion and vote.

June 11, 2007:                          Meeting with Dr. Richardson to discuss policy specifics.

June 14, 2007:                          Final draft due at President’s Cabinet Meeting
 
June 28-29, 2007:                    Board of Trustees Meeting to approve policy.

April 6 Administrative generated policy was presented to Senate leadership.  We had asked for months to see and to work on it. This was the first time we saw it. Never given information until April 6.  After reading carefully, numerous and major problems with policy were found.  Formal complaint regarding the policy was filed with the Provost on April 11.  On April 18, met with Richardson for a delay policy implementation and allow faculty to create interim policy .  The policy was so deficit it would have been completely unacceptable to the faculty. In addition, the policy was very problematic for AAUP  censure and SACS accreditation.

Two Provisions: included

1. Immediate termination of faculty member with right to appeal only after termination.

Found completely unacceptable.

2nd  and most egregious of the provisions.

2. Board of Trustees could identify a faculty member to initiate dismissal

      proceedings against.

Sent the policy to AAUP headquarters for review.  Returned a whole list of broken of objections  procedures that we agreed with.  Requested Richardson for delay implementation and create interim policy.

This is a Board of Trustees item.  This policy was to be approved by the Board at the April meeting.  Richardson agreed to a plan (if approved by the Trustees) to replace this policy with one of our own that dealt with faculty misconduct only.  The administrative plan addressed both misconduct and academic performance.  Misconduct only  Dr. Richardson agreed to allow faculty to develop interim policy for misconduct through November. Allow summer and fall to work on a policy regarding Academic Misconduct until October and present to faculty--more legitimate.  It was a hard sell to Board of Trustees in April but ultimately agreed to.

Senate leadership allowed to develop policy and present to Senate reviewed by as many faculty as possible.  Informed at May meeting status of the process.  May 3-7 received input from faculty and AAUP local and national leadership and Senate leadership. First draft created by Senate leadership , May 9 consent out to review by current and past chairs of dismissal inquiry, AAUP   to general council, Lee Armstrong, created second draft by May 16, received input on May 29.  Third draft on May 31 sent out to senators.

Let you decide what to do and, possibly, vote.

Have meeting with Richardson next Monday. Hard to know what will come out of meeting.  Could want to go back to original policy.  Assume get through, incorporate his comments and senate.  Thursday need in board book for June Board of Trustees meeting.  That is the intensely short time frame we have to work in

None of this speaks well of shared faculty input governance.  Observe action in recent months shouldn’t surprise anyone.

If goes through, interim, misconduct only, approved by BoT and Dr. Richardson, fall complete policy presented to faculty on October 15 and presented to Board at November meeting.  Carry us through to November.

In process requesting opportunity to create own document, presented a list of principles like to see in policy.

1. Faculty driven in accordance with share governance, SACS standards and AAUP guidelines
2. Dismissal for provisions for both Separate Misconduct and Academic Performance but separately
3. Dismissal Inquiry and Hearing Committee shall consists of faculty nominated by the Senate Rules Committee and selected by president
4. All dismissal proceedings initiated by Provost, not the Board of Trustees
5. Strict timelines for all steps in the termination proceedings.
6. Provost may invoke immediate suspension in case of harm to students, faculty, University could result.  After suspension, termination proceedings should proceed in normal manner.

Powerpoint presentation with highlights as draft interim Dismissal policy (click here).

This policy deals only with Misconduct, not Academic Performance, or Post-Tenure Review.

Open the floor for discussion:

Audience Response:

Cicci---Originally intended to bring for vote.  Just not sure what could vote on that would be meaningful.  Let body decide to vote and on what—general concept of policy or policy itself.

Rik Blumenthhal (Chemistry) Need to do something.  Don’t vote on general principle or policy, endorse this wording or slightly modified. Send vote to president with vote as such, showing support.  Prefer to vote on interim policy right now.  Thank chair and leadership, especially given timeframe.  Support words as written.

Cicci—wording on provisions may be changed by edict after leaves Senate hands.

Fran (Dean of Education)  Support good policy going to have more power if goes to president with vote of Senate, than just as policy of Senate leadership.More likelihood will be accepted.  It gives it more power with administration and Board of Trustees.

 Cicci---agreed.

Jim Whittey (EFLT)  Top of page 2 paragraph 5.  “A significant of repeated. . “  A very wide catch all statement, provide insight.

Cicci—in any type of policy, have to rely on good judgment of review policy.  Much is judgment of committee of making review and recommendations.  It is has to be significant, repeated, and serious policy violations.

Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry) – Leave “or repeated” in misconduct.  If people repeatedly 100 times and told not to and keep breaking rules ($100,000 in parking fines but didn’t get degree).  Suggest “significant or repeated violations of substantive University policies” as opposed to parking in A lot instead of C lot.

Tom Williams (Naval ROTC) –move to approve Interim Draft Dismissal Policy as presented on June 5, dated 5/31,

Motioned 2nded
Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry) – proposed amendment, change to “significant or repeated violations of substantive University rules and regulations”

Cicci—Agreed

Claire Crutchley (Finance) – Does this mean taking away Inquiry Committee and replacing it with Senate Chair and past-chair and keeping the Dismissal Committee? Currently, there are two committees.

Cicci – Replacing Inquiry committee with three-person review Committee, Dismissal Hearing Committee not changed in any way.  Further discussion?

Action Item:

Voting on Interim Faculty Misconduct Dismissal Policy

Voice vote—unanimous in Ayes

Comments:

Cicci—Any old, new or continuing business?

Tony Moss (Biological Sciences) – if they are dismissed, go to court, can they receive back salary?  Or is this in court system?

Cicci—Probably outside the University.  Civil proceedings will probably decide.

Tony Moss (Biological Sciences) -- Any reasons why these decisions have to go forward so quickly?  As scientist we have to justify, but none of that is done here.  Why can this not be applied across the academy. 

Cicci—strong interest by some members of the Board to get this through.  Any cases that are currently pending should not fall under this policy.

Tony Moss (Biological Sciences) -- Distribute administrative policy?

Cicci—Probably not a good idea.  Really wasn’t good reading.  Most egregious item from Administrative policy was expedited termination, appeal after fact, no hearing, no process involved.

Cicci--Any unfinished business?  Any new business?  Any old business?

Cicci-- Meeting adjourned.