Minutes of the University Faculty Meeting
October 10, 2006
3:00 p.m.
Broun Auditorium

Submitted by Kathryn Flynn

Rich Penaskovic called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m.

The minutes of the March 14, 2006 University Faculty meeting were approved without change.  The minutes of the October 18, 2005 University Faculty meeting were approved without change.

Remarks and Announcements:
Rich Penaskovic (Faculty Chair)
Rich Penaskovic reviewed a chronology of the Post-Tenure Review discussion.  He stated that the Provost has asked for feedback from the Senate leadership on post-tenure review.  Rich Penaskovic noted that the leadership had two paths from which to chose: to refuse to work with the administration or to work with the administration in hopes of having an impact on the policy eventually adopted.  He said that the leadership had chosen to work with the administration in hopes of affecting the outcome.  Rich Penaskovic said the Deans had also been asked to provide input.

Rich Penaskovic said countless hours had been spent on this issue and even so the Senate leadership was still skeptical of the need for this process.  He noted that he has two children: one who is a doctor and another who is a lawyer and neither of them are evaluated like he is.  He said that he experiences student evaluations every semester, evaluations of books and articles submitted for publication, peer review of his teaching and annual evaluations. 

Rich Penaskovic said the Post Tenure-Review process is driven by the accountability movement in the US and the Senate leadership feels we are accountable at a much higher level than most professions.  After concluding his remarks, he welcomed John Heilman who will provide an overview of the draft proposal.  Rich Penaskovic also welcomed Dr. Derryn Moten from Alabama State University who is here to listen to the discussion because Alabama State is also considering implementing Post-Tenure Review.  Rich Penaskovic also welcomed Dr. Richardson who came to hear the discussion.

Information Items:
Overview of the proposed Auburn University Faculty Development Review Program (John Heilman, Provost)
Dr. Heilman stated he was glad the faculty were here and presented comments to set the stage for the discussion of Faculty Development Review.  Dr. Heilman stated that Rich Penaskovic’s account of the timeline/process is accurate.  He noted that he changed the name of the process to emphasize the intent (to construct avenues for development and improvement).  He said that this is a work in progress and that he is soliciting input from the faculty today in the same way that he has from the Senate leadership and the Deans in the past.  He said changes have already been made in the document based on input from the Deans and the Senate leadership.  He said that the Senate leadership had acted in a constructively critical role and had struggled with the path to take and had made a solid choice.  He said he appreciated the choice they had made.  John Heilman said the plan is to field-test the process this year and use the outcome to improve the process.  He said the purpose of the field test is to improve the process.

John Heilman stated that the implementation of a post-tenure review policy responds to the national accountability movement and mirrors what 19 of 24 peer institutions are doing.  He acknowledged that the question of how many of these institutions actually put the policy into practice could be raised.  He noted that Auburn University does not have a policy requiring outside letters for promotion to associate professor and tenure even though universities such as Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Institute of Technology, Kentucky, LSU, Maryland and many others do. 

John Heilman said the answer to the often-asked question “why now?” is that AU currently has no periodic review of tenured faculty for longer than intervals of one year.  He understands graduate faculty are reviewed prior to reappointment to the graduate faculty but notes this does not apply to all faculty.  He said the national accountability movement, the Spellings Report, the Board of Trustees and Dr. Richardson reflect a commitment to quality in the students we enroll and said there is also a commitment to the quality of the faculty.

John Heilman said the 2006-2007 field test provides information for the new President.  He said this system could help promote appropriate workload assignments and improve the annual review process.  He noted that he had reviewed all annual reviews this year and therefore knew that most all faculty on campus did undergo a review.  He said there was no data to show how many faculty received annual reviews in years past.  

John Heilman used a power point to review the draft process as it exists at this time.  The presentation covers what the process is intended to be and what it is not intended to be (i.e. a dismissal policy).  He said the process is designed to evaluate if a person meets the goals of their assignment and to reward excellence.  He noted that Auburn’s dismissal policy is separate and, as described in AAUP documents, the process is not intended to review whether already tenured faculty would meet current standards for tenure.  He said a faculty member from the Library had already made one good suggestion.  He said this individual noted that named outlets for “scholarship” might more accurately reflect what larger numbers of people do the document referred to “articles” rather than to “journals”.  John Heilman said suggestions would be heard and taken seriously.

John Heilman said he had received emails stating this was being done very quickly.  He said the Senate leadership had been involved for a long time and noted it was still a work in progress.  He asked if the faculty wanted to vote on this process today.  He said we have some information right now on the draft policy but in 6-7 months we will have more information on the process.  He said a vote now might put the general faculty in an awkward position: they may feel the need to vote for the process even though this goes against their conscience.  Conversely, they may vote against the process and be out of sync with the accountability movement before trying out the system.  He said this would go against the path of many of our peer institutions.

After John Heilman completed the power point presentation he said he looked forward to suggestions from the faculty.  He then opened the floor for questions and discussion. 

Rich Penaskovic noted that he would like to proceed with the vote after the discussion of this topic is completed.  He reminded the faculty to go to the microphone, state their name and department, and asked that comments be limited to five minutes or less.  He asked everyone to be courteous and respectful to others, be objective and relevant to the point.

• David Carter, Senator, Department of History and Associate Professor, asked that he be referred to hereafter as “Professor Q”.  David Carter said he had thought he would be able to hold his nose and vote for the policy or abstain and not be labeled a radical, disgruntled AAUPer.  But, he stated, he could not vote for this policy.  He said he is worried that the quest for data is overcoming all else in the name of efficiency and accountability to customers.  He said data would not reveal what makes wonderful faculty wonderful.  He said the name change and dangling rewards seems like bait and switch.  He used a character from “Animal Farm” (Boxer) to explain his objection to the policy.  He said he works on the windmill whose sails are spun by the winds of academic freedom not by fickle wind currents of public opinion. He said he worked hard to earn tenure and he will work harder but not for this policy; rather for the students and his coworkers.

• Rik Blumenthal, Senator, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, stated he respectfully disagreed with the Provost on the need for this policy or that there is a trend that needs to be followed.  He said Dr. Richardson spent lost of time as a superintendent and battled a strong teacher’s union that made it virtually impossible to fire teachers from failing schools.  He quoted from remarks Dr. Richardson made to the Senate in July (“Nobody, nobody has ever questioned the academic integrity of Auburn University.  There is no such problem here that we have a failing University and we’re unable to dismiss our failing faculty, or our incompetent faculty.  This is not the problem at Auburn University”).  Rik Blumenthal said if this is not a problem, then why do this?  He said we produce students with high levels of accomplishments and tenure protects us and allows us to do this.  He said we do not have to follow trends.  He asked, if we are achieving our goals, where is the problem?  He said communicating with the outside world about what we do and how we do it is what must be done.  Rik Blumenthal said he stands in opposition to the general concept of post-tenure review in Resolution #1 and made specific comments on the proposed review process.  He said teaching evaluations define unsatisfactory as those who have course evaluations below average.  We use a Gaussian distribution that, by definition, means that half of us are below average (by definition), 63% are marginal and only 19% will not need a development plan for teaching.  He said even if people bring their scores up to “4” half will still, by definition, be below average.  Rik Blumenthal said the process states the need for new teaching methods.  He said not all subjects have new methods and further stated that all new methods of teaching have correlated with the decline of elementary and secondary education. 

• Anthony Gadzy, Senator, Department of Political Science, noted the decision to randomly select 40 faculty for the field test.  He said a true test must allow selected participants to decline and asked what level of freedom the 40 will have to refuse to participate in the process.  He asked if they cannot refuse, what is the level of testing?  He also observed that if results of the test will affect the faculty being tested this is not a test.  He stated that people have the right to refuse to participate; if they are not allowed to do so, this is a “done deal” so why test?

• Cliff Perry, Department of Political Science, said the proposed policy seems to add to the list of grounds for dismissal.  He said the policy states that a marginal evaluation for two years equates to unsatisfactory and can move a person to the faculty dismissal process—a new basis for dismissal.  He asked what the policy means when it refers to “consistent and regular”.  He said if you publish a certain number of articles every year for 3 years and then only one article the following year this is not consistent or regular so it must be unsatisfactory.  He noted that “consistent” and “regular” are not rigid designators and use of those two words alone would make him vote against this process. 

• James Goldstein, Department of English, said he is puzzled by the process being used given previous sanction related to failure of shared governance.  He said this process could open the charge of a top-down micromanagement of governance.  He said it is a procedural question and he is also against the process in general and the proposed process in particular.  He said if data were presented showing a substantial number of people were performing below expectations we might need this.  He noted the high cost of instituting this policy.  He said one cost is the scant benefit; a second cost is that it necessarily pits colleagues against each other and poisons the atmosphere of collegiality.  He noted that a large percentage of the faculty have little or no confidence in the current student evaluation instrument and that unless the instrument is seen as valid (i.e. provable, testable, reliable) use of the current one would be poisonous.  He noted the 1999 AAUP statement cautions about the threat to academic freedom that can result “if standards of dismissal are shifted from incompetence to unsatisfactory performance” as in some current proposals because “tenured faculty must continually satisfy administrative officers rather than the basic standards of their profession.”  He said external reviewers for P&T are valuable for this type of situation.  He said the time required can force safe and quick paths rather than long-term projects that pay off big if people stick it out.  He said a one-year turn-around could be difficult if journals turn around slowly.  He said the revised version is much improved over the draft from the summer but he still cannot support it.  

Rich Penaskovic addressed the procedural issues raised by James Goldstein relative to committee involvement.  Rich Penaskovic said both the Steering and Executive Committees were involved in reviewing the document.
 

• Patricia Duffy, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, stated she had several practical comments to make.  She said forming a University-level committee made up of 9 former members of the P&T committee would be difficult because the number of people still on the faculty who had served on P&T was not that large.  She further noted limiting the number of people from each unit to a single individual may make it impossible to staff this committee.  She said her experience on the Rules Committee indicates that it will be difficult to staff the committee.  She asked how appeals would be filed and where they would go.  She asked how an appeals committee would be staffed.  She asked if the same committee would be able to judge both the group that falls below the bar and the group that is above the bar.  She noted that the P&T committee is asked to determine if individuals fall above or below a standard; would the Post-Tenure Review committee be able to judge if an individual is far enough over the bar to warrant a reward?  Patricia Duffy said that those labeling someone exemplary should have been labeled so themselves at some point in time.  She mentioned that it could take 4-5 years in some cases to get an article into print meaning that one-year for improvement is not enough time.  She asked who decides if progress is being made once a person has been given a development plan. 

• Alice Buchanan, Department of Health and Human Performance, stated that she respectfully takes issue with the decision to implement this process now and the issue of accountability across the board.  She said the annual reviews should be made more consistent and this would result in them being taken more seriously.  She mentioned that outside letters are already required by some departments (such as hers) so this cannot be used as a point in favor of post-tenure review.

• Cindy Brunner, Department of Pathobiology, stated that she came to the meeting with four points to make.  She said two of them (the renaming of the policy and the “Lake Wobegone effect”) had already been mentioned.  Her third point related to the review process.  She said she was surprised, in light of earlier models and P&T review procedures, to see no local contribution to the dossier beyond reviews and the department head’s letter.  She said there was no mention of letters from the faculty even though these are always mentioned by people interviewed by the Rules Committee when P&T Committee nominees as being extremely important.  She said this process omits a real opportunity for quality input by neglecting peer input.  She noted that some people supported this process back in the spring and summer because a local committee of senior faculty might overcome the bias/prejudice of a department head.  Her fourth point was related to the one-year turn-around.  She said this is absurd; this is not enough time to make significant changes especially when you are looking at six years and giving one year to turn things around.  She said you would have to teach more courses, modify teaching methods and get better teaching evaluations while publishing (not just submitting) and bringing in more grant money.  She said this is impossible.  She said she cannot support the plan or the concept if this plan is the manifestation of that concept.

• Gary Martin, Curriculum and Teaching and member of the Steering Committee, said many good points had been raised.  He said he is in the hopeful group that thinks something good could come out of this and that he likes the change in tone since earlier drafts.  He noted that he knew someone who was able to improve and whose career was saved because of the resources he got under a post-tenure review process at another university.  He said post-tenure review provides a chance to look over the broader scope of work.  He said it is important to consider the quality of the review and stated that he supports the concept in general.  However, he noted that he sees real problems with the policy as proposed.  He said one year to improve is ridiculous—there is no way to do this in one year.  He said a trigger on the basis of one annual review is silly; an individual may run into a dry spell and the process should be based on a pattern of making progress.  He said this process puts lots of weight on the Chair’s opinion not on a pattern of performance.  He can see the possibility for misdeeds, retaliation and so on.  He noted that logistics are a real factor because if 600 people are eligible for review on a 6-year cycle this will mean 100 people per year.  He asked how a single group of 9 people could review 100 sets of papers and come up with not just over the bar or not but also over the bar enough to be considered exemplary performance.  He said the Chair’s opinion becomes more important, weighting this opinion higher and taking away from a broader judgment.  He also noted the committee will have to look at a set of guidelines that are different for virtually every person.  He said he does not want to be on this committee.  He said the implementation of a process that will be used for individuals 6 years from their last P&T review means that 1-year field test is not adequate. He asked how this would be phased in after the test year.  He said the test would show if the committee was able to make a judgment on performance in that time but would not be able to see the impact on faculty performance/development unless the test lasts longer than one year.  Gary Martin said if improvement is a goal of the process the ability of the process to reach that goal should be assessed.  He also noted the asymmetry of the process: the exemplary category requires an individual be exemplary in all categories but those in the unsatisfactory category need only be unsatisfactory in one category.  He said post-tenure review has potential but it must be done right.  He said this is being done in a way that feeds into people’s suspicions and doubts about the intent.  He said if post-tenure review is done well he could support it; he doesn’t think this is the way and he cannot support this process.

• Mark Barnett, Civil Engineering, said he is not philosophically opposed to the idea of Post-Tenure Review but this particular policy seems strange: for one thing he sees no mention of “peer” in the process and this is the cornerstone of academic evaluation.  He said this is an awful time and not the right place for this process.  He said he had been at Auburn since 1999 and the list of things that have happened over that time that have affected Auburn’s reputation and quality included a variety of incidents unrelated to academic performance.  He suggests we pilot a program to improve Auburn that allows us to stay off probation, out of the papers, out of the courts, and hire a permanent president.

• Jim Saunders, Department of Geology and Geography, seconded the comments made by Mark Barnett.  He said if we have a problem with some faculty not performing to the norm we should have a way to remove problem faculty.  He said this is an administrative issue that does not require a whole new layer of bureaucracy with an unfunded mandate.  He said the big issue is how we make Auburn University attractive and not end up with a  bunch of paper pushers.  He said we need to be asking ourselves how we can attract and keep people who could make more money elsewhere and noted the proposed policy is 180 degrees away from accomplishing that.  He said this process dumps new stuff on busy people and we should not do new things just to do new things.  He said administrators should earn their pay by identifying the good people. 

• Bob Locy, Biological Sciences, said he served on the Steering Committee when discussions of this topic began.  He noted that he has not heard many new things today and sees lots of flaws in the policy.  He said maybe we didn’t do a good job of affecting the policy.  He added his emphasis and support to most of the comments made today.  He noted that another term bothers him: “course evaluations”.  He said a lot of things could be wrong with a course that are not necessarily the fault of the teacher.  He asked what “course evaluation” means?  He said lots of things could be wrong with course evaluations but the teacher might not be doing a bad job.  He said we should use the grading system rather than the proposed emotion-laden terms for performance evaluation.

• Robin Fellers, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, made three points.  First, she said if the policy goes through, those named to the committee should volunteer to go through the process so they understand from an individual standpoint what it means to be in the process.  Second, she said the policy states at the beginning this is “not a dismissal policy…” but the very last line says sanctions include referral to the dismissal process.  She said there is a disconnect here and she would like to see clarification.  Third, she said that Auburn’s teaching evaluations are inherently flawed.  She said the first thing we need is a new process for student evaluation of courses and instructors.  She said we have tried to change the evaluation process several times but have failed to do so; this change needs to be made before this policy is instituted.

• Christa Slayton, Department of Political Science, asked John Heilman if annual reviews are carried out by every department? 
  

            John Heilman said the Handbook indicates this should be done for every faculty             member every year.  He said last year’s data indicates annual reviews were very             systematically done.  He noted that no data exists for years past and he has heard   consistent reports that annual reviews were not done prior to last year in some   units. 
           
            Christa Slayton applauded him for reviewing the annual reviews.  She said many            years ago while she served as chair of the Faculty Salaries Committee the Board     of Trustees decided that salary increases must be based on merit.  She said a         commitment was made to annual reviews by the Provost’s office at that time.     Christa Slayton said she is concerned about terms being used.  She said some of    her work indicates the public has a high regard for faculty and we need to do a     better job of educating the public.  She said we should be asking for      accountability at all levels.  She asked how many people actually receive           unsatisfactory reviews?  She said she thinks only a small number of people fall        into this category.  She asked if we have a review committee would it be able to            contradict the Chair’s opinion—for example could the review committee find   performance to be unsatisfactory if a Chair had rated someone as satisfactory.      She said she is concerned about the review committee (made up of past P&T    committee members).  She asked who has served on the P&T committee?  She      asked how many women have served on this committee.  She said there would be tremendous imbalance if the pool of potential members is limited to past P&T    committee members.  She recommended that John Heilman read the Shalala          Committee report relative to the issue of gender.

NOTE: The name of the individual making the following comments was not discernable on the recording. 

• Unknown speaker from Engineering:  He commented that Professor Q’s comments were well stated.  He said the document contains language that is vague and the document has been discredited.  If this is the best effort of the faculty, as the chair suggests, he has no faith in them anymore.  The lack of peer review means he has no confidence in the process.  He said getting the most recent version yesterday and being asked to vote on it today is absurd—where is the considered review.  He said the University Senate should allow proxy voting given the turn around time.  He asked what the rush is.  He said if this is that important we deserve a longer period of time for consideration than overnight.

• Barry Burkhart, Department of Psychology and former University Senate Chair, said this is his 27th year post-P&T review.  He said this is a flawed process that does not fix the problem driving the entire issue.  He said in the 34 years he has been here the Board of Trustees has never micromanaged without a flawed outcome and stated this is a classic example of micromanagement from the Board.  He said the Board realizes some faculty are either incompetent or disengaged and that has driven the desire for this process.  He said this is a mistake made over and over by the Board.  He said this is a bad process and it is unfortunate because there is a problem.  He said that as a department chair he knows some faculty fundamentally fail to meet their obligations to the students and to Auburn University.  He said there should be a solution but this is not it.  He asked John Heilman if this is or is not a process designed to over-turn tenure. 

            John Heilman said he tried to pick up language from the 1999 AAUP statement             indicating this process does not remove from the administration the burden of           explaining why someone should be dismissed and give the burden to the faculty         member to explain why he or she should be retained.  He said the answer to Barry         Burkhart’s question is that no, this is not a process to over-turn tenure.

            Barry Burkhart said it would have gladdened his heart if the Board, instead of    pushing this, had dealt with the dismantling of the most marvelous education      system the world has ever known.  He noted that if you listen to the news you       would learn that every one of the science Nobel’s went to US professors.  He said        all change is not progress and that answering the sirens called accountability          fundamentally misses the mark in genuinely contributing to American             universities.  He said the translation of No Child Left Behind to the University     professoriate is foolish at best and harmful at worst and doesn’t address the           possibility of serious mistakes in how we are trying to develop the professoriate     and American Universities.  He stated he is against the concept of post-tenure    review and this policy which is ill-informed, ill-considered and badly put        together.  He said this is not a field test; if the field test is done it should be done     and reconsidered after which a final decision on the process would be made.

Rich Peniskovic stated that he agrees with Barry Burkhart and believes the Board is driving this and is determined to see this through regardless of the outcome of today’s vote.

• Barry Burkhart stated he had been involved in these types of processes throughout his career.  He noted that done-deals always exacerbate problems that exist on campus and it is beneath the dignity and promise of Auburn that we keep doing this again and again.

Rich Penaskovic said that if there were no more comments he would ask David Cicci to come forward to present the action items.

John Heilman noted that it is 4:40 p.m. and, in his judgment, the faculty had responded very positively to Rich Penaskovic’s request for an elevated and respectful discussion.

Action Items:
Resolution to endorse the concept of Post Tenure Review (David Cicci, Chair-Elect)
David Cicci noted that the Executive Committee had prepared two resolutions.  He said the first resolution is focused on the concept of post-tenure review.  He said the second resolution is focused on the specific document discussed this afternoon.  David Cicci said that if the first resolution passes the faculty will then vote on the second resolution but if the first resolution fails there will be no vote on the second resolution.  David Cicci read Resolution #1.

A point of order was raised because the vote appeared to be about to proceed without discussion of the resolution.  Rich Penaskovic called for discussion.

• Bob Locy, Biological Sciences, said voting against the resolution would be a vote for change because we have post-tenure review already.  He said we don’t have a formal type of post-tenure review but we have a process.

            Rich Penaskovic said he did not believe that we do have post-tenure review at the         present time.

            Bob Locy asked what are our annual reviews if not post-tenure review.

            Rich Penaskovic stated the annual reviews do not meet the definition of post-     tenure review as described here and elaborated on by John Heilman.

            Bob Locy asked why there were two resolutions.

            David Cicci said the Executive Committee had agreed that having only one        resolution was too restrictive.  He said there might be people who could support   the concept but not the process and this would give them a chance to illustrate            that.

            Bob Locy asked if we are voting on a process different than what we already    have. 

            David Cicci said yes, that is what we are doing.

The faculty voted on Resolution #1.  The vote was done by secret ballot and David Cicci reported the outcome: 89 opposed, 11 support, 2 abstain.

• Tony Carey, Department of History, said he is not opposed to voting on Resolution 2 because a lot of work went into this specific policy.  He said this would allow the faculty to make our feelings clear on this policy. 

• Barry Burkhart suggested the Senate should approach the Board and ask that we be allowed to create a solution to the real problem.  He said we have talent enough to do this well.  He said we could bring to the Board a faculty-driven process that would address the real problem.  He suggested the Senate Rules Committee address the problem and bring a process that is true to the heart of Auburn University to the Board of Trustees.  He said this would be a proactive response to a problem.

Rich Penaskovic stated there was a need to review the dismissal process and asked Barry Burkhart if this would address the problem post-tenure review is being asked to correct.

• Barry Burkhart said it would be a step in the right direction because the dismissal process does not work.

• Wayne Johnson, Electrical Engineering, said he is still trying to decide what the purpose of Post-Tenure Review is or was.  He asked if it is a dismissal policy or proof of accountability.  He said if the purpose is proof of accountability we should show the annual review and other processes rather than creating a new process.  He said we have always been accountable and we need a stronger message to demonstrate this.  He said it is an administrative function to impose annual reviews.  He asked if this is a way to get rid of faculty because that is what he just heard even though it was previously described differently.  He said if it is for accountability we should just enforce the current policy.

• Gary Martin said there is a point to stepping back and looking at progress.  He said that he is one of the 11 who voted in favor of the concept of post-tenure review and would like to have a vote on Resolution #2 so he can say that he opposes this policy.  He welcomes accountability but how it is done is what is important.  He thinks we have to take this on because it will happen regardless and he would like to be proactive.

Resolution to endorse the proposed policy on Post Tenure Review (David Cicci, Chair-Elect)
Rich Penaskovic said that he was uncomfortable with a vote on Resolution #2 at this time because people were told a vote on Resolution 2 would only take place if Resolution 1 was approved and because so many people had left the meeting. 

Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any old business.  There was no old business.  Rich Penaskovic asked if there was any new business.  There was no new business.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.