Minutes of the Senate Meeting
November 11, 2008
Broun Auditorium
3:00 p.m.
Submitted by
Sue Barry
Present: Robert Locy, Sue Barry, Kathryn Flynn, Dennis Devries, Richard Brinker, Timothy Boosinger, R. Lee Evans, John Heilman, Bonnie MacEwan, Todd Storey, Andrew McLelland, Winfred Foster, Norbert Wilson, Werner Bergen, Barbara Kemppainen, Michael Clay, Anthony Moss, Yifen Wang, Rik Blumenthal, Brigitta Brunner, Laura Plexico, Sanjeev Baskiyar, John Saye, Dan Gropper, James Goldstein, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen Davis, John Mazaheri, Larry Teeter, Jim Saunders, Mark Fischman, David Carter, Ellen Abell, Shea Tillman, Robert Bulfin, Andrew Wohrley, Edith Davidson, Steve Stuckwisch, Bart Prorok, Howard Goldstein, Constance Hendricks, Claire Zizza, Jim Wright, Daniel Parson, Jan Kavookjian, Bernie Olin, Guy Rohrbaugh, Mike Bozack, Changhoon Jung, Robert Voitle, Chris Correia, Jon Segars, Emily Myers,
Absent sending a substitute: Larry Benefield (Joe Morgan), Paul Bobrowski (Dan Gropper), Anne-Katrin Gramberg (Robert Weigel), Christopher McNulty (Allyson Comstock), Carol Centrallo (Carol Warfield), James Witte (Marie Martinez Witte), Scotte Hodel (Michael Baginski), M. Scott Phillips (Robin Jaffe)
Absent no substitute: David Cicci, Barbara Witt, John Mason, Jeff McNeil, Lauren Hayes, Lindsey Stevenson, Valerie Morns-Riggins, Joe Molnar, Bill Hames, Ruth Crocker, Sondra Parmer, Charles Mitchell, Paul Swamidass, Paul Holley, Ronald Neuman, Larry Crowley, Casey Cegielski, Don-Terry Veal, Peggy Shippen, Scott Lewis, Tom Williams, Gwen Thomas, R. D. Montgomery
Bob Locy called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the October 7th Senate meeting were approved by voice vote without opposition.
Remarks from the Provost
Dr. Heilman first expressed his sorrow for the loss of Virgil Starks. Then he commented on the budget process. He mentioned that there would be some degree of proration this year, but the full extent would not be known until December. Currently there are no plans for freezes such as hiring and travel. However, caution and anticipation are warranted.
Dr. Heilman commented that Dr. Gogue had presented an update of 35 first year goals in the Strategic Plan emphasizing the most important goal—the need to increase our graduation rate. He also mentioned the committee currently working on this issue and the fact that this will become a strategic objective for the academic divisions and student affairs division.
There were no questions or remarks following Dr. Heilman’s comments.
Remarks from the Chair
Bob Locy, (Chair) made several announcements and invited Dean Schneller (Provost Search Committee) and Steve Nelson (Risk Management) to make their own announcements. Bob announced that
Stewart Schneller (Chair, Provost Search Committee) reminded the Senate that the three candidates for the Provost position would be visiting campus for two days, and for each candidate there would be an open forum for faculty to attend in Broun Auditorium. The first candidate to arrive will be Dr. Tom Apple, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Delaware, followed by Dr. Mary Ellen Mazey, Dean of Arts and Sciences at West Virginia University and Dr Bruce Rafert, Dean of the Graduate School at Clemson. All information on the candidates has been posted on the Provost’s search site. All candidates have been asked to talk for about 20 minutes without PowerPoints and then to take questions from the floor. They have been asked to give their vision and philosophy as to how they would function as provost and to the experience that they will bring to this position. All presentations will be streamed and will be accessible on the Provost site. However, the streaming videos will only be accessible on campus. Also the Provost’s web site will provide a submission form for faculty feedback. This feedback will help the committee to provide a summary to the President. Due to scheduling constraints every special interest group will not have an opportunity to meet individually with the candidates, but all heads of units will have an opportunity to meet with them.
Questions and Remarks
Robin Jaffe (Theatre Department) wanted to know the exact time for Mary Ellen Mazey. Was it 4:00 or 3:00?
Bob Locy (Chair) replied that her time was changed to 3:00 to make her time the same as all the others. This required some switching of classes.
Steve Nelson (Associate Director of Environmental Health and Safety, Department of Risk Management) explained that since the audit would cover the entire university, he wanted to make as many people as possible aware of the procedures. Therefore, information on the audit would be available on AU profs newsletter as well as the AU Daily. The scope of the audit covers all environmental regulations and all areas of campus operations with environmental regulatory responsibilities. These regulations affect all faculty who are responsible for chemical storage and use, chemical handling and chemical waste disposal. All of the information is currently on their web site. They have completed their audit of the AUM campus and they will be doing the Auburn campus the first week in December. The audit will cover 50 departments on campus and the final report will go to the EPA. The EPA agrees not to inflict fines or penalties for items that we disclose. Afterwards, we have 60 days to complete the corrective actions. He also mentioned that there were handouts in the back for all those concerned.
Action Items:
Resolution Commending Dr. John Heilman on the Occasion of His Retirement Bob Locy (Chair)
Bob moved that the Senate approve the resolution commending Dr. Heilman on the occasion of his retirement and called for the question.
The motion passed by a voice vote.
University Senate Constitutional Amendment Creating a Faculty Research Committee Bob Locy (Chair)
Bob explained that the wording in red is intended to be added to the University Senate Constitution. Specifically the Rules Committee wants to add a Faculty Research Committee to the list of committees in article 4 of the Constitution, and then they want to add a section 24 describing the composition and charge of the Faculty Research Committee. Basically, this committee will be a liaison between the Senate and the Vice President for Research on matters relating to the research enterprise of Auburn University. The Research Committee will take issues from the faculty to the VPR and if policy changes are needed, they will bring those to the Senate for a vote. This committee was suggested by our new Vice President for Research and therefore, the Rules Committee is sending this to the Senate. He reminded the Senate that a Constitutional Amendment change requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate for approval. Since there was no discussion, he called for a vote.
The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.
Undergraduate Certificates Linda Glaze, (Associate Provost Undergraduate Affairs)
Linda called the Senate’s attention to the changes in the Undergraduate Certificates proposal as it was presented in the October meeting.
Questions and Remarks
Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry & Bio Chemistry) asked what departments were asking for these certificates. If we knew what certificates they wanted, then we might have a better idea of what the purpose of this Certificate program might be.
Linda Glaze responded that she believed it to be a planning group that was proposing a leadership minor and that Dotty Cavendar had led the group. Linda thought that the College of Agriculture was involved and that it possibly started as a designation to have a leadership certificate. Linda also indicted that some other universities such as Texas A&M and University of Georgia have certificates. However, in general it seems that certificates are more for interdisciplinary type areas, maybe very technical areas. These certificates are for either their current students who want special certificates in business or industry or for post baccalaureate individuals who are not going to pursue a graduate degree but need the certification for their jobs. There are not a lot of certificate programs, but the ones she found have lengthy policy procedures in place.
Rik Blumenthal responded that the information Linda had given was useful, but he still didn’t know who wanted the certificate and for what purpose. He indicated that he had polled his faculty. Their responses fell into two categories— 1)“Absolutely no to undergraduate certificate-only students” and 2) “it might be beneficial to have certificates that are handed out with bachelor’s degrees to certify special course work taken.” The certificate only is very strongly opposed in his department; therefore, he felt compelled to vote no. His faculty saw the Certificate program as detrimental to Auburn’s reputation. He didn’t want Auburn to be in competition with certificate programs at ITT Tech or University of Phoenix.
Linda Glaze replied that this would be an option open to departments and the certificates would only correspond to areas within our mission to teach. Her personal opinion was that we would be giving certificates along with graduation or to students who already had a bachelor’s degree. The prime example in Linda’s opinion would be the individual who has a degree and who wants specific expertise at an advanced level and again departments would design these certificates.
Rik Blumenthal responded that as it stands his department is strongly opposed to an undergraduate certificate. On the other hand his department would half support one that was issued at graduation or one that was specifically post-baccalaureate.
Tony Moss (Biological Sciences) added that he had gotten fewer responses than Rik from his faculty, but they tended to feel as he did that it would be a mistake for Auburn to offer a degree that might be construed as less than a bachelor’s degree. However, he had no problem with it as a post-baccalaureate or continuing education certificate for specific disciplines. He believed that as stated in the proposal this was an undergraduate option which he opposed strongly.
Linda Glaze understands that a certificate is less than a major, and that a major is less than a degree, but it does give the student and potentially the department the ability to designate some area, and generally this has been in interdisciplinary studies which cross different lines and where we don’t have an academic unit involved.
Tony Moss was concerned additionally that if this certificate became popular within a particular degree program that it may suck up resources normally used for regular class offerings. He also feared that these students might compete for regular training programs without full degrees and without full training.
Linda Glaze responded that this is a definition and definitions are frameworks within which an institution can operate and units can develop a certificate. The first request that came to her was from mechanical engineering, but she had to refuse because the University had not Certificate program. This is just a generic framework. The unit would designate the certificate. Units would not offer certificates if they felt they would compete with their own majors. Again Linda repeated that most certificates at peer institutions are in interdisciplinary areas and in more technical or applied fields.
Sanjeev Baskiyar (Computer Science and Software Engineering) also polled his faculty and there were similar issues. People wanted to know how many universities are actually offering these Certificate programs and whether our degrees would be diluted as a result of offering them.
Bob Locy (Chair) stated that the resolution comes to you to approve the Undergraduate Certificates as per the paper work that was distributed. As there was no further discussion he called for the question.
The motion failed by a voice vote.
Barbara Kemppainen (Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology) was unsure of the protocol, but she felt that the faculty might welcome a proposal for an undergraduate certificate to be awarded with a bachelor’s degree.
Bob Locy(Chair) stated that the proposal should have been made before the vote.
Request for a change in the agenda:
Bob Locy requested that the order of the next two items on the agenda be changed. They were submitted to keep the agenda tidy with the action items together, but he felt that it would be useful to discuss the interdisciplinary Degree program before discussing the resolution to establish an interdisciplinary degree. Therefore, Bob asked to flip the two items on the agenda.
As there were no objections to amending the agenda Patricia Duffy was called on to lead the discussion concerning the Interdisciplinary Degree program.
Information Item:
Patricia Duffy (Assistant Provost, Undergraduate Affairs) felt it was unnecessary to give a formal presentation since she had done so in the October meeting. She wanted to remind the Senate that the program in question resembles programs at Mississippi State, Texas A&M, and the University of Maryland. The one difference is the amount of oversight in terms of faculty approvals needed and faculty oversight which is greater in our proposal. The basic structure of the degree has
The faculty has been concerned about the number of electives, but we do have degrees on campus with a lot of free electives in different colleges. Therefore, this is not unusual.
Students would come up with a plan during their introductory course with the help of a career counselor and a faculty member. However, the approval for the program would be from the existing faculty advisor in the department. They also need the approval of a faculty mentor who will look at all the parts of the program to see how it all fits together. Then if it is approved by the Office of Undergraduate Studies, there would be a Faculty Oversight Committee that would function as the curriculum committee for a particular interdisciplinary degree. These members would be drawn from existing college or school level curriculum committees. If a unit does not have a curriculum committee, Rules would have to appoint someone from that unit to serve on this committee. The Faculty Oversight Committee would prepare a report every semester to go to the University Curriculum Committee, and that report could be brought to the Senate as desired. In cases of substitutions, students would have to get their faculty advisor and mentor to sign off on the change.
Bob Locy (Chair) mentioned that the Rules Committee was bringing this forward and asked that it be presented in this way with a presentation about the specific Interdisciplinary Degree program currently being contemplated and to allow the Senate to discuss any objections they may have. The Rules Committee felt that we needed to take a vote on the issue of whether we in fact wanted an Interdisciplinary Degree program.
Action Item:
Resolution on Establishment of a University Interdisciplinary Degree Program (Kathryn Flynn, Chair-Elect)
Kathryn stated that the purpose of the resolution before the Senate was to ascertain the level of support for the concept of an Interdisciplinary Degree or Degrees at Auburn University. The Rules Committee debated this at length, and it was the majority opinion that the approval of curricula or programs rested with the Curriculum Committee, which is a Senate Committee, and the Senate’s role was to look at things a a higher level.
Kathryn read the resolution and then she opened the floor for discussion.
Questions and Remarks
Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry & Biochemsitry) polled his faculty on this concept and they were much more mixed. There were some people who strongly support the concept and others who didn’t support it. However, there was an overriding concern about faculty oversight of any degree program and a general principle that there should be faculty oversight of any degree program. He felt that faculty oversight should never be the curriculum committee because they are the judge. You don’t want the judge doing the directing. Therefore, you need two bodies.
Rik had no objections to the specific program presented, but as far as the resolution goes, he had reservations because there was no reference to the Interdisciplinary Studies Degree program having faculty oversight in some form. Therefore, he suggested an addition to the resolution to include that there would be faculty oversight for any degree-bearing program.
Bob Locy(Chair) asked if Rik was suggesting an amendment.
Rik Blumenthal wanted to make an amendment, but he didn’t have the wording in mind. He finally suggested that the amendment might be “Whereas any degree-bearing program should have faculty oversight, any Interdisciplinary Program should also have some functional faculty oversight.”
Bob Loch asked for a second.
Someone seconded the amendment from the floor.
Kathryn Flynn (Chair-Elect) asked for comments related to the amendment.
Constance Hendricks (School of Nursing) asked to modify the amendment to add – “Whereas all degree programs shall have faculty oversight” – at the end of the third paragraph.
Rik agreed to the wording.
Raymond Kessler (Horticulture) wanted to reiterate what Rik had said about faculty oversight. His faculty had strong objections for the same reason. It seemed to them that the resolution stated that we wanted something like this without giving any details. They viewed it as handing the fox the keys to the hen house, without providing any details. After hearing the presentation of the details this time, he realized that most of the questions from his faculty would have been answered with this information.
John Heilman (Provost) believed that the Rik Blumenthal’s amendment made a lot of sense. However, he was concerned about the wording. Therefore, another version was drafted to be inserted in the same place.
“Whereas it is important to ensure that there be adequate faculty oversight of all degree-bearing programs,”
“Therefore be it resolved…”
John continued that he felt the Senate oversight of this policy should be at the high policy level, not at the details.
Dan Gropper (Substitute for Dean of the College of Business) supported the concept because it provides options for some of our best students. Also, it provides options for some students who change majors two or three times, and he felt that there was adequate oversight.
Kathryn Flynn (Chair-Elect) asked for a second to Dr. Heilman’s motion.
“Program will include a faculty oversight”
Emily Myers (Department of Sociology) stated that her faculty was interested in supporting the Interdisciplinary Degree Program, but they wanted to know if Women’s Studies minors could get an interdisciplinary degree in Women’s Studies.
Bob Locy (Chair) told Emily they would have to get back to her on that.
Kathryn Flynn (Chair-Elect) called for the question.
The motion passed by a voice vote.
Bob asked for discussion on the amended resolution
Emily Myers (Sociology) repeated her question concerning the Women’s Study minor.
Bob Locy (Chair) answered that it wouldn’t necessarily be an interdisciplinary degree in Women’s Studies. It would be an interdisciplinary degree in Women’s Studies and x, y, or z, whatever that would be. However, it doesn’t apply because this resolution applies to interdisciplinary degrees in general.
Norbert Wilson (Agricultural Economic and rural sociology) supported Bob’s response to Emily’s question due to his membership on the Curriculum Committee. He also wanted to add that there was a great deal of discussion about this degree. The Interdisciplinary Degree program came before the committee twice, and it ultimately received a favorable vote, and even though it wasn’t unanimous it was well supported.
Bob Locy (Chair) called for the question on the amended resolution.
The motion passed by a voice vote.
Information Item:
Bob Locy (Chair) returned to the last information item on the agenda—the Academic Program Review Implementation Plan. This report is to inform the Senate on the proceedings of the Academic Program Review Committee and as such doesn’t require a Senate vote.
2008-2009 Academic Program Review Implementation Plan Yasser Gowyed (Chair, Academic Program Review Committee)
Yasser informed the Senate as to the membership on the committee. He reminded the Senate that in 03-04 President Richardson approved the academic review process. In 05 the Senate approved a document prepared by the Academic Program Review Committee for academic program reviews. The next year the review was carried out with a completely different document, and the committee reported this to the Senate. The document agreed on by the Senate was called document 1 by the committee; the document used in 06 was document 2. In 07, document 2 was amended by adding document 1.
Yasser told the Senate that the document being presented is the current one posted on the Provost’s web site. The goal of the review is to strengthen the academic activities of the University as a whole. Programs may refocus the decision to reorganize, curtail, or eliminate some academic activities or even departments, but more frequently the process will lead to action plans for improving a department’s academic activities.
Yasser also talked about the two main parts self-assessment and the external review. He also mentioned that the committee reviews the final written documents and confers with the Provost on ways to strengthen the review process. They also review any proposals to discontinue, merge, or restructure any academic program and confer with the Provost to reach a decision on the feasibility for the proposal.
Guy Rorbaugh (Philosophy) said that Philosophy underwent this process last year, and they only dealt with their Dean and the Provost’s office. There was no contact with the review committee. He wanted to know if this meant that now a copy of the documents would go to the committee and they would take part in the process. This would be different from what they experienced.
Yasser Gowyed replied that the review goes through the Provost office. The deans send the report to the Provost and the committee gets a copy. Originally, the committee was active in the process. However, after the disagreement on the document, the committee was unable to contribute to the process. At the end of last year communication with the Provost’s office got much easier, and with the help of Bill Sauser and Sharon Gaber they were able to agree to process that would include the committee. These elements are new, but the process has been in effect for three years. However, this will be the committee’s first year to be fully engaged in the process.
Guy Rorbaugh was happy to hear this.
Bob Locy (Chair) announced that the information item on the original agenda on Learning Communities was postponed because Nancy McDaniel could not attend today.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.