Minutes of the Senate Meeting
3 March, 2009
Broun Auditorium
3:00 p.m.
Submitted by
Sue Barry

Present: Robert Locy, Sue Barry, Kathryn Flynn, Dennis Devries, Richard Brinker, Paul Bobrowski, Timothy Boosinger,  John Mason, Mary Ellen Mazey, Bonnie MacEwan, Todd Storey, Andrew McLelland,  Sondra Parmer, Charles Mitchell, Werner Bergen, Barbara Kemppainen, Michael Clay, Christopher McNulty, Anthony Moss, Paul Holley, Ronald Newman, Rik Blumenthal, Larry Crowley, Brigitta Brunner, Laura Plexico, Sanjeev Baskiyar, Carol Centrallo, John Saye, Michael Stern, Michael Baginski, James Goldstein, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen Davis, John Mazaheri, Larry Teeter, Mark Fischman, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Ellen Abell, Shea Tillman, Robert Bulfin, Paul Harris, Andrew Wohrley, Edith Davidson, Steve Stuckwisch, Howard Goldstein, Constance Hendricks, Claire Zizza,  Jim Wright, Daniel Parson, Jan Kavookjian, Bernie Olin, Guy Rohrbaugh, Mike Bozack, Robert Voitle, Chris Correia, Jon Segars, Del Epperson, Emily Myers, Gwen Thomas, M. Scott Phillips, R. D. Montgomery

Absent sending a substitute: Anne-Katrin Gramberg (J. Emmitt Winn), Winfred Foster (Anwar Ahmed),

Absent no substitute: David Cicci, Larry Benefield, R. Lee Evans, Barbara Witt, Jeff McNeil, Lauren Hayes, Lindsey Stevenson, Valerie Morns-Riggins, Joe Molnar, Bill Hames, Ruth Crocker, Norbert Wilson, Paul Swamidass, Yifen Wang, James Witte, James Saunders, Casey Cegielski, Bart Prorok, Don-Terry Veal, Changhoon Jung, Peggy Shippen, Scott Lewis,
Bob Locy called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of the February 10th Senate meeting were approved by a voice vote without opposition.

Remarks from the President:
President Gogue made the following announcements.

1. Mary Ellen Mazey, the new Provost, was asked to stand and to be acknowledged.
2. About a year and a half ago Auburn University tried to market some of our ideas to Congress, and they are under a CR in the current year.  Although the House has taken action on the 2009 Federal Budget, we still don’t know what the Senate will do.  There are a couple of million dollars in the House version mostly for research.  If the Senate passes the House version, the Vet School, Food Safety and Fisheries will be the beneficiaries.
3. The Federal Marketing cycle begins on Oct. 1 of 2009 for 2010.  This is on the web page, and everyone should look at it to get ideas for possible projects.  We need to be thinking about projects for 2011.  There will be staff assigned to help with getting projects submitted that will be of interest to members of Congress.  In fact, the Board of Trustees and Dr. Gogue have already talked with our two senators from Alabama as well as our seven representatives in order to go over the priorities of the institution.
4. The Faculty Scholarship Report will be circulated across campus for the purpose of compiling the research, scholarly endeavors and creative activities going on at Auburn.  This report will be bound and open for general perusal so that departments can show the productivity of their faculty.
5. A year ago we had a death on our campus, Lauren Burke.  Since then Public Safety and many others have worked hard to improve campus safety.  Thanks should go to Don Large, Melvin Owens and the team that has worked on this project.
6. The Alabama PAC Program, the prepaid tuition program, has not done well in the recent stock market change.  They have lost about 45 percent of their money since 70 percent was in equities.  Auburn and the University of Alabama have been asked to identify a financial person to help them look at what can be done over the long term.  The PAC program was projecting a 9.8 percent growth every year, and that was too optimistic.  Therefore, they want Auburn to help subsidize the students.  However, this is something that we don’t feel comfortable with.
7. Within the next few weeks the five-year mid-term report is due to SACS, our accrediting organization.  This is the midpoint in our 10 year cycle.  One of the areas of attention nationally will probably be our faculty rosters, their expertise, and a clear link to what they actually teach. Professors’ degrees and the area in which they teach must be justified.
8. Harvard runs a survey that looks at young faculty and their happiness, their productivity, their feelings of inclusiveness in a college campus, and for years Auburn has scored quite well.  They came and actually interviewed people and found that Auburn was a good place to live and a good environment to work in.  However, the unique feature for Auburn was our definition of collegiality and its inclusion in the policies of the institution. Therefore, Dr. Gogue complimented the faculty on this accomplishment.

Remarks from the Chair
Bob Locy, (Chair, University Senate) called on Dr. Mary Ellen Mazey and Lindy Biggs to make remarks:

Dr. Mazey (Provost) thanked everyone for the support that she has received, and she emphasized that in her previous position that she was an agent of change and that she looked forward to working with us as we moved into this period of change.  She stated that we want to be “a major innovative land-grant, sea-grant, space-grant institution of the twenty-first century.”  Because we want to compete with our peers, we want to improve in terms of the national rankings.  Building our graduate programs is an important component of the strategic plan and this is tied to our research funding.

Dr Mazey sees herself as a collaborator, and she would like to see collaboration across departments, colleges, and other institutions. Diversity is another important factor as it applies to faculty, staff and students.  Also we need to insure that our students have the international skills necessary for these times.  Another important issue is distance education.  She doesn’t have all the answers, but she is willing to work with all concerned.

Lindy Biggs (Sustainability Initiative Director) reminded us that Dr. Gogue signed the Climate Commitment this past fall, and now we have a University Office of Sustainability.  Last spring the University Curriculum Committee approved a minor in sustainability studies and there are quite a few students enrolled in that program.  Lindy asked that anyone teaching a class that might be relevant to sustainability to contact their office.

Lindy explained that they are beginning their climate action plan to decide how Auburn can move toward carbon neutrality in the distant future, and Lindy expects faculty, staff and students to be part of the planning process.  They would also like to have some senators volunteer for their new advisory board.
Bob Locy (Chair) continued with several announcements:

1. The Spring General Faculty Meeting will take place on the 10th of March at 3:00 p.m. in Broun Auditorium.  The main items on the agenda will be the announcement of the election results and Dr. Gogue’s State of the University Address.  At this meeting he will address the coming budget.
2. The Executive Committee is aware of the fact that we missed a deadline in our Constitution.  We were to have submitted nominees for the Rules Committee prior to this meeting, and we have not done so.  However, they don’t actually take office until August; so we will have them in place in plenty of time for August when their term starts.
3. There have been some questions about aspects of the Consulting Policy,  and therefore, Bob plans to recommend that the Provost and the Executive Committee return to this issue and make some recommendations to Faculty Welfare concerning modification to that policy

Action Items:
Nominees for the Faculty Research Committee (Sue Barry, Secretary, University Senate)
Sue Barry reported that nominations were solicited and a good slate of nominees was compiled to represent most of the colleges and schools. The rotation dates for each member of the committee were chosen randomly.  The Rules Committee would like the Senate to approve the list of nominees and their rotation dates.

The motion carried by a voice vote.
Revision to Class Withdrawal Policy (Linda Glaze, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies)
Linda Glaze explained that the recommendation of the Graduation Rate Task Force was to change the withdrawal date during Fall and Spring Semesters from mid-semester to ten weeks, and she suggested that the effective date be Fall 2009. She also explained that there would be a future proposal to report mid-term grades so that students would have more feedback for making an educated decision.  Also, the longer students stay in the class, the better chance they may have of passing on a second attempt.

Questions and Remarks
Rik Blumenthal (Senator Chemistry and Biochemistry) polled his faculty, and they were split about evenly on this issue. Some felt strongly that once a student enrolled in a class, they ought to take their grade. Others felt ten weeks would allow students to finish two graded exams and that would give students more information for their decision to withdraw. Another argument against it was the problem of enough seats in the organic sequence. Some professors felt students might choose to take the course as a ten week course to see how they would do, and then drop.  This would mean more repeaters in the course and more sections for students taking the course more than once.  Some students are concerned about getting into Vet school, dental school, or medical school, and they believe that an A or a B is necessary for admission.  Therefore, they are concerned that many students will take the course for ten weeks, and if they aren’t absolutely certain of getting at least a B, they will drop.  Many believe that this change will not expedite graduation rates.  However, Rik planned to listen to the discussion before making a decision as to how to vote.

Linda Glaze had some of the same concerns.  She isn’t sure what will fix the problem.   She doesn’t know how many students are earning Ds and Fs on purpose so they can take advantage of GAP. Perhaps after there is some data, the policy can be tweaked to go in the direction that will be most effective.

Bob Locy (Chair) asked to take the floor. He pointed out that the Graduation Rate Committee had the same misgivings, but they knew they needed a better way to track course withdrawals and to use that as a trigger for students that are in distress and need help. The idea was to hold students for ten weeks and they would have a better chance of getting something out of the course.

Claire Crutchley (Senator, Finance) said that her department was split also with more being negative than positive because of the reasons that already mentioned. One issue that had not been discussed was classes with team projects.  Many faculty members thought that it would be difficult to have people dropping out and leaving a team to do the course project with fewer people.  Others felt like Rick that it may slow down graduation rates. There may be other students who would take the course and drop it after the tenth week just to extend their college careers.

Warner Burgen (Senator, Animal Science) polled his department too, and they felt that we are continually lowering standards.

Tony Moss (Senator, Biological Sciences) was concerned that we might be holding marginal students in classes longer.  Since their exams take much longer to grade, this would increase faculty workload.

Linda Glaze commented that other comparable institutions have moved their withdrawal date; some have it as late as right before final exams.  Many limit the number of times that students can register for a class. However, this recommendation came from the Graduation Rate Committee, and her recommendation would be to try the policy for a year to see how it functions.  Then Drew Clark can examine the data.

Bob Locy (Chair) called for the vote and the motion passed by a voice vote.

Information Item:
Modification of Grade Adjustment Policy (Linda Glaze, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies)

Linda Glaze reported that this item was changed to an information item because after presenting this to the associate deans, there was real concern about implementation issues.

Linda explained the major change in the policy is to require students to repeat the three courses allowed prior to GAPPING their first grade in each course.  Currently they can exclude it from their GPA immediately.  This has created problems for students and academic areas.

Linda continued that this policy would not take effect until Fall 2009. Students would be granted until October 1, 2009 to request exclusion of grades taken prior to Fall 2009 under the old policy.  Since the University is currently upgrading to Banner 8, it would be beneficial to change before all the testing of the new system has been completed.  There would be a cost saving effect as well.

Linda stated further that this recommendation comes from the Graduation Rate Task Force.  Here she referred to the fact sheet that was attached to the agenda.  All other institutions, but one, require that the student retake the course before excluding the first grade.  Another issue is the number of times that a student can repeat the course.  Some say two and some say three.  Also it is possible to see the forgiven grade, and sometimes they are Bs and Cs, but that is not what we are talking about.  The big question pertains to students changing a major.
Linda pointed out that Clemson does not limit the policy to freshman.  However, they do limit the number of ARP (Academic Redemption Policy Hours) and they limit the withdrawal hours to 17. If a student repeats a course for academic redemption, they subtract those hours not only from the ARP hours, but also from the withdrawal hours.
Linda said that she wanted to get some feedback from the Senate before drafting a policy on this issue.  For example, do we allow any type of substitution for courses not required in the major?  This seems to be the biggest issue.
Bob Locy (Chair) wanted clarification.  He wanted to know if Linda meant for courses when they change majors and the courses are not required in their new major.
Linda Glaze replied “yes.”  The question was, “Do you want to allow substitution for courses that are not required in the major if a student changes majors?  Yes or No?
Group: Yes.
Some: No.  
                                                                                                                                           
Linda Glaze wanted to know if the Senators wanted the policy to limit the first three courses as many institutions do.  Yes or no?

Bob Locy ask Linda to explain what she meant
.
Linda asked the question again. “Do we limit the number of repeats for individual courses?

Group: Yes.

Linda Glaze: welcomed more comments to help her draft this policy.

Questions and Remarks

Norbert Wilson (Senator, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology) wanted to know if there was a required minimum grade in order for the GAP to go forward.  For example, if a student gets a D the first time and a D the second time, do two Ds go on their record.

Linda Glaze replied that it is always the second grade that counts.

Honors College Task Force Report (Bonnie McEwan, Dean of Library, Chair of Honors College Task Force):
Bonnie McEwan reported that her group was diverse and brought many different perspectives to the task force. They gathered information for their report from many different institutions.  They found out that many students enter the Honors Program, but only a fraction graduate from the program. Therefore the committee proposed 11 areas of focus and ten recommendations for further study.

1. They felt a centralized model would be the best model for Auburn.  The biggest problem in the past was the large number of students wanting to enter the program.  However, they were never able to meet their needs.  The advisor is good but overwhelmed by the numbers.  Therefore they recommend having three advisors, one for sciences, one for humanities and one for general advising in other areas.
2. They recommended collapsing the junior and senior program into one program.  Currently, students can opt out and get a junior certificate after two years.  This doesn’t make sense. They hope to have more options in place to keep students in the program.
3. They suggested replacing the current core curriculum arrangement with an interdisciplinary option where students would create their own programs.  After talking to honors students they realized there was a great deal of diversity in their needs, from one student who wanted lab-based research opportunities to another who wanted a significant travel abroad experience as part of his program.
4. The Graduate School and the Honors College suggested an option for very talented students who wanted to earn a master’s degree while they were working on their bachelor’s degree.
5.  A centralized meeting space was another suggestion since currently their meeting space is not adequate, and it is poorly equipped.
6. They also recommended a concerted effort to diversify the Honors College by allowing students to opt into Honors at the end of their first year.  This would allow students who had been recruited for Auburn University, but who did not self identify themselves as honors students to enter the program.  However, with good mentoring they might be able to succeed in the Honors College.  This would apply to all students, but it would be particularly helpful for minority students.
7. They felt that the GPA for admission and for continuing in the program should be raised because with an increasing average ACT admission score, there will be more eligible students for the program.  Also, students should have the opportunity to opt out of the program because some students, such as pre-med students, may need a more structured environment.
8. They suggested working with development to increase funding of scholarships for honors students.  This would make Auburn more competitive in attracting gifted students.
9. They felt there should be a continued effort to encourage and mentor students to apply for prestigious opportunities, such as Fulbright and Rhodes Scholarships.
10. Finally, they felt that the number of multiple honors sections could be replaced with multi-disciplinary opportunities for students to have a flexible creative experience in honors.  This might help to free up some funding for this endeavor.

Questions and Remarks

James Goldstein (Senator from English) wondered how the elimination of core honors classes would work with the state’s requirement for general education.

Bonnie McEwan replied that UAB was already offering such opportunities to their honors students under the current articulation agreements.  Therefore there is a model in place. 

James Goldstein was concerned about the elimination of some of the English courses that currently have honors versions and that seem to be working well. He suggested the possibility of having different options so that some students could opt for interdisciplinary courses, but others could still elect honors core classes. 

Bonnie McEwan responded that honors students, with advising, could identify any course on campus to be turned into an honors course by writing a contract with that faculty member.  She felt that the idea was not to eliminate but to change.

James Goldstein said that it’s not the same to have a contract version of an honors core class as to have nineteen other really bright students in the room all together.

Linda Glaze (Not a Senator, Representative for Auburn University on Articulation of General Studies Committee) clarified the program at UAB.  She said that if students tend to be in the sciences, they take the honors sections of the sciences and interdisciplinary work in the humanities. If the students are enrolled in humanities, they take the traditional honors type course in humanities and select interdisciplinary work in one of the other areas.  So there is a lot of flexibility. This model has been approved since the articulation agreement went into effect.
Bonnie thanked Linda for her clear explanation.

Rik Blumenthal (Senator, Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry) explained that their honors section of freshman chemistry is more than one level above general chemistry.  It’s an exceptional course. He planned to recommend that his son attend Auburn because of this. On the other hand, in a freshmen class of 220 people it would be impossible to raise the level of the course to challenge the honors students. He felt that it would be a disservice to our students if we took away those honors sections.  He suggested that the diversity of students even in smaller classes would make the situation very difficult.

Bonnie McEwan agreed.

Guy Rohrbaugh (Senator from Philosophy) said that they have instructions not to make the assignments any different in honors sections.  Maybe that is why honors students feel core courses are a waste of time. Therefore, he would like to try a core course that was really at a higher level before abandoning the honors core.

Bonnie McEwan expressed gratitude for Rik’s comments because she was already aware of the kinds of frustrations that Guy was reporting. 

Tony Moss (Senator, Biological Sciences) related his experiences in an honors biology class last semester, and he concurred with the comments made previously.  He tried to make the class more challenging ,  which appealed to those interested in being biology majors, but there were others, for whom the challenge was not appealing, who weren’t interested.  So advising would be useful in these circumstances. However, he believed the honors classes had to be small.  He also supported the idea of interdisciplinary courses for those not interested in sciences.

Tony added that there are faculty members in his department who are concerned about the time investment in students who may ultimately drop out of the program.

Connor Bailey (not a Senator and member of the Task Force) added that until now the honors program was only about the core. Some students were taking honors courses to pile up honors credits for the junior certificate.  We are trying to do away with the honors certificate and instead to open up opportunities for more advanced interdisciplinary honors work outside of the core, not to do away with the honors core courses, but to shift resources into some other fields.

Tuition Restructuring Committee Recommendations (Fred Bobo, Assistant Vice President for Business and Finance & Comptroller and Chair, Tuition Restructuring Committee)

Don Large (Executive Vice President) wanted the Senate to understand that this issue needed to be on the March agenda because the University wanted to take it to the Board of Trustees later in the month, and before Fred Bobo made his presentation he wanted to give the Senate some history on tuition charging for the last 40 years.  Auburn charges full rate at 10 hours, but federal rates are 12 hours, and financial rates are 12 hours.  From 10 to 15 hours have been considered free for students, but after 15 they are charged again. Due to the switch to semesters and the initiation of the Banner system, he had waited until now to make this proposal.  There are actually more academic reasons for making the changes that financial ones.  Also, it will be easier to explain to parents and students.  So, the Provost will take this agenda item to the Board because it is for academic reasons.  Then he introduced Fred Bobo and explained that if there were no questions or serious problems they would take it to the March Board meeting.

Fred Bobo stated that our current system is indefensible.  Currently we charge extra for the 16th hour and there are curriculums that require more than 15 hours.  This causes a lot of complaints from parents.  Also, we have had a proliferation of additional fees; there is a registration fee of $510 for in-state and it’s $1,530 for out-of-state;  the union building fee and recreation services is one fee; and each school except for professional schools has an $8.00 per hour course fee.  Parents don’t understand and it is hard to defend.

Fred Bobo explained their charge was to try to use the tuition structure to enhance our six-year graduation rate. We are at 62 percent, and the average SREB is 75 percent; so we needed to improve in this area.  This would include a push to increase summer enrollment by structuring tuition to motivate students to attend summer school. Additional goals were to have a defensible plan that would be comparable to other SREB schools and to have one registration fee that didn’t include tuition.  The registration fee would be the same for in-state and out-of-state up to 12 hours and from then on it’s the same price, except the tuition for out-of-state students will again be three times what the in-state is.  This plan will be revenue neutral. The undergraduate per credit hour tuition would be $253 for in-state and $759 for out-of-state; again there would be no additional charge beyond 12 hours; and the registration fee would only be a specified fee as passed by the Board. Based on the fees we have now they add up to $332 and that would be charged per semester. One thing to point out if there is a tuition increase it would not apply to the fee portion. That fee would only be increased if there were a Board action to increase specific fees and it would not be subject to the tuition increase.

Fred explained that from 6 hours to 11 hours the proposed tuition would be less than our current structure. This should encourage students to attend summer school. If they were to take 6 to 9 hours, they could save money. During a regular semester for 12 to 16 hours there would be a maximum of a 4.4 percent increase.  Out-of-state students will pay 3.6-3.7 percent more, not even 4 percent.  For the non-residents, a student taking three hours in the summer would pay $2,600 instead of $4,000. 
 
Fred reported that the administration wanted a structure that would charge a premium for graduate students.  The registration fee would still be the same, but the fee would be $340 per credit hour as opposed to $253, and then for out-of-state it would be $1,020 as opposed to $759. For graduate students 9 hours is considered full time, so their tuition rate was capped at 9 hours instead of 12. Again this is consistent with SREB structures. The difference in graduate and undergraduate is around 33–34 percent, but it’s all over the board as far as SREB schools. The difference between undergraduate and graduate tuition is anywhere from 1 or 2 percent to over 120 percent difference at some Florida schools.  Because most graduate students have assistantships, the University only generates about 4 million dollars a year from graduate students who actually pay tuition out-of-pocket. 
There was no discussion and the meeting was adjourned at 4:43 p.m.