Minutes of the Auburn University Senate Meeting
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
238 Broun Hall Auditorium
3:30 P.M.
A full transcript is available for this meeting.
Attendance
Officers:
Patricia Duffy, Chair; Larry Crowley, Immediate-Past Chair; Larry Teeter, Chair-Elect; Gisela Buschle-Diller; Secretary; Laura Plexico, Secretary-Elect.
Administration:
Bill Hardgrave, Dean, College of Business; Betty Lou Whitford, Dean, College of Education; Lee Evans, Dean, School of Pharmacy; Chris Roberts, Dean, College of Engineering; Calvin Johnson, Dean, College of Vet Med.; George Flowers, Dean, Graduate School.
Ex-Officio
Present:
Tim Boosinger, Provost; Bonnie MacEwan, Dean, Libraries; Michael Freeman, Staff Council Chair; Ashley Hamberlin, A&P Assembly Chair; Sara Wolf, Steering Committee; Emily Myers, Steering Committee; Keven Yost, Steering Committee.
Absent, sending substitute:
Francine Parker for Gregg Newschwander, Dean, School of Nursing; Charles Israel for Joseph A. Aistrup, Dean, College of Liberal Arts; Vince Cammarata for Nicholas Giordano, Dean, COSAM; Brett Walton for Walker Byrd, President, Student Government Association; Thomas Baginski for Michael Baginski, 2nd, Steering Committee.
Absent, not sending substitute:
India Naiper, Graduate Student Council President
Senators, by Department:
Present: Robert Cochran, Accountancy; Don Mulvaney, Animal Sciences; Dean Schwartz, Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology; Rebecca O’Neal-Dagg, Architecture; Barb Bondy, Art; Cliff Defee, Aviation Management and Logistics; Bob Locy, Biological Sciences; Mark Dougherty, Biosystems Engineering; Mark Taylor, Building Sciences; Eduardus Duin, Chemistry; Cliff Lange, Civil Engineering; Ed Youngblood, Communication and Journalism; Allison Plumb, Communication Disorders; David Umphress, Computer Science and Software Engineering; Wi-Suk Kwon, Consumer Sciences; Beth Guertal, Crops, Soil and Environmental Sciences; Michael Stern, Economics; Lisa Kensler, Educational Foundations and Leadership; Thomas Baginski, Electrical and Computer Engineering; Hilary Wyss, English; Leonardo De La Fuente, Entomology and Plant Pathobiology; Jung Park, Finance; Rusty Wright, Fisheries and Allied Aquaculture; Traci O’Brien, Foreign Languages and Literature; Latif Kalin, Forestry and Wildlife Science; Brent Fox, Health Outcomes Research and Policy; Tiffany Sippial, History; Amy Wright, Horticulture; Tom Smith, Human Development and Family Studies; Jerrod Bradley Windham, Industrial Design; Sean Gallagher, Industrial Systems and Engineering; John Quindry, Kinesiology; Gregg Schmidt, Library; Peter Stanwick, Management; James Carver, Marketing; Dmitry Glotov, Mathematics and Statistics; Kevin Huggins, Nutrition and Foods; Chippewa Thomas, Outreach; Muralikrishnan Dhanasekaran, Pharmacal Sciences; Wesley Lindsey, Pharmacy Practice; Eric Marcus, Philosophy; Michael Fogle, Physics; Murray Jardine, Political Science; Gwynedd Thomas, Polymer & Fiber Engineering; Tung-shi Huang, Poultry Science; Daniel Sventek, Psychology; Jill Meyer, Special Education, Rehab and Counseling; Paul Michael Esposito, ROTC Navy; Kristina Shuler, Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work; Adrienne Wilson, Theater; Annette Smith, Veterinary Clinical Sciences.
Absent, sending substitute:
Henry Kinnucan for Valentina Hartaska, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology; W. Robert Ashurst for Allan David, Chemical Engineering; Bruce Murray for Jada Kohlmeier, Curriculum and Teaching; John F. Hawkins for David King, Geosciences; Anne Duraski for Matthew Hoch, Music; Valerie Thomas for Constance Hendricks, Nursing; Stuart Price for Vicky van Santen, Pathobiology.
Absent, not sending substitute:
Andrew Sinclair, Aerospace Engineering; Paul Brown, ACES; Daniel Mackowski, Mechanical Engineering; Jeffrey Hemmes, ROTC Air Force; Scott Copeland, ROTC Army;.
Minutes
At 3:30 PM Chair Patricia Duffy called the meeting to order, introduced the Senate Officers, reminded the Senators of the rules of speaking at Senate meetings and to speak into the microphones for better recording. She then established a quorum using iclickers. There are currently 87 members of the Senate and a quorum requires therefore 44 members to be present. The minutes of the March 3rd, 2015 Senate meeting as well as the minutes of the Special Called Senate meeting on March 31, 2015, were approved without modifications.
Remarks and Announcements
Office of the President, Jay Gogue, President
The President gave an update on the items on the agenda for the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting and first mentioned the status of different buildings on campus. The renovation of Broun Hall for $7-8 million coming from a private donor is in the first phase, the approval process. For the School of Nursing the architect is being selected (phase 2) and the new Classroom and Laboratory Complex building is also in phase 2. Further, the discussion/decision on proposed tuition and fees is also on the agenda of the next Board of Trustees’ meeting, and the issue of allowing in-state residency for military veteran students, their spouses and dependents living in Alabama. Another related issue is credit obtained for courses while serving in the military. He further listed a proposed Graduate Certificate in Autism and Development Disability, an option of Earth Science with a BS in Geology, and in the School of Kinesiology the elimination of the MEd program and the addition of a MS program with thesis and non-thesis option.
Office of the Provost, Tim Boosinger, Provost
The Provost remarked on the budget model and the process leading to it. He mentioned that the process is to be as thoughtful, strategic and transparent as possible. The current budget process is not as effective as it could be, thus a new budget model has been developed to lead to a better resource alignment with the mission of the University. The guiding principles are to develop realistic financial projections with sufficient flexibility to meet future challenges; to promote good decision making at all levels; and to provide incentives for more effective management and to look at options. Already today after the development of the (Huron) model, there is a better understanding of cost flows. Finally, the guiding principles were to be logic and transparent. Transparency can create discomfort. There is already some version of a Mission Enhancement Fund today. Shared governance is very important now and then. University and Senate committees will continue to have oversight on changes in academic programming, for example, and also on support services such as the Library, Facilities, HR, etc. All options would be guided by similar strategies as right now. Weighting at first seemed logical, but the consultant group and the peers that adopted the (Huron) model advised against it since it creates complex issues. He commented on raises and how they would be handled. All of this would be guided by essentially the same processes that are currently used. He ended with saying that we are all together in this and reemphasized the importance of shared governance.
Questions:
Henry Kinnucan (Agricultural Econ.& Rural Soc., Substitute Senator) remarked that the budget model is all about mission, but nothing is mentioned about vision. He wanted to know how the budget model will help Auburn to become a better research university.
The Provost responded by saying that the vision and strategic priorities are coming from the Strategic Plan and that those goals will be supported by whatever budget model will be adopted. The model that has been discussed allows for more dollars to flow to research than the current model.
Henry Kinnucan (Agricultural Econ. & Rural Soc., Substitute Senator) explained his concerns that doctoral programs might get penalized since there is no incentive to increase graduate instruction.
The Provost said that the model as presented moves the decision making to colleges/schools and used the example of the graduate tuition waiver, which originally was funded centrally and a great idea, but schools now have little control over. The budget model is just a tool to support the strategic priorities.
University Senate Chair, Patricia Duffy
Patricia Duffy first introduced the Senate Executive Committee and the Administrative Assistant Laura Kloberg. She mentioned the charge of an ad hoc Committee to develop guidelines for a better definition of the term “restructuring of a program”, a definition that can vary from Provost to Provost over the years. The ad hoc Committee will report the guidelines to the Academic Program Review Committee. The ad hoc committee consists of George Flowers, Emmett Winn, Wi-Suk Kwon, Chair of the Academic Program Review Committee, Drew Clark and Constance Relihan. The guidelines will be posted and can be accessed on-line so that people can see what goes and what does not go to Academic Program Review.
Questions: none
Patricia Duffy then introduced the first Action Item – Revision to the Faculty handbook, section 3.7.1-2 and mentioned that after the last Senate meeting there were some questions about the wording of paragraph 2 of the proposal. Therefore the wording has been revised. The changed language does not constitute a change in substance or content and thus, an amendment is not required at this time.
Action Items
1. Revision to Faculty Handbook section 3.7.1-3.7.2; Presenter: James Goldstein, Chair of Handbook Committee
James Goldstein went over the revision of Faculty Handbook 3.7.1-3.7.2 which deals with the annual and 3rd Year reviews and emphasized that with the on-line Handbook it is important that the chapter titles indeed reflect the content (final draft revision (pdf) PowerPoint presentation).
Questions:
Michael Stern (Senator, Economics) asked for clarification which portion of the document is the proposed final one and why the April 30 deadline is being removed.
James Goldstein explained which of the language will be kept.
Michael Stern (Senator, Economics) then asked if the regular annual review could serve as the tenure review and would not need to be separate.
James Goldstein confirmed, however, it could be separate reviews if preferred. The document is currently located under post-tenure review in the on-line version. It will be moved up to the correct heading.
Larry Crowley (Immediate-past Chair) spoke against the proposed revision since it makes the probationary period review of pre-tenured faculty a local departmental decision without a university expected minimum. For pre-tenure faculty, it means a large amount of trust being involved that the T&P process guidelines are followed in an objective way. A minimum of University expected conduct combined with collegial involvement and input from department faculty should be communicated at a time where corrective action by the pre-tenure faculty is still possible.
Rusty Wright (Fisheries) asked whether what applies to Department Heads and Chairs also applies to Directors of stand-alone schools. He would like to see an additional line for clarification that would reflect this distinction.
James Goldstein replied that this could stylistically clarified. It was meant for whoever is performing the review (Chair, Head or Director).
Since there were no further questions, Patricia Duffy called for a vote. The proposal passed.
2. Make-up Day Policy; Presenter: Robin Jaffe, Chair of Calendar and Schedules Committee
Robin Jaffe briefly went over the proposed policy for make-up days in case of emergency closure of the University (Make-up Day Policy (pdf), presentation (ppt)). Reading days will not be assigned to make-up days, so students will have those days for studying.
Questions: none
Patricia Duffy called for a vote. The motion to adopt the proposal passed.
3. Vote on Accepting the Report from the Ad Hoc Strategic Budgeting Committee; Presenter: Larry Teeter, Chair of Committee
Patricia Duffy remarked that voting on the report will mean accepting the report in favor of the Committee’s recommendations. Motions can be made to amend recommendation, to strike out some of the recommendations, strike out and replace language. Revised recommendations would be appended to this report. It is also possible to vote on items one by one.
Larry Teeter presented the recommendations from the committee (Final Report Presentation (pdf-works better) Final Report Presentation. (ppt from March 31) Overall AHSCSB committee recommendations (word)) and explained the fundamental thoughts behind each of the recommendations.
Patricia Duffy opened the floor for discussion
Henry Kinnucan (Agricultural Econ.& Rural Soc., Substitute Senator) said that the weights do not account for differences in undergraduate and graduate instruction and asked if the committee took the distinction in account with the proposed weighting scheme.
Larry Teeter replied that all data used on cost per student per student credit hour were from doctoral level institutions and based on departmental levels and that the Committee assumed the data had taken these into account. For Vet Med there were no data available in the Delawere study, so they were estimated based on the highest weight they had (Chemical Engineering).
Gwen Thomas (Polymer & Fiber Eng., Senator) said that according an article in the NY Times the major weight on costs is coming from middle level administration, but only academic programs will be held accountable. Small programs will disappear over time if they don’t produce enough students which will make Auburn University a non-spectacular institution with only common academic programs. The mission of a land-grant university is based on research, teaching, service and extension, but extension is not included in the model. Half the money that comes in via research is taken to fund a non-mission cost of the university that are not taxed in the same manner as the productive units. Equity will never be achieved. The report lacks data on administrative units. According to the NY Times non-mission units are growing much faster than productive units. The new budget model is only acceptable if the administrative cost is also included. (She handed her notes to Larry Teeter)
Muralikrishnan Dhanasekaran (Pharmacal Sciences, Senator) made a motion that health care professionals and all associated schools should not be included in the modified model. These include Vet Med, Pharmacy, and Nursing. The Delaware study does not provide data for Vet. Med., Medicine and Dentistry. The education in Pharmacy has dramatically changed. The budget for these schools should be redesigned. There are no available data from other universities. He would like to amend a motion for redesign to better capture the cost of clinical education.
Patricia Duffy asked for the exact amended motion that he wanted to make.
Muralikrishnan Dhanasekaran (Pharmacal Sciences, Senator) made the motion that the weighting of health care professions programs be redesigned to better capture the cost of the health care profession.
Patricia Duffy asked for a second to the recommendation (Sara Wolf, EFLT) before there can be discussion on the amendment (only the amendment, not the recommendation) to have special consideration for the units that have health care education.
Ed Youngblood (Comm. & Journalism, Senator) asked if it would mean to increase the weighting. The goal was to equalize things with weights.
Jada Kohlmeier (Curr. & Teaching, Senator) said that already many of the student and professional programs charge fees. Would the weights then be on top of these professional fees?
Larry Teeter replied that this seems not be directly related to the amendment. The amendment would suggest that medical related programs be kept outside a weighted model. These professional fees go straight to the colleges. Only allocable tuition is affected by weighting.
Rusty Wright (Fisheries, Senator) asked if the amendment would be a 5th recommendation with additional language.
Patricia Duffy confirmed. It would be additional language.
Calvin Johnson (Vet Med., Dean) said that the professional fees are included in the differential between revenue and expenditures and included in the calculation of the budget.
Larry Teeter replied that fees are not affected by any tuition allocation revenues. They are separate but they are included in the calculation and the deviation from the Mission Enhancement.
Calvin Johnson (Vet Med., Dean) concluded that there would be reason to exclude health care professions for that reason.
Hilary Wyss (English, Senator) had the concern that each college will come forward with amendments and would it be possible to cluster the amendments.
Brent Fox (Pharmacy, Senator) said that the Delaware data do not reflect pharmacy. Referring to
Ed Youngblood’s comment on increase, it is more about using accurate data to calculate weighting.
Ed Youngblood (Comm. & Journalism, Senator) returned to his previous question whether an increased weight should be used for pharmacy, not an adjusted weight. Would that weight fluctuate or would that weight go up?
Larry Teeter said that his understanding is that they wanted to be removed from the weighting, being pulled out of that portion of the calculation which means less of an allocation.
Patricia Duffy requested to have the Senator from Pharmacy clearly read the proposed statement to be added to the recommendation.
Muralikrishnan Dhanasekaran (Pharmacal Sciences, Senator) repeated that the amendment would be to redesign weighting for the health care professions (health, vet med, nursing) to better capture the cost.
Patricia Duffy emphasized that the recommendation is not to have one particular set of weights, only that a weighting system is recommended and two examples are given.
Wesley Lindsey (Pharmacy Practice, Senator) stated that the Delaware and the Texas data that have been used do not fit the health care professions well. The opportunity to present appropriate additional data would be appreciated for more accuracy if/when a weighting system is being adopted.
Patricia Duffy called for a vote (only on the amendment). The amendment was defeated.
The discussion on the original recommendations was then opened.
Larry Teeter emphasized that the first recommendation is to only adopt a weighting system and not a particular weighting system.
Tom Smith (Human Development and Family Studies, Senator) said that his department will vote to not accept the report because of the weighting. The Provost and consultants like Huron did not recommend weighting. Weighting will only chase weighting as could be seen from this short episode. Without weighting transparency would be enhanced.
Hilary Wyss (English, Senator) remarked that she would also like to speak against the first recommendation of weighting. The MEF fund is already in the RCM model and adding weighting would be redundant. The work of the committee could be directed towards making sure the MEF fund allocation is done in a way that makes people comfortable and supports what the University would like to see in place.
Patricia Duffy asked if Hilary Wyss would like to make a motion to remove Recommendation 1 and Hilary Wyss said yes.
Patricia Duffy called for a second and opened the floor for discussion on the motion to remove Recommendation 1 which involves weights.
Michael Stern (Economics, Senator) said that from an economic standpoint weighting should not be used because it is not the costs that are weighted. Salaries need to be paid and buildings and they are not weighted. He also supported to eliminate Recommendation 1.
Rusty Wright (Fisheries, Senator) on the other hand said that although there will be discussions, he would like to express support for a weighting system since a university is not a business and should not be run as such.
Jerod Windham (Industrial Design, Senator) agreed that weighting should be kept since it recognizes the difference in costs involved in educating students.
Conner Bailey (not a Senator) remarked that the absence of weighting is still a way of weighting. He thought that a system of transparent weighting is necessary as it makes the system more independent from a single person, like a specific Provost.
Bob Locy (Biology, Senator) supported Conner Bailey’s statement. He said that if weighting is removed, the discussion would be reverted back to the original model which is just a different form of weighting.
Hilary Wyss (English, Senator) repeated that the Committee could look into how the money to balance out things is allocated. She said she hoped faculty representation on the committee would be involved.
Patricia Duffy summarized that there is an amendment on the floor to remove Recommendation 1 and called for a vote. By a narrow margin the amendment to remove Recommendation 1 passed.
Pending Action Items
Information Item
Parking Changes for the Next Academic Year; Presenter: Don Andrae, Manager of Parking Services
Don Andrae explained that the major change in parking will be that license plate recognition will eliminate hangtags in fall with the license plate being the registration for the car. He also talked about Mell Street closure and the new fee structure and showed a map with parking zones. Non-conventional vehicles (e.g., golf carts) will also have to be registered with Parking Services. Presentation (ppt)
New Business: Patricia Duffy, Senate Chair
None
Unfinished Business: Patricia Duffy, Senate Chair
None
Adjournment: Patricia Duffy, Senate Chair at 5:05 P.M.