Cindy Brunner: So if I understand that correctly, the Board will be conducting the evaluation, they will not be consulting other groups. There won=t be faculty or outside agencies involved in that process?

Dr. Richardson: Well, you=ve raised a good question. Evaluations that have been conducted of me in other jobs, you certainly try to involve those that had some knowledge of your performance. Let me do as I said for Larry, in getting the Presidential search information to the Trustees, let me just...I=m assuming you=re recommending that and I=m sure others would, too-let me just put down there that has been recommended to me and I agree with that. I don=t know how far you can go out but some people wouldn’t=t even know my name, but for those that have some knowledge of that...I=ll recommend to them that others are involved. Good point.

Cindy Brunner: The reason I=m favoring that approach would be that would be consistent with virtually every other kind of evaluation of performance that we do where our teaching is evaluated in part by our students, our own administrators and our colleges are evaluated by the faculty and so on.

Dr. Richardson: That is consistent with my prior evaluations and others. Again, it=s just one of those things that I=m not directly involved in. I will certainly make that recommendation. I=ll make that known. Yes, sir?

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: Dr. Richardson, I read a lot of newspapers and I read almost everything connected with Auburn University and I think a few weeks ago, maybe even a few months ago, I think it was Paul Bailey who wrote a column and said a couple of trustees was thinking of removing the Interim title from you, making you permanent president. What if the Presidential Search Committee says that Ed Richardson is the best man for this job? Are you still going to remain true to what you originally said or will you say ‘Oh, maybe I changed my mind and I think I’ll take it’?

Dr. Richardson: Here’s the way I think it will work. I think there will be a courtesy, and I told Conner and Willie this the other day, to remove the Interim at the time the search starts, in other words, just a courtesy. But I would not recommend that occur before the search starts because beforehand implies that I am interested in becoming a full-time job and that is not my interest. I said when I came that it would take about a year for SACS, for the pattern of behavior and a year for the search, and we’re still on that schedule as far as I’m concerned. It is not my intention to pursue, but if they do remove it, just keep in mind that after the search deadlines have been established, it would be a courtesy while the search is being conducted, that’s all. They did the same for Wilford Bailey. Ok…sure, Conner.

Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: Dr. Richardson, I remember last December, you spoke to Dr. Larkin and me about this matter of the interim status of your office, and I don’t recall the precise time that you just stated, that it might happen at the initiation of a presidential search. I don’t remember that we spoke about such a time. I might suggest that removing the interim title from your office at that time might have an adverse effect on the search and that doing, removing the interim status from your title would be best accomplished once a successful search has been concluded…

Dr. Richardson: I think I would agree…

Conner Bailey: …there would be a period of three months or six months, some period of time before the successful candidate comes here, I think that would be, I’d hate to do anything and I’m sure you’d hate to do anything that would adversely affect a successful national search.

Dr. Richardson: I think that’s a good suggestion and I certainly have no problem…it doesn’t matter if they leave interim to tell you the truth. But that, the only two or three, I think, as a courtesy, were suggesting that, but that’s not what needs to be done. But I think your suggestion perhaps once a search has been nailed and then as a courtesy afterwards, I think that probably makes a lot of sense and absolutely no problem with that, if they choose to do it. Now after we get into some of these other things, they may wish to move more quickly than I just led you to believe. Your stock goes up or down.

Again, to move to the next item, if there are no other questions on that, legislative items-I spent some time in Montgomery yesterday on that. The University of Alabama people as well as our own legislative people and I wanted to just give you a brief update. If we, and I talked with the Governor yesterday and the Finance Director today, it appears and what I’m always concerned about in this type of environment, people can change the projected revenue growth by ½ percent and suddenly you no longer have $70 million dollars, and so you have to watch for how these games are played and just as a point of reference for future consideration, it’s been quite common for twenty years for people within the Finance Department to stop collections sometime in early September in terms of paying bills, not so much collections, but paying bills and then to carry that to the end of the fiscal year to give the appearance of having a very large balance. Then you have to pay the bills. So just you have to keep in mind that it’s almost a shell game in the figures, so that’s why you have to stay very close and I think we all understand that this is a rather volatile economy; volatile in this sense means pretty good because our corporate and individual income taxes collections have greatly exceeded anyone’s predictions and as I have talked with people as late as today, it appears that there were about 25,000 well-paid jobs that have been added to the Alabama economy and that’s contributed to it somewhat. But it’s hard to explain the great increases that we’ve had, although the money’s in the bank.

Let me make a couple of summary statements. Our plan, which by the way was approved by all university presidents, every one, including post-secondary, which are the junior colleges, and this came about after I’d been meeting with the University of Alabama Chancellor, Dr. Patera, and we’ve worked, we’ve decided that if we can go together, both of us would be greatly strengthened and we would have a much better chance within the Legislature. But the items we listed in terms of fringe benefits, salary items, supplemental allocations, would equally benefit other institutions of higher ed, so as you get into it, to know, and that’s why they all agreed to it. Now I say that, because we already had two that got cold feet for some reason, they thought they could get more if they didn’t join the group. I would simply say to you, that I anticipate in the heat of the last part of April and early May, that you’ll probably see some other defections. But I just wanted you to know that what we’ve done is fair to everyone. If we get 75% of the allocations, so does everybody else. So I wanted you to be aware of that.

Let me talk about two items. Never before have we included in a budget a line item of sorts for salary increases for higher education. And that is critically important to us for several reasons. One, it increases the amount of money but two, it sets a precedent that when other salary increases are put forward, that higher education will not be overlooked. Now we have had, about four years ago, some money that was put into the General Fund budget for the universities and then the universities were instructed to pay salaries with some of that. What we’re saying here is, here’s an item to say, and the Governor’s budget is a 4%; now that doesn’t mean that everyone gets 4% across the board like K-12; it simply means that we will follow the same procedure but that amount of money will be there for salary increases. So it’s going to make Don Large’s job a lot easier, and it’s going to make a lot of other peoples’ jobs a lot easier and I think salary increases will be greater as a result of that. It is quite common even in the last year of a quadrennial, which comes up this next time for an election year that also smaller raises are offered together. So if we get this line item in here, no matter what the percentage turns out to be, we will be in a position to keep that in the line item, keep it in the appropriations bill and higher education, I think, will be well served.

Another item we worked on yesterday was a supplemental. That probably doesn’t mean a thing to you other than I would summarize it in this way and that higher education was the only institution in education last year that did not get a full allocation for health benefits, and as a result, I think John you told me it’s $2 or $3 million dollars, is that correct, is that still, did I remember that right, $2.5 million, that we had to eat $2.5 million dollars. Well, if you equated that, that’s about a 2% salary increase or a 2% tuition increase, either way you want to go, roughly. So we, a supplemental then would allow us to make up that. And I believe, one, that will increase the base of our appropriations for subsequent years and it will also enable us to do even better for the next year, the next academic year. If we hold on to the funds, and I believe we have enough clout at this point to do that, I can safely say to you it would be the best budget for higher education in the last two decades. But I would remind you that this is our ground-breaking year and that’s why it’s symbolic that we get the item like salary increase and so forth in there-salary line item-but I also remind you that this will have to be sustained every year. What we’re trying to convey is a message that higher education cannot just be trampled as it has been in the past and that we have the clout and we’re going to stay together. I assure you that Auburn and Alabama are going to stay together, and as a result, I believe, we will have enough clout between the two of us to present a very good budget to the trustees during the June meeting. The session ends around the 16^th of May, so we’ll know by our June 17^th meeting.

I just would also say that I wanted to comment Chancellor Patera, University of Alabama; he’s been a real champ. We’ve worked together and he stuck with us on this agenda and I would tell you that they’re far more adept at securing funding from the legislature than Auburn has ever been, so actually I had more to gain than he did, but he’s worked together, we’ve been united, where we go we go together and meet with the people. He’s worked very hard for that and so I’m very pleased that that’s going to cement and we’ll be able to maintain our clout in the future.

One other item I would say and then I’ll end this one is that we’re also working as hard as we can to expand our presence in Washington. We’ve already sent a couple of people up there to see what it’s going to take. I think all of you can look at the budget recommendations and can readily determine that that’s going to be more difficult and more competitive over the next several years, but I believe that if we have a stronger presence there and are known and can put our agenda items on the table early, that it would increase the likelihood of Auburn working together. Alabama, again, has been there and had a much higher level presence, particularly through UAB than we have. That’s why they’ve been much more successful than we have been, but I believe that we can go together. I would say to you that we have combined our offices in Montgomery, both Auburn and Alabama are in the same office, and we have not had a fight yet and although they beat us by 41 points in the last basketball game, if you’ll remember, but nevertheless, I think that has reduced our cost of operation and it also brings us together in the planning process and I’m very optimistic about that. So I stop at that point with the legislative efforts. Again, that’s very optimistic and I’m very, I’m confident, that we’ll be able to maintain most of those. Ready for me to go on?

Let me just mention a couple of other items. Oh, ok. I guess you thought I was through. Ok, thank you. I’ll speed it up.

Moving right along. Initiatives-I’m not going to bring those up again. You’ve heard those 50 times already. I simply want to remind you there’s one additional development for the April 22^nd meeting. As you can see, that’s taking a structure that was rather going to be more comprehensive than I thought, with evaluation and different issues.

We have a group down in Gulf Shores today that are working with our proposal to do the development for the Gulf Shore State Park. It has tremendous educational research, development of additional funds; it has great potential in that regard, and I remain hopeful that we will have something with which to report on April the 17^th. That’s the deadline I mentioned when I met last with the Governor and the Commissioner on Natural Resources and Conservation. Since I’ve been in this discussion now for little over a year, I wanted to know, prior to my April 22^nd trustee meeting, are we going to do this or not, and I’m quite optimistic that will happen.

The Research Park-Mike Moriarty-I won’t go into that. Mike has moved that along very well and I’m very optimistic about the success of that and he’s got some good people on that board and so I, by the way, has a position originally but I recommended that we put Mike on there as Vice President of Research. I thought that would be more appropriate and that he would be more likely to attend and be attuned so he’s representing the President’s Office in that regard. So I anticipate very good things from the Research Park.

The Airport governance is another issue that’s probably not of high interest but there will be some recommendations from the consulting firm that will be ready. Don Large is coordinating that. I think, Don, will be ready for that.

Friday is the deadline for the leaders of these three groups to report to me, in which I can then fashion the major recommendations that I will make. I would say to you that we will add another item to the April 22^nd meeting and that is the Strategic Plan. And I’ll give you some reasons why. Bill Sauser is working on that design. He’s subjected himself to constructive criticisms now on two occasions and I’m not sure he would recognize the original product that he submitted, but he’s doing good work in that regard. I would say there are several reasons why I think this is important and again, if you keep in mind the original motivation for having these initiatives in terms of institutional control; that it would provide focus direction for trustee planning in the future. That is, the plans are on the table. We know where we’re going, everybody does and I think that would be helpful. It will identify priorities for our legislative efforts, and just in case you did not hear me speak previously to this meeting, we started our discussions on priorities in July. We hit the legislative leaders starting in October. So you don’t have as long as you usually think you do. So that will be good timing, I think, for that.

Also, and I think one of our trustees mentioned this, one of our newest trustees mentioned this, that would also be very helpful in identifying some of the qualities that the new president would need upon being selected. These are the priorities; this is what type person it’s going to be. Now this doesn’t mean that’s going to be the standard, but it would be helpful in identifying the qualities for the next president. Our goal would be to finish it by the end of the calendar year. All groups will be involved in that, and I think that it will allow us to do a better of job of connection, to which I previously referred to by using the word disconnected.

June 17^th is going to be a very heavy meeting, and so I will instruct, ask the Board to be prepared to stay for a while, so this will be a long discussion. If we can get some of the committee meetings, it may be necessary to have those on the Thursday preceding, which will be the 16^th, so I just alert you to that possibility. So if that occurs, then you will know that the 17^th is going to be a day, a full day, in order to get through by mid-afternoon, we might have to start that morning. I anticipate some substantial recommendations that will come in the area of Agriculture, and major recommendations there. Auburn-Auburn Montgomery, which will be major recommendations there, not nearly as frightening as some of the people heading the committees say, at AUM, would lead you to believe. Then our academic review, which really won’t be as substantive as the other two because of what I can accomplish by the 17^th; it will be in subsequent months but not at that point. Those will all involve some major recommendations. I would also remind you that’s the time when we elect the trustee officers and committees are appointed and also it will be time to release our 2^nd Conflict of Interest Statements from the Board of Trustees. So I anticipate that all of that will occur on the 17^th. Any question on the initiatives?

Next item that I have deals with diversity. We, as you know, now have a plan and I think it has great potential. Dr. Larkin and others have also submitted a second plan and I have reviewed that and I anticipate that by folding those in together and I will be meeting with those groups to make sure that I understand some of the priorities, as soon as we move the Provost selection out of the way, then I anticipate making diversity a major piece for the Strategic Plan. The reason for that is simple because if we come up with recommendations, you will not accomplish all of those in one year. It will take a sustained effort over a period of time and I would anticipate that by making specific recommendations in regard to a number of areas, including diversity, the Board then locks itself in to following those recommendations even after I’m gone. So I think that’s what you will see and you will see some immediate steps taken, but also the idea of folding it into the Strategic Planning process which I think will lead to a long-term plan of sustained progress. Any question on that? Diversity-it is a commitment. I’m going to make it a high priority and I think you’ll see some movement as soon as we can.

I think I’ll save one other item later. Let me go to construction. I’m certainly not going to bore you with the detail of construction. I just want to identify two or three items that will be coming up for consideration. A couple of those you may have an interest: space utilization. I tell you with considerable embarrassment, this university has no such plan. ‘If you have the money, we’ll build the building and we don’t know what we’re going to do with this other building, but we’ll think of something’-that’s basically our plan as it stands now. That’s why I have John Mouton-I don’t know if John’s here, he followed me a great distance, he was behind me…still at the back row. Thank you, John-but John is working very hard on that and I believe that’s going to lead us to how to be able to decide how much space and what type of space our academic programs need-office space and all of that’s included. And then if we have additional space elsewhere, we have two Forestry buildings now or whatever, then we’ll be able to decide on how we’re going to use the other building. Therefore, maybe we don’t have to put as much of our money into construction and indebtedness that goes with that, but that we can better utilize the space we have and maintain the space. That’s going to create some heartburn for particularly the Deans, right Dan? Because every dean is just like, on homes if you have a garage, at one time you could park your car in there and now you can’t get a car close to it and I would say it’s the same thing about space, it just has a tendency to fill up. But we will make additional space that we may have available and if the Deans wish to rent that space, they will be able to do that. There’s always going to be a give and take as to what’s adequate. And so we’re just going to have to move as softly as we can, but we’ll also have to make sure we have some standards to begin with. So space utilization hopefully will be ready to go by next fall. Obviously that doesn’t mean we suddenly say, since I picked on Dan a while ago of Architecture, Dan Bennett, that you have to get out of these rooms, that won’t be happening. But we’ll say to Dan for the next year it looks like you’ve got more space than you need. I’m not sure that’s the case, Dan. It’s not the case, huh? Well, what about this new Building Sciences building? Do you need all that space? Ok, alright.

Parking deck-we are now pretty well convinced that we need a parking deck for the south part of the stadium which will help us because we hope, before I leave here, that the student center would start and be coming out of the ground and we need that parking deck in order to take up the parking spaces that we’ll lose with some of that so again, Mr. Mouton is working very hard on that.

It will be a concept that the trustees will consider this spring, probably in April, and that is whether or not we want to have freshmen to live on campus. That being the case and I’ve forgotten the number that John gave, but it’s a 1000-1400 additional dorms-is that right, John? Is that somewhere within the range?-and so I wanted you to know that’s a policy issue, and if the policy issue is affirmative, yes we want to, we’ve got several choices. We just reserve the space we currently have for freshmen and upperclassmen don’t get to stay as much or we build additional dorms or some combination, that sort of thing. There’s a lot of improvements that have to be done in some of the existing dorms, so some will be down while we’re finding space for others. So I just wanted to know that concept will be discussed and I’ll alert you to that. No decision has been made in that regard, but it would obviously involve a massive construction project over a several year period in order to accommodate such an idea.

You’ll also increasingly hear about a North Auburn Plan. If I remember correctly, we have about 3500 acres in North Auburn and as we try to plan on how we can effectively utilize that space, primarily for the Agricultural interests and the Research Park, where we have the chicken buildings, poultry buildings, 25 or 30 of those there, if those are relocated, which at some point will have to be relocated, then we want to make sure we have a plan for North Auburn and say this is the best place to go and it doesn’t accommodate other research and other institutions so we’ll work on that north plan. So you’ll hear about the North Auburn plan, which is trying to make sure we effectively utilize that space toward decisions that will be made in the future. Anything on construction?

One small item that I would offer is that student enrollment appears to be strong for next year, which again reflects on the academic programs for which you should take credit. And we believe that in attracting again as many as we do out of state, and the standards continuing to go up, that I think Auburn has positioned itself for the future. So I just hope, and this is my assessment and you may agree or disagree, we now find ourselves in a more positive, more trusting environment and I believe this will better enable us to position Auburn for the future. I want to again thank you for your commitment to Auburn for both the past and the present and for committing to the future improvement of the university. So, Dr. Larkin that is finally it.

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Not so fast!

Dr. Richardson: Time’s up! You had a chance, Cindy, and you missed it!

Cindy Brunner: You’ve raised a new question…

Dr. Richardson: Ok.

Cindy Brunner: I’m interested in the issue of the North Auburn plan. I have colleagues at the Vet School and in Agriculture who have major research commitments up there and I’m wondering who will be responsible for developing the North Auburn Plan?

Dr. Richardson: Well, keep in mind I brought that up as a concept. We believe that is in our best interests. Obviously, it’s going to take a number of academic areas to participate in that. John Mouton will be sort of spearheading it, bringing the various groups who have an interest in that property and how we would use it, but again, that’s a concept to which we have not agreed upon yet, but I’m anticipating that it will be accepted and John is there anything you want to add to that? Ok, let…Dr. Brunner, I think he can better answer that than I, but what I’m trying to say is that, for instance, with the Poultry buildings there and the Research Park, we need, that’s a strong program and we need to support it, but we need to, let’s say if we go out here we’ve got 3500 acres, it looks like you could put it anywhere, and that may effect Fisheries and other things so we’ve got to make sure we do this wisely and obviously the faculty-Vet, Ag, Forestry, all of those-will have to be involved, and Wildlife Management.

John Mouton: I will mention two things about it. One is that we can’t grow until we have infrastructure-water, power, the rest of it distributed and without a plan, we don’t have a way to start developing an infrastructure to support it. Number Two, a huge portion of that land is watershed for the fisheries, and that has to be protected. That’s a very high agenda item and so what happens is that you start to finding the limitations and make sure they’re clear so that they can be communicated to people that are interested in land use as to what the priorities are. So the real first thing is developing guided principles for the land use out there and once that’s done, then you can start to develop the infrastructure to create opportunities out there.

Cindy Brunner: So who will be developing the guiding principles for the use of the land?

John Mouton: We bring in Sasaki and Associates, who’s the same people who did the master plan for the main campus and then all the user groups that are out there will participate in the process and have their input bought forward.

Dr. Richardson: It won’t be a sneak attack. I didn’t realize that we were going to use Sasaki, but they’re as good as you can get and obviously the groups, the academic groups, have to be involved. But there are some limitations, as John said, on the watershed. Yes, sir, Dr. Penaskovic?

Richard Penaskovic, Philosophy: I have been involved or associated over a 40-year period with 8 different colleges and universities and this is the only one on a regular basis gets negative press. And I think you’re concerned about this, too. I remember before Christmas, before we got off SACS probation, you went around to the different editorial boards asking them why we keep getting a black eye in the media and I wonder, if, in regard to the firings, for example, we recently settled with Betty DeMent for $316,000.00 or so. We settled with the Provost; is this good use of state money? I wonder, to pay people off or could we come up with a better way of doing this? And I’m also wondering in regard to staff, that I know in corporations and businesses they usually give a verbal warning and then three written warnings before a person is let go. Would that, if we did something like this for people who didn’t have tenure, would this cut down on the negative press and lawsuits? And I say this because I needed $7,000.00 to hire two adjuncts to teach Religious Studies courses in the fall. We had 25-30 students in each class and the Provost’s Office can’t come up with this money, and yet I see the spending of millions of dollars on these other buy-outs and all and I say, what gives?

Dr. Richardson: There’s several questions embedded there. They’re all very good questions and I can’t speak to why $7,000.00 can’t be found. That’s a rather small amount in the budget that’s allocated to the Provost, so maybe he didn’t think that’s what needed to be done. I can’t answer that. But that doesn’t, that’s not critical. In dealing with settlements, there are two things. One, the firings aren’t quite as negative as you would think. In fact, probably more positive; that’s probably more of an attitude of people of public sector. I’m not saying that’s good. But the settlements are extremely negative and as I speak to various clubs around and various civic groups and so forth, they sort of look at you out of the corner of the eye, like ‘What’s wrong with you?’ I would tell you this will be a recommendation that I will make in June is that there have been some unwritten precedents set about how this university operated in terms of the settlements that were forwarded, administrators who were on tenured status at some other college, and I’ve got to deal with that in a way that brings a little more coherence to it, more clearly stated and not as costly. Now in terms of ones I’ve been dealing with are administrators and they serve at the pleasure of the President. I would say, and I guess I’ll just go ahead and say it ‘cause I’m assuming I’ll get it later anyway, currently the Ag Dean is on administrative leave. So I would say to you that the lack of a policy has led us to expend a great deal of money. In terms of Mrs. DeMent, I won’t bore you with all the details of the prior offer which equated to that, but I would tell you that our insurance covered all, it still cost us 200, but the insurance covered the rest of it. So I’d hoped that we would have been through that, but I’ll have to tell you that’s been a disappointment to me as late as last week where I’m having to make decisions in that regard. So I would tell you that we will have a policy that will better define how we govern. I would hope that the number of dismissals, particularly at the level in which I have an interest would diminish. I would have thought that they would have been through and it is not a good use of money to have to spend it in that way to concede your point.

Richard Penaskovic: Thank you, Dr. Richardson.

Dr. Richardson: Thank you.

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry/Biochemistry: Just a couple of quick things. Number One, while you were talking to us, I was checking and I’d emailed you about the second report on the Conflict of Interest to SACS. That’s still not posted. I can tell you, I checked it just now and could show you right on the web, right here, it’s still not currently posted. We only have the McMahon-Gray posted.

Dr. Richardson: Tell me what I need to do. Tell me what’s missing here. I want to make sure I understand.

Rik Blumenthal: When you click to the Conflict of Interest reports, you get the McMahon-Gray followed up by the Weary letter, but you do not get, I don’t know, this other. You said you have two independent ones…

Dr. Richardson: Those are the two.

Rik Blumenthal: I thought you had two independent ones and Weary; you said two and one confirming…

Dr. Richardson: Weary, McMahon and Gray.

Rik Blumenthal: McMahon and Gray…

Dr. Richardson: Those are the two….

Rik Blumenthal: Are those the two? And Weary. Ok, I misunderstood. I thought there was a McMahon and Gray, Weary as the confirming and then there was some other outside agency.

Dr. Richardson: No. There was a lot of confusion. I had hoped-I actually talked to a consulting company in Chicago about doing this once I found out it was necessary. They told me they could not get through in February. If you remember, about two weeks before the deadline, SACS called and said ‘You’ve got to have it in.’ So I just have not gone back to that group. So at one time there was another group, I just couldn’t make the timeline.

Rik Blumenthal: Ok, so that was my misunderstanding. The other question is just sort of a point, and you talked about the space and how we’re going to utilize the space that’s now subspace that’s becoming available as new buildings are being occupied. At one point the university had a University Committee on space allocation. I do not know if that still exists, once again I was searching for that as I was standing here and could not find any evidence that it still exists. I do know that I was on that committee for three straight years and it never met. Again, a sign of lack of shared governance or participation or ability to participate by the other groups on campus. I don’t know how you’re planning to handle it, but I would recommend that if it doesn’t exist now, the standing Committee for Space Allocation, maybe we need to have that again and let some faculty members be on the committee, some A & P, some staff. Have a committee that looks at it and has a chance to say ‘This is a good idea. This is a bad idea.’ Of course, the decision still lie with the upper administration but it’s nice to at least have a podium to express your opinion and to feel like you have some input.

Dr. Richardson: Well, you mentioned shared governance. Keep in mind, administration hasn’t done anything either so nobody has met. That’s why we’ve got a problem and I think the committee needs to meet because there are some unique differences among academic programs to which I or others might not be sensitive. In other words, it may take more space or things, equipment within the space and I think that committee should be. I don’t think Dr. Heilman is down with the Gulf Shores group-he’s not here-so I made that notation and I think that committee should be formed and I think that will be very helpful in our deliberations. Yes, I’ll do it.

Rik Blumenthal: Thank you.

Werner Bergen, Animal Sciences: Yes, Dr. Richardson, two items that comes up all the time when faculty in the College and allied fields assemble: Ag reorganization and what the hell has happened to our Dean? So I just want to make a comment on the first, on the second one, I just want to note that most of the faculty that I know in the college really like the Dean and liked where he was going with priorities. We have no idea what else is going on, ok. But what I do want to ask you about is we have now such a lack of leadership and a vacuum of leadership in the college with this presidential commission and the large reorganization of Agriculture, how is this serving us and how is this going to work out, once you think about the fact that you don’t have that person to lean on?

Dr. Richardson: Sure, that’s a very good point. Obviously I can’t be as precise as you would like for me to be. I was involved in recommending the employment of Dean Weiss. I personally like him. There are due process proceedings that we must allow to unfold and I think the details will become clear in the future. It has created a big problem for me, one that you identified in leadership. The Ag initiative is one of my main initiatives. I mean, it’s just not great timing. So, I think once we go into the due process and it becomes more widely known, I think you will see why the decision was necessary. No final decision has been made as to whether he would step down or whatever. As I said, due process is under way. We are doing the best we can in terms of assigning three or four people, some day to day operation, like Bill Hardy and Bill Souser, I’ve forgotten the others. John Jensen is also there as to, he’s not the Dean obviously, we still have a dean, but is there to try to fill in a short period of time. I anticipate that this decision will need to be made in the short term but I cannot predict how long the due process will take. There are a couple of steps that are out of my control and I’ll just have to let that unfold. So it could last as long as this semester, to tell you the truth. Not great timing, not what I wanted, it just required that decision, I’m confident of that.

Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: If I may follow up on that question. It’s been approximately three weeks since Dr. Weiss has been out of office. How is this affecting the ability of the university to come forward with a plan for restructuring Agriculture?

Dr. Richardson: It didn’t help. I would say that my presidential assistant, John Jensen, had the major leadership role in that regard and John’s going ahead, all head full. I think though that when you look at trying to bring the various groups together and you’ve got a void here, obviously that creates a bit of a problem. The deadline for those first three, which don’t pertain to Agriculture, the deadline is this Friday and somewhere around mid-May for Agriculture and the other two, so I’m going to have to work through this. Obviously the Provost, that again, was not great timing either, but it was the best time that I had available to me and it may be that we have to more narrowly define what we can reasonably do by the 17^th. That would probably be the best option. I don’t want to concede, but that probably will be most likely.

Herb Rotfeld, Marketing: I have a similar question of who’s in charge, but dealing with something of maybe more trivial but of great interest to many people on campus, namely, parking, which was a very entertaining thing we had here. That last meeting that discussed the parking plan was just before Dr. Curtis left office, and some other things were raised to her and she simply said that she’ll pass them on to the Parking Committee. As a member of the committee, he has no idea who’s in charge or who’s doing such things and they haven’t met since she left office and I’ll give you one example of the concerns that relates to your own concerns of changes to the campus. As we’ve had all this construction and we’ve talked about pedestrianizing the campus, the one type of parking that’s been obliterated with construction and not replaced in style, format, or approach is parking for bicycles and motorcycles. We have signs all over the place, Bicycles can’t park here, but there’s no place where they can park. There are, last spring there were approximately 200, according to the police, about 220 motorcycles registered on campus. My own counts of motorcycle parking, given the new construction, motorcycle parking on the north side of campus is approximately down to 12 spaces, give or take. I have a colleague with a motorcycle that costs more than most of our cars and he says that if he can’t get a space, he’ll just pull into a regular space and show them his yellow tag. Motorcycle parking is like three motorcycles for each car space, it’s a nice advantage to have more of us coming that way. But again, who’s in charge? Who do we report this to? Who is it discussed with? As I said, leaving my own self-interest of the two-wheeled motor vehicles out of it, my students just come in carrying parts of their motorcycles or their bicycles because there’s no place to put them, they can’t lock them up.

Dr. Richardson: Well, obviously parking is a pain and I understand that. Let me ask, John, again, this is not your assignment, in terms of parking, is there anything we can offer that will inform so that he’ll at least know more than I, I can tell you that. He’s shaking his head….

John Mouton: Herb, what my response to you is that for a long time on this campus we did not do planning and got way behind the curve and looking at the number of spaces that we have, the ones that were taken out and that we’re building, and the problem is that there is a significant leave time in getting it done. And certainly in the transition there were some things lost. We have a strategy from which to develop a plan. We’ve been working on it about five weeks now, working out to encourage bicycles, to encourage motorcycles and the rest of it. We are now on the verge of getting ready to reengage the people, but all I can tell you is that parking is not, I’m not going to raise the rest of them to get the questions, there’s other planning issues that are as critical and far behind as planning for parking is right now and we’re moving aggressively on and coming up with some strategies. One of the things that we had a discussion on the other day, sometimes there’s some things that we’re pulling together right now that we don’t have the final pieces that we’re negotiating that don’t involve the university, but anyway, we will let the, on the 21^st the day before the Board of Trustees’ meeting, we will have a strategy that we’ll roll out to the Properties and Facilities Committee and I’ll see to it that it’s on the web that day or the day before.

Dr. Richardson: Thank you, John, that’s informative. I didn’t know that either.

Herb Rotfeld: One small follow up to that. I started with the question of who’s in charge in terms of parking. We do have shared governance, we do have a committee concerned with that and is there, does it just go through John now? Is there no faculty committee involved? Is the Senate involved?

John Mouton: There is a faculty committee and we have all the data that has come to them and has come forth. Nobody has assembled it into a plan, Herb. At some point, we have to stop and say ‘What do we have and how do we assemble it and where are the problems and which direction are we going?’ We’ve got studies that they’ve given us and other things, but it has to be assimilated, you can’t just jump. Do you have a question about Facilities?

Dr. Richardson: Captain Williams, yes sir…

Captain Tom Williams, Naval ROTC: I wasn’t going to bring this up, but since Herb brought up parking, I thought I would anyway. With closing Thach and pedestrianizing the central campus, trying to divert traffic away from the central campus, it doesn’t make much sense to me to put a parking structure on the south end of the stadium, which is pretty much the central campus and have directed traffic back in there. It seems to me there ought to be a better place for a parking structure than the south end of the stadium if we wanted to divert traffic away from the central campus.

Dr. Richardson: Ok. I would say…go ahead, John, if you would. You might as well just stay there if you would.

John Mouton: What I’m going to tell you is that there was one plan that had seven parking structures on campus with the theory of park and walk. Ok, from the diminished I realize that it looks like the center of campus, but most of what is west of there is athletic fields. From an academic standpoint, it is on the perimeter. But one of the strategies is to build Park and Walk so that people and park and walk in. The other strategy is to build up the perimeter. We will probably build a second parking structure, I don’t think that we’re going to build seven, and we’re going to do remote parking with connections where people can come in on their bikes, walk, transit and anyway, that location for parking structure because of the density of faculty at COSAM and at the Haley Center in that area. It provides some parking for faculty and for employees in that area. There’s some real logic to it. I will say this, the student center is going in that vicinity, the transit station is going to be part of the student center, we that will create some critical mass for both of the projects and hopefully reduce the student cars on campus and create a need for some of the parking areas.

Dr. Richardson: Good. Thank you. Any other questions that you have? Again, thank you so much for all you’ve done.

Dr. Larkin: Thank you. Very quickly, I want to go back up to the top and handle a special called meeting minutes-November 30. You should have had an opportunity to review those on the web. I’ll entertain a motion to approve those minutes, if you will. Thank you, Conner. Conner Bailey motions, second by Bill Souser. Any discussion? Those in favor, please indicate by saying Aye. Opposers, nay. Those minutes are approved. Before I make my farewell remarks, I’d like to ask Dr. Ruth Crocker to come forward and present the AAUP Academic Freedom Award. We always present this award during this last faculty meeting and as soon as she has completed that, I will make my final closing remarks. Oh, I’m sorry. That is a good thing. Perhaps I wanted to stay longer and just didn’t want to make that announcement. Faculty officer election results-May 15, 2005. Chair-elect: Richard Penaskovic. Secretary-elect: Kathryn Flynn. Congratulations, everyone. (Applause) Ok, Dr. Crocker, I think you can come now without objection.

Dr. Ruth Crocker: Thank you, Dr. Larkin. Every year at this time, AU Chapter of the American Association of University Professors presents the Academic Freedom Award to a person who had demonstrated high ethical standards and professionalism and had made a significant contribution to advocating, protecting and extending academic freedom at the university. A committee was appointed to receive nominations for this award and I’d like to first thank my fellow committee members: Robin Jaffe, Theater, and Evelyn Creighton, Extension, for serving on this committee. I’m delighted to announce that this year’s winner of the Academic Freedom Award is Gary Mullen, Professor in the Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology. One letter of nomination for Gary said of him, quote: “His courageous defense of principles of integrity as Senate Chair during the James Martin-Charles Curran era and his more recent period as Chair of the AU Chapter of AAUP make him truly deserving of this award.” This writer praised Gary for his, quote, “informative and clear-headed letters to the editor at a time when strong advocacy on behalf of the faculty was sorely needed.” Gary, it’s my very great pleasure to present you with this well-deserved award and congratulations. (Applause)

Gary Mullen: Don’t panic, I’m not going to make a speech! Needless to say, I am indeed honored by receiving this and I’m especially pleased, certainly being recognized by one’s colleagues and peers. We have a great chapter of AAUP and I’m just honored to stand among those who have previously been recognized by this particular award, several who are here today, and indeed, something I will certainly cherish. Thank you. (Applause)

Dr. Larkin: I’ve titled my closing remarks “Lessons learned, Observations made, and Challenges for the Future”.

The time has gone by so quickly. I had three personal goals when I assumed the role of Chair of the Auburn University Faculty and Senate. Number one, I did not want the stress and strain associated with this job to cause me to have a heart attack. Luckily, it did not. As far as I know, I’m very healthy and look forward to being so for many years to come. Second, I did not want to lose any of my closest friends. I’m proud to report that I have same the number of best friends I started out with and actually have picked up a considerable number of additional ones during the course of the year. Third, I didn’t want to get so wrapped up in the duties and responsibilities of being Chair that it would cause me to have problems in my marriage. I’m happy to report that Vivian is still with me, and for her love and support during this past year, I would like to give her a bouquet of red roses. Stephanie, you can come down and pick them up and give them to her or you can get them at the end. I want to thank her for her encouragement and her good advice. We always talked at night about what I was going to be doing the next day to make this time hurry along. We still make a great team for Auburn University, Vivian and also for the community.

Additionally, I would like to quickly express my thanks to several other people for their contributions to the Senate Leadership Team’s s