Transcript Auburn
University Senate Meeting
March 7, 2006
3:00 p.m.
Dr. Conner
Bailey: Good
afternoon. IÕd like to call to
order the March meeting of this august body of the University Senate of Auburn
University. IÕll remind senators
to please check in at the back and initial where appropriate. People who are substitutes, please
indicate your name and who youÕre substituting for. WeÕll allow the normal process-anybody who is employed at Auburn
University thatÕs represented in this body-which is pretty much everybody at
the university-has the privilege of the floor at the appropriate time. If there are many people who wish to
speak on a particular item, weÕll ask that senators be given the opportunity to
speak first, to try to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak. When you do speak, please go to one of
the microphones at the side, identify yourself by name and department, tell us
whether you are a senator or not.
Minutes of the
February 14th meeting of the Senate has been posted and distributed. IÕd entertain a motion to adopt these
minutes as approved. I see Tony
Moss approved and Howard Thomas second.
Any discussion? Seeing
none, we ask for a vote in favor.
Signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay. Hearing none,
these minutes are approved.
Dr. Richardson
could not be with us today. He
will be with us, however, a week from today, which is the meeting of the
University Faculty in this same room.
HeÕll be giving the State of the University Address at that time. Dr. Heilman is, however, with us and
has a few remarks from the administration to share with us. Dr. Heilman.
Dr. John
Heilman, Provost: Thank
you very much, Conner. Good
afternoon. I expect what I say may
anticipate some things that Dr. Richardson will say next week and IÕll keep the
remarks brief. I spoke with him
about a comment or remarks that might be made to the Senate today. He called attention to the April 13
& 14 meetings of the Board of Trustees, indicated his expectation that Dr.
Kuhnle will be present. As I believe
youÕre aware, thereÕs a committee of the Board charged by Mr. McWhorter with
looking, reviewing the Fisher Report.
That committee will be conducting a review of that report prior to the
April 14th meeting. I
believe there will be discussion by that committee of that report at that
meeting with attention in particular to those recommendations that relate to a
presidential search. Also at that
meeting, Dr. Large, who I do not believe was able to be here, will be
discussing the university budget.
I believe Don met with one of the governance groups this morning and
talked a bit about where that is-Staff Council. I expect at that meeting also there will be a discussion of
Assessment of Learning Outcomes by Drew Clark. I expect Dr. Richardson will also address matters related to
Auburn University System, related to AUM and this campus and will also speak in
general terms to his expectations about scheduling with respect to Academic
Program Review and Post Tenure Review-those review processes to be tested during
the coming academic year and not in this year.
At the June
meeting of the Board there would be Dr. RichardsonÕs annual report and I
believe at that time he also expects to speak about the Ag
Initiative/Initiative for Alabama.
ThatÕs sort of
what I think the expectations are for these meetings at this time. ThatÕs what I have to go on and can
respond to questions.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you, John. Are there any questions for Dr. Heilman
at this time?
Tony Moss,
Biological Sciences:
Hello Dr. Heilman. Minutes before
I came here, a notice went around our department indicating that there might be
a staff/faculty program of giving, is that correct, at the university. Do you know anything about this?
Dr. Heilman: Thank you. IÕm sorry I donÕt-I think I understand your question but I
do not know the answer to it. I
will try to get thatÉ
Tony Moss: It was literally just minutes before I
came.
Dr. Heilman: I donÕt know. I will find out and IÕll communicate back to the Senate
leadership if thatÕs agreeable.
Thank you.
Dr. Bailey: Are there any other questions for Dr.
Heilman? If not, John, thank you
very much.
This is from
Charlie Gross. There is a birthday
party this evening-250th birthday of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
Before I begin
my comments from the Chair, IÕd like the privilege of the Chair to invite Dr.
Willie Larkin to come forward for a couple of minutes. Dr. Larkin said he had a couple of
comments that he would like to make.
He has served this body and this university well over the years-heÕs
been Secretary to the University Senate, heÕs been Chair-elect, heÕs been
Chair, and heÕs now completing his term of service as the Immediate Past Chair
of the University Faculty Senate.
Dr. Larkin.
Dr. Larkin,
Immediate Past Chair:
Good evening, everyone. This will
not take long at all. About three
years ago, this faculty at Auburn University placed a great deal of trust in me
in terms of electing me Chair-elect and then subsequently Chair of the Faculty
and Senate and then this last year IÕve served as Faculty Advisor on the Board
of Trustees. This honor that you
have me has really benefited me greatly and I really appreciate the opportunity
to serve in a leadership role.
People still calling me thinking I can make things happen and although I
canÕt, itÕs kind of nice to get those phone calls every now and then.
This university
has grown tremendously. We still
have some growing pains and weÕre going through some things. I know that next week Conner is going
to make his exit presentation and then Rich Penaskovic will come and he will
make his futuristic statements for the next year or so and I didnÕt want to
interfere with that and so I wanted to come before you today to just say Thank
You for the great opportunity you have given me. IÕll still be around and hopefully still involved in some
way in shared governance from afar.
But this has been a really great experience and I would have been remiss
if I didnÕt take the opportunity to thank you as well as the other faculty
members at the University. Thank
you very much.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. Thank you, Willie.
I would like to beg your indulgence for one moment. Just before the meeting started, Harriette
Huggins, who is the outgoing Chair of the A&P Assembly, asked to make some
comments and address this group.
There or the front-however you choose.
Harriette
Huggins, Chair-A&P Assembly:
Thank you very much, Conner. I
just requested this indulgence on behalf of the Administrative and Professional
Employees Assembly to thank the University Senate and its chairs over the last
year and a half that IÕve been serving:
Willie Larkin, Conner Bailey, and of course Rich Penaskovic, who is your
chair-elect, for the collegial relationship weÕve been able to develop. The ability for us to communicate about
issues of concern to all of the groups allows us to respond and make
recommendations in a timely manner and we were finally able to get through that
Intimate Relations Policy that had been on the burner for a while and it was a
satisfactory resolution for all three groups. I hope that these relationships will continue to grow and
flourish because this is an important time for Auburn University. WeÕre anticipating action on the Fisher
Report and the search for a new president for the university and if the three
groups can work together and talk together about our future, it will help us to
move from being good to great.
The annual
meeting of the A&P Assembly is going to be held Wednesday, March 22nd
at 2:30 at Room 213, Foy Union.
Our committees are going to be making their annual reports and the
leadership will be passed to the new chair of the A&P Assembly, Drew
Burgering and the Chair-elect, Mariah Folmer. You are all welcome to attend. Again, I want to say Thank You very much.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you, Harriette. ItÕs been one of the efforts of the
Senate leadership to work very closely with the A&P Assembly, Staff
Council, to meet regularly with the SGA president and also, weÕve been less effective
at this perhaps, with also the Graduate Student Council leadership. These are all groups represented in
this University Senate. It makes
us somewhat unique in the State of Alabama-I believe weÕre the only institution
that has this arrangement and I believe it has served this university
well. I want to thank Harriette
for your service with the A&P and your efforts in keeping the channels open
as well as Jenny Swaim-I donÕt know if Jenny is here with us today-whoÕs
chaired the Staff Council. And of
course Dr. Larkin, who IÕve followed as Chair and whom I will soon follow as
Immediate Chair, thank you for your service to this university.
I have a few
comments-IÕll try not to natter on too long because Patricia Duffy, our
outgoing Secretary-will bean me if I go on too long-she has to keep these, the
last set of minutes that she will be recording for us.
But I use this
opportunity from the podium to share with this body the very many things that
are going on, on this campus that may not make the newspapers or the AU
Report or the Plainsman.
One of these is that the Alumni Association met this past weekend-IÕve
made it a practice of going to Alumni Board of Director meetings over the past
year and a half. IÕm a member of
the Association though IÕm not an alumnus of this institution. I encourage future chairs-Rich and
those in the audience, including those on the ballot for this coming week as
well as further in the future-to maintain close relations with our alumni. These are very important people, who
care-actually much more than just football, many of them care about football to
be sure-but this Board of Directors the Alumni Association is very interested
in this university as an academic enterprise and these are our allies as we try
to make Auburn University as we all want it to be. We also need to understand that the Alumni Association is
also directly involved in such matters of note to us as the selection process
for trustees. And so maintaining
open channels of communication with the Alumni Board so that they understand,
appreciate views from the faculty and from the campus I think is a very
important task. The university
president always attends these meetings of the Alumni Board and Dr. Richardson
did so this past Saturday. He
mentioned briefly the financial impact of legislative action that Dr. Heilman
alluded to earlier. As weÕve
probably seen in the newspaper, the budget looks favorable. He also mentioned that another
indication of strength of Auburn University is the continued and strong demand
for admission by undergraduates to this university and he mentioned at that
time that the president and the provost were engaged along with the Enrollment
and Management Oversight group, a committee that I learned about this past year
and have been privileged to serve on, that thereÕs been lengthy discussions on
what might be the appropriate enrollment size for Auburn University. As chair of the Senate, IÕve had
opportunity to attend meetings of this group; they meet typically every two
weeks, sometimes more recently, every week.
Some of you may
recall in Fall of 2003 we had a big blip, an increase of enrollment beyond what
we expected and this came about suddenly and without, for most of us, much
warning and there was a great deal of extra effort, cost and expense associated
with making sure we had courses and teachers and classrooms and everything
available to serve the needs of this added group of about 500 students more
than we had anticipated. And there
was this great scramble to make this happen. We need to understand that weÕre still feeling the
consequences of that cohort of Fall 2003 moving through our programs today and
our undergraduate programs. The
Enrollment Management Oversight Group-EMOG is the acronym-was established to
gain some handle on the enrollment process and has established a certain target
for enrollment and has had lengthy discussions, and IÕm not going to go into
the detail here.
We may remember
that following that 2003 increase we had in 2004 several things going on on
this campus. There was some
airplane flight that went to someplace in Kentucky I think it was; there was
SACS probation; there were a lot of things that put this campus in a bad light
to the outside world and that year we had a lower than anticipated or desired
enrollment. Not by much, but a little
bit. This past year, as some of
you may know, we had another high enrollment take. Maybe this had to do with the football season, maybe this
had to do with getting off SACS probation, maybe it had to do with
whatever. But in any event, we
have gone through some variability over time in our enrollment. This has consequences for all of us and
understanding these issues is something that has taken me some time this past
year and I appreciate the work of John Fletcher and John Heilman and others on
EMOG to bring me up to speed on these questions.
This last year,
this last Fall 2005, we had as I indicated a larger than anticipated group,
cohort of first year students coming in.
We were able to handle that as far as I aware relatively smoothly
compared to Fall of 2003 because EMOG was functioning, we had advanced warning
and notice, funds were allocated in a timely fashion to the colleges that would
bear the brunt of the new students coming in from nearly COSAM and Liberal
Arts. So this year weÕve been able
to manage that increased enrollment without the same kind of pains we went
through in 2003. One thing thatÕs
become obvious to me is that enrollment and the management of enrollment is
pretty essential to this university.
It affects all of us; it affects teaching, teaching loads, scheduling,
basically everything, it affects budget issues. The Fisher Report has talked about the question of
enrollment management and made certain recommendations. WeÕre engaged in active discussions
right now within EMOG and with the Office of the President and the
Provost. IÕm hoping that at the
next meeting, a week from today, the university president, Dr. Richardson, will
address this question in his State of the University address.
IÕd like to
touch briefly on the subject of Post Tenure Review. YouÕve heard a lot about this over the months. WeÕll be talking about the Fisher
Report. As youÕll probably
remember, the Fisher Report recommended that while the administration may work
on developing a process, the Fisher Report recommended that no action be taken
to implement Post Tenure Review until we have a new president on Board. Senate leadership has been consistent
in recommending to the administration that before we move forward on Post
Tenure Review, we have annual Performance Evaluations that need to be worked on
and Dr. Heilman has been working on this-I think some of the deans in the room
can probably confirm this-that steps will be taken to improve the annual
Performance Evaluation process on this campus. WeÕve also discussed the need to do what the Handbook calls for, that is, have peer
evaluations of teaching before we move forward on a Post Tenure Review process.
WeÕve had
numerous discussions with Dr. Richardson and with Dr. Heilman on this
topic. They both understand that
thereÕs a substantial amount of groundwork that needs to be completed before a
beta version of any possible future post tenure review could be tested. Because these discussions are ongoing
and because we feel that thereÕs no prospect that in the near term, that is,
this semester, that thereÕs going to be a post tenure review process instituted
the Senate Executive Committee, which also serves as the Executive Committee
for the University Faculty, has decided that we will not put on next weekÕs
agenda of the University Faculty post tenure review as a subject for debate and
possible vote. I do anticipate,
however, that there will be opportunity to further discuss this topic at such
time as the administration determines to move forward, if indeed that is the
case.
IÕm pleased to
announce that the Electronic Privacy Policy and a policy very much like the one
this body passed in November 2004 has been approved by the administration. The final version was a product of consultation
between the administration and the Senate Leadership and the SenateÕs Academic
Computing Committee and the final version thatÕs worked out will be up on the
web soon and youÕll be able to see what the version we passed in Õ04 was and
how it compares with the version that we had accepted by the central
administration. The Academic
Computing Committee recommended to the Senate leadership that the changes
between the two versions are not substantive in nature and did not recommend
that this subject come back for further debate and discussion by the
Senate. Please feel free to look
at the versions posted on the web.
If thereÕs strong sentiment to the contrary, Dr. Rich Penaskovic will be
your new chair.
I believe we
have established through this process of discussion with the administration and
discussion in this body, one of the nationÕs best privacy policies. IÕm very proud of this effort and I
want to thank certain individuals, certainly George Mitrevski and Harmon Straiton-George
is the current chair, Harmon is the past chair of the Academic Computing
Committee and all the members of that committee who have served over the last
couple of years who have worked with the Senate leadership and
administration. I also want to
thank a particular member of that committee, Rich Burnett, who is the Director
of IT-Information Technology-who has been a real supporter of our efforts and
John Heilman, who has also supported efforts of bringing forward this policy on
electronic privacy. And I want to
call out one other name, one that we donÕt usually talk about a great deal-I
donÕt see Lee Armstrong here today.
Lee Armstrong is General Counsel of the university and as General
Counsel looks at legal matters with a fine grain microscope. HeÕs a good lawyer but heÕs also proved
himself in this process as a good friend of the faculty and of academic freedom
and of open discourse at this university, so my thanks to Lee.
I wish I had
but do not yet have similar news of success with regards to the position of
Ombudsperson, but I suspect this will be happening in the near future. My understanding is that the
recommendation has moved forward to Dr. Richardson and perhaps at next weekÕs
meeting of the University Faculty we will learn about the status of that
position.
The work of the
Academic Computing Committee is just one example of the central role that
Senate and University committees play in shared governance on this campus. At the April meeting of this body I
anticipate, for example, that weÕll be visited once again by Dr. Art Chappelka,
chair of the Academic Program Review committee. My hope is that weÕll bring forward the report of that
committee and have a vote for acceptance of that committee in April.
Those of us who
believe in shared governance should understand that serving on committees is
where the rubber meets the road of shared governance. The calls for volunteers-you saw another copy I hope today
from Patricia Duffy-this is the last day.
At some point this evening, that website will be pulled down, but that
does not mean you cannot volunteer or that your colleagues cannot volunteer for
service. If you are interested in
doing so or your colleagues are, please send emails to Dr. Kathryn Flynn, our
Secretary-elect, who will soon take over the position from Dr. Duffy.
Before leaving
the topic of committee work, I want to announce that the Provost has asked
Senate officers to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to Access Student
Learning. You may recall that this
has been a subject of some discussion at Board Trustee meetings and indeed that
the Board had a resolution at its February meeting calling for the university
to report back to the Board just what it is we are doing to access student
learning. Student learning is
fundamentally part of the academic enterprise. It is faculty responsibility. The administration has turned to the Senate leadership and
asked for assistance in meeting this need and we in turn turned it over to the
Senate Rules Committee, which is one of the hardest working committees on this
campus. WeÕre in the process of
forming a joint Ad Hoc committee on assessment of student learning with
representation from a range of Senate committees including Curriculum, Core
Curriculum, Retention, and Teaching Effectiveness, etc. Each of these committees is involved to
some extent in teaching and learning issues and we want to have input from
these committees so weÕre going to draw members from. The work on setting that committee is near complete, not
quite complete. We are going to be
looking to make sure we not only get representatives from each of these
committees but to the extent possible also have broad representation across
schools and colleges and be mindful of issues related to diversity. Drew Clark, faculty member and works
within the ProvostÕs office is going to provide staff support for this
committee.
One final
announcement: elections for the positions of chair-elect and secretary-elect of
the University Senate are going to take place during a five-day period as
called for in the Faculty Handbook. That five-day period will start
Thursday, March 9th at 8am.
Vote early, but only once, and end Monday, March 13th at
5pm. The results will be announced
at the March 14th meeting, a week from today, of the University
Faculty.
This is my last
meeting as Chair of the University Senate. I donÕt know if the term senate politician applies, but I
will embrace it and IÕll say also that IÕve been honored to serve this body as
secretary, as chair-elect, as chair and soon as immediate past chair, as
senator and even when I was not senator I often attended as I will in the years
to come, this body, because I think this is a critically important body for
governance issues at this university.
ItÕs a place where questions can be asked and answers expected of your
senate leaders, administrators, committee chairs and the like. In this way the University Senate, I
believe, serves a vital purpose in getting information out across campus and to
the wider public as well. I have
enormous respect for this body.
This is the body to which I owe the most loyalty on this campus and I
would say that and not exclude my own home academic department. This is the university right here. I have full confidence that Rich
Penaskovic and Kathryn Flynn are going to follow Patricia Duffy and I in an
exemplary fashion. Patricia Duffy
has been a real trooper, one of the hardest working senate officers IÕve ever
had the pleasure to observe and itÕs been my distinct pleasure, privilege and
pleasure, to work with you, Patricia.
Thank you.
This concludes
my comments from the chair. Before
going on to the next item on the agenda, let me ask if anyone has any questions
of the chair at this time.
Was that motion
I saw there or were you just shifting?
Ok, seeing no questions let me move on then to the next item as Kathryn
Flynn comes forward, this is on election of the Rules Committee. These are the current members of the
Rules Committee and the three individuals that have been nominated. You can see which colleges are
represented on Rules, which is the committee on committees. The three individuals at the bottom
will serve through August of 2006 and these are the three individuals who were
nominated at the most recent meeting in February. Kathryn.
Kathryn
Flynn, Secretary-Elect:
As Conner mentioned, we are here to elect new members to the Rules
Committee. According to the
procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook, three nominations were accepted at the
February meeting. Those nominees
were Claire Crutchley, Bernie Olin and Andrew Wohrley. Each of you should have received a
short bio for each of these people in the agenda that was distributed by
Patricia about a week ago, I guess.
At this time I would like to ask if there are any additional nominations
from the floor for the Rules Committee.
If there are no additional nominations, I would like to ask that we
conduct this election by means of a voice vote rather than by ballot.
Dr. Bailey: Is that acceptable to this body? This recommendation comes from a
standing committee and requires no second. All those in favor of accepting these three nominations
please signify by saying aye.
Opposed, nay. The ayes have
it. Thank you very much.
Dr. Flynn: I would like to congratulate each of
the new members for accepting this responsibility. Your appointment to the Rules Committee will take effect in
August and will be for a period of two years. Congratulations.
Thank you, Conner.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. I understand, before moving on to the next agenda item-Rich,
give me a moment, please-I understand that the SGA President is with us. Is this true? George Stegall, would you rise and so everybody gets a
chance to see you? Thank you.
George, IÕm sure I speak for Rich that we look forward to working with you as
we have with John Tatum. He was an
excellent role model and we got together frequently to discuss common interests
and I sometimes came to the SGA meetings and IÕm sure Rich would be willing to
do so as well, so letÕs the keep the channels of communication open. Thank you.
Let me now
invite Dr. Rich Penaskovic to come forward. You have the resolution?
Dr. Rich
Penaskovic, Chair-elect:
IÕd like to present this resolution which comes from the Steering Committee of
the Senate. I guess IÕll begin by
reading the resolution:
Whereas,
Auburn UniversityÕs Board of Trustees commissioned an institutional evaluation
preparatory to initiating a search for a new President; and
Whereas, the
report prepared by a team led by Dr. James Fisher was based on interviews
with trustees, alumni, and members
of all the campus constituencies represented in the University Senate,
including undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, staff, administrative
and professional employees, as well as deans and other senior administrators;
and
Whereas, in
commissioning the Fisher report, the Board of Trustees demonstrated a
willingness to openly discuss problems that impede Auburn University from
achieving its full potential as a leading academic institution;
Therefore,
be it resolved that the University Senate commend the Board of Trustees for
their leadership in promoting the greater good of Auburn University; and
Therefore,
be it also resolved that the University Senate and its constituent groups are
ready to work with the Board in an open and constructive manner to achieve this
goal.
I move that
this resolution be adopted.
Dr. Bailey: As it comes from the Steering
Committee, it requires no second.
Open the floor for any discussion at this time. Is this body ready to move forward for
a vote? If so, let me ask for
those signifying support of this resolution to say aye. Opposed, nay. Let the record show unanimous support for this resolution. Dr. Penaskovic, thank you.
We now come to
that part of the agenda where weÕre going to discuss the Fisher Report
itself. This item also appeared on
the February agenda of the Senate, but lengthy discussions following Dr.
RichardsonÕs presentation and even lengthier discussions concerning the Tobacco
Use Surcharge Policy left far too short a time to adequately discuss the Fisher
Report. IÕll not repeat the
comments that I made in February, but I will say that the report contains
something that almost anyone can find to be happy about and at the same time
contains things that most of us would not support or would disagree with. The key question of this vast
smorgasbord of recommendations is whatÕs going to be ingested and become a part
of our institutional self and whatÕs going to be sent back to the kitchen. This body is not going to make the
final decisions on that, but I believe that the discussion here is valuable
nonetheless. The committee of the
Board of Trustees is going to have a meeting in the near future to discuss the
Fisher Report. The dateÕs not yet
been arranged. I believe the
meeting will be styled as a workshop and will be open to the public. There will also be the April Board
Meeting that will be of the full board which will take up the Fisher Report at
that time. Provost Heilman has
solicited input from the faculty via the deans and department chairs. IÕve received some copies that people
have shared with me. As Chair of
the Senate, IÕve called a special meeting, which lasted well over two hours
late one Friday afternoon, to discuss the Fisher Report, of the Senate Rules
Committee, to discuss the Fisher Report and particularly as it relates to the
Senate and to issues of a presidential search and to issues of shared
governance generally. IÕve also
written the past chairs of this body, who have some accumulated knowledge and
maybe even wisdom, and have asked them to provide me such insights as their
experience and their reading of the Fisher Report might provide.
As I move into
my new role as Faculty Advisor on the Board of Trustees, IÕm going to be
involved in some of the discussions of the Fisher Report and IÕm going to be
listening with great attention to what you have to say today. With that as prologue, let me open the
floor now to discussion of the Fisher Report.
Dr. Richard
Penaskovic, Chair-elect:
I think the Fisher Report is basically a mixed bag. I wonÕt go into maybe the downside of it, but one thing they
seem to imply is that the next president is almost going to have to be like a
superman. HeÕs supposed to
exercise strong leadership. They
also presuppose that change only begins top down. IÕm not sure thatÕs always the case. One thing IÕd like to see, whoever the
Board chooses as our next president, I would like to see an academic. I want someone with an academic
background who understands academia, whoÕs gone through the tenure and
promotion process and know what it entails, knows the rigor involved in staying
on and getting tenure at a major university. One of the things I think the Fisher Report says that the
Board can cannot continue to be at odds with the faculty, with AAUP, with SACS,
etc., and I hope they take, keep this in mind, that whoever they choose as the
next president, it should be academic.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. Further comments, please.
Bob Locy,
Steering Committee: I
just like to comment that I felt like there were a lot of really useful things
in the Fisher Report, but I also felt like there were a number of areas where
perhaps the depth of data they collected didnÕt really outline the problems in
critically important ways. And I
would hope that as we move forward to act on this, that there remains to be the
opportunity for faculty and this body to continue to inform the process that
the Fisher Report started in terms of the areas where thereÕs more information
needed before an intelligent decision about how to proceed could be made. And I think thatÕs the critical problem
with the Fisher Report that I find is that this may be treated by, not very
specifically, by the Board of Trustees and the be-all and end-all. Part of the problem, where I think
thereÕs critically some more information needed, in particularly a number of
the academic areas of the report.
I frankly donÕt care too much what they do with the Athletic Department
and I assume they will work that out to their satisfaction, but with respect to
the issues where the academics interact, I think we already have on campus lots
of good data that could have informed them a lot better about proper ways to
proceed and how to address some of these problems and I hope the opportunity to
make that input will be viewed as appropriate roles for faculty self-governance
as we move forward in this process.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. DonÕt be shy.
Cindy
Brunner, Department of Pathobiology:
This should be a shorter comment than most of mine are. IÕve got three, really three concerns
about the Fisher Report. The first
echoes what the previous speaker just said, IÕm concerned that in reading the
report in detail, I found many of the recommendations and even some of the discussions
related to those recommendations to be, pardon the words, relatively
shallow. In talking to people who
met with the committee members, I was struck by the comments of one individual
who said that his meeting was with a group of employees or faculty members and
the interviewer had a list of questions.
That individual went around the circle, around the table, and asked one
question of each person basically.
So a question was posed, the individual offered an answer, that was the
end of the discussion of that question and then they went on to the next
question. Now thatÕs certainly
wasnÕt how all the interviews were handled, but if that in fact was the
foundation of some of these recommendations, IÕm concerned that they really
needed to spend a bit more time on campus to get a deep picture of what happens
here.
The second
concern I have is that so many of these recommendations are actually academic
in nature. We donÕt know how the
Board is going to handle the discussions pertaining to those recommendations. IÕm concerned that they, even if they
are turned back to the faculty for consideration, what weÕll be told is ÔNow
figure out a way to implement thisÕ and the fact that the recommendation is on
paper already from the Fisher Committee is sufficient to argue its strengths
and warrant its implementation. I
would suggest that some of these recommendations, if not most of them that are
pertaining to academic policy, really ought to be debated at the ground level
by the faculty and not just presumed to be acceptable.
The third
concern I have is the timeline.
How weÕre going to actually consider these recommendations and find a
way to implement those that are worthy in time to start a presidential search
and have a president identified by December is something that I canÕt
imagine. I welcome the BoardÕs
reinforcement of the timeline that weÕve been given.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. I donÕt think I have the answers to your questions, of
course. One of the key things,
that is in the Fisher Report, of course, has to do with the nature of the relationship
between the various stakeholders: faculty, administrators, Board members,
students, and other employees on this campus, and I think, I appreciate what
this body just did in passing a resolution that I think we could characterize
fairly as an olive branch that says that weÕre ready to engage with the Board
constructively, proactively, and move forward with a successful search for a
new president. Yes?
Sadik Tuzun,
Entomology & Plant Pathology:
Matter of fact, we just passed a resolution praising the Board for getting this
Fisher Report. That itÕs done is
an indication that the Board is taking some of these issues, of whatÕs going on
in Auburn, more seriously than maybe they were taking before. My concern is that they will use this
report to delay a presidential search.
They should not do different.
This is something that the biggest concern that I have, which is
something that Rich mentioned, that this university needs an academic
background president. We used to
see, and this is by no means criticism to Ed Richardson, but every president
that I have served as a faculty member was in Senate meetings, almost all the
time. That they showed theyÕre
interested in academic life, that they showed theyÕre interested in studentsÕ
life, they went and ate dinners and lunches with students, and I think itÕs
very important that the leader must be a part of the community. It cannot be that you separate yourself
from the people that you are serving as a leader and I donÕt want to talk too
much-but we have to take the comments of the Fisher Report somehow not, maybe
we should study some of them, but there are some important points made. For example, one of them is what I had
been talking about, Agriculture, using the old technologies and definitely they
see that what we have started, the Alabama Initiative-was a needed procedure so
we are doing good, we are doing right but to get to Alabama Initiative, we may
take a turn to a different direction, using Fisher ReportÕs comments. Thank you.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. Other comments?
As I suggested, there might be some things in the Fisher Report that
action will be taken on and other things that no action will be taken on and so
the question becomes, who makes that decision and what are those decisions that
are made?
John Rowe,
School of Nursing: I
think thereÕs a couple of things in the report to which the Senate ought to
respond. One of them is the charge
that the Senate doesnÕt represent the faculty and I think some of that may be
the people they interviewed and if they interviewed them just by asking a
circle, they might not have gotten very good data. They might not have gotten the data they were looking for
and I think thatÕs a very serious charge and one we ought to respond to. And the other is the role of the Senate
in governance of the university and I think that should be a response that we
make and outline what we think it should be, because they go back and
forth. Sometimes theyÕre saying
that the curriculum belongs to the faculty and other times the Senate is
supposed to tell the administration what we think and they can do what they
want. And I think somewhere in
there we need to say this is what we think our role is.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. At the last meeting, I think I indicated that we, the Rules
Committee, would be developing a survey that weÕre going to implement this
Spring, I hope, where we will query faculty about the question of
representation and representativeness-two separate questions-of this body and
other issues that may be coming up out of the Fisher Report, so we will have an
opportunity to have, to that extent please encourage your colleagues to respond
to that survey. We will hopefully
have a good database, a good basis upon which to say ÔThese are the faculty
views on those questions.Õ Judy.
Judith
Lechner, EFLT: First
IÕd like to respond to what Cindy Brunner said. IÕd like to reinforce that we hope that the Fisher Report
will not be the end-all and be-all of data for the Board of Trustees. They have made some comments about
academic standing, for instance, of our department. We donÕt know where they got this information from. The other thing that IÕd like to say
though is that hopefully we will we are reaffirming those aspects of the Fisher
Report that we need to pay attention, such as the call for greater effort for
diversity at the university undergraduate and graduate level recruitment and in
our educational academic programs, such as foreign languages,
international/global perspective.
These are my comments, but they are also specifically Ruth CrockerÕs
comments from History.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you.
Dr. Lechner: And one last thing: Ruth mentioned that
the reorganization last year of the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Office
having been placed under Human Resources, that recommendation is something that
we should again affirm, that they be changed back to having their own
independent office, should be affirmed.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you.
Dr. Richard
Penaskovic, Chair-elect:
I think John Rowe from Nursing has asked an excellent question about his
faculty leadership and Senate representation is the faculty leadership
representative of the faculty at large?
If weÕre not representative of the faculty at large, I donÕt know who
the heck is. I mean, I think when
you were elected Chair, Conner, if I recollect correctly, there were something
like 700 people who voted. ThatÕs
a pretty large number. At any
election, even in the presidential election, youÕre not going to get those
kinds of numbers percentage wise.
So if we donÕt represent the faculty, I donÕt think anyone does.
Dr. Bailey: I actually donÕt know what the voting
was. ItÕs been kind of the culture
of this body that we simply announce who won and we donÕt know what the numbers
of votes were or what the vote distribution were. IÕm not sure that thatÕs serving us well in this present
climate. I may take it upon myself
to consult with the candidates this round and see if we want to change that
process.
Cindy
Brunner, Dept. of Pathobiology:
One of the consequences of the skepticism about representativeness of the
Senate is we are not as valuable if we are seen as not being
representative. It really doesnÕt
matter what we think we are-I think thatÕs what IÕm trying to say-we may
individually sincerely believe weÕre representing our departments, we may be
able to poll our faculty and affirm that they think weÕre representing them-but
the Senate as a body may not be perceived by some people as being
representative and I think if we as a Senate have a task that we should
embrace, itÕs to try to find a way to ensure that we are seen as the body
representing the faculty, if not the faculty as a whole as the university
faculty. I donÕt know how weÕll do
that, maybe starting with a survey and getting affirmative results maybe a way
to go.
Dr. Bailey: IÕll comment on that and IÕm going to
return to the point that this is a university and not a faculty Senate. And now, thereÕs no doubt-look around
the room, look at whoÕs at the podium-itÕs a faculty-driven body. ThatÕs the reality. The University President appoints nine
people, the Provost and the Dean of Library are on Staff Council, A&P, SGA,
Graduate Student Council, and sixty-some odd, seventy officers of the faculty;
so the numbers are there that this is clearly a body whoÕs primary interests
have typically been academic and faculty-driven. And I donÕt necessarily think I need to make any apologies
for that. But there is an opportunity
in this Fisher Report-and weÕve already started engaging in discussions with
A&P and Staff Council-of, well, should we rethink this? Should we rethink, should there be just
Harriette Huggins representing A&P and 70 faculty? Well, you know, you can hold your own
with 70 faculty, but seriously, this is, believe, this is a tough audience,
folks, and having maybe two or some number, maybe not. We donÕt necessarily want this body to
grow to 200 representatives. But
weÕve started a dialogue, letÕs look at this Fisher Report and say ÔHow can we
make this body different?Õ This is
how it is today; works pretty well; doesnÕt mean we canÕt look at and see if
thereÕs things that might change so that not only are the faculty represented
but other constituent groups on this campus are represented. That to me is a key element of this
body.
Other comments,
questions. Please identify
yourself.
Harriette
Huggins, A&P Assembly Chair:
When Conner raised this question with the Assembly, the Executive Committee
does have a discussion board up and we are soliciting comments even as we speak
and going back to something that Cindy Brunner just said, there is an
impression among folks out there that this is a faculty senate because of the
way that issues are dealt with and should deal with academic issues of this
university and we do have Administrative and Professional Assembly and we do
have Staff Council who meets separately to discuss issues and we never want to
go back to the place where those three groups are not talking to one another
because there are like issues that arise and this university president search
is going to affect all of us and we very much want to be in the dialogue and
discussions about that, so the impression of a faculty senate goes a long way
with the other folks that are out there and you need to be aware of that.
Dr. Bailey: Absolutely. Thank you. And
itÕs something that the Fisher Report didnÕt always completely understand
either, those who wrote parts of that.
Other comments, questions please.
Dr. Heilman.
Dr. John
Heilman, Provost: Thank
you very much, Conner. I do have a
couple of thoughts in relation to the comments that have been offered. Number one, IÕd like to respectfully
offer a suggestion, which is to write a letter to the President summarizing the
points that have been made. My
notes include the point that there is a preference for an academician to be the
next president. There is question
about the depth of the data, the sufficiency of the data, the shallowness;
concern about perhaps the way in which questions were asked and responses
gathered; the note that faculty need to address faculty issues; and the
importance of proceeding with the search.
Those are the points that I have in my notes and I think it would be
good to; I would respectfully offer a suggestion, writing a letter to Dr.
Richardson to simply convey those points.
Second point,
with respect to a couple of those, these are just my personal
observations. I believe Dr. Kuhnle
is going to be at the Board Meeting and I believe that the discussion there
will unfold in such a way as to engender some degree of confidence that the
search will move forward. I would
observe also that the fact that recommendations are in the Fisher Report does
not by itself mean that they are recommendations for Board action. I believe itÕs fair to say the
administration understands that many of those are academic matters for
administrative action in consultation with the faculty through shared
governance and I look forward to working with the Senate leadership in the
coming year on such issues that fall into that category.
Third, I would
like to respectfully offer a challenge.
This has been in an entirely constructive manner. IÕve heard a couple of comments made,
and I know theyÕre sincere and I can identify with them, that it is important
to have as the next president of Auburn University an academician, someone
whoÕs come up through the academic line.
I would respectfully suggest that it would be good to develop a reason
as to why that is important beyond ÔWe would like it that way.Õ Please know IÕm not saying this
critically but in order for that argument, that perspective to have force,
there will need to be, as Don Large, who is not here might say, there will need
to be a story to explain why it really matters and I think that explanation
should come from the faculty.
Finally IÕd
like to say that I think itÕs wonderful that George Stegall is here. IÕd like to offer my sincere
congratulations to you. I think
itÕs a wonderful gesture for you to be here meeting with the faculty and I look
forward to working with you during the coming year.
Dr. Bailey: Thanks, John. Are there any other comments at this time? John, did youÉok. At the end? Ok, Rich can you hold on a second? Go ahead, John.
Dr. Heilman: I donÕt know whether this is
timely. IÕd like to say that just
as this is ConnerÕs last meeting in his present capacity, this marks the end of
nearly a year now during which time IÕve had the privilege of working with
Conner as Chair of the Senate and he has represented you very ably and has been
an excellent person to work with.
Conner, IÕm very grateful.
Thank you.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you, John. Thank you. Rich.
Dr.
Penaskovic, Chair-elect:
IÕm sorry I missed some of your comments, Dr. Heilman. I did hear one of your last comments
about why itÕs necessary, why we should have an academic as our next
president. A few ideas come to
mind immediately. One, in order to
gain faculty respect, I think we need to have an academician. The Board of Trustees can put in
whoever they want as president, but that doesnÕt mean the faculty will respect
that person. And if the person has
gone through the ranks and knows what itÕs like to publish and do research and
get evaluated for their teaching, I donÕt think they have a true understanding
of the university. I think itÕs
difficult to do so from an outside perspective. IÕm not saying itÕs impossible; I think there are some
university presidents who donÕt come from an academic background who are very
good, but I would say they are probably the exception rather than the rule. I also think that some decisions, for
example, about enrollment-how many students should be enrolled at Auburn
University-should we make that decision based on the University of Alabama,
which may have in the future a larger number of students than Auburn University
does? WhatÕs the implications
academically for having a large student population? Does that mean increased teaching modes? What does that do to faculty
morale? I think it has a ripple
effect right down the system and I donÕt think someone from the outside whoÕs
not an academic can truly understand that. I ask others here if they want to comment further on what
IÕve said or disagree with me. I
feel that if you disagree with me, you have something to give me and this is my
last chance probably for a year to speak from this position so thatÕs why I
took advantage of it today.
Dr. Bailey: Let me tell you, itÕs something thatÕs
really tough to give up. Rich and
I were at a meeting last week, which I did not mention earlier; itÕs the Alabama
Coalition, I believe it is, of Faculty Senate Presidents and the group from
University of North Alabama, this gets to the point, made some comments that in
recent years theyÕve had great turmoil at UNA between the administration,
particularly a series of two presidents and the faculty, and those two
presidents and the Board supporting those two presidents, neither of them had
academic backgrounds. The most
recent hire was of someone who came out of an academic background and as best I
can tell from the three meetings, last three meetings IÕve been to of these
Senate leaders from UNA, is the word love fest is a close as I can come
to. ItÕs night and day compared to
what it had been at UNA and the issue is, not only solidarity with a president
who comes out of an academic background but a sense that this individual
understands what the life of the academy is about and can act in light of that
understanding and also articulate that understanding to the outside world. So clearly, if weÕre going to have an academic,
we need to have someone who can articulate to the outside world what it means
to have tenure, what it means to be a professor, what it means that weÕre only
spending six or nine or whatever hours it is a week in a classroom, that thatÕs
not in fact all we do. And I think
the history of this university tells us that the successful presidents have
been those that have enjoyed a sense of legitimacy and the last thing that this
university needs is a process that brings in a university president that we are
not all behind. We all want to
support, we all want this university to succeed, we all want the best possible
person. The consensus of a
committee that reported 13 months ago I believe it was or 14 after this body,
chaired by Larry Gerber, on presidential searches, the consensus view of that
committee, not the only view expressed by members of that committee I
understand, but the consensus view of that committee was that an academic would
best serve the interests of this university. Other discussion, please.
John Rowe,
School of Nursing: I
have a couple of things: first of all, I think in terms of the president being
an academician, the university is a community of scholars and the leadership
from that needs to come out of the roots of that, it needs to have scholarship
in order to provide leadership.
Secondly, I like Dr. HeilmanÕs recommendation about a letter to the
president and I wonder if it would be appropriate to ask the Steering Committee
to draft such a letter that we could vote on next week at the Faculty
Meeting. You could do it allÉ.
Dr. Bailey: It would be the Senate Steering
Committee-thereÕs a small difference between the Senate and the Faculty. It would be the Executive Committee,
but IÕll talk with the Executive Committee. Whether weÕll have something ready for a vote at that
time-but itÕs something certainly the Executive Committee should take a lead in
drafting, sharing; I donÕt know that we need a vote on that but IÕd certainly
be open to that.
John Rowe: I think that if thereÕs time it would
good if we could have input from the whole faculty on the draft.
Dr. Bailey: Input-weÕve done our level best to
provide input. The agenda for next
weekÕs meeting is either if not up already on the web it will be before too
long. The agendaÕs been drafted
already.
Saralyn
Smith-Carr, Clinical Sciences:
I guess last time I asked for some discussion on the Fisher Report, I was
hoping that people had gone back to their different departments. My department-I went back and I spoke
to other people. Of course, there
were some who endorsed it all and there were some that said they had
reservations so I guess my question is: this survey that youÕre sending out to
the faculty, how is that going to be directed such that youÕre going to get
input from the faculty about this report or what exactly is the reason for the
report or the survey?
Dr. Bailey: There are a number of questions that
have come up about the nature, the structure of the Senate-should we be a
faculty or university senate? How
responsive, how representative are senators? There are some other issues that have come up that are of an
academic nature relating to curricular matters. Some of these matters may be, I would anticipate, we donÕt
have a very long survey. You donÕt
get such a good response rate, but we would be asking a number of those
questions. That will happen in the
next-I canÕt say when itÕll happen-within the next month I would assume, before
this semester gets out. How weÕll
transmit that to the Board, how this information will be shared, it certainly
will be shared with the Senate and reported on by Dr. Penaskovic, will also, I
will as the Faculty Advisor to the Board, if I have that information in hand, I
will be able to speak to what the faculty viewpoints are on matters that relate
to the Fisher Report. That would,
I hope, strengthen my voice if I have that information. Does that answer your question? The surveyÕs not yet been drafted so
IÕm at a little bit of a loss to give you much more detail at this point.
Saralyn
Smith-Carr: I would
hope that some parts of that survey would at least address things that people
felt were strengths and weaknesses of the report in some way.
Dr. Bailey: Ok. Thank you.
Carol.
Carol
Zugazaga, Sociology: I
just wanted to also support the idea that Dr. Heilman had, that we construct a
letter to Dr. Richardson, very specifically and clearly stating the
characteristics we would look for in a university president and IÕm just
wondering, Conner, if you could clarify for me what the process is now? You said that the Executive Committee
would construct such a letter and send it and then would we be allowed to see
that, because I thought that you didnÕt encourage much feedback? Would we be allowed to see this before
it moved forward? Just if you
could clarify what this is going to look like for me, I would appreciate
it. Thank you.
Dr. Bailey: Ok. Well, IÕm one individual of a five-member Executive
Committee and weÕre about to have two elected. IÕm a little reluctant to speak for a body whoÕs more than
five people really and so IÕd like to consult with that group before I answered
categorically but knowing the group thatÕs moving, myself and the two existing
officers moving forward and knowing the four people to be elected, I have every
belief that we would be as open and transparent as possible. The question of whether weÕd have it on
the agenda for the meeting a week from today at the University Faculty Meeting,
I donÕt know. For one, weÕre going
to have some new officers coming in.
IÕd rather not try to make that deadline but we certainly can post it on
the web, share it with senators, invite input; why would I not do that? ThatÕs right, sure. WeÕll do that, but IÕm not sure, and my
Executive Committee may decide they want to move more quickly, but IÕd probably
not want to try to get something ramped up within the next seven days and
distributed sufficiently in advance so that we can get input.
Carol
Zugazaga: I totally
understand that; I just needed clarification on what the process would be.
Dr. Bailey: Thank you. I will probably always err on the side of getting more input
than not. I will occasionally fail
and thatÕs a problem, too. I have
someone up there-did you want to give Dr. Heilman the privilege? Yes, John?
Dr. Heilman: Thank you and IÕll make this
brief. I think there may be less
than what I suggested than meets the eye.
I noted that comments were made at a Senate meeting about an agenda item
which is, what do we think about the Fisher Report? It seemed to me that those were reasonable suggestions. The minutes will be available; Dr.
Richardson could see those comments there. I personally plan to report to him what those comments were
because I think they are thoughtful comments. I think knowing what they are would be helpful to him and it
simply occurred to me that perhaps an affirmation in the form of a letter that
in fact, these were the comments that were made would also be helpful. I didnÕt see it as having a larger,
raison tetra, if I may call it that, than that so this is a case where there is
less than meets the eye. I think
the question of what got said at the Senate meeting; itÕs not a matter of a
vote; itÕs simply affirming these comments were made; this is for your
information, thatÕs all I had in mind.
Dr. Bailey: And I would imagine the leadership
might include the Board of Trustees, because I would anticipate Dr. Richardson
would forward such a letter. Dr.
Brunner.
Cindy
Brunner, Pathobiology:
And our Parliamentarian warns me that IÕm treading on thin ice here; IÕm
abusing the privilege of the microphone.
Reference was made to the report by the committee chair, by Larry Gerber
a few minutes ago and I was fortunate enough to have served on that committee
and I brought with me a copy of that report and if youÕll allow me, IÕd like to
refer to the statements in the brief part of the report that deals with one of
the issues at hand, that is, should the president be an academician. Reading glasses are appropriate. Ok, this is from the web, this is from
a version that was taken off the web, the Senate website and I believe it was
revised-this is the version from January 18th of Õ05 and the report
states that ÔWe offer the following observations on desired characteristics of
our next Auburn University president.Õ
Remember that a survey was conducted of the faculty and of A&P and
part of the results; part of this report was based on the results of that
survey. ÔThe survey responses of
faculty as well as Administrative and Professional personnel clearly indicated
a strong preference for a president who possess the specific required
characteristic of having university experience. Such required experiences include an earned doctorate, a
record of scholarly achievement, high level administrative experience, proven
leadership record, and an appreciation for the importance of shared
governance. Additionally, faculty
also had a strong preference for a president who has a commitment to fostering
intellectual diversity and inquiry and for someone who has a proven record of
fostering racial, ethnic and gender diversity.Õ Responses also emphasized the value of experience at a
comprehensive research university and an understanding of the role of a
land-grant university. Although
the responses suggested that experience at a land-grant university was very
desirable, the ranking of this criterion was not so high so as to warrant its
being made a requirement. This is
the key-thatÕs my words-while our committee was in general agreement with the
survey responses, there was also strong sentiment that a broader view of prior
experience was acceptable and perhaps even advantageous. In other words, room should be allowed
for a non-traditional candidate, for non-traditional candidates, excuse me, who
have unique abilities, the overarching criteria for the president for Auburn
University, regardless of his or her experience in academia, should be a record
of leadership and administrative experience with clear evidence of curiosity, a
history of seeking and considering diverse opinions and above all, respect for
all persons. The candidate with
these characteristics, regardless of specific experience, would foster racial,
ethnic and gender diversity, nurture intellectual diversity and inquiry,
practice shared governance and encourage a truly global perspective for the
university. Thus we were offering
exceptions to the rule, but clearly the individual would have to be an
extraordinary aggregate of characteristics if he or she came from outside a
university setting.
Dr. Bailey: That wording is not too dissimilar, in
fact, to what the Fisher Report says.
The Fisher Report does not say you need not have an academic. It reported accurately that most
faculty that they spoke with had a strong preference for that, but also stated
that there may be some advantages to be gained in the case of an exceptional
individual that may come out of a different background.
Are there
further discussion on the Fisher Report?
Seeing no rush for the microphone let me ask if thereÕs any unfinished
business. Any new business to
bring before this body? IÕll
entertain a motion to adjourn. In
favor, aye. Those who oppose, stay
seated.