Auburn University Senate Meeting

July 12, 2005

Transcript

 

Dr. Conner Bailey, Chair: Good afternoon.  Its three o’clock and I’d like to call this July meeting of the University Senate to order, please.  Before we get started, let me remind senators to please sign in at the back just by making a mark.  If you are a substitute, please so indicate.  I will continue the procedure of allowing anyone from any represented group of the Senate who wishes to speak or raise questions of anyone on the agenda to be able to do so.  In the event that there are many speakers or many people who wish to address questions, we’ll ask senators to be given first priority to address the speakers.

 

The minutes of the June 7th meeting of the University Senate have been posted on the web and I would entertain a motion for approval at this time.  Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes of the June 7th meeting?  Would you identify yourself, please?  Dennis DeVries.  Let me take a vote then, please.  All in favor of approving the minutes of June 7th signify by saying aye.  Opposed, nay.  These have now been accepted without opposition.

 

Dr. Richardson is here to meet with us today and I’d like to invite Dr. Richardson forward at this time.

 

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Thank you, Dr. Bailey.  I’m sure you will be most pleased to learn that I only have a few comments to make and it should be relatively brief and then I’ll be glad to respond to any questions you might have. 

 

Number one, obviously, I’ve placed on the table during the June meeting of the Board of Trustees, those issues that I wish to be considered during the next academic year.  Those have been posted so I won’t dwell on those, other than to say, we’ve had two meetings since then of Vice Presidents, Provost, and Special Assistants to try to break down those tasks into workable groups and make assignments both in terms of leadership as well as timelines so that we would all be together in that regard.  We’re not quite through, yet.  We didn’t quite finish, but once we do, we will also put that on the web, too so that you will know how those are broken down and who is assuming a leadership role in that regard.  Of course, obviously, these will be the people who are responsible for interacting with faculty committees and starting that dialogue.  So that doesn’t mean that anything has changed other than, I believe, we needed to break those down for those specific assignments.

 

Secondly, I would just offer as a reminder that this is the month that we start to prepare our legislative agenda for the next year.  This next year will be more difficult from a financial point of view, although the revenues are still coming in at an exceptionally high rate, which is encouraging.  I just have to believe that by the end of the fiscal year, which for Alabama is September 30, that will moderate in some way, at least that’s the predictions of some.  In doing that, we start our work with the University of Alabama again within the next few days as we try to develop that.  So I wanted to alert you to it.  Again, we will focus primarily on sustaining those things that we were able to accumulate last year in terms of full funding for our fringe benefits, which had not been done the prior year.  We will also focus very heavily on the fact that if K-12 again is granted a raise, which is possible, because of the way the funds are coming in, that higher education allocated an amount of money for a similar raise as well.  So I know those will be at the forefront and we will be working very hard on those.  As to what else comes out of it, we will have to wait and see.

 

The special session starts next week.  I don’t think there will be too much of interest for us there since it’s primarily the General Fund.  There will be some talk about the imminent domain legislation of the Supreme Court that came down and now legislators are having a tendency to overreact.  I hope that will not be the case, to overreact in that regard and we maintain some balance, but that will probably be the only thing we will track in that regard.

 

I would say that, finally, because you may have some interest in that regard, I did announce a presentation to the Board of Trustees to start its search.  I anticipate, as they have announced, in case you had not heard, they will be looking for a search firm.  The Board member, Mr. Miller, has been assigned to do that by Mr. McWhorter and I would anticipate that when we meet back in September that there will be some discussion of that regard and then it should start to move from there.

 

One other thing I should say-there are only two issues that will come up in September, if I remember correctly, that deals with the formation of an institute.  That will be by title only, not what will go into the institute and then the Auburn University System changes that were previously identified.  So I believe we’re on target and be in position, I hope, to establish a level of institution control sufficient to attract a very highly qualified president for the future. 

 

At that, Dr. Bailey, I’ll just stop to see if there are any questions.

 

Dr. Bailey: Are there any questions for Dr. Richardson?  Judy, would you come to the microphone, please?

 

Judy Sheppard, Communication & Journalism: Dr. Richardson, could you update us on the diversity issues, the status of that at the University?

 

Dr. Richardson: The only thing-thank you, Dr. Sheppard.  The only reason I left that out is I believe Dr. Heilman is going to cover that in his presentation and he’ll do that a little bit later and that’s the reason I left it out.

 

Dr. Heilman:  (inaudible)

 

Dr. Bailey: Why don’t you address the question now if you would please?

 

Dr. Heilman: Thank you very much.  When I got to the Provost’s office, it became clear to me, at least in my judgment, that the first thing I had to do was to proceed to make dean appointments and for the most part, that has now been accomplished. Presentations for a term Dean of Agriculture and Director of the Experiment Station will be held tomorrow and a week from tomorrow.  With those matters I believe addressed, I think it very important to move forward to fill the Diversity position.  The status of that is that following meetings of the Multicultural Diversity Affairs Commission and African-American Administrators or Black Administrators Group and if I have the designation of that wrong, I hope you’ll tell me-work was done on developing a position description for an Associate Provost of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs at Auburn.  That name isn’t set in concrete, but it’s the name of the position that was developed.  Work was done on that, I believe, by David Wilson, Lynne Hammond and I think Kelly Alley and others and if I have the details wrong, please correct me. 

 

I think it’s time to move forward based on this position description to initiate a process for filling the position.  It’s my intention to do that.  I’d like to point to a couple of provisions that are in this position description that I think are particularly important.  One certainly is successful implementation of the University’s Diversity Strategic Plan.  Importance is attached also, and this is something I would like to emphasize in this, strategies for recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty.  The wording here is recruiting and retaining racial and ethnic minorities and women on the faculty.  Attention is also paid, and I believe this is very important, to recruitment and retention programs for racially and ethnically underrepresented students and then a third point is basically programming-working with programming, both academic programming and also human resources programming.

 

With that, it is my intention to move forward with this.  To do that expeditiously, I would like to ask for some discussion and I’ve talked with Conner and the Senate leadership a little bit about this, about two aspects of this position or two issues to consider as we move forward that really aren’t addressed directly in that description and one of those relates to faculty experience.  Basically there’s not a lot of reference in the material that I’ve gotten in front of me, which I think has been circulated on the Internet and commented on, on faculty experience.  If, in fact, this is a position, this is a person who’s, someone whose primary responsibilities will be to work in the areas of recruiting and retention of a diverse faculty and a diverse student body.  What level of attention, for example, in the areas of desired qualifications, just as an example, minimum qualifications should there be reference to faculty experience and faculty appointment and at what level, and second, unaddressed in this material-I’m not complaining, I’m simply describing an issue that I think is worth having some discussion of and I’m asking for that discussion.  It all doesn’t need to take place today or right now, but very soon, in working with the Senate leadership, I’d be interested in faculty input on this-do we want to proceed as expeditiously as we can for this position with a national search?  Clearly it’s got to be filled right away, whether on a permanent or acting basis, or term basis.  That’s not the key point; we have to move forward with this basically now, but do we want to look to a national search with this position.  And you might say ‘Well, John, that’s very interesting because you’ve made a series of term appointments; your own appointment’s term; why would you think a national search would be appropriate in this case?’  And my thought, it’s not a firm conclusion, but the thought that has occurred to me is that we know now that diversity is an essential priority of the University.  I do not believe that priority is going to change.  I do not believe that the strategies that are developed as the reorganizational structure is developed to address it are going to change dramatically when the new administration comes in, a new president and a new provost, and so my thought is that we might well benefit ourselves from having access in the fairly near future to a national pool of persons who could alert us to a broader range of ideas and opportunities and we may have them within the campus or within the AUM system.  So that is…I hope that was a response to your question, Judy.  Thank you.

 

Dr. Bailey: Are there any other questions for Dr. Richardson or perhaps for Dr. Heilman?  Ok…

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Heilman, I think this question is probably for you.  Would you please repeat again what you said about the interviews with the candidates for the term Ag Dean Position?

 

Dr. Heilman: I think that information, Cindy, either has been sent out or is being sent out.  It should reach you shortly.

 

Cindy Brunner: Did you say they start tomorrow?

 

Dr. Heilman: Yes.

 

Dr. Brunner: Ok.  I read the AU Daily pretty carefully and I didn’t see anything about that at all.

 

Dr. Heilman: Did you…and I guess I’m….

 

Dr. Brunner: And you know I’m in an ancillary area.

 

Dr. Heilman: That’s a very good point.  I’d like to just add-you’re asking a terrific question.  Let me ask you this, did you see on Friday the announcement that went out that there would be a presentation on tomorrow?  Since you’re in an ancillary area that may not have reached you.  That is my fault, my responsibility.  I think that what we have is scheduled for tomorrow, scheduled in Hood Auditorium, I believe for 2pm is Russ Muntifering-and the following Wednesday time to be worked out.  Presentations by Joe Touchton and Richard Guthrie.

 

Dr. Brunner: Is my Dean in the room?  He’s usually here.

 

Dr. Heilman: I think Richard is here.   

 

Dr. Brunner: I just wonder is this is something that might have come through the Dean’s office that the faculty could see that is somewhere out there.

 

Dr. Heilman: As we got to the latter part of Friday, I wanted to make sure that the information was sent out.  I asked Margaret about working it and I acknowledge right up from that through the College of Agriculture and so the broader distribution probably was not there but I have a message sent out indicating that there would be a presentation Wednesday from Dr. Muntifering and that additional presentations would be scheduled the following week, with the identity of presenters to be determined.  We now know that it will be both Richard Guthrie and Joe Touchton.

 

Dr. Brunner: Ok.  Thanks.

 

Dr. Heilman: Let me say that you did not get that information in as timely a manner as I think you should have and that is my responsibility and I apologize.

 

Richard Penaskovic, Chair-elect: Dr. Heilman, you asked a question, if we want a national search for this position of Associate Provost for Diversity, and my answer is emphatically yes and I also think that this person should be hired at the Associate Professor level in order to have credibility.  I remember some years ago we hired someone, I think, as an Assistant Provost or Associate Provost only at the Assistant Professor level and the person didn’t have much credibility and for these reasons, I would like to see this.

 

Dr. Heilman: Rich, thank you very much and again, I think these are questions that probably ought to be talked through           now as opposed to with hindsight, and so I appreciate that comment.  You addressed me as Dr. Heilman; I can address you as Dr. Penaskovic and Dr. Bailey.  Whatever the designator, I’d expect to be working, and in fact, I would ask the Senate leadership to develop the sense of the faculty on these matters.  I don’t want that to delay moving forward but it would be very helpful to me and I think it would be very helpful to the long-term probabilities of success of this appointment that those conversations be held right now.  Thank you.

 

Dr. Bailey: Are there any other questions for either Dr. Richardson or Dr. Heilman?  Ok, thank you very much.

 

I’ve a few comments from the Chair.  As Dr. Richardson noted and I’m sure you’re all aware, the Board of Trustees met in mid-June and I shared with senators the outline from which Dr. Larkin briefly spoke.  Unfortunately, Dr. Larkin couldn’t be here today.  He had a professional engagement out of town in the, I can’t remember if it’s in the northern part of the state or in Atlanta, but many hours away and he was unable to be here.  He would normally as the Immediate Past Chair and as our Faculty Representative on the Board, be here to report on what transpired, so he’s asked me to do that.  He did present a statement regarding post-tenure review to the Board of Trustees on Friday the 17th of June.  I shared a copy of the outline from which he spoke with the Senators last week, I believe it was.  The topic of post-tenure review came up in discussions between Senate leadership and the Provost in April before the April Board Meeting and we’ve been in discussions with the Provost, with the President and with the President Pro Tem of the Board ever since.  The position that the Senate leadership has taken is that the idea of post-tenure review is not necessary and the timing in any event is terrible. 

 

The faculty, more than any other group on campus, are evaluated on a very regular basis, not only through the promotion and tenure process but through our annual review with department chairs and heads and to the extent that these are not uniformly experienced by all faculty, that is a management problem and not a problem of the faculty.  We’re also evaluated every time we publish an article or every time we write a grant proposal, successful or not.  We’re evaluated by students on a regular basis.  We go through evaluations very frequently.  If the issue is accountability, then that’s an important issue and which I can acknowledge. 

 

Dr. Richardson made a point that accountability is an essential issue that he wants to focus on in regards to academic program review and the post-tenure review, and I think that if we’re talking about accountability, probably we’re talking about more than just evaluation of faculty.  I would note that the Senate Administrator Evaluation Committee is working hard at revising the procedure, policy and whole approach that we take on evaluating administrators and this might be part of a larger effort that we undertake at the University.  But the timing of this, as is our recommendation to the administration, is that the timing is awkward, for two reasons.  One is that with Academic Program Review and Strategic Planning, we have a lot on our plate, and we want to do a good job on everything we do.  Taking on another large task has the risk of deflecting our energies and slowing the progress on these other two elements.  These other two elements are very important and I believe, are leading to a strengthening of shared governance on this campus and introducing post-tenure review at this time is probably counterproductive, at least that is our Senate leadership advice to the administration.

 

Dr. Heilman is going to talk later on today about this topic, so there will be opportunity for us to talk about the merits of post-tenure review.  Before we move on, however, I would invite any comments that senators have about how in fact your Senate leadership has approached this matter and that could be addressed separately after I conclude my remarks.

 

In other matters unrelated to the Board of Trustees directly, the Academic Program Review Committee is very hard at work.  Art Chappelka is chairing that committee.  Rich Penaskovic and myself have been attending the meetings of that committee.  I believe we’re making very good progress and I expect we will hear more about that early in the fall semester.  Similarly, with the Strategic Plan, it also is moving forward and we’ve invited Bill Sauser to give us a very brief update and be available to answer your questions a little bit later in this meeting.

 

I would also like to report that we’ve made some progress on some initiatives that have come out of the Senate in recent months/years.  One is the Ombudsman position or the Ombudsperson position.  I understand that Dr. Heilman has sent forward a recommendation to the President…

 

Dr. Heilman: May I just explain to you what I did?  I forwarded that to the President and the attachment that had the draft didn’t come through.  So I’ve got the attachment and I’m going to re-forward it to him.

 

Dr. Bailey: In any event, we’re moving forward with the Ombudsperson position and hopefully we’ll be in a position to initiate a search for that soon. 

 

The Intimate Relations policy has been a very interesting story.  The Staff Council and A&P Assembly have commented on the draft that came through the Senate.  The draft that came through the Senate basically prohibited intimate relations between university employees, faculty and others, and students.  It also prohibited intimate relations between employees when there is a supervisory relationship involved.  Some of our colleagues in Staff Council and Administrative & Professional Assembly indicated that extension of this prohibition to cover adults who are employees at this university may not have been necessary, might have adequately covered by existing harassment policy and/or existing nepotism policy as suitably modified to include intimate relations and not only marital or other family relationships.  So expect to be coming back with a policy basically removing one sentence that this Senate has passed. 

 

On Electronic Privacy, the Senate leadership has been in lengthy discussions with the Academic Computing Committee, with Dr. Heilman and Lee Armstrong.  We’ve resolved most of the differences; we still have one small matter that we need yet to work out and hopefully we’ll be able to come back with what I think is a very important and timely policy for final approval by the Senate.

 

Before I move on to the first item on the agenda, let me ask if there are any questions from the floor.

 

Dr. Heilman: Conner, since you spoke about post-tenure review, would you like me to address that now… (inaudible)

 

Dr. Bailey: Unless there’s a reason, I’d rather do the action items first, if that’s possible…let me then introduce Kathryn Flynn and ask her to move forward on two action items.  One is the approval of Senate committees.  The Senate Rules Committee has been working very hard and then, Kathryn, you can go to the next item directly on…

 

Kathryn Flynn, Secretary-elect: At first I’d like to start out by acknowledging the work that the members of the Rules Committee have done over the last two or three months.  It’s involved basically weekly meetings of at least two hours a piece for some time now to come up with the volunteer list for Senate and then also University committees, which are being looked at today.  The time has been spent in the committee meetings and also in the area of recruiting membership when there weren’t enough volunteers to staff committees.  So it’s been a pretty significant time commitment for the people involved and they’ve done an excellent job.  The committee staffing recommendations being made by the Rules Committee today have been posted on the web and senators were notified of that posting and so on behalf of the Rules committee, I’m making a motion that the Senate approve the nominations as submitted.  Does anybody have any comments or questions?  Conner has disappeared.  You went to call for….

 

Dr. Bailey: I’m sorry, I was….ok.  My apologies.  This is a report from a university Senate committee and so does not require a second.  The motion is on the floor.  Any discussion?  Now let me call for a vote.  All of those in favor please signify by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  The Ayes have it with no opposition.  Thank you very much.

 

Dr. Flynn: The second action item deals with a revision to the Faculty Handbook.  This revision pertains to the composition of the P&T Committee.  I’ll give you a little bit of history and then I’ll read the resolution for you.  It came to our attention; I think primarily through the works of Patricia Duffy, that the P&T Committee could not be staffed as required by the Faculty Handbook with respect to clinical faculty representation at the current time.  This is because right now there is no clinical faculty operating at the rank of full professor.  So we realize that could be a problematic issue and have worked to come up with a resolution to address this.  As I mentioned, this is a resolution that will revise the Faculty Handbook.  The wording has been sent to both the Clinical and Research Faculty for review by Conner.  Conner sent that out, I think, last week.  So now I’ll read the resolution:

 

                                                                       

 

Resolution to Ensure the University Can Comply with Handbook with Respect to the Composition of the Promotion and Tenure Committee

 

 

Whereas under current policy the university is directed to have representatives on the Promotion and Tenure Committee from the Research and Clinical Track,

 

And whereas there may not be faculty members in these tracks with the rank of full professor available to serve on the Promotion and Tenure Committee,

 

Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Handbook be modified to ensure that the University is able to comply with the directives concerning the composition of this committee by changing the language in the Handbook in the following way:

 

"Promotion & Tenure (President): The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall consist of the Provost as chair and nine to eleven faculty members, at least seven of which will be tenured faculty. The faculty members will be from the tenure-track faculty, the clinical faculty, or the research faculty. Non tenure-track clinical faculty members and non tenure-track research faculty members will not vote on tenure.

 

Any academic year in which there is no clinical faculty member on the committee, a clinical professor will MAY be appointed as a standby member to be a member of the committee if there are any clinical faculty promotion application. Any academic year in which there is no research faculty member on the committee, a research professor will MAY be appointed as a standby member to be a member of the committee if there are any research faculty promotion applications.

 

The three new faculty members coming onto the committee each year shall be appointed by the President of the University from a list of four nominees provided by the Senate Rules Committee. Each standby faculty member shall MAY be appointed by the President of the University from a list of two nominees provided by the Senate Rules Committee. If no clinical-track Full professor is able and willing to serve as a stand-by member, the Rules Committee WILL, AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENT, send FORWARD the names of TWO tenureD PROFESSORS (NOT IN THE CLINICAL TRACK), ONE OF WHOM MAY BE SELECTED BY THE PRESIDENT TO SERVE AS A RESOURCE for CLINICAL CANDIDATES.   THE CLINICAL-TRACK RESOURCE FACULTY REPRESENTATiVE WOULD ONLY vote ON PROMOTIONS OF the clinical-TRACK FACULTY.  In cases in which the President is unable to complete the staffing of the committee from the list of nominees provided by the Rules Committee, the President may require the Rules Committee to nominate additional faculty members. Faculty members cannot serve in any regular administrative position including that of department head/chair at the time of their service on the committee. Tenure-track faculty members must be tenured and should hold the rank of professor; clinical faculty members should hold the rank of clinical professor; and research faculty members should hold the rank of research professor. The committee shall review departmental and school or college recommendations on candidates for promotion and tenure and make recommendations to the President. The Associate Provosts and Vice Presidents for Research and University Outreach shall serve as non-voting members."

 

Dr. Bailey: This is a resolution from the Steering Committee so it needs no second.  Open the floor for discussion.

 

Dr. Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I as a member of the Rules Committee am familiar with this draft resolution and I want to note that it’s my understanding, with the addition of the bold face material with the capital letters, it’s my understanding that the tenured faculty member who would be serving in lieu of the clinical track faculty member would be serving in a standby position and would not be among the nine to eleven regular members of this committee.  That person would be in addition to the at least nine regular members.

 

Dr. Flynn: That is correct.

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis, Communication Disorders: I’m not a senator, but our senator has asked, because he has a class right now, has asked me to be here because I represent the clinical faculty from the department and our concern in reading the revision is in changing all of the “wills” to “mays” that there would be an opportunity for us to have no representation on the, if we were to go up for promotion, we would have no representation on the committee, which is a concern for us.

 

Dr. Flynn: Other people that participated in the discussion may want to comment on this as well.  That was one, we discussed that, but one of the things that we debated was that you may have someone who is a full professor in the clinical faculty who is unwilling to serve…

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: Right.  And so if that is the case, then…

 

Dr. Flynn: So then you have to move to the non-clinical full professor rank for someone with clinical experience.

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: But then when you go on to say, it continues to be they will find someone who is tenured and they may be appointed; it’s not they will be appointed.  And we also feel that that person should have specific knowledge of the unique responsibilities of a clinical faculty member and that should be written into the handbook.

 

Dr. Flynn: Do you have some language you’d like to…

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: I’d propose….I would like in the beginning: “The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall consist of the Provost as chair and nine to-I have this written down-and nine to eleven faculty members, at least seven of which will be tenured faculty, and two to four may be clinical and/or research faculty.”  May be clinical and/or research faculty, and then strike the next line which says: “The faculty members will be from the tenure-track, the clinical track, or the research faculty.”  And then, a few paragraphs later: “The three new faculty members coming onto the committee each year shall be appointed by the President of the University from a list of four nominees provided by the Senate Rules Committee.  Each standby faculty member will be appointed by the President of the University from a list of two nominees provided by the Senate Rules Committee.  If no clinical-track full professor is able and willing to serve as a standby member, the Rules Committee will forward the names of two tenured professors not in the clinical track.”  And then strike “one of whom may be selected by the President to serve as” and then you’re going to add “who understands the unique nature of clinical faculty responsibilities and who can assist the P&T Committee to appropriately evaluate clinical dossiers.”  And then add “The President will appoint one of these individuals to serve as a resource” and then the rest that’s on there.

 

Dr. Bailey: Sandra, could you wait there a moment?  You’ve made several recommendations.  You’re putting this forward as an amendment, I’m assuming.  Would you like to do this as a whole or in parts?

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: I would like to do this as a whole.

 

Dr. Bailey: Ok, then, we have a motion to amend this handbook change.  I need a second.  Ok, we have a second.  Is that Missy?  Discussion, please.

 

Patricia Duffy, Secretary: One of the reasons why we left it somewhat vague as to who would serve as a resource person is that this version would write into the handbook things which nobody could with definition ascern; whether somebody has that experience or not.  So I drafted this resolution with the expectation that the Rules Committee would in the future be trusted to be sure to do the best job they could but that there could be no guarantee that someone who’s in the clinical track could absolutely understand that role, so we did not want to commit the University Handbook to absolutely say that this was the case since there cannot be a way.  I as a member of the Rules Committee could vouch that this was the case.

 

Tony Moss, Biological Sciences: Just a brief comment.  Clearly, this is meant to cover a current circumstance, right, and should no longer be necessary after a number of years, I would suspect as I’m not aware of any other proviso for other faculty.  Is it the intent, then, that this will be a short-term portion of the handbook and in the future be stricken, or that it will stay there permanently and if so, is there something like that for other faculty?  There could be a time, although I realize that it’s not very likely, there could be a time when there is no one, for instance, to stand in for other categories of faculty.  Does that make sense?

 

Dr. Flynn: It does.  As far as I’m aware, clinical research and regular faculty, if you want to call it that, are the only three categories…

 

Tony Moss: So I realize it’s not likely to occur, but then is the idea that this will be extracted?

 

Dr. Flynn: As time goes by and people in the clinical track progress through the ranks, that you would not need to do this and we had written it hopefully in such a way that it would still be operational, because you could still even as you build a rank of full professors at the clinical track, they may have other things to do and may not be willing to serve on P&T and you’ll have to, through retirement and that kind of thing, you might still have to have this as a backup.

 

Dr. Cindy Brunner, Department of Pathobiology: Is it correct then, that this amendment would revert the “mays” back to “wills”-are you following me-paragraph: “Any academic year in which there is no clinical faculty member blah, blah, blah will and it had been switched to may in this resolution-are we switching that back to will?

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: It would be my preference that it be switched back to will.

 

Dr. Brunner: Are we switching both of them back to will-research professor as well as clinical track professor?  Because that brings us another problem.

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: I can’t speak for the Research faculty.

 

Dr. Brunner: Well, whether or not those are changed, we have changed a shall to a may and back to a will in the following paragraph, which would accomplish the same thing.  The difficulty that we’ve created in doing that is now we’ve mandated that there be research track faculty appointed to the Promotion and Tenure Committee and we haven’t made an allowance for the absence of such a person.  We haven’t added a statement saying that if there is no such person able or willing to serve, then we will make these accommodations for the research track.  We didn’t have anything in there initially because I think there was the presumption that the regular members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee could evaluate research capabilities, but we need to change something if we’re going to say we will have standby members representing research track.

 

Dr. Flynn: I think you’re right.

 

Dr. Brunner: Have we complicated this enough that we need to take it back and look at it again rather than just do this as an amendment?

 

Dr. Bailey: I’d like to hear any further discussion we have.

 

Dr. Richard Penaskovic, Chair-elect: How’s about for the first paragraph we go with will, for the second one we go for may and for the third one for will?  That may solve Cindy’s concern.

 

Dr. Flynn: (muffled and indiscernible discussion) Do you have any comments?

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: I would be happy to have this go back to the committee and work on it further, to look at it carefully again.  And I appreciate the opportunity.  Thank you.

 

Dr. Bailey: Sandra, was I hearing you ask that your motion to revise this resolution was withdrawn?

 

Sandra Clark-Lewis: Withdrawn and for the committee to continue to work on this.

 

Dr. Bailey: Missy, will you withdraw your second?  Ok.  Shall we withdraw this?  Ok, very good.  We will come back with this matter…pardon me?  Cindy?

 

Cindy Brunner, Department of Pathobiology: I move for a reconsideration of the resolution.

 

Dr. Bailey: Do I hear a second?  Second, Tony Moss.  Discussion?  Those in favor, signify by saying Aye.  Opposed, say Nay.  The Ayes have it. 

 

Jim Groccia was here at the last meeting presenting a report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Junior Faculty Mentoring and we have a resolution here.  Please go ahead…

 

Dr. Jim Groccia, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Junior Faculty Mentoring:

 The ad hoc Committee on Mentoring Junior Faculty reported to the Auburn University Senate for discussion at the June 7 and July 12, 2005 meetings. The University Senate supports the recommendations contained in this report, and asks that the Provost provide the direction and resources necessary for implementation of these recommendations.”

 

That’s the resolution. I do have a copy of the recommendations if we would like a review of those at this time or else I guess we will just report, or vote on it.  Would you like me to just quickly review the recommendation?  No?

 

Dr. Bailey: We don’t think it’s necessary.  This group has a long memory.  As a committee report, this does not require a second.  I’ll open the floor for discussion.

 

Eleanor Josephson, Anatomy, Physiology, and Pharmacology: Are there any statistics on the average number of new faculty that comes in each year and will 20 awards of $500 be sufficient?

 

Dr. Groccia: I do not have those numbers in front of me.  The $500 stipend is to provide for some professional development.  Support for 20 members of the new faculty group who participate in a new faculty scholarship program.  We suspect that number will increase as participation in this program increases.  So that’s a request-that $10,000 request-is to support the first year or two of this program at that 20 faculty person level. 

 

Dr. Conner Bailey: Questions?  Are you ready to move forward with a vote?  All those in favor of the resolution before you, signify by saying Aye.  Opposed, Nay.  The Ayes have it.  Thank you very much.

 

I’d like to invite Bill Sauser to come before the Senate at this time to briefly speak, without the benefit of PowerPoint today, briefly speak about the Strategic Plan Process.  We’ve gone through a second phase and Bill’s here to let us know where we stand and to answer any questions that the Senate may have.

Dr. Bill Sauser, College of Business: Thank you, Conner.  When I met with you in early May, I laid out a process-a very ambitious calendar and process-such that we would complete two phases of this strategic planning process.  Phase I was asking the right questions, which was to be done in May, June and July.  And then Phase II is answering those questions and then putting together six to eight strategic goals that will be used to establish direction for the university.  I’m glad to tell you that we’re on target.  We’re progressing according to schedule. 

 

When last I met with you, I had told you that we had four forums to that point.  We also received information through email with respect to some of the comments/questions that had been generated.  Let me ask at this point and time: How many of you have participated in either a forum or a review of some of the questions or looked at it on the web-how many of you have gotten involved in this process, if you would?  Yes, that’s good, very good.  We’re going to see to it that everybody has that opportunity so if you haven’t had it yet, you’re going to get the opportunity.  We have had-we took the information from the four forums and we put together a draft of about a dozen strategic questions-lots and lots of sub questions, because there’s a lot of information that has come in.  That was reviewed by a 30-person committee-broadly representative of the university.  Your senate officers were members of that committee.  Following that, we revised the draft and sent it back out again for people to review and got some very good comments back.  Just today I have received a final draft of 15 pretty darn effective strategic questions and John Heilman and I are scheduled to present those to Ed Richardson in the morning.  So we’re about finished with Phase I, which is asking the questions.

 

Next comes Phase II, seeking answers and setting goals.  We already have a number of forums scheduled for AUM and this campus.  They’re to be held in late July and late August.  Of course, we’re going to have a break for summer.  The ones on this campus will be held in late August so that everybody will have an opportunity to participate. 

 

Again, we have an ambitious schedule, but I think we’re on target it to meet it to have our six to eight overarching goals and objectives in the hands of the President well in time for him to present those to the Trustees at their November meeting.  So that’s where we stand.  I’d be glad to answer questions.

 

Dr. Bailey: Does anybody have any questions for Dr. Sauser?

 

Tony Moss, Biology: Hi.  Could you give us some idea of the nature of the questions to be presented tomorrow?  Thank you.

 

Dr. Sauser:  Yes I will.  They’ll be posted on the web as soon as Dr. Richardson has had a chance to review them.  I can certainly give you a feel for them, they’re pretty broad and strategic, such questions as ‘How will Auburn University maintain long-range financial stability? What will the mission/mission values of our university be?  What should the future size and composition of the student body be?  How will research and graduate studies be strengthened?’  And about eleven others of that nature, strategic questions, some having to do with accountability at all levels, some having to do with aligning strategy with emerging demographic and market trends, some having to do with collaboration as well as competition with other universities.  The kinds of issues that came up during the forums and that have been discussed before this body.  Thank you, Tony.

 

Dr. Bailey: Other questions?  This is an ongoing process and so I’m sure we’ll have opportunity for Bill, for you to come back and speak to us again.  Bill, I wanted to have this opportunity for people to ask questions.  I guess everybody is satisfied with your briefing.  Thank you.

 

Let me now invite Dr. Heilman to come forward and to give us a-lead a little discussion on the Rationale and Process related to Post-tenure Review.  Thank you, John.

 

Dr. John Heilman: Conner, thank you very much.  I’m just going to take this out of here. 

 

I’ve been invited to talk a little bit about the rationale and process, and I’m happy to do that.  I begin-I’ve got nine points here and I’ll just go through them.  I begin by noting that many peer institutions have such a system in place.  I point out Number 2, that the legislature are likely to pay a lot of attention to having systems like this in place and I think that, for me, that leads to a 2a and a 2b.  2a is the general issue of accountability that Conner has referred to.  For me, there is an additional consideration beyond establishing accountability, which I believe is important to do but that also is positioning ourselves proactively and politically so that we can shape what gets done in the state and not have the state shape what we do.  In precisely an issue area and understandably so sensitive as this one is, I’d rather have us be setting the agenda than have others tell us what the agenda is.

 

Three, I would hasten to agree with something that Conner referred to and I think Bill Sauser referred to it also and it needs to be part of-Post-tenure Review doesn’t stand alone, it stands in a context of accountability that includes Academic Program Review but also the evaluation of Administrators and I would, I’m comfortable asking and am pretty confident that’s a matter that both the Senate and the faculty through the Senate leadership but also the Provost’s office will work together on, because in terms of the evaluations of administrators, faculty evaluation is a very important part of it, but it’s not all of it.

 

Fourth, I think that the development of this, of Post-tenure Review, can fit into the development of Academic Program Review, which is underway right now with the Academic Program Review Committee.  I take completely Conner’s recommendation that this is a matter for the Steering Committee.  I think that a system such as this has been developed at other institutions.  I believe Penn State as an example, such that they minimize additional paperwork and draw on existing frameworks for assessment and evaluation.

 

Five and I guess that was my fifth point, that others-this is not a wheel that we need to invent.  Others, a lot of others have done this and have just gone ahead and done this. 

 

Item 6-I’m sorry, my thoughts on this.  Perhaps this is the heart of the rationale issue.  It has been stated fairly and accurately that there are many reviews that are under way.  In fact, there is a lot of accountability that is out there.  I agree completely.  I think the different kinds of accountability mechanisms that have been described; I guess the way I’d describe them in relation to post-tenure review, which would be done on a cyclical basis-5, 6, 7, whatever the number of years is as a basis for review and this is a perspective that some of you will have heard me use before-I think of the trees in the forest.  The individual evaluations or assessment processes relate to points and time.  To shift the metaphor, they’re snapshots.  I think that it is healthy in the life of an organization and also in the life of a professional career to have periodic revisiting; again, to combine the metaphors, to take a look at the forest and to provide something of a motion picture.

 

Second-I don’t want to take up time by reading from newspapers, but I’m going to for just a moment-Colorado University putting faculty reviews up for grades.  This is recent and it relates to the aftermath of the controversy about Ward Churchill.  A decade after the University of Colorado marched in the vanguard of a 10-year accountability movement, the furor over controversial Professor Ward Churchill has triggered a likely overhaul of the school’s once groundbreaking policies.  I don’t want to have-I’ll put it this way-I don’t know what the number of years is.  Is it two years or five years or ten years; I don’t know what the number of years is, but whatever X is, X years down the road, Auburn will have a system of post-tenure review.  I don’t want that headline to be written about what we have and I think the way to ensure that that doesn’t happen is to proceed, to undertake this initiative ourselves with the kinds of objectives that are described in the AAUP Redbook, which I’m going to read from shortly. 

 

In terms of bad timing, I’ve got a couple of thoughts about that.  There’s been discussion, in fact, discussion that Ed Richardson has initiated about the degree at which this institution is connected.  The Senate leadership has published a thoughtful statement saying in fact, that we’re more connected than we might think.  On the one hand, if we believe, I’ll put it this way, if we really do believe we’re connected and I think a lot of initiatives are under way to get us to where we need to be and this is a discussion I’ve had with Deans as well as with faculty members, then saying we’re not ready to do this, somehow to me just doesn’t add up.  Let me put a slightly different light on it.  This is Point 7b: we want to go out and recruit nationally the best President and the best Provost we possibly can.  I do not believe that perspective candidates would be drawn to the University by the fact that mistrust or whatever we want to describe it as between the faculty and the administration prevented us from doing what so many of our peer institutions have already done, peer institutions which incidentally will be recruiting those same candidates. 

 

Item 8-The AAUP also sees that this is coming.  I just want to read briefly from the handbook, not to affirm that, which I think is straightforward, but to talk about some of the values that should inform this process and that I would toward in working with the Steering Committee.  I’ll read briefly:

 

By the mid-1990s, new forms of Post-tenure Review were appearing.  A significant number of legislators, governing boards and university administrators were making such reviews mandatory, others were in various stages of consideration. 

 

This is a decade ago, by the way, and incidentally this is on page 50 of the handbook.  For this reason, it has become necessary to not only reaffirm the principles of the 1983 statement which are reproduced in the email message Judy Sheppard sent out, which also included the points that Willie Larkin had made before the Board, not only to reaffirm the principles of the 1983 statement but also to provide standards which can be used to reassess the review process when it is being considered or being implemented. 

 

This report accordingly offers practical recommendations for faculty and I assume, for administrators, too at institutions where post-tenure review is being considered or has been put into effect.  Principles include: post tenure review ought to be aimed, not at accountability but at faculty development.  I do think by now there is an accountability component, too, and I’ve tried to speak to that.  Post tenure review must be developed and carried out by faculty, and I’ll get to that in Point 9; I couldn’t agree more.  Post tenure review must not be a reevaluation of tenured nor may it be used to shift the burden of proof from an institution’s administration to show cause for dismissal; for the individual faculty member to show cause why he or she should be retained.  Post tenure review must be accorded, I beg your pardon, must be conducted according to standards to protect academic freedom and protect education.  In other words, this is a matter of career development and at many institutions where it has been, where systems such as these have been put into place, has been defined in those terms and that’s how I would look to have it done here. 

 

Finally, going to the specific point about faculty participation; if this is going to happen, and sooner or later it will happen, Dr. Richardson has indicated that it is going to be sooner, it should happen on the basis of shared governance.  It should come about through shared governance and faculty input.  And my thought is, let’s work together.  We have an opportunity to do it.  Dr. Richardson will ask me for a recommendation and I will provide one.  And I would hope very much that it will not only have the benefit of, but perhaps a process and criteria that results from faculty input, through the Steering Committee.  Thank you very much.

 

Dr. Bailey: Thank you, John.  I’d invite comment from the floor.

 

Tony Moss, Biological Sciences: I hear everything you’re saying, and in the context of our already having, well at least in Biological Sciences anyway, a very well established procedure for faculty evaluation, I’m wondering what this adds or is this meant to sort of, I guess, create a more consistent evaluative process across the university, or is it more than that?  Thank you.

 

Dr. Heilman: I think consistency is important also and I would acknowledge that one size never fits all, so I guess the balancing concept for consistency is flexibility.  A key point, at least in my way of thinking, is that this should not add on another huge layer of process and paperwork.  It may be, I’ve tried to speak to the point of distinction between snapshots and a motion picture, the annual reviews, but then a longer term cyclical review, in which I personally believe there is some merit, not only at the level of individual faculty but also programs and entire units.  I lost my train of thought.  Oh, if in fact there are procedures in place that provide that, we need to know about them and I would ask that information be passed along to the Steering Committee and in terms of the details of how we work this out, I think you and I have not yet had a thorough conversation but I expect we would very shortly.  And so and what this should not do is stamp on a system that is already working to this end and is very effective yet another set of requirements that are just a lot of legwork. (Inaudible comment from audience)  It seems to me that’s a very reasonable concern. 

 

Dr. Bailey: Judy?  No, that’s fine, there doesn’t seem to be a stampede, so let’s go ahead.

 

Dr. Judy Sheppard, Communication & Journalism: Ok, this works?  One’s a comment…

 

Dr. Bailey: Identify yourself, please.

 

Dr. Sheppard: I’m sorry, Judy Sheppard, I’m not a senator.  One’s a comment, Dr. Heilman, on the fact that I don’t think faculty should be told again that our objection to something is going to harm our reputation, as you have suggested that if we don’t get on board with this, a good Provost and a good President aren’t going to come here.  That’s just not true; I think that if there’s a disconnect, that’s where it is; that we need to recognize that what we’re doing is not exactly what’s harming our reputation.  The second thing I have, and this is the question, is when you talk accountability, I think it would be really good if we could know exactly what that means.  Are we talking about a response to some trustee’s comments that we work two hours a day and go home?  What do you mean by accountability and will this review be applied to everybody in Administration straight on up to the President’s Office?

 

Dr. Heilman: On the first point, Judy, reasonable people can disagree on this.  I am not trying and it certainly is not my intent to stand, and understand it may heard differently, it is not my intent to bash faculty by saying you have here something that is going to make the university look bad.  My belief is that when national candidates look at Auburn, they will look at the whole picture, including a picture of accountability, and I’ll get to what I think that is, at least take a stab at it in just a moment, and they’re going to say: ‘Where is Auburn on this?’ and on this point if where Auburn is there’s a level of mistrust that prevents that from happening, then that’s going to say something about the institution that they’re going to provide leadership for and I can’t, it is my belief that the tendency of that would not be to make Auburn lots more attractive to the folks we want to attract here.  Can reasonable people disagree on this?  Sure. The issue of accountability-this is not done, in my way of thinking it is important to do this, not because a particular trustee, and I’ll say right up front, I don’t recall the specific comment, but for a trustee or for that matter, an angry parent who doesn’t like paying the tuition that they’re paying, or a legislator, or a critic of higher education generally, and there are such out there, I don’t think that the notion of accountability that I have in mind is not to them.  It is to ourselves and to this institution-this may sound idealistic, but I believe it is to ourselves and to our institution to provide a regular examination and accounting of how we’re doing and whether we,  in our own thinking, and this is the issue of self-owned agenda, not having it controlled for us, whether we think we’re addressing our responsibilities with reasonable levels of efficiency, productivity and professional accomplishment and that’s, I’d rather have us address these matters-which will be addressed-it’s gonna happen.  I’d rather have us take that assignment on ourselves than have someone come by, have someone stand here who will say ‘I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you.’

 

(Inaudible question from audience) Oh yes, I think this gets in part to the issue that was raised of is it consistent.  Yes, I’m not sure that for those who were in positions of long-term administrative positions, whatever that means anymore at Auburn, but that it’s exactly the same set of questions that’s asked of long-term tenured faculty, but I have no, not only do I have no objection to, I support strongly the notion of evaluation throughout the institution, including of administrators and in fact the Board, I guess has proceeded with Dr. Richardson its evaluation of the President.  So that’s and again, reasonable people can differ on what constitutes the most appropriate, the most informative and useful and productive kind of evaluation but in answer to that part of your question, yes.

 

Bob Locy, Steering Committee: John, since I had the opportunity to hear you state many of those things in a Steering Committee meeting a week or so ago, I guess I’m prepared to say that I certainly trust you and Dr. Richardson to the maximum extent that your activities as Provost and his as President permit me to do so and the issue of trust is not so much for me important, but in discussing this with a number of my faculty colleagues since the Steering Committee meeting, it seems that this issue of ache, or the State Legislature or of someone bringing forth a policy that we would be forced to conform to or some such thing as that, has periodically through history rematerialized and there is a great deal of lack of trust on the part of my colleagues concerning exactly what would bring this up again.  Can you or Dr. Richardson enlighten us concerning what the things out there that are looming that make this such a fundamental necessity to move on at this time are?  Are there new circumstances that haven’t exist that you’ve learned of that are leading this to be proposed at this time?

 

Dr. Heilman: I can’t tell you that Person X will put this on the agenda of a particular office.  I know that this issue is getting attention in state legislatures and governors’ offices nationwide.  I don’t know what the timetable is, I believe it’s going to come to us, and Dr. Richardson may want to speak…

 

Dr. Locy: But by the things that you’ve read to us, that’s been going on for 10 years.  Why…

 

Dr. Bailey: Let me invite Dr. Richardson to speak on this matter.

 

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Thank you.  Let me just speak to the issue of possibilities.  Number one, the issue toward higher education is moving as a straight line as it did with K-12 twenty years ago.  In that case, it dealt with student test results and we kept coming up with positions that, you know, you just can’t do that, it doesn’t measure, and all of that.  And prior to an election cycle, governors-and that’s coming up I would to point out-governors go to the National Governors’ Association, they give them legislation that’s pre-prepared, they come back and introduce it and wham! You got it whether you like it or not.  I’ve had three conversations with our existing governor on this very topic.  It is my position that we would have a better chance of driving that discussion if we had demonstrated that we could develop criteria and have an effective means of what is now called Post-tenure Review.  I believe it provides additional protection for everyone.  Let’s say that I get down on someone and let’s say that I want to get you and the Post-tenure review has been completed and this person has again demonstrated that he or she has been and continues to do a great job.  It is my assessment as I have spent some time on organizations such as the Southern Regional Education Board and organizations like that, you’re seeing this move inexorably toward this and part of the change had been that most states have General Funds that deal with education, not like Alabama where we have a separate fund and the strain, whether its Medicaid or prisons or whatever, continue to reduce the amount of money that’s available and so they start to use that to reduce allocations.  I believe by getting in ahead of the time we can in a rational way develop a structure and that way if it does come into state, we’ll be in a position to drive that discussion and we’ll have something that will be balanced and not subject to some political whim.  What happens before, it pops into the legislative session and you just try to do damage control and you just end up getting something that’s not very attractive as they’re wrestling with that in Washington at this time.  So my assessment is, I am concerned that something will be introduced in the next legislative session, which is the one preceding the general election.

 

Dr. Bailey: Thank you, Dr. Richardson.  Sadik?

 

Sadik Tuzun, Entomology & Plant Pathology: Dr. Richardson, I’m Sadik Tuzun, a senator from Entomology and Plant Pathology, also I am part of the Rules Committee.  I think you’ve answered some of my questions.  You are saying that this is an outside thing in summary; it’s going to be an outside thing.  What are we trying to do with all these initiatives that we have like the Program Review and all these things, I think we are regenerating Auburn University that is what I look at this, a whole process is regenerating Auburn University?  If we don’t call this a Post-Tenure Review but call it a Periodic Review done to faculty to regenerate them instead of Post-tenure review-we doubt putting the Tenure term there-then that will make it more friendly to faculty.  I mean, faculty gets bogged down with things and maybe they want to move into a new area and they maybe want to start new research and actually tenure gives us that opportunity.  It may take 5-6 years to develop that research and the biggest discoveries came actually from tenure protected scientists moving into a brand new area.  So if this becomes as a part of a whole general process that we are going to build a bigger and better Auburn, and to give a different name to this, because tenure, the term tenure, almost like alienates people.  You know why?  Because if you are protected by tenure, then you can say what you want, you can think what you want, you can do what you want.  I think this is a very, very important part of academic environment because if I’m only doing what I used to do, then I will never be regenerating myself to get to the second level as a scientist.  But tenure gives me that protection so that I can explore new ideas.  So my suggestion will be that any way we are going through this subjective planning process and we are going through academic review and plus Ombudsman position is going to be coming so this will give us already a flexibility between and a chance to better communication between faculty and administration.  So, I think we should take one step at a time and to get with academic reviews.  Auburn may turn into a totally different institution after this academic review and then let’s give the faculty members a chance to move to different departments, maybe different schools where they can function.  What I am trying to say is that let’s go with what is the most important for Auburn right now, which is the program review, which is what you said when you first came here because the Post-tenure Review wasn’t even in your agenda.  When you came here the first time, you stated certain initiatives that you will bring.  They were absolutely for the future of Auburn.  Now you talk about post-tenure and name it post-tenure, then it becomes a alienating issue.  There is no reason for that.  Let’s call it a periodic review of the faculty, just like academic review.  So each faculty member will be periodically reviewed for the better of the faculty member, for the best of the faculty member and the best of Auburn University.

 

Dr. Richardson: I would say Dr. Heilman had convinced me that that’s the way it should be presented and in my comments I did not use Post-tenure review and I used it in that way, in his very words.  The faculty rep and Board used Post-tenure review and that’s where it’s come along, so I’m saying….

 

Dr. Tuzun: Oh, thank you then…

 

Dr. Richardson: Ok, I did not use that and I think Conner, you had met with and I agreed to that.  So the way you stated it is the way I stated it in my presentation to the Board.

 

Dr. Bailey: Thank you.  Cindy?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Heilman, I think you can turn to Dr. Richardson to answer this question, a tit for tat here.  Actually I have a follow-up to your comment that you just made.  Is it not true that you have stated in the context of this post-tenure review discussion that failure of a tenured faculty member to demonstrate appropriate productivity would be grounds for dismissal?

 

Dr. Richardson: As I said, ultimately you have some sanctions, otherwise it’s worthless.  The question is how many years do you provide a person to take this evaluation and say ‘I need to improve in these areas’?  But if there was clearly after a period of time that’s allocated, anywhere from one to three years, nothing was done, then you would have to go through the faculty process over again.  So ultimately you could get there.  I would certainly hope that would not have to be the case.

 

Dr. Brunner: Ok, so my real question is actually this can of worms has been cracked open and I’m going to open it a little bit further.  In preparation for this meeting, I went back and reviewed my notes from the Board meeting in June and reviewed your initiatives as posted in the web, on your website, and I noticed that in the context of this discussion about review of tenured faculty members, you also mentioned the phrase “workload analysis” or “workload evaluation”.  Some of us will have bells ringing in our minds of that phrase, and you said something about evaluating the number of hours that faculty members spend in a classroom, the number of hours that faculty members spend in their laboratories, etc.  Are you then proposing that a numerical workload analysis might be a part of this process?

 

Dr. Richardson: I am proposing to the Provost and the faculty committees that we answer those questions.  I think you heard, I don’t know which Trustee said that ‘You teach two classes and go home’ type of thing, but it is my observation that there’s much more to a faculty day than that.  I think it is very poorly publicized and understood and I think this process will clearly identify that there’s other expectations, whether it’s graduate programs, office hours, the research, any of the things that we have other than ‘I have taught a class this semester’, so I believe it will serve to eliminate the idea that only teaching counts.

 

Dr. Bailey: Dr. Gerber.

 

Dr. Larry Gerber, History: Non-senator from History.  One observation that follows on what you’ve just commented about needing to explain more fully what faculty actually do.  It seems to me, not just you, but administration in general, has not done a very good job of explaining either to the Board, to the public at large, the extent of evaluation that already takes place.  It’s been posed-why do we need post-tenure review-to some members of the Senate leadership, but I propose it a little bit differently, why do you not have as a response to outside pressure how frequently we are evaluated, how it pertains to merit increases, how you actually treat faculty differently from staff from saying that faculty are not entitled to cost of living increases but only merit increases to salary.  I think that another way of turning this around is why can you not describe much more fully to a wider audience the extent of evaluation that already takes place?  And I would say as a suggestion that Provost Heilman certainly correctly pointed out that a number of our peer institutions have implemented, and I will call it post-tenure review, but have you done a survey of whether in terms of cost-benefit analysis of many of the institutions that have implemented systems feel that the time, and there will be extra time, the extra time involved in that has actually been worth it in terms of added value to the evaluation process which already exists?  So I think that that’s a pretty important question to ask because it is going to be more time and more paperwork and I think the question is, the system that we already have in place, why is it not, what is failing with it?  I’m not convinced by the arguments that Dr. Heilman made that you can’t take an existing system without creating another layer and accomplish the same objective.  So I think that certainly the AAUP position that Dr. Heilman quoted, the premise of that report was that post-tenure review was actually not necessary if it’s going to take place for whatever reason, there are certain standards that AAUP should be made to adhere to, the premise is still that it’s not actually necessary.  But I think it does come back to not doing a very good job of explaining to audiences what already takes place.

 

Dr. Richardson: There probably, I wouldn’t argue, that there could be a better job.  I would say two things: I didn’t hear Dr. Heilman say that.  I heard him say in response over here that if there’s some things being done well, we could capitalize on them.   But the important thing, I think, is this, to me-this is a process that we will decide on.  And I think we’ve cleared up once and for all, we have such a system, it’s clearly indicated and it is consistently applied which is now not consistently applied, based on the information I have and I just think the advantage of us being able, the faculty and Provost, not so much me, being able to decide on the process gives us the flexibility we need, you should have more confidence that it’s going to be fair and I believe that we will shortstop any conversations that occur outside of the university.  Now if you talk with anyone, business leaders, government leaders and people outside of either the university or even on the K-12 side, the issue of tenure is antiquated and unnecessary without exception and they see it as only a way to protect incompetence.  I’m saying this process will confirm that we have people who perform at a very high level and should drive some of the awards as well and I think it would help us, then, to do just what you said we haven’t done a good job of, and that’s is being able to say ‘Yes, we do it and yes, we’re evaluated and yes, I know Bill Sauser is doing a good job and we have the criteria to demonstrate it.’  I believe it will help us thwart that and I think it will help us to be an active participant at the point that this legislature is proposed.

 

Dr. Bailey: Thank you.  Are there any other questions for either Dr. Heilman or Dr. Richardson?

 

Richard Penaskovic, Chair-elect: What happens in the case of a faculty member, maybe you already answered this question Dr. Richardson, but help me, be patient with me.  What happens in the case of a faculty member who, year after year, in his evaluation/self-evaluation, he hasn’t done anything extraordinary.  He just teaches his classes and that’s about it, he doesn’t have any outreach, doesn’t do any research.  Now with post-tenure review, to me, I would think that the worst thing that could result from this inactivity on the part of this tenured professor is that he could be hurt monetarily, that you don’t give him raises since he isn’t showing himself to be productive.  But if you deny him tenure, then what you’re doing is subverting the whole tenure process, right?

 

Dr. Richardson: You could say that if you have a person that is not performing and loses tenure, I don’t believe it is subverting the process.  To me, it would actually be strengthening the process and yes, we can have tenure because we have a process of screening out those people who do not perform at a satisfactory level.  Now what the criteria will be and what the weights will be, I will leave that to you.  I’m just saying let’s come up with a system that we can all agree upon and sell and I believe we will do well.  It is not my intention to subvert it, no one has suggested that but to say that this is a lifetime commitment no matter what type of job I do is probably a stretch, to expect that.

 

Dr. Bailey: Any other questions?  Did you have a comment?

 

Dr. Heilman: I’d just add to that discussion that in fact, there are faculty members at Auburn, extremely good faculty members, who by their interests and I think in agreement with their department heads, concentrate very heavily or almost even exclusively on instruction, do a wonderful job at it, are recognized as leaders in that field and are promoted to full professor, so the issue of just workload distribution, if I can use that phrasing, is only the beginning of the discussion, not the end.  I’d comment also with respect to what Sadik Tuzun said.  The notion of a faculty member whose career takes on new directions, who we might say finds him or herself becoming engaged in a scholarly area that actually is coming into existence, may not have existed at the time he or she went through graduate school, finds a whole disciplinary area growing up around him or her that he or she wants to take part in, that’s something that I think would be encouraged and supported by this process, and quite candidly, that’s a good description of my own career at Auburn University.

 

Dr. Bailey: Any further questions?  Dr. Richardson, I appreciate your being here and your comments on this matter and I appreciate your staying for the meeting. John, likewise, thank you very much.  I’m sure you all can appreciate that their coming to this group and being willing to come forward with a rationale process on post-tenure review, that took a fair amount of courage so I appreciate that.  And I also appreciate the tone of the discussion.  Our recommendation from the Senate leadership has been very clear.  We’re consistent, we’re also not taking an obstructionist point of view, if indeed, this is something that is going to go forward, university Steering Committee, as Dr. Heilman said, is going to be the group that’s going to fashion the faculty-based, faculty-driven process.  Thank you very much.

 

I have one other very short item, which is to announce that the new senators elected by departments, the roster for the coming year is available on the web.  There are some few departments that have not yet elected representatives and I hope that the senators from those departments would ensure that replacements are elected in the very near future.

 

Is there any unfinished business?  Dr. Heilman.

 

Dr. Heilman: I’d like to follow up for just a second on Chairperson Bailey’s remarks just now.  Whatever we call it, whether it’s periodic review and I think that is the language I’d recommend to the president instead of post-tenure review, it’s serious stuff and I believe I can understand, I think I understand from my 19 years as a full-time faculty member, why these questions are being asked.  They are meritorious questions and in my view, if the administration is thinking of doing this, the administration should come here and be able to respond to those things.  Conner expressed appreciation for the spirit of the questions, and I’d like to do that, too.  Thank you.

 

Unidentified speaker: I have more of an item that is of interest to faculty…

 

Dr. Bailey: Could you please identify yourself?

 

Sridhar Krishnamurti, Communication Disorders: Yes, I’m sorry. (Identified self) The question always comes up about the nine month versus twelve month contracts for faculty and I know there’s been a lot of discussion on campus and I was wondering if the Senate can look into the possibility of going from a nine-month tenure track to twelve-month tenure track positions as this has come up on and off and there has been a lot of discussion about it.  This is one of those items that I think needs to be looked at, especially because a lot of faculty members don’t get compensated for those three months and some of those would want to at least spread out their salaries over the three-month period.

 

Dr. Bailey: Thank you.  I’ll be glad to speak with you after the meeting and if this is something that needs to come before the Steering Committee, we can do that.  Probably at the September meeting, David King, the past chair of the Senate Welfare Committee, is going to make a presentation of his committee’s report on uncompensated work accomplished by nine-month faculty during the summer, which might address some of your issues.  That will probably be this September.  We were going to do it at this meeting, but then somebody wisely made the point that many of the nine-month faculty who he would be addressing would not be here. 

 

Is there any other new business to come before the body?  If not, then I would entertain a motion to adjourn.  Tony gave us the motion.  All in favor, say Aye.  Opposed, nay.  We’re adjourned.