AU REPORT Special Report

Part I
Overview of recent attempts at reorganization

Reviews of Auburn University's structure and priorities have become a regular feature of university governance over the past two decades. A special commission created by the Board of Trustees in April is conducting the fifth major study of the university in 14 years.

Each of the previous studies attempted to set the university's course for the future only to fall victim to changes in university leadership, as well as market demand and questions about the institution's mission.

The latest and highest ranking review commission to date is working through the summer to present at least a partial report to the Board of Trustees in September on the university's structure and programs. Unlike previous review commissions, half of the current commission's 10 members are members of the Board of Trustees.

Simultaneously, a task force appointed by the University Senate is conducting a parallel study in an attempt to provide faculty and staff input into the commission's deliberations.

First was under Bailey

Previously, presidential commissions have addressed the university's programs and governance structure in 1984 (twice), 1991 and 1997. As with the current, board-created commission, the first presidential commission in 1983-84 was created in a time of severe fiscal constraints, when the university was looking for ways to reduce costs. With the university returning to stability after four years of internal strife and state budget cuts during Gov. Fob James' first term, President Wilford Bailey sought a process to guide the university through future tough times.

That first panel, headed by then-Institutional Analysis Director Gerald Leischuck, recommended to Bailey in February 1984 a process for prioritizing and reducing programs. The report came as Bailey was leaving office, by which time state funding had begun improving significantly.

The new president, James Martin, promptly appointed a new commission headed by then-Executive Vice President George Emert to take another look at the university's structure and priorities rather than cutting programs, the new commissionŐs recommendations led to a reorganization and rapid growth in number and size of programs.

In 1989-91, with an accreditation review pending, the Martin administration undertook a two-year review of governance and programs. The review led to the final version of the administration's strategic planning document, "Visions of Excellence," which identifies goals in six strategic areas: Undergraduate education; research and graduate/professional education; extension and lifelong learning; human resource development; and economic, social and cultural development; and management and support services.

The second Martin administration report was also headed by Emert and included a series of strategies or goals for each major goal.

Muse appoints 21st Century Commission

Before an implementation plan was developed, Martin retired and was succeeded in 1992 by President William Muse, who appointed the 21st Century Commission to review the university's goals and mission and develop a long-range strategic plan. The 16-member 21st Century Commission, which included five AU trustees, began its work on July 21, 1992, and submitted its report on March 20, 1997. More extensive than the 1992 report, the 21st Century Commission's report included recommendations on the AU-AUM relationship, university outreach, research, enrollment, the fiscal environment, academic programs in the schools and colleges, the graduate school, library resources, administrative support units and intercollegiate athletics.

Muse, Provost Paul Parks and Executive Vice President Don Large used the 21st Century Commission plan as the basis for an implementation plan which they submitted and the Board of Trustees endorsed in July 1997. The plan outlined a five-year strategy to improve faculty salaries, reduce debt service, redirect 1 percent to 2 percent of resources annually to higher priorities, and increase tuition to the regional average.

Building on the 21st Century Commission report, the plan also included a process to evaluate and justify or terminate programs that fail to meet minimum viability requirements. The first yearŐs review was of AU programs failing to come within 75 percent of viability standards for the Alabama Commission on Higher Education in terms of degrees awarded.

Trustees call for another review

Even as the board accepted the administration plan a year ago, several trustees questioned certain aspects, such as tuition increases and the impact and pace of program evaluations. Those concerns came to the fore this April, when a majority of the board voted to establish a new commission of five trustees and five persons appointed by the president.

The new commission was charged to "revisit the recommendations of the 21st Century Commission in light of the more limited fiscal resources now available" to the university.

Commission members chose Trustee Ed Richardson, who is also state superintendent of education, and College of Engineering Dean William Walker as co-chairs and later hired a facilitator to help them get started.

The commission's July 10 session was the first at which the panel addressed issues of university structure and programs.(For a report of that meeting see the July 13,1998 AU Report.) The commission has defined its role as seeking ways to aid the administration in implementing the recommendations of the 21st Century Commission. The challenge, members acknowledge, is for diverse individuals with diverse ideas to find common ground.

Go to: Part II: Back To The Future:1984 Looks Familiar
Go to: Part III: Reorganization in 1984 Set AU on Present Course
Go to: Part IV: Cirmcumstances Change in the '90s
Go to: Part V: AU Rethinks Its Direction
Return to: Special Report Main Page
Return to: AU Report Main Page