President's Report to Board of Trustees

["President's Office" <auemail@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu>]

	AUBURN UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING
	         AUBURN UNIVERSITY AT MONTGOMERY 
                                              APRIL 6, 2001
             REPORT BY WILLIAM F. WALKER, INTERIM PRESIDENT

	Mr.  Samford, members of the Board, ladies and gentlemen.  Good
morning.  I appreciate this opportunity to report to you on a number of
matters, and will begin by calling attention to some of the items on the
agenda for today's meeting.

	Chancellor Nance, since we are meeting on the campus of Auburn
University at Montgomery, I want particularly to call attention to a
proposal which the Planning and Priorities Committee will present.  The
subject is a shared Doctor of Audiology program.  I am very proud of the
effective way in which the faculties on our two campuses have worked
together to develop this proposal for the Board's review.

	Please note that you have several projects on the agenda from
the Properties and Facilities Committee.  The last time I checked, the
proposed budgets of these projects totaled in excess of $130
million.		

	We are all aware that proration and budget reductions are
placing pressure on our academic programs and day-to-day operations. 
One might therefore ask whether it makes sense to proceed with these
projects at the present time.  I believe that it does.  Three main
considerations are involved.

	First, the funding of these projects is not directly related to
the state of the economy, nor to the general funding we receive from the
Educational Trust Fund, nor to tuition revenues.  Rather, we pay for
these projects through a combination of funds from private donors, from
the federal government, and from public bond issues.  In  most cases it
would be illegal for us to try to use the funds involved for purposes
other than the projects we are bringing to you today.

	In this regard, we have recently seen wildly exaggerated claims
about the amount of budget reserves we have available to use for
academic purposes.  The more preposterous of these assertions have been
erroneously, and I believe intentionally, inflated by including much
funding that is dedicated solely to supporting projects that you are
asked to approve today.

	Secondly, when reviewing proposals for facilities we absolutely
must not lose sight of the larger picture.  This great university will
soon celebrate its sesquicentennial year.  Auburn's widely acknowledged
academic quality rests primarily on the caliber and spirit of her
faculty, staff, students and alumni, but it cannot be sustained without
facilities to match.

	The life cycle of a facility plays out over decades.  Many of
the structures that house our academic programs were planned and built
fifty or even one hundred years ago.  Our overall physical plant has
matured to a point at which we simply must plan and build for the
students and faculty of the future.

	Many of the proposals you see before you today have been under
development for a long time.  We have pressed hard to get them ready for
your review.  They reflect not only extensive planning, but also the
long-term priorities of the units that are bringing them forward.

	A third reason for coming forward with these proposals today is
that the funding we have identified for them needs to be used.  Many
friends of Auburn have invested valuable time and hard work to make the
funding of these projects possible.  We are committed to the timely
completion of the projects they have done so much to support.

	While our gratitude in this regard extends to a great many
people, I would like today to single out for special appreciation United
States Senator Richard Shelby.  In the course of a distinguished career
in Washington, Senator Shelby has established a long and impressive
record of support for the State of Alabama and for the state's
educational institutions.

	Senator Shelby's effectiveness in this regard is eminently
reflected in today's agenda item proposing a Transportation Technology
Center.  The $50 million it will take to design and build this Center
will come from many sources, both public and private.  The cornerstone,
however, consists of $10 million in federal funding which Senator Shelby
has already made possible.

	I want to emphasize that Senator Shelby's support for this
project has been absolutely critical to its success.  As Auburn people,
and as Alabamians, we are deeply indebted to Senator Richard Shelby for
his very effective support of this state, and for all he has done both
for Auburn and for our sister institution in Tuscaloosa.  

	In sum, then, I believe it is an appropriate time to present
these facilities proposals for your review.  I appreciate the careful
consideration which I know you will give them.

	I would like to turn now to a second subject of these remarks. 
This is the financial crisis that Auburn faces, and that indeed all of
education in this state is facing.  Several weeks ago we were threatened
with proration of 18%, amounting to $35 million for the Auburn system. 
The impact of this level of reduction, either as proration for the
current year, or as a cut in our annual budget starting next year, would
be catastrophic.

	Thanks to the determined efforts of many people, including
especially Senator Lowell Barron, and Representatives Jack Venable and
Mike Hubbard, higher education has been able to negotiate a budget
reduction for next year which we currently estimate at about 3%.  This
represents considerably less damage than initially appeared probable.

	One pressing budget issue that remains, however, is proration of
our current year's budget.  Here the outcome is less certain.  It
appears that the proration issue will be decided in the courts, but it
is also possible that the governor and legislature will intervene.

	The budgetary battle has been brutal and bloody, and all
Alabamians should be concerned about the direction it has taken.
The sad truth is that a labor union is seeking to turn entire segments
of education against one another.  To see the ugliness of this
infighting, all we have to do is watch the current television ads in
which the AEA asks us, "What is the point of higher education?"

	I am hopeful that this very destructive approach is being
countered effectively by the approach we in higher education are
advocating.  Our approach looks to the future, and calls for funding all
of public education equally, equitably, and adequately.  Momentum in
this direction appears to be growing, thanks again in no small part to
the leadership of our elected representatives.

	Members of the Board and ladies and gentlemen, the third major
area I want to address in these remarks is that of shared governance. 
As we are all aware, the past several weeks have been filled with
anxiety and anger on the Plains.  Groups of faculty, students, staff,
and alumni have all voted no confidence in the Board of Trustees.

	A common theme has been the role of faculty in matters of
university governance.  We must take action to help the parties involved
to understand one another's concerns and to address and resolve them.

	I cannot state strongly enough that Auburn's Board has an
unparalleled opportunity to move this university forward.  To appreciate
this opportunity I ask that we recall the first sentence of the vision
statement which the 21st Century Commission presented to the Trustees on
March 20, 1997:  "Auburn University will emerge as one of the nation's
preeminent land grant universities in the 21st Century."

	It is noteworthy that the Mission Task Force which developed
this statement was chaired by then-Provost Paul Parks, and included
among its members Professors Jack Brown, Glennelle Halpin, and Wayne
Flynt.  The vision they proposed is one we can make real.  Auburn is a
first-rate university and has the caliber of faculty, students and
alumni needed to achieve the vision of the 21st Century Commission.

	We should recall, however, that these same students, faculty and
alumni all feel a very deep affection for Auburn.  And when that many
good people care that strongly for an institution, they will have some
strong disagreements about the best way to achieve the preeminence to
which they all aspire.  People will have differing views on what things
we should decide to do and how we should go about making the decisions.

	This is no surprise.  We should expect these disagreements and
we should celebrate them.  And we should also design means of
communicating that help us to engage these disagreements and use them in
a positive way to advance this institution toward our shared vision.

	Our means of communicating with one another have not kept pace
with the dramatic growth of this institution in recent decades.  I sense
that often we are talking with one other and making decisions in much
the same way we did when this institution's annual budget was
$50,000,000, rather than $500,000,000.

	Organizational reviews that we initiated several months ago
suggest a pattern along these lines.  We are seeing pieces of this
pattern show up across the university, and I expect to report more fully
on these matters at the next meeting of the Board.

	That said, I fully understand that the recent votes genuinely
reflect substantive concerns.  We must try to resolve these concerns.  I
firmly believe our best chance of doing so lies in our working through
them together.

	Accordingly, I have recommended to Mr. Samford some steps that I
believe will help us to move in this direction.  My intention in sharing
these recommendations with you today is not to take sides and not to
assign right and wrong.  My intention is that we move ahead.

	First, I encourage the Board to consider the recommendations
offered in Dr. Gladden's letter concerning the presidential search.  It
is my understanding that this process already is well underway and if
differences arise with respect to specific points, I would encourage the
parties to continue to work together to work out a satisfactory
accommodation.

 	Second, I am highly supportive of assessing where we stand in
relation to SACS criteria associated with each element of the
accreditation process.  Given our forthcoming review by SACS, the timing
could not be better.  I also believe it makes a great deal of sense to
bring consultants to campus to help us do what is needed.  I am happy to
defer to Dr.  Jim Bradley for further discussion of this subject, and I
know he will be speaking with you about it later this morning.

	The third step I am recommending is that the Board affiliate
each of its members with individual colleges/schools, and with the
Student Government Association, on a rotating basis.  The assignments
would be for periods of six months or more, at the end of which Board
members would rotate to affiliations with different units for new six
month periods.

	This approach would allow Board members  to meet and get to know
the people and the workings of the units with which they were
affiliated.  Under the leadership of the deans, such an arrangement
could do much to foster ongoing mutual understanding at the operational
level.  For example, what better way than this for members of the Board
to learn first hand about the challenges that proration and budget
reductions pose to our students, our faculty, and our academic
programs?

	Next, I commend the Board of Trustees for their decision to
appoint faculty members to non-voting seats on all committees of the
Board.  I suggest that consideration should also be given to placing
faculty members from the Auburn and Montgomery campuses in non-voting
seats on the Board itself.

	This arrangement would establish faculty participation in Board
governance in a manner directly parallel to the existing participation
by students.  Should the Board not be prepared to take this latter step
at this time, I would suggest the public adoption of a timetable with
for its implementation.

	In conclusion, I want to stress that this is a time of
unparalleled opportunity to foster productive relationships.  I strongly
encourage the Board to take action, along the lines I have suggested, to
address the concerns that have been raised.  I know that the Board takes
these matters most seriously, as we all do.  And I want to thank each
member of the Board individually for giving serious consideration to the
recommendations that I have discussed with you.

	Ladies and gentlemen, at the heart of Auburn's future lies the
issue of trust.  One of the most disturbing moments for me in recent
weeks came when a reference I made to the importance of trust was
greeted with guffaws.  I propose that we do what has seemed unthinkable
in the course of business as usual at Auburn University: communicate
with one another on a basis of mutual respect and trust.

	This is, after all, a university.  We thrive on the robust
competition of ideas.  We must remember that this competition is not
zero-sum:  we can all emerge strengthened.  I believe our best chance of
doing so will rest on a foundation of trust.

	Mr. Samford, that is my report, and I shall be pleased to
respond to questions.