Minutes for the April 10 Meeting
Of the Auburn University Senate
3:00pm Broun Hall Auditorium
Present: Dave Cicci, Ann Beth Presley, Sue Barry, Debbie Shaw, Drew Clark, Wendy Pecham, Drew Burgering, Roger Garrison, Ronald Clark, Norbert Wilson, Charlie Mitchell, Barry Fleming, Anthony Moss, Alevin Sek See Lim, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Carol Centrallo, Scott Hodel, Jon Bolton, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen, Davis, Michel Raby, Jim Sanders, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Chris Arnold, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Andrew Wohrley, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Bart Prorok, Robin Fellers, Jim Wright, Forrest Smith, Salisa Westrick, Anthony Gadzey, Robert Voitle, Dan Svyantek, Peggy Shippen, Howard Thomas, and Scott Phillips
Absent send Substitute: Robert Gross (Winfred Foster), Evert Duin (Rik Blumenthal), Annette Klual (Suhyun Suh), Hywownkhoo Kim (Dan Gropper), Judith Lechner (James Witte), and Mike Fortenberry (Tom Williams), Ivan Watts (Fran Kochan)
Absent with no Substitute: Robert Locy, Richard Penaskovic, Don Large, Royrickers Cook, June Henton, Overton Jenda, Johnny Green, Stewart Schneller, John Heilman, Bonnie MacEwan, Matt Jenkins, Ethan Trevino, Jack DeRuiter, Gary Martin, Jim Bradley, Sondra Parmer, Keith Cummins, Barbara Kemppainen, Charlene LeBleu, Brian Gibson, Timothy McDonald, Anoop Sattineni, Robert Chambers, Carol Carruth, Alice Buchanan, Thomas Smith, Richard Good, John Row, Don-Terry Veal, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Francis Robicheaux, Randy Tillery, William Shaw, Carole Zugazaga, and Todd Axlund
Dave Cicci called the meeting to order at 3pm.
Approval of the Minutes: An approval of minutes of the March 6, 2007 Senate meeting were approved.
President’s Office: Neither the President nor the Provost were able to attend today. No substitute was sent. The Post Tenure Policy will be presented at the next Senate meeting.
Remarks by the Chair:
Thanks to Bill Sauser for continuing in the Parlementariaum postion.
My comments today revolve around two important issues: the post-tenure review policy and the new faculty dismissal policy.
If Dr. Heilman could have been here today, he would have told you that he is going to recommend implementation of the PTR policy recently field tested to the Board of Trustees at their April meeting. I am extremely disappointed that t his recommendation will be made despite the objections of Senate leadership and the General Faculty, and despite being a policy with major shortcomings, such as the reliance on faulty evaluation instruments, too short of a remedial period, and no provisions for appeal.
Results of the PTR field test have shown that, of the 38 faculty members evaluated, two (or approximately 5%) were identified as being in need of improvement. I believe these low performers could have been identified by the current yearly review process without the need for PTR. The expense associated with the proposed PTR process is great, and we must ask the question, “Is this a wise use of university resources?”
When we were hired as faculty members, we were all told that our probationary period would extend until we earned tenure. This new policy apparently extends our probationary period until we leave or retire. Is this the first step in the elimination of tenure?
I believe an indirect result of this policy will be more difficulty in recruiting the best and brightest faculty members to Auburn University. It is appropriate to ask the question, “Is PTR being implemented for a reason other than for the greater good of our students and faculty?”
As troubling as the development of the PTR policy has been, an even more troubling and critical policy is now being created by the administration. The Senate leadership got a look at the first-draft of the long-awaited Dismissal policy this past Friday.
We have agreed not to discuss specific details of this policy at this time, but I will say that some provisions contained in this policy are dangerous and unacceptable to both the Senate and AAUP leadership. In my opinion, if this ill-advised policy is implemented in its present form, it will raise questions regarding AAUP censure, SACS certification, or both. I am hopeful, however, that changes will be made to remove the controversial provisions prior to implementation.
The Senate leadership seriously doubts that the incoming President, Dr. Gogue, would approve of such a dismissal policy, and we suggest that the administration delay consideration of this policy until after Dr. Gogue arrives in July. We must ask, “What useful purpose is being served by moving forward with this policy prior to the changeover in administrations?”
If this policy is forced through at this time, it could present Dr. Gogue with a crisis situation immediately upon his arrival, which he should not have to face. For the good of Auburn University and Dr. Gogue’s presidency, I ask the administration to delay consideration of the Dismissal policy until both the Senate and General Faculty have had an opportunity to review it with Dr. Gogue after he takes office. That, in my opinion, is what’s best for Auburn University.
Please direct any questions regarding the details of the Dismissal policy to Dr. Heilman.
Thank you.
Audience Response:
Conner Bailey (Past Senate Chair): Has not seen the policy. Quoted SACS standards barring interference from a Board with policies. Board of Trustee’s interference in new Dismissal policy is a direct recipe for SACS probation.
Larry Gerber (National VP of AAUP, Past Senate Chair): Proposed dismissal policy causes serious concerns for AAUP and SACS. Worked to help develop the current policy and does not see the need for a new dismissal policy. The current policy is in complete agreement with AAUP and SACS guidelines. He urges that the current policy be retained. Problems are with the administration of the policy not the policy itself.
David Carter (History): Objects to the timing of the new dismissal policy, the no show of administration at the Senate meeting. It is the end of the academic year, poor attendance at General Faculty Meeting. This is a matter for the General Faculty to address. This is a matter for the incoming president.
Anthony Moss (Biological Sciences): In agreement with David Carter and Larry. What is the motive behind modifying the policy at this time?
Dave Cicci (Current Chair): Present in April for passage at the June Board of Trustee meeting. Does not want to speculate. Will be meeting with the Provost to further discuss the policy.
Howard Thomas (Fiber and Polymer Engineering): To present at April Board meeting, then pass in June is surreptitious behavior.
ACTION ITEM:
Powerpoint
Stan Reeves, Chair, Calendar and Schedules Committee
Request change of Spring Break 2009 from March 9-14 to March 16-21. This aligns the Auburn University and Auburn University Montgomery calendars. This solves a problem for dual programs and courses co-taught at both campuses.
Tony Moss (Biology): Does this impact the overall schedule?
Stan Reeves, Chair, Calendar and Schedules Committee, No, does not change the overall schedule and does align with Auburn City School break.
Tony Moss (Biology): Does the change align the University with the Auburn City School system?
Stan Reevers ( ): Yes.
Motion passed.
Finalize Summer 2008 Schedule. Committee defined Full Summer Session as term starting May 21 and ending --. Mini-mester I May – June , Mini-mester II June 30- August 4, and Mini-mester extended (May 16-June 28). These terms are designed to meet different summer teaching needs. Finals are August 5-7. Graduation on August 9.
Full summer semester calendar—divides the breaks between Spring and Summer and Summer and Fall are more evenly.
The extended mini-semester will start before the other summer classes. Recommended start date is May 16, 2008.
Mini-mester II ends at the same time
Tony Moss (Biological Sciences): Not sure evening out break periods will not necessarily be greeted positively.
Stan Reeves () asked Tony Moss to email him the information to take into account in future planning. Had to work at not having conflicts with mini-mester finals do not conflict with regular summer classes.
David Cicci asked for vote. Ayes have it. One nay vote.
INFORMATION ITEM
Administrative Evaluation Committee – Presentation by Joe Molnar, Chair (committee)
Joe Molnar thanked the Provost’s office for loaning him a graduate student for helping with the web-based survey. A few problems with people taking the survey but it was easy to reset. Made five contacts asking people to fill the survey out. The office of International Studies (Jim Ellis) was omitted. It will be on the survey next year.
In 2006, Deans and Department level administration was evaluated. In 2007, the President, the Provost, VP, and selected Administrative offices were evaluated using a Web-based survey. The faculty had an overall a 24% participation rate in the survey. The participation rate by college ranged from 18%-38%. The library faculty were inadvertently omitted from the survey.
Basic elements of the survey included: 1) Strengths, 2) Areas in Need of Improvement, C) Overall Fairness, and D) Overall Effectiveness of the administrator. The President and Provost see all of the results and comments. The Executive VP is allowed to see all comments except those regarding the President and the Provost. Individual reports are confidential. Overall ratings of administrator may be viewed at ---. Hopefully, when the new president is board will get a higher response rate. Web-based survey allows for much quicker turnaround time.
Comments:
Drew Clark (English) – takes responsibility for library faculty being left out.
Charlie Mitchell (Agronomy and Soils and on Administrative Evaluation Committee) – Was disappointed by the low faculty participation. Last year, the administrative evaluation process had a participation of 30% and he had hoped for 50% participation this year.
Norbert Wilson (Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology) – Stated that he did not trust the on-line survey and felt it would be too easy to trace the comments to an individual. Spoke with other faculty members that felt the same way. If the survey had been written, he would have participated.
Joe Molnar (Committee Chair) -- The survey was not traceable. Faculty should not be concerned. Not connected to any identifiable information. Could offer paper and pencil alternative but quite laborious and time-consuming compared to a web-based survey.
(Psychology) – In Psychology, the going rate of response rate on surveys is 10%; 27% is, actually, a pretty good response rate. Higher response rate than you would get if just mailed something to the general population.
David Carter (History) – Echo Dr. Wilson’s response that many junior faculty are apprehensive about answering such a survey. Also, many faculty do not engage on a regular basis with administration. We are considering outsourcing teaching evaluations to a third-party, why don’t we outsource the administrative evaluations?
David Cicci asked if there was any unfinished or new business.
Meeting adjourned.