Auburn University Senate Meeting

                                                       September 7, 2004

 

 

Members Absent: Don Large, VP for Business/Finance; Wes Williams, Associate Provost & VP for Student Affairs; Vic Walker, Staff Council Chair; AAES; Mario Lightfoote, ACES; Werner Bergen, Animal Sciences; Barry Fleming, Art; Raymond Hamilton, Aviation Management & Logistics; Ted Tyson, Biosystems Engineering; James Guin, Chemical Engineering; Ann Beth Presley, Consumer Affairs; Darrel Hankerson, Discrete & Statistical Science; Randy Beard, Economics; Christoph Hinklemann, Finance; Ken Tilt, Horticulture; Roger Wolters, Management; Pharmacal Sciences; Charles Taylor, Pharmacy Practice; Anthony Gadzey, Political Science; Thomas W. White, ROTC Air Force; Howard Thomas, Textile Engineering

 

Members Absent (Substitute): Martha Taylor, A&P Assembly Chair (Harriette Huggins); James Shelley, Philosophy (Richard Penaskovic); Paul D. Starr, Socio/Anthro/Soc Work (James Gundlach)

 

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:00pm by the Chair, Willie Larkin.

 

Willie Larkin: I’m sure that all of you have had an opportunity to look at the minutes of the July 13, 2004 meeting.  Can I entertain a motion to approve those minutes?  (Connor Bailey motioned to approve the minutes.)   A second?  I’ve got a second here.  (Robin Fellers seconded the motion to approve the minutes.)  Is there any discussion?  All those in favor of approving the July 13, 2004 minutes please indicate by saying Aye.  Opposers, nay.  The motion is carried.

 

Is the President here?  Let me go forth with my comments; he indicated the other day that he might just a bit late.  The first thing I’d like to say is that the research park project will be presented to the Board of Trustees by Dr. Moriarty on the 17th of this month.  I had asked Dr. Moriarty to come and talk to the Senate and he indicated he wanted to do that, but he had some conflicts on today and he’s going to be in Washington, D.C. on next Tuesday the 14th, when we have our faculty meeting.  His presentation is going forward to the Board of Trustees; I assume they will approve it.  There are going to be some conditions according to Dr. Richardson, whereby he will get approval from the Board to move forward, but before he does that, he has asked Dr. Moriarty to come and be a part of our October 12th meeting.  So you will get an opportunity to hear that presentation as well as to ask questions about the park and how it is to unfold.

 

The other thing, several months ago I indicated that I would be naming a committee to start looking at the search process and I want to do that.  This Ad Hoc committee process has been run past the Rules Committee members, also Steering Committee and the Executive Committee, and we’ve named it The AU Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Process, Criteria, and Timing of a Presidential Search.  I am appointing at this time the following members: Larry Gerber will serve as Chair, Jim Bradley will be on the committee, Cindy Brunner, Kathryn Flynn, Bruce Gladden, Kimberly King, Renee Middleton, Virginia O’Leary, Charlotte Sutton, and three persons yet to be named.  The Committee will be made up of 12 persons.  There were more than 30 individuals that were recommended initially, and after we canvassed those 30 names, we came up with these 9 initially and then there are 3 that I’m going to name in very short order.  I want to read the charge that I’m giving the committee verbatim so that it can be recorded for the record:

 

It has been 12 years since Auburn University conducted an official Presidential search.  We are once again in the early stages/process of preparing to conduct a national search for a President who will lead this fine institution.  In so doing, the AU faculty must play an integral role in the upcoming search process.  Therefore, an Ad Hoc committee is being appointed and will be chaired by Professor Larry Gerber.  The Senate Leadership is asking this committee to consider and present to the University Senate their recommendations regarding:

            1. The credentials, qualities, and characteristics that we should look for in our                  next President

            2.  How such a search should be conducted, including the appropriate                  composition of the search committee and the role that the faculty should play                  in the search and the process for the public presentation and review of                  candidates

            3.  A timetable for the search

            4.  Assurances that diversity will be a consideration

 

I encourage this committee to review the experience of other recent national searches for University Presidents at other reputable universities and extract best practices.  The committee will need to be prepared to present its recommendations to the University Senate during the November 9, 2004 Senate meeting.  Upon considering input from the Senate, a final report should be submitted to the Senate Chair on or before December 15, 2004.  We will seek formal Senate endorsement at the January 18, 2005 meeting and forward this report to the Board of Trustees for their consideration at their February 4, 2005 meeting.  My desire is that the work of this committee will lay a foundation for a far-reaching, comprehensive and successful search process, which will attract the finest candidates, to ensure that the search will be performed ethically and inclusively, and to instill public confidence both in the selection process and in the person who ultimately is chosen to be our next President.  Now the Board of Trustees-I’ve asked all of these persons that I’ve named up front, and then I’m inquiring from those other three-the Board of Trustees and I have not talked about when they are going to initiate their search.  But what I wanted to do is be proactive, to make sure that when that search does start, that they have the benefit of our recommendations and our input as to the things that need to be included.  And hopefully they will take this advice and use it as they formulate the search process.  Are there any questions about this?  I want to thank those persons who have agreed to serve.

 

The SACS Committee will be here, from my understanding, on the 28th through the 30th.  I’m still waiting on the schedule for those three days.  One reason is that I want, certainly the Senate leadership, and I’m sure the faculty will be involved as well, in this whole process, but we need to see the schedule before we can find an opportunity so that we can play a role in this.

 

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to a number of people-Connor Bailey in particular-we’ve worked very closely together over the last few months.  The Senate Executive Committee has been very helpful in providing counsel and input; the Rules and Steering Committees have been wonderful as well.  I’ve gotten lots of emails and phone calls and personal contact from many of you.  I appreciate that.  I apologize to those of you whose ideas I have not been able to use, but for those who gave me input that we can readily apply right now, I appreciate all of that.  There have been Alumni and others who have contacted me as well.

 

I want to move into the action items.  Recently in the AU Daily, there was a statement that reaffirmed diversity as a core practicing value here at Auburn University.  And when I saw that, I was very pleased and wanted to take advantage of that and talk with the Steering Committee and a few other individuals and we decided that we would to a resolution affirming that statement coming from the President’s office.  I’m going to ask Connor to come and present it, but I want to make a couple of comments first.  I got some emails asking me has the plan been looked at, who has endorsed it and all of those kinds of things.  The only thing I would do is say that the Diversity Leadership Council worked for more than two years putting this strategic plan together.  We had a consultant, Clayton and Associates, along with- he had a couple, three, four, five people in on his staff-and then in the University we had Dr. Walker who was on it, didn’t participate as much but John Prichett attended every one.  We had Keenan Grenell and David Wilson on the committee, Wes Williams on the Committee, we had David Granger on the committee, Janet Saunders, Lynne Hammond, Dan Gropper, Johnny Green, Jimmy Brock, who is an alumni of this university, Anna Gramburg was on the committee, John Asmuth was on the committee, Candace Bourne from Staff, we had Lisa Swanzy from the Office of Students with Disabilities, we had Heath Henderson early on the committee, we had Nathan Currie scheduled, but I don’t think he attended as many meetings, Kai Mumpfield, Black Student Union, we had Kelly Banna, Graduate Students, we had Virgil Starks from the Athletic Department, we had Sabit Adanur from Textile Engineering, Donald Buck from Foreign Languages, Kim King, representing Auburn Black Caucus, Emily Myers from Department of Sociology, Roy Broughton, we had Evelyn Crayton, myself, Steven Silvern and Daowei Zhang was on there.  So if you look at all of these names, it is a broad representation across the University.  There were focus group meetings, there was a Town Hall meeting, there were a number of venues where people got an opportunity to have input.  Having said that, we’re gonna make some recommendations after Connor comes and presents the resolution and we will get input from you all.

 

Connor Bailey, Chair-elect: Good afternoon.  Thank you, Willie.  My name is Connor Bailey and I’m Chair-elect of the University Senate and I’m here to present this resolution on behalf of the Steering Committee.  I would like to take the time to read through this resolution so that it will go on the record:

 

WHEREAS, diversity in all its forms fosters an environment where creative scholarship can flourish, and

 

WHEREAS, a prime responsibility of Auburn University is to prepare students to succeed in a world where success increasingly depends on the ability to communicate and function effectively in an increasingly interconnected world, and

 

WHEREAS, a Strategic Diversity Plan has been prepared but not yet released, and

 

WHEREAS, Auburn University has made important strides but has not as yet accomplished its stated goal of instilling diversity as a core value of its culture, as witnessed by the proportionately small numbers of African-American and other minorities on the faculty or in senior administrative positions on this campus, and

 

WHEREAS, similarly the small number of women on the faculty and in senior administrative positions belies Auburn University’s commitment to diversity both to the university community and our state and nation, and

 

WHEREAS, Interim President Ed Richardson has reaffirmed Auburn University’s commitment to diversity as a core campus value, and

 

WHEREAS, the recent staff changes within the central administration of Auburn University appear to be at variance from the stated commitment to diversity as a core campus value, and

 

WHEREAS, Auburn University’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity office, prior to August 2004 an autonomous unit reporting to the Executive Vice-President, is now housed within the Office of Human Resources, with the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources designated as the University’s chief AA/EEO officer,

 

THEREFORE, the University Senate asks Dr. Richardson to release the Strategic Diversity Plan, present to the University Senate at its October 12, 2004 meeting a strategy for implementing this Plan and report to the University Senate at its March 8, 2005 meeting progress made to that point and what further efforts are planned to achieve the goals of this Plan.

 

I’d like to thank-I’m not naming any one person-but a number of individuals on the Steering Committee who were helpful in drafting this.  Dr. Larkin, I’d like to move that this resolution be adopted.

 

Willie Larkin, Chair: Since this is a committee resolution it does not need a second.  Is there any discussion on this resolution?  If you plan to speak, you would need to go to the microphones please, identify yourself and indicate which department or unit you represent.  Yes?

Renee Middleton, Counselor, Education Psychology/School Psychology: We just had a name change in our department.  Our faculty unanimously supported the resolution, but we did have- there were a couple of faculty members who made a comment respecting a possible change to the 7th WHEREAS, and I’d like to share that with you.  That’s the third one from the bottom.  And the faculty members’ comment is that they do like the fact that there is a qualifier in that section, that word being appear, where it says ‘the University, Auburn, appears-the administration at Auburn University appear to be at variance.  They say that even that is a little strong under the circumstances.  They would prefer something like: ‘WHEREAS, the recent staff changes within the central administration of Auburn University have actually decreased the overall diversity of the administration.’  They think that would be a behavioral observation which is stronger than speculating on someone’s commitment to diversity.  That’s the feedback.  Do you get what they’re recommending?  Shall I repeat that again?  They’re not saying that this exact language has to be adopted, but this is what they have in mind: ‘WHEREAS, the recent staff changes within the central administration of Auburn University have actually decreased the overall diversity of the administration.’  That’s the....

 

Willie Larkin, Chair: Let me ask you, Renee.  Do you want to make this in the form of an amendment?

 

Renee Middleton, Education Psychology/School Psychology: I would like to make this a friendly amendment, if it would be deemed as such.

 

Willie Larkin, Chair: Well, it’s too substantive to have a friendly amendment.  Stay there if you will, please.  I need you to make that observation or to.....

 

Renee Middleton: I would like to make that observation and ask that it be amended as indicated.

 

Willie Larkin: Ok.  Is there a second to this amendment?  We have a second.

 

Connor Bailey, Chair-elect: Ok, I’m going to write it down as best I can.  Actually, instead of appear.....

 

Renee Middleton: Have actually decreased the overall diversity of the administration.  And the idea is that is an actual behavioral observation.....

 

Connor Bailey:   The overall.....say it again please.

 

Renee Middleton: The overall diversity of the administration...

 

Connor Bailey: And how does it go after administration to.....?  And to be at variance....?

 

Renee Middleton: We want to....the idea is not to question someone’s commitment, but stick to what is behaviorally obvious.

 

Willie Larkin: Makes sense.  I appreciate that very much.  Other comments?  If you’ll go to the microphones.  Oh, I’m sorry.  Thank you.  Is there any other discussion?

 

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry & Biochemistry: I didn’t come here prepared to ask that this be amended at all, but when Renee expressed her point I did feel that this was a little bit strongly worded.  I think this body has to be careful.  We’ve been very critical of the trustees meddling in business they shouldn’t be in.  When I read this, I was a little bit wondering how much we should be telling the President which one of his administrators he should be rearranging and reorganizing his offices.  He should have his area to work in as well, without our interference.  We shouldn’t be second-guessing him every staff change, and I feel that this amendment is a little better worded to respect the administration’s right to run itself.

 

Willie Larkin: Great, I appreciate that very much.  Are there other comments, particularly on the amendment?  We have someone coming down.....

 

Judith Lechner, EFLT: My department unanimously supported the resolution, but two people emailed me about the 1,2,3, the fourth one down from the top.  They would like to have Hispanic American  and  Native American included as named groups, instead of just saying other minorities.

 

Willie Larkin: Ok.  If you would just stand there for a moment, since you are introducing a different thought or idea.  Let me ask, are there any more questions or any more discussion about the original amendment?  Alright, here is what I need to do and you need to help me, Bill, on this.  We’re going to vote on the amendment first and then we’ll come back to the resolution and then we’ll entertain...is that right?  Alright, all those in favor of the amendment as stated by Renee, please indicate by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  The amendment carries.  Now let’s vote on the original resolution.

 

Connor Bailey: (inaudible)

 

Willie Larkin: Ok, we’ve got that passed.  Let’s go to the second one.  What I need you to do is to offer this in the form of an amendment, where you would insert the words and you can name the two categories that you’d like inserted.

 

Judith Lechner, EFLT: I would like to offer the amendment: ‘WHEREAS Auburn University has made important strides but has not as yet accomplished its stated goal of instilling diversity as a core value of its culture, as witnessed by the proportionately small numbers of African American...

 

Willie Larkin: Comma.......

 

Judith Lechner: Comma, Hispanic American, Native American and other minorities on the faculty or in senior administrative positions on this campus.

Willie Larkin: Ok, we have an amendment as read.  Is there a second to that amendment?  Ok, Patricia Duffy seconds.  Is there any discussion on this amendment, adding, inserting those two groups?  Yes, please go to the microphone; state your name and department you represent please.

 

Chi Chi Lovett, Steering Committee/Art: If we include Hispanic and American Indian, we need to include Asian-American and other minority groups as well.

 

Willie Larkin: So now that could be a friendly amendment, because she’s adding one.  Would you accept that as an amendment?

 

Chi Chi Lovett: Yes, I would.

 

Willie Larkin: Any other discussion on this amendment?  Alright, all those persons in favor of this amendment please indicate by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  Well, it looks like the ayes, although low, have it.  That amendment carries.  Any discussion on the main, or original, resolution?  Please go to the microphones.

 

Jim Gravois, Library: You mentioned the Diversity Plan, and you’ve described how it was put together by which people involved, etc., but the only problem the Library seems to have with this resolution, of course, diversity is like liberty, everybody’s in favor of it, but we haven’t seen that Diversity Plan and we want to know that if we support this, are we implying that we are also approving a plan that we haven’t seen yet.  So that’s my question and I’m referring to the THEREFORE clause.

 

Willie Larkin: I think you raise a very good point.  And I guess the way it sounds, if we do endorse and ask him to make public that plan, it sounds as if we’re embracing it totally, but what I would...well, I’m going to open it up for discussion.  What do you think we need to do in terms of if we accept this resolution, Jim is saying that the implication is that we automatically accept the plan sight unseen.

 

Jim Gravois: I’m asking is that the case.  Are we automatically accepting that plan that we haven’t seen, which might be a great plan, but we haven’t seen it.

 

Willie Larkin: Let me listen to Renee, and then I might have an answer at the end.

 

Renee Middleton: I would think that...I would hope that’s not what we’re saying in this resolution, that we are endorsing, that we’re making any kind of response about the Diversity Plan because it hasn’t come before the body.  I think that what that last paragraph is saying is that it should come before the Senate and I think that before we can really endorse it, and I haven’t seen it, I would hope that we can, but we don’t know yet.  So, I don’t want this to send that message, that we’re endorsing that plan, because we haven’t seen it.  I think...shouldn’t it appropriately come before the body to review and endorse?

 

Willie Larkin: You know, when I look back, I think asking that it be made public is not an endorsement.

 

Renee Middleton: Right, it should be made public so that we can appropriately respond to it and either...come on board or not or make any suggestions.

 

Willie Larkin: Alright, take that under consideration.  Yes sir?

 

Tom Williams, Naval ROTC: I think when we’re saying there that we want the President to present a strategy for implementing the Plan, we’re saying that we support the plan.  And so I’m not prepared to make an amendment, but if we’re gonna say that, then we’re saying that we support the plan.

 

Willie Larkin: Ok, let me ask you in that last THEREFORE, can we place in there somewhere a statement.... pending presentation.......I don’t know what the wording ought to be, but, pending that it’s presented to the Senate and there’s ample debate and discussion....say again? 

 

Dan Bennett, Dean, College of Architecture: Pending ratification.

 

Willie Larkin: Well, that’s a good way to do it, pending ratification, we’ll hold on to that.  Yes, John?

 

John Mouton, Immediate Past Chair: I think perhaps we ought to ask Dr. Richardson to release the plan and present it to the University Senate on October 12th, 2004 and stop there.  We’re not taking any action, we want to see the plan on October the 12th and then move forward from there.  So I would propose an amendment that puts a period after ‘2004' and leave the rest of it out.

 

Willie Larkin: Can we get a second to that amendment? (Jim Gravois, Library, seconded the amendment)

 

Connor Bailey: ...present it, after Plan on the second line, to the left?

 

Willie Larkin: To present to the University Senate at its October 2004 meeting...and you’re saying a period after that?

 

John Mouton: Just stop there because I think it’s the rest of the language where we begin to make it look like an endorsement.

 

Willie Larkin: Yeah, ok now, Jim Gravois seconded that amendment by John Mouton.  Are you going to speak to this amendment?  Ok.

 

Gary Martin, Curriculum & Teaching: I like the general direction of this, but I think including a strategy for implementing the plan may help us evaluate the value of the plan and, in other words, here’s the plan and here’s how he perceives that it might proceed.  So I would like to offer that as a friendly amendment, to keep going until..right there.

 

Willie Larkin: Are you capturing all of this?

 

Connor Bailey: Did I see you accepting that, John?

 

Willie Larkin: John has accepted that as a friendly amendment.  I’m going to allow it.  Is there any discussion?  Virginia, come to the microphone please.

 

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: I guess what I’d like to suggest, although I’m certainly in support of the general tenor of this discussion, is that we not lose in the wording by eliminating entirely an expectation for both a review and discussion of the Plan, an implementation process based on that review and discussion but finally, and this is the part that I really don’t want to lose, a clear expectation that there be some reporting function that would address the issue of progress at a time certain.  Now whether, which I think was the goal of this last amendment, although I’m certainly sympathetic to the endorsement or the implication that the body is endorsing something that it hasn’t seen yet, and I don’t want us to do that.  But I would not want us to lose, in some fashion, the expectation that there would be a monitoring function and that there would be a formal procedure for measuring progress, etc., once a discussion and approval process had occurred.  And if I had five minutes I surely could draft something, but I just walked in from a class....

 

Willie Larkin: Is there another comment on the.....

 

John Mouton: Willie, I certainly agree with Virginia’s comments.  I think that those are words for a resolution after we’ve reviewed the plan.  We make a resolution then, whatever we want to say about the plan that’s been presented to us, but we may at that time reject portions of the plan or other things.  I agree with Virginia, all of Virginia’s points.  I think that we need to do another resolution after we’ve reviewed the plan.

 

Willie Larkin: Ok.  Other significant discussion on the resolution?  I mean on the amendment, not the resolution.  Alright, all of those persons in favor of the.....Yes?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: (inaudible-Dr. Brunner did not approach the microphone) Read that last paragraph as it stands, I think there is a syntax error.

 

Connor Bailey: ‘THEREFORE, the University Senate asks Dr. Richardson to release the strategic diversity plan, present it to the University Senate at its October 12, 2004 meeting’.  I see...’present it and a strategy for implementation at the University Senate meeting of October 12th’....reword the...yeah?

 

Patricia Duffy: (inaudible)

 

Connor Bailey: Ok, that’s fine.

 

Willie Larkin:  Yeah.  I appreciate those eagle eyes out there.  Any other discussion on the amendment?  All of those in favor of the amendment indicate by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  The amendment carries.  Now we need to go back to the original resolution.  Are there any final comments?  Those in favor of the final resolution please indicate it by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  The resolution carries.  Thank you.  Connor, we appreciate it very much.  The President has come in, so...Debra, do you want to do your piece real quick or is it gonna take.....Dr. Richardson, if you are ready, we’ll have you come up and make your comments.

 

Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim President: Looks like I got here just at the right time.  I’ve been driving in from Birmingham and the weather is not great between here and there, so hence being late.  Let me just make two or three comments, I don’t know, Dr. Larkin, if you wish to comment on the action just taken or instructions to me since I got here a little late.

 

Willie Larkin: There was a resolution in support of your reaffirmation to diversity on campus and the resolution was basically as a result of the comment that came out in the AU Daily and so we took that and sort of tore it apart and put it in the form of a resolution praising you in a sense and encouraging you to go forward and do the right thing.

 

Dr. Richardson: Do better.

 

Willie Larkin: Yes sir.

 

Dr. Richardson: Thank you.  Let me just comment on a couple of things and then I certainly will respond to questions if you have any.  As we know on September 28th, I don’t know if Dr. Glaze has mentioned it, a team will be here from SACS to review basically whether or not we’re doing what we said we were going to do, that would deal with the five issues that, with which you’re all familiar with concerning the reason that SACS placed us on probation.  So I wanted you to be aware of that.  We have a Board of Trustees meeting next week on September 17th, which will deal with several things, one of those will be six initiatives that I would like to put on the table, some of those already quite apparent, such as research park and so forth.  And I wanted to just describe for you the reason for this.

 

I see as my sole criterion for success as whether or not my successor has a long and successful tenure as President is to put into play certain regulations; that’s the easy part; establishing a pattern of behavior that the Trustees understand that these are policy issues, these are administrative issues, is quite another.  So it is a rather aggressive agenda that will go on all this next year.  All the data will be on the table and certainly the discussion will be open and I encourage you to participate in those discussions, either through your committees or through this forum that we have here today.  But I would indicate that it is my intention that by pushing this agenda, several areas will clear up that will not require that my successor will have to deal with it.  I believe that someone coming in to have to deal with certain problematic issues of major consequence as well as having to make an adjustment to a new institution as well as a new set of Trustees would weaken that person and I think, contribute to the person having more difficulty than would be necessary.  So I would ask that you keep that in mind for September 17th and the purpose for that. 

 

I’m not sure what else is of particular interest.  I would say to you that on the athletic side, we’re looking-Tim Boosinger and company at the Vet School, who have done a great job-we’re examining whether or not the eagle can fly, that is the most frequently asked question I get as President, so I wanted you to know what the top priority happens to be and no pressure, Tim, but everybody asks me about that, including the largest Kiwanis Club in the world today.  So I would say to you that the Athletic Director search is continuing and interviews will start next week and I hope to make a decision on that certainly by the first week or so of October.

 

On the other side, as I have put all my cards on the table since I have spoken with you in the past, we have completed our reorganization efforts, for the most part, in Athletics as well as in Samford Hall and will start moving forward in terms of Facilities and Construction and will hopefully have that completed within the next week or so.  After that, I hope that we will be able to focus on those initiatives and discuss those for the next year, and it is my intention that by June of ‘05, whatever that annual meeting date will be, to make specific recommendations to the Trustees for action in that regard. 

So, I think, Dr. Larkin, that’s basically what I could offer as an update and will be glad to yield for any questions that someone might wish to ask.

 

Dr. Larkin: Are there questions please?  Go to the microphones, identify yourself and state the department or unit you represent.

 

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry/Biochemistry: Mr. President, at the last time you spoke to this group, you made a comment about if things didn’t turn out the right way with respect to the Alumni Association, you might dissolve it and form a new one.  I listened to that, I did not react immediately and then I left with a feeling of revulsion.  That’s something that Fidel Castro would say if his legislature went against him.  This is a group of Alumni that has been formed and standing.  How could you think about dissolving them, simply because they don’t agree with you and the Board of Trustees?

 

Dr. Richardson: That’s not the issue.  The issue is quite clear.  It’s a fair question and I appreciate you asking the question because I think it’s good to put on the table.  It makes no difference to me who’s elected President of the Board of the Alumni Association at all.  What is of importance to me is whether or not the Alumni Association chooses to go in a direction which some have advocated, separate from the University.  That’s been the public statement made and it’s actually been in writing.  So I would say to you that my concern is that if the Alumni Association on its own chooses to go on an independent basis, then it leaves me no choice but to form a separate organization.  That is not what I wish to do.  Whatever time I have left, it would take all that time to reconstitute another Alumni Association.  It would create additional turmoil within the ranks, which obviously I do not wish to do.  So I would say to just keep in mind that the employees are Auburn employees, the affinity card where they make money is Auburn University, the logos and so forth are Auburn University, the service contract for the building is Auburn University, the building is on Auburn University land.  So I just hope that they will work with us.  I have said to the Alumni Association Board, and I would say to you, it doesn’t matter whether you agree with me or not, let’s just focus on the issue.  If we focus on what’s in the best interest of Auburn, I’m sure at some point we can come together out there.  It’s not a question of disagreeing with me, it’s a question of whether they deliberately move to separate from the University as an independent body.  If that happens, then I will move forward.  If they just disagree with me on issues, and wish to continue to support Auburn University, then I don’t see that as a reality.  Maybe I didn’t say it well last time, but that has been my position and I do appreciate you bringing it up, because a number of people have said, ‘Well, if you don’t agree with me, that’s it.’  That is ridiculous and would be unacceptable to me as well and I trust that will not be necessary.

 

Dr. Larkin: Other questions? Please go to the microphone.

 

Daowei Zhang, Forestry & Wildlife Services: Dr. Richardson, could you repeat what are the six initiatives you just mentioned, other than the research park?

 

Dr. Richardson: I would prefer not to do that, to list the six at this point.  I can list the three that I have mentioned in the course of conversation, which have really been on top of the table, because I have not presented them to the Board of Trustees yet, that’s the reason.  But I’ll list the three.  So far, that’s what the Birmingham News tried to get me to do a few minutes ago, but I stopped short there, too.  The research park is clearly a top priority, one that I would like to push and I believe, Dr. Larkin, that Dr. Moriarty will be here for your October meeting and will be prepared to respond to whatever questions you might have in that regard.  The second is the Gulf Shores project, trying to make sure that comes about, it’s a unique relationship.  I see The University of Delaware is also looking at a similar project, but I would say it does have potential, both the research park and the Gulf Shores Park, generating additional funding for the University. The research park more immediately that the Gulf Shores project.  The third is to review the College of Agriculture, which would include the School of Forestry.  We’re forming a task force, since you mentioned Forestry, I’ve met with Dean Brinker and asked him to put a couple of people on that committee as well as himself, and that committee should start meeting by the end of the month and we’ll review whether or not the College of Agriculture is positioned for the future that many envision that it needs to be.  In this case, I would say that we’ll be looking at not only the programs we have but whether the programs need to be expanded within whatever the college turns out to be called.

 

Daowei Zhang: Thank you.

 

Dr. Larkin: Other questions please?

 

Dr. Richardson: I think Dr. Penascovic has a question.  Oh, excuse me, I’m sorry.  I didn’t see you.

 

Ruth Crocker, History: Just, actually before you came in, Dr. Richardson, we unanimously, almost unanimously approved this resolution and I’d like to just read you one of these points of the resolution and ask for your comment.  This is the not with its fine grammatical changes that I didn’t quite get them all. ‘WHEREAS the recent staff changes within the central administration of Auburn University appear to be at variance with the stated commitment to diversity as a core campus value’, and as you know, there was concern expressed about this.  How do the recent changes that we’ve read about in the newspaper help to forward diversity on this campus, if you could comment on that?  Thank you.

 

Dr. Richardson: I couldn’t answer that affirmatively at this point. I would say, I would compare it to an analogy such as this: If you’re taking a trip of 100 miles and you analyze it each mile of the way and you’re going through heavy traffic, as I was in Dadeville or something, you would say: ‘This is a miserable trip, but I’m here.’  But I would say if you analyze everything we do step by step without waiting until we get to the end, I think it would be a mistake.  I think you would have to say this, that the steps that we’ve taken to date really have not, was not intended to have an impact on diversity at all.  But obviously when you get into personnel and when you talk about diversity, you get into just one person as it pertains to these initiatives, then obviously I’m somewhat restricted as to what I can say.  But I would, that was not a hollow ring, I do believe that it’s something that needs to be accomplished, and I am committed to doing that.  I just ask that you would give us just a little more time to at least demonstrate that an individual decision may not always be made for the purpose that some may surmise.  I know that is not a great answer, but that is the best I can do since personnel issues are involved.  And of course, we’re talking about, I don’t know, with Athletics, 15 or 16 administrative personnel and we’re talking about a very small percentage of the whole staff that has been restricted to administrative type personnel.  Dr. Penascovic...

 

Richard Penascovic, Philosophy: My question is in a similar vein.  I, too, I’m upset with these firings that have gone on recently.  I’m concerned about the effect on employee morale.  I also think that it sends the wrong message.  Universities don’t normally fire people.  They usually give them another job on campus.  It just bothers me to see this, someone in an older age, even in their 50's, lose their job, because it’s so difficult to find a job again and I wonder.  When I came here 20 years ago, they spoke about Auburn University as a family and I’m a little afraid that we’ve lost some of this feeling of Auburn as a family.  Would you comment on this?

 

Dr. Richardson: Sure will, thank you.  First, Dr. Penascovic, it’s just a basic difference in philosophy, which you expressed and my own.  I believe morale is impacted more by having people that are not working at a satisfactory level and being paid the same thing while others are over here working very hard, very productively, and getting paid the same thing.  I think that we must recognize that the funding that we’re going to be looking at in the future from the state is not bright, not going to get any better.  Cost, whether it’s salary or otherwise, will continue to be elevated.  We’ve got to find a way-that’s why I feel good about the research park.  To some extent, Gulf Shores, I hope, will generate some money-it certainly won’t cost us any money.  I hope it will generate money. 

 

But the issue, and I’ll just say, and I’ve had long conversations with Don and Lee about this, is that I do believe the University has used that philosophy that you described, which I personally think is inappropriate, and that is the musical chair philosophy. That is, if you don’t work here, try you here and if you don’t work here, try you here and it just keeps going around.  So, as a result we have many over-lapping assignments and, in some cases, counterproductive assignments. And, no, it’s not something you like to do.  I’ll tell you that, it’s not something you do haphazardly and I think if you look at the total numbers, you’ll find that they’re relatively small.  But I believe that to pull all of this together, you’re going to see people now that are assigned to a position that has authority, they will be able to grow professionally and I think morale will improve.  Initially, no.  Would you say after the cuts, is your morale up?  Absolutely not.  But I don’t believe the philosophy in just finding someone else another job to do is the correct position.  I think it conveys negatives and I would say to you, as I intend to hopefully generate a substantial sum of money in the Legislature, push very hard to getting our information straight on that, that is clearly something in which we’ll have to deal; what form of accountability are you going through and I believe Auburn will be in a better position than most.  We have examined our situation and we’ve made the necessary decisions, and I think they’re minimal in nature.  And it’s just a disagreement; I don’t believe in having a person that’s not productive.  Now we’ve had three categories: if you’re not fully employed, that’s one thing; if they are fully employed and willing to work satisfactorily, fine; if they’re inappropriately assigned, because of whatever changes have gone on over the years, the person could be better placed somewhere else, then you should give them that chance; and the third, of course, if they’re not performing satisfactorily, I don’t feel an obligation to give them another chance.  That’s just the way I see it.  I think Dr. Gerber has.....

 

Larry Gerber, History: If I could have the privilege of the floor please, since I am not a Senator....

 

Willie Larkin: By all means...

 

Larry Gerber, History: In line with what you just said, Dr. Richardson, and much of what you said could be a compelling argument, but given our recent history with some positions don’t seem to have been treated in exactly the same way that you just described in the last twelve months, or at least since you’ve become President.  I think of the former University President, the Athletic Director; so it does seem to many people that there’s not the same standard or the philosophy that you’re discussing is being applied across the board.

 

Dr. Richardson: I’d say, Larry, that’s a fair assessment.  Let me, since you mentioned two, let me just respond to those.  In dealing with the Athletic Director, it was my decision to make the change.  He was currently under a 4 ½ year contract; in order to make that change we would have either had to pay off Mr. Housel and a person that loves Auburn as much as anyone, agreed that for a 2 year window, of which I could do that.  Now I would say that was a contract to which I was obligated and by cutting it a little over than half, I felt it was at least progress.  In dealing with President Walker, who by the way, I believe is teaching this quarter or semester, excuse me, he has announced to you some months before his resignation that it was his intention to retire June 30, 2005.  That’s what was reported in the media and that’s what I understood as a Trustee at the time and I felt that President, I’ll just say it again, the Louisville decision was not a great idea.  That was not what I would recommend.  But I did not see it rising to the level of significance that a President would have to leave; I just didn’t and still don’t.  So I would say that President Walker could have stayed and I believe that he could have continued on and I think the controversy would have been intensified and it would have kept Auburn in great turmoil which would have had great impact on whether SACS or just bringing the Auburn groups together.  So it was my recommendation when the Governor approached me in January about whether or not I would do this; I said I would do it but I said at the point that since he had announced his resignation and had stepped aside to spare us that controversy, I did believe that we owed him to pay him off for that period of time.  So June 30th would be his last payment from us.  That’s just the way I feel about it.  Now if there are other examples, if you have a multiple year contract, I mean, coaches have that, then you just have to squeeze it as tight as you can and do the best you can.  If a person does not have a multiple year contract, then you’re not afforded the same opportunity, and there may be some examples you can illustrate there.  Alumni Affairs did not have a contract; just served at the pleasure of the President.  And there were others within Samford Hall.  Is that a rambling answer enough, Larry or do you want to follow up with equal time?

 

Larry Gerber: No, it’s not my place to have equal time here, but I still think there is a problem and a difference between the two sides of the house that is of concern, I think, not just to me, but to a number of people connected to Auburn...

 

Dr. Richardson: Well, let...excuse me, I’m sorry.

 

Larry Gerber: I do think that there was an issue in terms of even if you are employed, to letting somebody go from an administrative position.  I’m not totally adverse to your philosophy-if somebody is not doing their job and they’re in administration and they don’t have the protection that academic tenure provides, then there needs to be more flexibility-but it’s my understanding that some of the people let go had virtually no notice whatsoever and were told ‘You can’t even go back to your office’.  I do think that there is a contrast that’s so striking that I think it sends a very problematic message and when Rich was talking about morale, it’s not just the firings.  I think it’s the nature of the firings and the contrast to these other situations that you’re talking about.

 

Dr. Richardson: Well, that’s certainly a valid point.  I would say that I did not personally make all of those.  Some came a little later than I had hoped, but I would ask that we’ll just review that.  Lee, will you sort of walk me through that to see if someone has been treated in an unfair fashion?  That’s not my intention.  I understand, Dr. Penascovic, in getting rehired.  I understand the agony, particularly when you have families; but I will look at that to see if there were steps taken that were unfair to the individual, other than whether or not we would examine the dismissal itself.  I’m not saying that, but I would see about giving them some window to land on their feet.

 

Willie Larkin: Thank you.  Cindy?

 

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: Dr. Richardson, earlier this summer you told the Senate a little bit about a plan you had for developing University priorities in advance of budget requests to the Legislature.  You emphasized the importance that we have clearly defined University priorities.  At the time you mentioned that one of your strategies for establishing the priorities would be to do a series of polls at the state level.  I read that you have conducted one such poll.  At the time you told the Senate about this plan, I asked you if you could involve, if you would be interested in involving faculty in the establishment of the priorities, and I think I asked you for more detail about how you would develop the plan and enable it to be embraced by the University community.  Can you address that question again today, please?

 

Dr. Richardson: Sure, that’s a fair question and again, as I said, if you ask me a question, I’m going to give you my answer.  You may not like it, and I’m assuming that you understand as you have done so far, that you have every right to ask me any question you want.  So let’s just put it on the table. 

 

First, one of my priorities, not one of the six-it’s just something I believe I can make happen and needs to happen-that Auburn traditionally has not received a fair cut of funds allocated to higher education.  And I could sit here and talk about several reasons why, but let me just boil it down to one-that is, Auburn has never had a plan to go and say ‘We want this money to go and do these things and here’s the end result’.  We’ve never had a plan. Ok, what we have done is we’ve completed the first poll and I would say, the University of Alabama and Auburn are working together on this project, trying to gather it’s priorities together and I believe, the two research institutions often are their own worst enemies, and I hope before we’re through, we’ll be able to work together.  I’m optimistic because I served on that Board before coming here.  We have done two focus groups, focus groups where you randomly select people within a community and you have a moderator or two that takes either some of the questions and related information and tries to bore into the opinions.  I watch usually from a remote site, to see what’s going on.  Without going into detail, I can tell you the first two were not very encouraging, in terms of what people thought and in terms of what higher ed can do, what Auburn was and what Alabama was and what Troy was, there were a lot of misconceptions.  Now, we are tempting to schedule a meeting; I had hoped that it would be this Thursday, but we have a conflict with some of those that will attend; we will take the results of those two focus groups-one was conducted in Birmingham, one in Montgomery-there were two each in those cities, so a total of four-and the polling data and try to see if we can wrap around the results of that.  Let me just try to describe what I’m after.  We’ve got to find out what resonates with the general public.  There’s no need for us to talk to each other.  We’re going to be in the clear minority when we get to the Legislature and we vote.  A lot of people out there could care less about any four-year institution.  So what I would say is that we’re going to find what resonates.  Now at one time, I thought economic development would be, based on the focus groups-strike that!  That one didn’t resonate at all.  As I said, I had a real headache after the second one because it went on through research and is there any difference between Troy and Auburn, Troy and Alabama-no, no-just really unusual.  What we will do then is to try whether job creation will resonate.  We’ll try to find out if technology issues resonate.  We just don’t know yet, I have not seen the results.  So our next meeting, which could not be scheduled this Thursday, will happen the next week, and we will try to find the one issue that has broad appeal.  Then we will wrap around that one issue those things that we think Auburn and Alabama believe are essential to the further improvement of our institutions.  I think I used this before in my previous position, we did the same and followed the same plan and found that what resonated with people across the state was a lack of textbooks.  I would have never selected textbooks, but they did.  So then we wrapped reading and other issues of large quantity that took a lot of money-about $20 million for reading, for instance-around textbooks.  So our goal is to meet next week, look at the results, try to find that one thing that resonates broadly and then we will start fashioning our plan to go to the Legislature.  Our goal is still, and I’ve already had numerous conversations with legislators, is to complete that plan by the end of October, do our legwork, depending on whether they have a special session or not, which could mess us up a little bit, but certainly prior to the start of the session the first day of February.  So that’s a long answer again, but we are now trying to look at the data and find out that one issue that resonates and then we’re gonna wrap around it the other things that we think are appropriate.  Now you may have a follow-up question on that.  Obviously how would I get to the other issues might be a question.

 

Cindy Brunner: A comment-one is that you again alluded to the six initiatives that you’re not going to tell us about.  But I guess my actual question is: Between now and the end of October, how do you intend to get faculty involved in the development of this one issue that you want to use as the focal point of the plan?

 

Dr. Richardson: I thought that would be a good follow-up question and it certainly is appropriate.  And I would say to Dr. Larkin and to you, you’re going to have to help me with that one, because I’m running about as fast as I can.  It takes a lot of time to deal with the Legislature; it’s going to take almost everyday.  I’m doing the necessary legwork to make sure they haven’t forgotten me in terms of the role that I currently play.  And we will have the data to analyze, but now I’ve already run into two problems.  First, we have some from other institutions of higher education that want to know the nature of those data and in that case, I think they would use it against us.  We have four levels of higher education in Alabama: we have junior colleges, or community colleges, as they prefer to be called; you have historically Black colleges; you have regional institutions; and you have the research institutions.  When Auburn and Alabama get together, the others go to the other side of the aisle.  I would just ask that if you have suggestions on how you can participate in that discussion and help me after we have those data, I would welcome that opportunity.  I can’t tell you what I have in mind because right now, we just haven’t reached that point.  And it’s time, because we’re obviously running out of time.

 

Renee Middleton: Dr. Richardson, as a follow-up to Cindy Brunner’s question, and I guess related to a question Daowei asked, with the three initiatives that you mentioned: one was Agriculture or Forestry looking at expanding programs, you said....

 

Dr. Richardson: We’re looking at positioning the college for the next 10-20 years and looking at what programs we may not currently offer that may need to be emphasized.  I do not foresee us necessarily eliminating some of the stronger programs we have within traditional Agriculture, but keep in mind, based on-I don’t know if Dr. Weiss is here-based on terms of Undergraduate Students in Agriculture, we have 800-850 students.  So I think that we need to position that college, and I think we can, so that it will be viable and will grow and contribute to the research park and everything else.

 

Renee Middleton: My question is, I guess as you look at expanding, one can’t help but automatically think that might mean elimination as well, although that may not be the intent.  You asked how the University Senate, which is a voice of the faculty, to think about ways to involve that body.  There are committees within the University and perhaps even within the Senate committees that can help play a role in providing and reviewing feedback, looking at programs, etc.  So the question is: Do you intend to use the appropriate University and Senate committees to be involved in that process prior to taking any action?  Will that involvement be forthcoming? 

 

Dr. Richardson: That was two questions-yes and yes....

 

Renee Middleton: And when, with the six issues, there were three you hadn’t yet presented to the Board; when do you anticipate you’ll be making those other priority areas available to the faculty for our knowing?

 

Dr. Richardson: September 17th.  I would say that there are two issues.  The one dealing with the lobbying is where I was asking for assistance, because, really how I would involve a broad group in that, I really don’t have a good answer; I don’t have an answer, but I’m open if there’s some ways we can do that in an open yet confidential way, keeping in mind we have others that would like to see us fail.  In terms of the initiatives, it’s nothing.  These are not clandestine type situations.  I just would prefer to be able to make sure that the trustees are aware of them before they start reading about them in the newspaper.  It just makes it a bit of a problem for me.  So I would say the committees-I’ve already talked with Dr. Heilman-did he ever come back yet? No? He’s been somewhere for a couple of weeks.  To form those committees, this would go on for a whole year and those committees would be actively involved in this discussion.  I or John or others-we have different people that would be providing leadership role and they’ll be available to talk to those committees.  So absolutely you’ll be fully involved and will have a whole year.  Now when I say a year, a year is basically to decide on what action we need to take.  Some of these will take two or five years, certainly after I’m gone, before they would fully be implemented.  But I want to be able to make some of the decisions by the end of this academic year.  So, the answer’s yes, the committees are very appropriate, but again not to get the issues confused, the lobbying side is a different issue and I need some help there.

 

Dr. Larkin: Our provost has been sitting, you can stand there for a second, very patiently and I really want to hear, because he’s going to be talking about some of the objectives and goals on the academic side of the house and he has a couple of other pieces that he has to do.  So, unless there is a real pressing question or comment, we’re going to allow Chi Chi’s to be the very last one, if that’s alright with everybody.  OK.

 

Chi Chi Lovett, Art: Would you please comment on your perceived advantages to Auburn University’s community of repositioning Auburn University’s Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Employment.

 

Dr. Richardson: I can’t give you a good answer to that one, because we’re into issues other than just a philosophical decision.  I would say to you that you’re going to see the issue of diversity a high priority with us.  But it is not a higher priority to me than getting SACS probation off, I assure you of that.  It’s not a higher priority to me than making sure that we get this lobbying effort going to make sure that we generate the money, because either we’re going to do it by the end of this calendar year or we’re going to miss it.  It does mean there’s some time-sensitive issues here, and I don’t see the diversity issue being time-sensitive.  So, I would say to you that you’ve asked, I believe, in yours, to release that.  I thought it had already been done, but evidently not.  Is that correct, the plan?  We have not....

 

Dr. Larkin: No, unless it was done today.

 

Dr. Richardson: Ok.  Again, I don’t have a great answer for you in this regard, I just see again, I would ask that you keep in mind that there are other issues associated with personnel rather than just a philosophical issue of what is a priority for diversity.

 

Chi Chi Lovett: Well, that really wasn’t my question.  It wasn’t very clear...

 

Dr. Richardson: I’m sorry, give me a second shot....

 

Chi Chi Lovett: I’m sorry.  My understanding is that before the office was fairly autonomous and I think that with that autonomy quite possibly came a lot of trust from the faculty and from other people, from the staff and other members of the University and I’m wondering, I guess, I’m wondering about the possibility of that in some way being compromised since it’s no longer an autonomous office.  Thank you.

 

Dr. Richardson: If you look at, as I said, every step of the way, you’ll probably find more negatives than positives.  I would say that this is an issue, in my view, that Auburn had overlapping responsibilities.  We had three entities involved and, being quite candid, two of them didn’t get along too well.  So I really feel that we need to focus our energies around one and to make it a very viable institution.  And I think that you will see that as we come out of these discussions this month.

 

Dr. Larkin: Thank you very much.  Before the Provost comes up, I’m going to ask Debra to come.  It will take just a minute or so to take care of this...We have a report from the Rules Committee.

 

Debra Cobia, Senate Secretary:   I’m here to present this report on behalf of the Rules Committee.  This report was posted on the Web for those who had an opportunity to look at it.  If there are any questions, I’ll be happy to respond to those.  Thank you. Otherwise, Chair Larkin, I move that the report be accepted.

 

Dr. Larkin: Since this comes from a committee, it does not need a second.  Is there any discussion?  I invite you to go to the Web and look at all the committee assignments and if you have any comments about that, you can contact us later on.  All those persons in favor of receiving this or approving this report, please indicate by saying Aye.  Opposed, nay.  Thank you very much.  The Rules Committee did an awesome job of putting that together. 

 

Provost Hanley, if you will come...He’s going to do three things in a row.  First of all, update, well let me back up, he’s going to give the initiatives and goals that he has been thinking about for quite some time, sort of like a vision for the academic side of the house; then he’ll move to update on the Deans’ searches and then finally he’ll give us an update on the Graduate Student Parking.

 

Dr. Hanley, Provost: Thank you.  When Dr. Larkin asked me to do this, I decided to rather than do it in order, I would just mix them all up again so that you wouldn’t know when the presentation was over so that you would stay until the end.  We’re going to talk a little bit about the initiatives, and this has to do with the assessment process that we have going on.  We’re going to talk to you a little bit about planning, also talk about parking some and hopefully get some discussion on that. 

 

The assessment activities, and just to bring you up to date on where we are and how this fits into a yearly process, the first thing we did was a capacity study and that was a question that went out to all departments that said ‘With no new resources, how many more students can you take and where would you put them? Include freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students.  To give us an idea about how many more people we could take, if we put them all in the right place, the results of that study came out 75% of the departments said they could take more students, 25% indicated they could take fewer students, and the net total of that was if we put the students in exactly the right place, we could add about 2,000 students to the population.  The interesting thing about that is that we had 100% freshmen, actually we had 5100 freshmen, and I really couldn’t understand that when I first looked at it because we only take in 3700 freshmen a year, and so that means we have some freshmen who are not making 30 hours the first year; at any given time, we had about 5000 freshmen on campus, so that was full.  The junior and sophomore classes were at 86% and 83% capacity and the senior class went up to 100% again, but again that’s believable because we have 4th year seniors, 5th year seniors, 6th year seniors, people that aren’t finished.  And so the net result of this we do have capacity to add a few students, probably in the sophomore and junior years; we are working on things right now-I’ve asked Dr. Williams and his job of bringing transfer students onto campus to focus on trying to bring sophomores and juniors onto campus that will help us fill this gap.  Now remember that the 2000 students that we’re talking about though, is perfectly placed students.  So if we got 1000 of those, we’d be very lucky.  We’ll do this capacity study again late this fall, after we’ve had a chance to see what the fall semester looks like, get everybody acclimated, we’ll again ask for the information and perform this study every fall.

 

We’re just now finishing up the first Minimum Teaching Requirement (MTR) and that typically, that analysis is typically done in the summer.  The reason for that is that we use the fall and spring semesters to do the MTR.  What the Minimum Teaching Requirement assumes is that if we give faculty the maximum teaching load that we would like them to have, and that of course provides time for them to do the professional development service-a lot of professions have some pretty distinct ideas about that-but if we ask the faculty to teach the maximum amount that we would like them to teach and we then calculate the minimum courses we have to offer to offer to the curriculum and we do a simple division, we come up with the Minimum Teaching Requirement, how many people we need, at a minimum, to teach the courses that we have to offer over the course of the year. 

 

The second part of that study is a resource count, and then we go in and say ‘Find how many faculty we have on campus, how much are they teaching, how many adjuncts, part-time people do we have teaching, how many students are taught by graduate students’; we add all the resources up and we see where we are.  Now part of this study is that we’re going to have the Minimum Teaching Requirement because you did it last year.  If Dan’s college taught all the courses last year, then chances are he had the resources to teach all the courses and it would add up to at least, at the minimum.  What the purpose of this study is, though, is an ongoing and ongoing zero-based analysis.  If you’ve looked at University funding and the way we do our budgets, it’s not just here but everyplace else, our incremental budgeting process is the one most commonly used around the country.  We don’t get into zero-based budgeting, so this gives us an opportunity on a regular basis to see what the minimum resources we would need to operate with.  Now, bottom line on this, we don’t want to be at that minimum, we want to be at the minimum times some factor and the factor I’m most comfortable with is 1.5.  I think Drew’s analysis, and Drew Clark did a marvelous job, first of all, of understanding what I was talking about which takes a scholar in some instances for sure, and getting all the data put together, working with the various colleges, and right now I think our number stands at between 1.3 and 1.4 University wide, if you take them all and add them up. Some are a little bit shorter, some are a little bit longer, but now we have this piece of data that says that this is the minimum number of people we need to deliver the course work.  That analysis by itself does not, is inadequate, because there are ways that people could play to the analysis and maximize the minimum to make their minimum higher.

 

Well, the other side of that analysis is what we’re starting now, the Performance Assessments and those performance assessments will typically be done in the spring.  We’re working on this right now, we’re either going to do academic year analysis-we have to do all three semesters, summer, fall and spring-or we’re going to do calendar year; we haven’t quite figured out how we’re going to do it yet; but I think right now we’re leaning towards calendar year assessments that we would do spring, summer, and fall, and we’re going to have some problems adding these things up because we’re crossing two evaluative years, but I think we can do that.  What the performance assessment says is that regardless of how many resources you have, how well are you performing, what are you generating, and in the process of doing this, we will go through, talking to each unit and determine what they think is important for their faculty to be doing and then try to come up with a way, an analysis, of how well they’re doing.  

 

So, the net result of this is that you have the Minimum Teaching Requirement on one side and the Performance Assessment on the other side.  If you do something that arbitrarily raises your MTR, it will drop your PA, and vice versa.  Let me give you an example here.  The one thing that we’re discussing right now is that there is a lot of choice involved here.  We’re not explicitly saying how you should do things, we’re giving the Deans a choice on how to operate and they in turn will give the Chairs a choice on how to operate.  Let’s take this example: let’s say that you have 40 people that need a class and you could, under the University, teach it two ways, well actually there’s more than that, but one way is to teach one section with 40 people in it.  The other way that you could do it is to split it up into two sections and teach 20 in each section.  Both of those are legitimate.  You could do either one if you want, but you could see in one case, teaching the 40 would drop your Minimum Teaching Requirement because you’re only teaching one course but it would improve your Performance because now you’re getting 40 times 3 FTEs at one faculty member’s work.  If you did it the other way, you would raise your MTR and drop your Performance.  So a lot of the things that you see with the two things are counterbalancing each other.  Again, what I’ll be talking to the Deans about is the MTRs designed primarily to get the minimum, although we don’t want to play the minimum; what I’m really interested in is Performance, so how they balance things off against one another and how this is translated to the Chairs and departments is very important.  As you can see, this is a yearly process and we’ll do this over the course of the year and I’m hoping to get the faculty and departments involved in this as we go through it.  The MTRs are just about ready for release, although we’re still-Drew, how many more we got there, seven or eight more do to, right?  Yeah, so we are going back and doing them, but it’s actually coming forth pretty easy. 

 

The last thing on the bottom is something that I wanted to initiate.  The top three things up there are effectively management data.  The data that we’re going to use to look at how the University is being managed, capacities, minimum teaching requirements, performance assessments.  The bottom one is something I would like to initiate, but that is something primarily a faculty driven process.  Now for those of you who are in Engineering, you know what I’m talking about.  Our assessment process requires us to have an annual review of the degree program that we want to have accredited by our accrediting agency.  There are specific rules on that, but for the most part, it says for each department should have a series of goals, objectives; it should come up with ways of measuring those goals and objectives through consideration of the constituency groups that the school has, and that this analysis should be done on a yearly basis.  The purpose of it is to go through the year to see what the constituency groups think, to see where you are, and then in the process improve.  And of course, the department and faculty have the choice of doing what they choose.  You may get data that says you are not where you are, where you’d like to be; well if that’s the case, you can either do something to improve or become satisfied with where you are.  But it’s a process typically handled in Engineering right now.  Dr. Benefield and his departments will be going through their first AVET2000 review here, but they’ve been doing this now on the order of every 4-5 years.  We would like to see that incorporated, at least at some minimum degree, for all degree programs that we have.  This to me means that we now have a process in place that assures that the faculty are looking at the things and that there is a process in place, something that we can pass along, not just to ACHE and SACS but to other universities.  I think one of the things that we want to do this for is the next SACS review-we’re not even worried about the next SACS review, you’re not going to be here, I won’t be here, right-the next SACS review, which is 10 years away, they’re in all likelihood, they’re going to have a requirement in there that degree programs have some sort of analysis like this in it.  It’s the direction they’re going right now.  So the quicker we get to this, the easier it is for us to get this implemented and get it rolling; that will be good.  Again, the top three are assessments, management tools, and the bottom more of a departmental function.

 

We’re going to do the periodic reviews of the deans, this is every five years and an all constituents committee and a 60-day process will start October 1st.  I’m in the process of putting the committee together now.  This fall, Deans Henton, Evans, Boosinger and Sneller, our four senior deans, will be reviewed and if you’d like more information on that, if you have questions, I’d be happy to answer them.

 

This is a good place for parking, I’ve got you shifted over on academic sides and reviews.  Now we’ll talk about parking.  What happened?  The Graduate Teaching Assistants who have been cited by their department chair and dean as being in responsible charge of a class have been given a B pass/permit.  Now what we tried to do, we tried to match this policy up with what we do for our people who are non-permanent employees or adjuncts who are coming on campus, they also get a B permit if they’re teaching a class.  And so those have been distributed and the one sticking point that we did that still may be-to give you the example of what we had a little trouble with- in Biology, the instructor of record for the course is the faculty member teaching the lecture, but Biology does not separate the labs out.  And so there are, as a four-hour Biology course, but then there may be two labs associated with that, where the graduate student instructing those labs is not the instructor of record.  So we went to the person in responsible charge and so those people were given B permits.  The interesting thing on this is about two weeks ago I had about four or five people come up to me and say ‘It’s great, we have a lot more parking than we had last year’.  Well, last year’s B permits for graduate students didn’t run out until August 31st.  So maybe that’s just perception, maybe that’s just wishful thinking.  But really it wasn’t until September 1st that you should have seen any impact, if you saw impact, because that would have been the first day that graduate students would not have had a B sticker.

 

GRAs with a demonstrated need, that again has gone back to the department chair. We’re talking about if you’ve seen the emails, all the specimens that have to be transported around campus and whether you’d like to see those on the bus or not, all those things were discussed and we now gave the department chairs the privilege of endorsing a student who has an inordinately difficult transportation situation, that they could do that for GRAs.  We’re looking at future options.  There doesn’t seem to be a unanimous feeling about the options.  The only other thing that we’ve been considering is setting up separate parking lots for graduate assistants that would be different from B lots and different from C lots as well so that the graduate students would not have to compete with the undergraduate students for parking.  That was met with mixed reviews by the graduate students.

 

Dean searches-the Library search is underway.  We will have the candidates to the committee on September 15th, I think that’s the-not that we don’t close at that date-that’s the date we’d like to have the applications by.  Committees formed and in place, we’re in the process now of forming Liberal Arts and Education, we’re waiting on a couple of, as you know, I’ve asked people for nominations for that and I’m still waiting on a couple of nominations, so hopefully I can put those together this week.  A Mr. Pementel, who is the A. T. Kierney Education Representative in Los Angeles, will be our assistant this year.  If you remember, both the Liberal Arts and Education had Earnest Thompson from A. T. Kierney out of Atlanta helping with the search, but Mr. Thompson is no longer with A. T.  Kierney and so we now have the Los Angeles based Mr. Pementel who is going to come in and help us and should be here within the next couple of weeks.  That is basically a continuing requirement on their part, we have already paid them.  His costs will be the cost of his travel.

 

In my office, after some deliberation, I will be hiring an Associate Provost.  One of the things that was brought to my attention is the span of control that I had when I came here was somewhere between 20 and 30 people.  And that’s direct reports.  And so we had to do something to get the number of direct reports down and so the Associate Provost will have a significant part of what I’m doing on a daily basis, on a direct report.  However, since this is my office, I don’t intend not to meet with the direct reports that are going to this Associate Provost, but instead let them handle the day-to-day activities.  We’ll still have the same meetings that we have-we have a weekly meeting, Provost, staff, where we discuss issues and things of that nature-but it will relieve me of the day-to-day operations and will relieve me of the direct reports.

 

The Graduate Dean, we have a parallel position where Linda Glaze is now the Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Affairs, the position that Steve is in right now is the Assistant Provost for Graduate Affairs-but that is, Steve is in an interim position-so we’re going to have to advertise that position and then the position that Keenan Grenell sits in, the Assistant Provost for Diversity and Multicultural Affairs is also interim; these will all go out within the next two weeks when we put the ads together and start the search for these three positions.

 

Let me give you a little bit of an update on Priorities and Planning.  President Walker about, I guess not quite a year ago, I guess about 10 months ago, created the Planning Commission and we have been meeting on a regular basis.  Last spring, we came up with eight general goals.  Those general goals were designed to help us to get through the next five years.  One of the things I’m concerned about in my discussions with Dr. Large is that if you look at the financial situation that faces the University over the next five years, it’s not the most promising outlook I’ve ever seen, so we’re going to be trying to look for things and ways for us to generate resources and these eight goals generate those resources.  We received proposals from the units, and I asked the units to do some reallocation in doing this, that reallocation basically came across in the proposals as unclear.  In most cases, the proposals did not specify the impact that it was going to take.  This is my fault.  I did not tell them exactly what I was thinking I wanted, so in response to this, we’ve got the proposals going out to the committee now.  We’re going to go ahead and generate a University scorecard.  What this scorecard is going to use as a baseline is the 2003-2004 academic year where data is generated over a year or we’ll use Fall 2004.  We’re going to distribute the goals to units.  Right now I have asked the person in line to go through each of the goals and to talk with various deans to see if we can’t distribute these goals over the units to see if we can actually reach the goals.  One of the-I’ll show them to you in just a minute, they’re at the end-but one of the goals, for instance, is to increase the graduate enrollment bu 1500 students.  Well, if we’re going to do that, where are the 1500 students going to come from, how are we going to pay for them, which units are going to add, which units are going to take away.  To me, a proposal that comes in should address how many of those 1500 graduate students are you going to try to bring in and how are you going to do it.  So that process is in place and we’ve got to reestablish the scorecard.  The scorecard should be out in about two weeks and it should be simple enough that we can use that as a way of measuring our progress as we walk through these goals.  Questions? 

 

Go to the next one real quick.  If you want to see the Priority and Planning Goals, there they are.  That’s not exactly the way they’re written: Graduate and Professional students by 1500; Undergraduate enrollment by 1000, particularly in the Sophomore and Junior years; increase enrollment of students from low-income families by 15%; increase contracts and grants to $125 million; increase revenue from discoveries to 10% of the contract and grant funding; increase University endowment to $500 million; increase the annual gifts to $50 million, excuse me, that’s a mistake, it should be $65 million; and then to, we want to reach the top 25 in the next five years in the US News and World Report of Public Institutions.  So we’ve got goals set with respect to freshmen, ACT scores, six-year graduation rate, freshmen retention, faculty salaries, National Student Fellowships, Student International Experiences, distance education, student community engagement, and a sustainable campus.  So these all are goals that we have in there that we are going to try to do.  Now what we’re going to try to do is get all of these on a scorecard-where are we now, where would we like to be in five years and how do we propose to get there.  And then now I think we will have a little better framework to lay these proposals on that come in.  The baseline of the proposals are is that if I can get some reallocated money from the unit, that I’m going to work to try and get some additional money to put into it.  For the most part, we’re trying to create programs here that will continue.  These are not necessarily one, I see, we want, for instance, if we do something to increase graduate enrollment by 10 students, I want those 10 students to continue.  So we’re talking about continuing funds here, not necessarily one-time funds, although it is likely that one-time funds will be involved in some of the proposals, but basically its start-up funds.  With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions.

 

Dr. Larkin: If you think you’re going to ask a question, please go to the microphone.

 

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry/Biology: With respect to increasing the number of graduate students by 1500, Steve McFarland just spoke to our department about that and we talked about the graduate tuition and how we are forming these scholarships to cover that, and as he explained it, we’re currently going to be asking the Legislature and Board of Trustees to make a baseline amount for that which will cover the current number we have.  And then if we go ahead and increase by 1500 the number of graduate students, we will not be able to go back and say ‘Hey, we’d like their tuition paid, too.’  Will we be creating a class of unpaid or un-tuition remitted graduate students or are we going to suddenly end up in the position within a few years by our own action where we don’t have enough money to cover the tuition of all the graduate students or are we 50% short?  Well, 30% short?

 

Dr. Hanley: Well, where I come from, graduate students cost money.  I think what we’re trying to do here and Steve-is Steve still here? I knew he’d take off once the questions got started-Steve has been to Oklahoma State, up in North Carolina, he’s been looking at what some of the SRBC schools are doing with respect to how they support graduate students and the general conclusions we’re coming to is that we’re moving to try to bring the graduate student more into the fold than they have in the past.  Some things we’re considering: insurance is a big issue for graduate students, but if they’re working for the University, then chances are we’re going to try to find a way to forgo the out-of-state tuition.  What most people would have to be looking for is for the in-state tuition and the stipend.  Now that’s the first step, to at least get to that point where that’s the case.  Now in addition, there will be a number of TAs, RAs, SGAs that provide for that in-state tuition as well and a stipend of some sort.  The biggest problem we’re going to have though in going to 1500 is how to get that number up and where that money is going to come from and of course, one of the places that it can come from is from reallocation.  In other words, there is some new money that I’m hoping we’ll come up with, but we may reallocate resources inside the college that we use for other purposes besides for the graduate student. In a couple of my past lives, I took a faculty position and turned it into, at that time, four graduate student stipends, because I felt that the graduate student stipends were worth more to me, at the time, than the one faculty member was.  So that’s a possibility.  There are other ways of making that conversion.  One of the things, though, that we’re going to have to depend on the deans to do is make that decision and again, that will go down to the chairs as well.

 

Alice Buchanan, Health and Human Performance: My office is over in Memorial Coliseum, which I think most of you know, in addition to being a basketball arena; it’s also an academic building.  There’s a huge parking lot on the east side of the coliseum that’s a student parking lot and at 6am on Fridays, before game days, it closes.  We have at least 28 classes that are taught in that building on Fridays.  About half of those are graduate and undergraduate classes that are required in our department.  The other half are service classes that serve the whole University and we have 7 home games this year and I think that’s a very strange arranging of priorities for that to happen.  I wonder if there is any hope for that changing.

 

Dr. Hanley: Well, see, I’m on your side because I went over at noon last Friday to play basketball and couldn’t find a parking place, so, I did find one, but I was just lucky.  I don’t know why they were closing down-you’re talking about the lot that’s just east of the coliseum, right?

 

Alice Buchanan: Yes.  I can tell you why.  It’s so that RV’s can park later.

 

Dr. Hanley: Well, it was my understanding that lot was closed and we were asking the students to move out by 4pm or 5pm on the Friday before game day, but they had that lot closed down at noon.

 

Alice Buchanan: 6am.

 

Dr. Hanley: 6am?  All I can say is that I’ll see if I can find out why, but that’s really not my job.  What they do on game day is not something they ask me about, but I’ll see if I can find out for you.

 

Alice Buchanan: Well, it does bring up an academic issue, so if you could advocate for us....

 

Dr. Hanley: I think that it does seem strange that if you’re holding classes that we should be able to park until the classes are over.  I would hope.....

 

Dr. Larkin: I love it when a new senator stands up and talks on their first meeting.  Are there any questions for the Provost?  Go to the microphone please if you think you want to ask a question.

 

Dr. Hanley: Turn that microphone off over there....(laughter)

 

Richard Penascovic, Philosophy: What are some of the variables involved in Performance Assessment?

 

Dr. Hanley: We’ll be talking-well, I can give you a few, Richard-but on the teaching side, we would be looking at degrees generated, FTEs generated.  On the research side, publications, presentations, doctoral degrees, masters degrees generated.  That’s one of the things; I’ve already had this discussion with several people, I mean, Joanne Sellers said ‘This is great; Art Department doesn’t do any of those things’, so we’re going to have to work up a special list for the Art Department.  In the process of doing this, what we’re hoping for is to find out what the faculty values and those things have to be on the list, we can’t ignore them but the problem with this is that this is designed to be a relatively quick analysis.  And so it has to be things that not only we can count but that we can accumulate.  There are things we can count but can’t accumulate; there are things we can accumulate but can’t count.  And so there’s got to be a way of doing this.  The assessments are not the end of all ends but they give us at least a position that we can look back on and compare to. 

 

The Performance Assessments, quite frankly, are not designed for any other purpose than self-improvement.  If your Performance Assessment shows this much this year, my major question is, ‘How do you get 2/10 points higher next year?’  And as part of self-improvement, I think it works well.

 

Richard Penascovic: Thank you.

 

Dr. Larkin: Before John Mouton speaks, I want to apologize to him publicly because he and I had talked about him being on the agenda.  He is always to report after a board meeting and the Board had their committee meeting up in Anniston and I had a meeting and he was going to speak and I neglected to take that to the Steering Committee and so he didn’t get put on there and I just wanted to apologize.

 

John Mouton: No apology needed.  Thank you.  One question that I have is that if we’re full at the senior year, if we’re at 100% and we take in these 1000 Juniors and Seniors, hopefully qualified to graduate, what’s the topside impact on that?

 

Dr. Hanley: Well, I think it would make, give us even more seniors, but that senior class, even though it is oversubscribed, all of those students are not taking full loads.  As a matter of fact, some of them are not taking full loads at all.  So I think there is some hidden capacity that I don’t, that we would not oversubscribe.  But it’s like everything else that you look at the data and you make a decision, then you go check to see if the classes are full.  And if our classes are filled, then we’re going to have to do something else.

 

Dr. Larkin: Ok, when the staff starts getting their purses ready, it means that it’s time to go.  If there are no pressing comments, is there any unfinished business that we have not discussed?  Any new business?  You are adjourned and let me thank all the participants on the program, the speakers and anyone who went to the microphones.  Thank you for voting on the issues that were brought before you.  This meeting is adjourned.