Dr.
Willie Larkin, Senate Chair: May I have your attention, please? Thank you very much. I call this Fall Meeting of the Faculty to
order. I want to thank all of you for
being here. We have a short agenda;
however, it may wind up being as long as all of the other meetings. I’d like to refer to the minutes of
This is a
good time of the year because it’s the fall and it gives us the opportunity to
invite our President to come and present a State of the University Address, and
then it gives the faculty an opportunity to pose questions to him as we work in
partnership and collaboration to make
Dr.
Richardson, I assume that you’re ready, and if you’ll come forward, we’ll
entertain your comments.
Dr.
Richardson, Interim President: Thank you, Dr. Larkin.
I’d like to make a couple of introductory statements and then get
straight into the program. Obviously
I’ve added one additional item dealing with the hurricane and I’d like to talk
to you about that straight away.
I think
most of you understand the nature of the changes that occurred in January and
the, I guess, the limitations of why I’m here.
In that case, that I’m referring to, is that my role is basically to
address certain issues, such as SACS and so forth, so that at some point in the
future, a search can be conducted and therefore I would save my comments in
regard to the State of the University-one would be presumptuous, after only
being here seven months-I thought I could offer something in a very
comprehensive way. So what I’d like to
do is to identify several issues which I think are of mutual interest and then,
as Dr. Larkin said, I’d be glad to respond to any questions.
First-Hurricane
Ivan. I’m sure you’ve watched the
Weather Channel, just like everyone else and I would say to you, Dr. Larkin
that I would like to leave after these comments because we have a meeting
immediately after this one with Emergency Management dealing with several
things, one of which is about classes. I
would not want to speculate at this point, but just to, and we will make an
announcement this afternoon late as to just what we will do. According to the most recent information that
I have, the hurricane has moved a little bit further to the west, entering
The second
aspect of that is obviously the classes.
If the brunt of the storm, and assuming that it would still hit us in a
major way, is on Thursday, I just don’t believe we can wait until Thursday to
make a decision. So we will make a
decision this afternoon. And without
saying this is final, I would anticipate that classes would be cancelled
effective tomorrow, but I would, for the rest of the week. But I would like to work with the EMA people,
Alabama Power people and all those we’ve got with us to finalize that. We anticipate, John, you’re here, we should
make an announcement; we’re shooting for around
The third
issue that we’re dealing with that is unresolved is, obviously, the football
game itself. We are involved in
discussions with both the Southeastern Conference officials. It is a televised game; we obviously have
another team, LSU that is of interest there.
As I understand it, LSU will not leave
Second,
SACS. I saw Dr. Glaze here and I think
she could confirm that on September 28th, which is not too far off
just a couple of weeks, we will have a visit, if it’s ok to say that, from the
SACS team, consisting of about four people who will be coming primarily to
confirm whether or not we’re doing what we submitted to them in written
form. We are, and hopefully it will be sufficient. I anticipate that this team will not be as
visible as others and they will be checking certain documents, as they have
already requested minutes of the Board Meeting and things like that, and they
will be interviewing people, such as Trustees and, I’m sure, myself and others. But then they would leave sometime that
Thursday morning on the 30th.
As to the exit conference, I’m not sure how that will be handled at this
point. I’m sure we’ll find out
shortly. So again, I would simply say to
you that has been my number one priority, to remove SACS. It is a blemish on our record and I have done
everything that I could, including submitting to SACS any policy or
recommendation that I submitted to the Board, submitting to SACS in advance to
make sure that it was sufficient. Having
been given that assurance and as a result of that, I feel comfortable that we
have now been able to move on. On the legal side, obviously we’ve withdrawn the
suit. We had one of our people that had
entered that suit, that has been removed at this point, so I think that was a
holdup on finalizing that, and we’re continuing to work on that legal side of
it. But other than that, I believe that
we have substantially met, or fully met would be a better term, that which SACS
would require of us.
When we
have our next Trustee meeting, this is item number three for me, we’ll include
some of the standard items that you’ve come to expect in terms of construction
and certain policies, faculty handbooks has one item on there, very minor item
dealing with what’s constitutes a majority, that sort of thing. But in addition to some of the suggestions
that I would make, I will include six initiatives that I would place before
them. These are not earth-shaking types
of initiatives, although most certainly one or two will create some
controversy. Wanted to just describe for
you, and the reason that I’m not prepared to list those for you now, I have not
submitted those to the Trustees; I believe I saw Virginia Thompson, you’ve come
in as a member of the Trustees, thank you so much for coming; so I would prefer
to just wait until we have our next meeting, which will be within the next ten
days, and then we’ll start the process of reviewing those initiatives.
I wanted to
talk about two or three aspects of that and what I’m trying to accomplish. In regard to my success, I have only one
criteria and that is that my successor will have a very long and productive
career as President of Auburn. And it’s
very easy to pass policies and get everything in place so that we’ve done what
we need to do. That’s the easy
part. The most difficult part is what I
choose to call a pattern of behavior.
That is, we’ve come to understand: this is what Trustees do, this is
what Administration does, and in that context, over a period of time, certainly
12 months would be what I would project, you should be able to come to grips
with that and establish that pattern of behavior. In that way, when the new person does come
on, there won’t be a discussion. And
hopefully some of these issues, of the six initiatives, and the issues embedded
in them, are somewhat problematic in some areas and that would enable the new
person to not to have to deal with those and hopefully again would make, or
ensure, his or her success. It is my
intention, then, and I encourage the faculty committees to be prepared, and I
think those are fully staffed-is that correct, John? It’s pretty much up to
speed? OK, so certainly within the next
couple of weeks then, all of them should be fully staffed and what we would do
then is to put all of the information on the table, which would include the
data that we would use to make our recommendations, and what I would anticipate
then, is when we have our annual meeting in June 2005, is to be prepared at
that time to make specific recommendations, assuming I’m still here, I will
make the recommendations in June 2005.
That does not mean that everything starts immediately. I would anticipate that there will be several
years before full implementation of some of these ideas will occur, and of
course, that would require additional discussion. But I do want to emphasize again, we’re going
to look at these six initiatives for the reason that I mentioned, that pattern
of behavior, and we’re going to be reviewing those over a rather limited period
of time between now and June. There will
be full discussions, starting with the Board of Trustees, with this November
meeting. And then I hope that we can, in
those recommendations, include the implementation schedule. Some will be almost immediate-one of them is
the research park-well, obviously that’s on a fast track and we know where it’s
going. Another is
So, I hope
that you understand the reason for the taking of initiatives. I had a good question as I spoke to a large
civic club in Birmingham a week or so ago, as to whether or not it conveyed the
impression as to whether or not I intended to stay a long time, and the answer
is no to that. And so I would say again,
the intent is to establish that pattern of behavior so that my successor will
have a great chance of success. That’s
it and I believe this is the only way to get at it. We can talk about it all we want, but until
we get into some of those hard and controversial discussions, we won’t know
whether or not people will adhere to those standards.
I wanted to
talk about several projects currently underway.
First of all, we are obviously very concerned about state funding for
education. You may remember that the
chair of our SACS committee was Mr. Casteen, as President of the University of
Virginia, and as I talked with him, and now I see it was in the paper this
week-with Virginia Tech, University of Virginia with William and Mary-have all
gone together to petition its legislature within Virginia to say ‘If you give
us the flexibility’-the legislature has some very serious restrictions on
tuition and so forth in Virginia-‘that if you give us the flexibility to
operate, we will not ask for anymore state funding at all.’ And they have gone to the legislature with
that. I thought it was very interesting
that Mr. Casteen was talking to me, I had been on the job a couple of months at
that point and he was very helpful to me, is that he said only 8% of his budget
came from state funds at that point. So
I think we can reasonably predict whether your South Carolina-which
substantially cut its higher ed funding this past legislative session, the same
state where the Governor has announced that: ‘We will give you your buildings
debt-free, just don’t come back and ask us for anymore state money’-to
Colorado, which is going through the same thing. I think we can reasonably predict that a
state like
I would say
then that we have concluded our polling-I have not seen the results yet. We have conducted four focus groups of
representatives of the population and I would anticipate sometime in the near future
that we will use those data to fashion our legislative plan. The reason, the rationale behind that is
this: most people in
Secondly,
the work with the legislature has to be done prior to the start of the
legislative session, and if we’ve not done our homework, if you will, by
mid-January, then we will have wasted a lot of time. And so we will be working very hard, as soon
as that plan is fashioned, to make the necessary contacts, to push that plan
forward with the idea that we want to focus on what we think would not only resonate
with the general public but that is compatible with Auburn’s priorities. And that’s what I’m after and I assure you
that we will have, I believe, considerable success in that regard. I would be surprised and disappointed if we
did not.
The other
area that we’re working on deals with a stronger presence in
So as far
as lobbying again, it’s not something that I don’t believe anyone in this room,
certainly not I, would wake up in the morning and say ‘Gee, this is something I
really want to do’, but I would tell you that it’s something that we have to do
if we’re to reverse that trend line for state funding and I believe we can and
I believe we will. But it’s also
something we’re going to have to stay after.
We’re all going to have to come together. What we’ve had in the past is a couple of
pretty good ideas and then having half a dozen other people in the University
working on their good ideas. So we ended
up stumbling all over each other and looking like the right hand didn’t know
what the left hand was doing. That’s not
the recipe for success.
Space
management-this is another item. We
have, I don’t know exactly, the numbers that I’ve been given, somewhere in the
excess of $400 million dollars in construction projects on the campus at this
time. If you look at all the roads torn
up and all that you could probably come to understand that. What we have not had is a full-blown space
management plan that will enable us, one, to determine whether or not we’re
effectively using existing facilities, whether or not we actually need new
buildings, renovations, or whatever the answer might be. And the reason that I mention that to you is
we anticipate that the additional cost of the new buildings that will come off
within the next year or so will increase the operation costs to the
University-Don, if I’m correct-will be $8-$10 million bucks per year. So that’s a hidden cost, and that’s a 5%-6%
tuition increase within itself, just to handle the new buildings. So I think it’s time we looked at our
facilities, time we looked at maximizing their use, and to make sure that if we
can convert existing buildings, it would be more productive, or if that
building is beyond repair, we take it out of operation so that we don’t
continue to pay for it. So, that’s not
heavy thinking, I realize, but I simply tell you, we do not have such a plan at
this point. Hopefully, Dr. Hanley and
office are working to bring some type of closure to that and certainly we’re
going to be working with him to do that.
One thing
I’ve picked up as I’ve come here, I’ve acquired a number of nicknames, none
very positive. But, that’s life and I’ve
been called worse than those nicknames.
I would tell you that I wanted to talk to you just a minute about some reorganization
efforts. In Samford Hall, we have
substantially completed those efforts and I would hope now we have people in
position that will demonstrate that they are ready to assume major leadership
responsibilities and that we can settle down with new assignments and I believe
that’s necessary. I realize that when I
spoke to the Faculty Senate, I saw Dr. Penascovic today, that there may be some
disagreement as to the tact, not attack, as to the tact that I’m taking. But I believe that it’s absolutely essential
and I believe that in the process of this, we will be able to offer all the
services that we’ve had in the past at a savings of some $3 million bucks. And I believe in this environment that is
going to help us dramatically, if we were cutting services that would be a
different situation.
It’s been
my experience in dealing with bureaucracies that when Administration changes,
you keep who you had before and you simply add another layer on top of
that. I have to tell you that has been
my observation here. So hopefully we are
addressing that in a way that will enable us to not only become more productive
but to not spend money unnecessarily on other projects.
Athletic
and Administration are substantially complete.
There are, were a few cuts there, and we continue to look at issues such
as operations, leasing cars, all the things that are associated with that, so
that we can effect additional efficiencies.
I would tell you that the reason that this is necessary is because I
frequently have found that people are under the impression that the Central
Administration and Athletics get preferential treatment. So that’s why I went there first, so there
wouldn’t be any doubt about that. But I
would also say to you that in Athletics, that’s going to be a tough job. Most programs today, athletic programs, do
not break even financially. In fact,
We have one
other that we’re trying to finish up with and that is Facilities. And I would say that the reason that we’re
looking at Facilities is we’ve looked at these massive construction
projects. We’re doing a good job in
Facilities, and I’m not in any way being critical, but we’re not doing as good
of a job in the area of managing our construction projects. Now admittedly, that’s an awful lot to do at
one time. So we’re trying to come to
grips with campus planning and assessment as part of that so that we will have
adequate review through the various academic departments as well as the
architects and so forth so that we will know what we’re doing, we’ll know that
this is the right thing to do, we know this is not too costly and that we can
afford it. It will take a little longer
for us to do that but we will be able to accomplish that division of responsibility
with fewer people than we currently have so it won’t be a costly item.
I don’t
know whether you have any interest or not, but other than when the eagle will
fly, a question that I’m getting most frequently now is ‘Who’s going to be the
Athletic Director?’ I simply will
comment to you that we have a firm that’s looking. We will conduct our interviews, hopefully
starting as early as next week. Those
have not been scheduled and obviously this week has disrupted that. But we hope, certainly by the end of October,
that decision would be made. Other than
what you’ve read in the paper of the names, all of those are certainly
legitimate names, but I don’t think the media has put any name in there that
really hadn’t been considered, but there will be obviously some additional
names that are Athletic Directors in other conferences and so forth that will
also at least be approached. One of the
things that I’ve learned in my seven months here is that at least half the
people with whom you speak; speak to you because they’re leveraging bigger salaries
for themselves back home. So that’s,
sometimes you think you have a good pool and you find out that half of the pool
is simply trying to squeeze more money out.
I had a call from a President this morning who asked me that very
question. This is a person that’s on the
list and whether or not he was going to have to get into a bidding contest.
Another
area that I’d like to, and then I’ll be coming to a conclusion here, and then
respond to questions as best I can, dealing with Alumni Affairs. I remind you, that if you’re a member of the
Alumni Association, to vote. Vote your
conscience. Since it has somewhat, I
don’t know whether it’s been misreported or misunderstood, I wanted to just
clarify my position on that, so that won’t be any doubt about it. I’m not particularly concerned who’s
elected. That is of no consequence to
me. What I am concerned about is the
direction in which that President and that Board would take the Alumni
Association. If they are interested, and
obviously one of the candidates has made that known, in becoming a separate
institution from the University, and being totally independent, then obviously
that’s when I would have to become involved as to whether or not that’s
satisfactory to us, and at least to me, that is not. And you would try then to form an Alumni group
that would be supportive of the University.
I said to the Alumni Board, and I would say to you, they don’t have to
agree with me. But as long as we’re
focusing on the University, I think we can find some common ground out
there. At least I can-we’ve got three or
four of my central staff here-every one of them has disagreed with me at least
once. So I would say that’s healthy. So it’s not a question of whether they do my
bidding, which it’s been before, that’s totally false. It’s not a question of whether or not they
want to establish some priorities.
Nothing wrong with that. I would
prefer that not occur. Whatever time I
have left, it would take all of that time just trying to rebuild an alternate
organization and I do not wish to do it.
So I hope that can be avoided, but I wanted you to be aware of
that. I think the deadline as I looked
at the notebook today is, for voting, is September 28th. So if you intend to vote, that would be the
time to do it.
Now, just
in conclusion. I believe the initiatives
that will be put on the table will accomplish the objective that I intended and
I hope that you would begin acknowledging at least the continued purpose. This is not intended to extend my stay here
as Interim President. Secondly, I hope
that you would understand that what the universities are going to be subjected
to, whether its accountability, at some point in
Dr.
Larkin: Thank
you. If you’re going to ask a question,
please go to the microphone. While they
are doing that, Dr. Richardson, there were two observations that I made early
on in your comments. You talked about
establishing a pattern of behavior and you only mentioned the Board of Trustees
and the Administration. Do you think it
would be wise to include the faculty in that scenario?
Dr.
Richardson: Right,
but the relationship with the faculty didn’t get us on probation. So that’s the reason I mentioned the
Trustees.....
Dr.
Larkin: Well, if
I’m not mistaken, I think some of the faculty wrote a letter that helped us to
get there. What I’m getting to, I guess
is, when you think about shared governance, it’s the three-prong approach so I
would say the faculty, I wouldn’t use the word behavior, I would say pattern of
engagement, something to that effect, but I would encourage you to use
that. The other question, you made
mention about some of the decisions that you made will save like $3 million
dollars. For a lot of us, just to hear
$3 million dollars doesn’t help us that much and I’m wondering if you were to
say $3 million dollars and here are the places that it will help us to
save. Does that encumber you in terms of
your leadership here or does that help us accept and understand these decisions
a little more?
Dr.
Richardson: Well, I
may not fully understand your question or questions. But as best I do, I would say this: I’ve been
through this type of effort in other places.
And it’s never initially taken well.
You have all the standard comments that you’ve heard here. The nicknames are different, same intent,
same fear that you can’t walk down the hall.
All of that is proffered, creating this atmosphere of fear. I would say to you that it is my intention,
and again I may not fully have your question, Dr. Larkin, to shift these monies
more toward whether it be scholarships or support of our academics, because
once we look at those this coming year, I believe we’ll find that additional
support will be needed. I think also,
it’s been my experience, that if you have a person that’s sitting beside you
that’s paid the same thing or approximately the same thing but is not nearly as
productive, it not only is an impediment to progress, but it actually creates a
considerable amount of resentment. And
so I would hope that would help us as well.
Now if I’ve left out part of the answer or missed it all together, maybe
you can try it again.
Dr.
Larkin: Well, if
you think that was a tough question, Connor will ask you a question and then
we’ll move forward.
Connor
Bailey, Chair-elect:
Dr. Richardson, thank you. And I hope
others will be following with questions as well. Dr. Richardson, a number of faculty
colleagues have expressed concern that your reorganization efforts will soon
shift to academic programs, program consolidation and this has of course has
raised certain concerns among the faculty.
My particular concern is that the, if at such time we start looking at
academic programs, what assurance can you give the faculty that the faulty will
indeed be in the driver’s seat making such determinations of program
reorganization, if any?
Dr.
Richardson: That’s
a good question, Connor. I need to offer
perhaps a perspective. I think it was
either 5 or 6 years ago that we had a Role Commission which I co-chaired with
Dr. Walker. That effort was being driven
by the need that we need to make cuts here or there. We’re not in that mode at this time. That is not what we’re going to do. Now to presuppose that we’re going to do
consolidations, eliminations, I don’t see that at all.
Now to your
basic question, I believe, and I said this to such a meeting about a month or
so ago, that it is far better on a periodic basis that the “we” being faculty
and administration, conduct such a review to present to the Board of
Trustees. Before there was great
resistance to that, and the resistance lasted for over three years and eventually
the Trustees said ‘Well, ya’ll are not going to do it, we’re going ahead with
it.’ And that’s when you get to surgical
decisions versus meat-ax type of decisions.
So I would say to you that all of the data will be put on the
table. Originally it was scheduled for
this Thursday; it will be sometime within the next ten days. The committees will be fully staffed. I and other members of our staff, each one of
those initiatives will, in case of academics, obviously the Provost will be
leading that discussion, will be prepared to come before you. We’ll have a full year for those
discussions. I don’t like secrets so if
the faculty is prepared to enter into the discussions in terms of positioning
Auburn University for the future, I would welcome that. I think the Trustees would welcome that. And I think we would have a better solution
if we do. But if it’s coming in to say
‘Well, how can I slow this up? How can I
create enough controversy to make sure nothing happens?’-I’ve been through all
of those and I’m not going to be sympathetic at all. Well, now you say that just because you
disagree with me? No. If we come up with a good recommendation, I
think it will be apparent to all of us and I think we’ll have a great chance to
accomplish some of the objectives that we all would like to accomplish. So the key is, keep in mind, we’re not going
into this and my comments will reflect that, with the idea that we need to make
cuts. That’s not going to be brought up. I’m not going into it nor am I making any
additional recommendations that we need to do any consolidations. So whether that occurs or not, I think,
depends to a large extent would be dependent on the discussions we have with
the Board of Trustees, but certainly the faculty committees as well.
So I hope
that you will actively participate, I know that you individually will, but if
we can get broader participation, as I said, I will personally stand ready to
respond to any questions and I personally assure you that when we meet in
November; the meeting in September when we do meet, is simply to say ‘Here are
the ideas’ and then in the meeting in November, there will be heavier
discussions and then at that point, hopefully the committees will be fully
staffed, the data will be presented and everyone will have access to the same
numbers. Yes ma’am?
Dr.
Larkin: Yes?
Patricia
Duffy, Secretary-Elect: When you say the committees would be fully staffed, could you elaborate
a little bit? Not names, but by what
type of people, staff, administrators, trustees, faculty, all of the above, some
of the above...
Dr.
Richardson: The
staff, I recognize may be misleading, staff sometimes means you have
secretaries to report and all that. I am
assuming, John, that you could probably answer that. If you looked at the composition of a faculty
committee, the membership is generally consisting of what type of people? If you don’t mind, go to the microphone that
might help. Thank you, Dr. Larkin.
John
Heilman: My
understanding of this is as follows: for each of the initiatives that Dr.
Richardson will be discussing with the Board of Trustees, there may well be a
standing University committee, the subject matter of which might make it quite
suitable to engage in discussion of that issue in shared governance in respect
to that issue. When Dr. Richardson says
that those committees will be staffed, what he’s getting at is that we, my
office, is in the process of completing the appointments to those committees
for the coming year. The question, a
very good question, was asked: ‘Well, what do these committees consist
of?’ The answer to that question depends
to some extent on what the subject matter of the committee is. For instance, I can stop....
Patricia
Duffy: So these
will be the standing University and Senate committees. When you say the committees will be fully
staffed, you are not talking about special Ad Hoc committees that are being
formed? That was my question, I wasn’t
aware that’s what you meant. I’m aware
of the composition of the University and Senate committees, but it wasn’t clear
to me that was the type of committee you were meaning.
Dr.
Richardson:
Yes. I appreciate you bringing that up
because I’m not trying to confuse it and I’ll certainly avoid that in the
future. But in some cases the committee
had either not met in some time or there were vacancies, and that’s what I
meant, we’re trying to get them up to speed and active. Thank you very much. Thank you, John.
Richard
Penascovic, Philosophy: I’m disappointed with the hire of John Waggoner as Special Counsel to
the Office of the President. Now he may
be a brilliant attorney and may be a very good person himself, I have no idea,
but of the thousands of attorneys around, it’s curious to me that you hire
someone with the ties to the law firm of one of the Trustees, Mr. Jack Miller. Could you...I’d be interested, too, in the
process involved in this hire. Is this
something that the Trustees suggested to you or was that a decision you made by
yourself? How was that done?
Dr.
Richardson: Fair
question. First, I think we have to look
at several, there are many attorneys.
Many are making far more than I can afford. Mr. Waggoner came to me; for the first couple
of weeks he was doing work at that time for Tigers Unlimited, just trying to
get that charter fixed up, at no cost by the way, and he said: ‘I have two
young children and I love Auburn and I need, they’re getting ready to go to
school. If there’s ever a
vacancy...’ We had a vacancy, a
long-standing one. Mr. Samford’s death
led to a vacancy. The primary-he’s under
a contract for three years-it’s not the standard employment. The reason for that is I believe it will take
approximately that long to deal both with the research park and the
Dr.
Larkin: Other
questions?
Dr.
Richardson: Well,
unless there aren’t other questions, oh, one more. Excuse me.
Dr.
Larkin: If you
intend to speak, go to the microphone because the President does have to leave
and get back to his meeting.
Dr.
Richardson: Right,
because we have a meeting at 4 to make that decision on the hurricane and we’ll
try to make some final decision between 5 & 6 today and John Hachtel will
get that out.
Connor
Bailey: I was not
stepping up because I don’t want to dominate the microphone. My question I’m sure will take you very
little time to answer. It has to do with
diversity on this campus. Two questions:
one is that last week the University Senate put forward a resolution requesting
a release of the study on diversity. Can
you tell us, please, what is the status of that report?
Dr.
Richardson: Thank
you. Yes, that report has been given to
the Provost. Tom, do you wish to
acknowledge where we are in that regard?
It has been released and will be posted on the web.
Connor
Bailey: Thank
you. The second one is: Can you tell us
please the thought process that led you to eliminate the stand-alone office of
Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity and to incorporate that within
the Office of Human Resources? How does
that move us forward in terms of diversity?
Dr.
Richardson: Well,
let me, say, I think perhaps, Lee, you could best answer those steps for
us. But I cannot, just being candid,
just be totally frank and open with you because you’re dealing with a specific
personnel issue and I think we all understand the potentials there. I would think that we have not lost anything
in terms of the separation for if there is an appeal or a complaint. Lee, you were talking to me coming over. I would prefer if you would go through that
because it made a whole lot more sense than I think I could make in response. Good question and I think he can give you the
best answer.
Lee
Armstrong, General Counsel: Thank you, Dr. Richardson and Connor. There are several considerations that led to
the decision, one of which was there had been a lot of concern on campus, among
faculty and others, that the process for initiating recruitment for faculty and
others took too long and we were passing too many forms from one office to
another. This restructuring/realignment
hopefully will address that and streamline that process so that we can get
those things turned around a lot quicker than we did in the past. The structure that we’re using now is not
unfamiliar to higher education. It’s not
unfamiliar to industry. In fact, it’s my
understanding that it’s common in industry and it’s also not unique to
Dr.
Richardson: Thank
you, Lee. I would again, since I do have
a 4pm meeting with Emergency Management and others, I would ask if I could just
be excused and again, between 5 & 6 we’ll issue an announcement in regard
to classes for the next week. Thank you
so much.
Dr. Larkin: Thank you very much. I was prepared to make an announcement in regards to fully staffing this Ad Hoc Committee for the Presidential Search Process. Some things happened today and I have some question marks about two persons that we had planned to introduce to you today, so I’m going to hold off on that and if you will continue to check the Senate webpage, then you will get that. I’m not making these decisions independently; I’m running them through the Executive Committee, the Rules Committee and also the Steering Committee. The advice is given to me, the input, and then we take and make a decision after that. So that will come later. Is there any old business that needs to come before the faculty at this time? Is there any new business? Thank you very much. Be careful in the next few days. This meeting is adjourned.