Members Absent: Bob McGinnis, VP for Development; Dan Bennett, Dean,
College of Architecture; Wes Williams, Associate Provost & VP for Student
Affairs; Thomas Hanley, Provost; Sheri Downer, Acting Dean of Libraries;
Bradford Boney, SGA President; Vic Walker, Staff Council Chair; Isabelle
Thompson, Steering Committee; Robert Locy, Steering
Committee; Mario Lightfoote, ACES; John J. Pittari, Jr., Architecture; Raymond Hamilton, Aviation
Management & Logistics; Joe Cherry, Biological Sciences; Ted Tyson, Biosystems Engineering; Jeff Tickal,
Building Sciences; James Guin, Chemical Engineering; Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry; Alvin Sek
See Lim, Computer Science & Software Engineering; Renee Middleton,
Counseling & Counseling Psychology; Darrel Hankerson,
Discrete & Statistical Science; Randy Beard, Economics; Jim Saunders,
Geology & Geography; Alice Buchanan, Health & Human Performance; Ken
Tilt, Horticulture; Darrel Hankerson, Mathematics;
Richard Good, Music; John Rowe, Nursing; Marllin
Simon, Physics; Anthony Gadzey, Political Science;
Thomas W. White, ROTC Air Force; LTC Bill Shaw, ROTC Army; Howard Thomas,
Textile Engineering; Tracey Oleinick, Theatre.
Members Absent (Substitutes): Martha Taylor, A&P Assembly Chair (Harriette
Huggins); Charles Mitchell, Agronomy & Soils (David Bransby);
Sadik Tuzun, Entomology
& Plant Pathology (
Dr. Willie Larkin, Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, the hour has
arrived. And I call this meeting to
order. First of all, I want to welcome
you back to the University after a much-deserved holiday break. Hopefully all of your dreams came true and
you didn=t spend a whole lot of money and you=re ready to go now. I
want to-I need to wait and make sure there=s a quorum-so let me just make some comments while we=re waiting for the President to arrive and for us to get
enough individuals so that we can actually transact business.
I want to make a comment about the
SACS probation very quickly. I=ve prepared just a statement and I=d like to read that.
It says: Over the past year, SACS probation had our university on
lock-down, and as my father used to say, a strangle-hold. However, through the cooperation of many
people, we were able to get off probation.
And although we were not always on the same page, I feel that the
collective efforts of a number of individuals, including the President, the
Board of Trustees, and certainly the faculty, students, staff, Alumni, and even
the media, set the stage for us to be able to reach this particular
juncture. Even the JAC Committee that
raised issues about the University in the first place, certainly played a
contribution in us becoming a better university. We never want to experience this kind of
uncertainty again about the university and it=s going to require all parties to do some things. Having said all of that, we=re still not completely out of the woods. We must continue to demonstrate to SACS a
commitment to the tenets laid out in their final report and then I encourage
all of us to continue to be vigilant as we make
The other thing, earlier in the month,
Conner Bailey and I recently attended a meeting of the Coalition on
Intercollegiate Athletics, known as COIA.
This meeting took place at
At this time, as I=m looking around, I think we have a quorum. I want to approve the minutes of the
Richard Penaskovic,
Philosophy: I guess I=m a little surprised at the discussion on that resolution
that=s not part of the minutes.
Is there any reason for that? It=s just a resolution was presented here, but not what the
individual people said.
Dr. Larkin: The resolution in regards to the COIA or something else?
Dr. Penaskovic: I haven=t read the minutes since probably before Christmas, but wasn=t there a resolution, what was the resolution? I can=t remember....
Dr. Larkin:
Oh, the resolution that we tabled? You=re gonna have to tell me what you=re speaking of.
Dr. Penaskovic: Does anybody remember?
Yes, Debra....
Debra Cobia, Secretary: The
Dr. Larkin: Thanks, Richard. Any
other comments before we vote on those?
All persons in favor of approving those minutes, referencing the
I want to make a couple of other
comments about different things. This
past weekend has really been tumultuous in terms of activities. I don=t want to beat a dead horse to death, but I would like to
remind you that on last Friday, the organization 100 Black Men of Greater
Auburn/Opelika, Inc was introduced to the community via a reception at the
Auburn University Alumni Center. Many of
you probably got some communications from me.
There were about 130 persons who attended that function. We had 31 successful African-American men of
Auburn, Opelika, and Lee County who were introduced into the community and they
were sworn in as the 103rd Chapter of the 100 Black Men of America,
Inc organization. Debbie Shaw, and I don=t know whether Debbie=s here, but I really, yeah, she=s back there. Debbie
really has gone up a notch on my list.
She worked tirelessly to make available that facility for us, allowed
some of her staff people to work with us on press releases and I tell you, the
reason I=m mentioning this is because a number of the members of that
organization are members of the University community. But the most important thing is, as she
publicized that and we did as well, she got back a number of emails and
communications from board members and alumni, and I=m talking about in far away places, that heard about
this. Messages were forwarded to other
individuals. The Chairman of the Board
of this organization in Miami, Florida, who=s an attorney, sent me a email and said >Willie, you=re getting more publicity from Auburn University that what
you all have been able to generate!= So Debbie played a
significant role in that we had, and also Dr. Keenan Grenell
co-sponsored this activity along with the Alumni Association. We had Dr. Richardson to come and make some
comments and the reason he was on the program is because he=s had a great deal of experience with the 100 down in
Mobile. The chapter in Mobile has a
charter school and as the State Superintendent of Schools, he financed that
organization for the better part of the past three years, so that was very
beneficial. We also got the Probate
Judge, Bill English, to come and to swear the members in and he went through a
swearing in ceremony that was really, really impressive and we got a lot of
positive comments back from that. We
have over 10,000 members throughout the US, England, the Caribbean, South
Africa and there=s some other countries under way in terms of getting
charters. The focus of 100 is primarily
dealing with mentoring. If it doesn=t have anything to do with kids and advancing them, then it
can=t be a part of 100.
Education is another part; health and wellness, economic
development.
In 2005, very quickly just to let you
know what we=re going to be doing, we=re going to either sponsor or co-sponsor the following
activities: The Henry Harris Basketball Classic that took place yesterday. We will- there were like 20 teams that played
10 games starting at 8 o=clock and went until 10 o=clock last night, so if you like basketball, that would have
been a great place to be. We will
provide scholarships for the like six high schools in the county, including
Lee-Scott Academy. We will sponsor a
Unity Family Picnic in June. We will
have a Youth Leadership Lock-in on October 31st where we will have
approximately 500 young people that will be locked in at 6 o=clock and they will be let out at 7 o=clock the next morning, and we=ll teach them a lot of different kinds of things, so you=ll need to listen for that.
And also, the Annual 100 Scholarship Gala will take place on December 10th,
which is the second weekend in December this year and I encourage you to
continue to look for publicity about this organization.
Also I quickly want to mention the
Martin Luther King Scholarship Breakfast on yesterday. The reason I want to mention that is this
university stepped up big in supporting this initiative. Let me just quickly tell you that I invited
various colleges and schools to participate.
We had the College of Business to purchase a 10-seat table. The Harrison School of Pharmacy purchased the
same amount. The School of Nursing, East
Alabama Medical Center-they=re good partners with us-the President=s Office purchased a table of 10; the Chamber of Commerce,
College of Agriculture, the College of Human Sciences, College of Math and
Sciences and then the Provost=s Office and then of course, the 100 Black Men purchased a
table as well. There were a number of
you that purchased individual tables. I
just want to thank you for responding.
Someone said the other day that I had some arm-twisting and that=s not true at all. I
simply gave people an invitation to participate and they responded.
Is our President here yet? There he is.
So let me stop with my announcements and pronouncements and invite our
President to come up and to make his comments from the President=s Office.
Dr. Ed Richardson, Interim
President: Thank you, Dr. Larkin. Welcome back and Happy New Year to
everyone. I wish to cover two broad
points today with you. First, I=d like to give you a progress report in regard to selected
University issues that hopefully will be of mutual interest. And then secondly, I=ve asked our Legislative Liaison, Sid McAnally
to come today and to describe to you what our initiatives will be, some of our
strategies and what we hope to accumulate during this Legislative session.
In terms of issues, I=d like to talk a little bit about SACS. It seems to be something I started talking
about on first arriving and probably when I leave, I guess we=ll still be talking about SACS in some respect. As you know, we=ve now received the letter from SACS and I would just offer
two or three observations based on my conversations with Dr. Allen at
SACS. First, there are three statements
there-you=ve all seen those statements-one deals with the progress in
terms of the search for the President, the second deals with the conflict of
interest. I wanted to just elaborate on
that. We had a review of, by outside
sources, three to be exact, of business relationships among the Board of
Trustees. Now because those instructions
were given to us after SACS had established a deadline for the receipt of new
information, that could not be officially presented. So what we will do is package that and submit
that officially to SACS and of course, those reports have been made available
as well. So there won=t be any additional searches or reviews of Board business.
Periodic evaluation of the
President-that=s something that certainly I support. I would anticipate that during our next
Trustee meeting, which by the way, this one is always on the AUM campus, is on
February the 4th. We will
have a Trustee meeting and I suspect that the criteria will at least start to
be discussed at that point and I anticipate that an evaluation will be
conducted prior to the end of this semester and certainly by, hopefully by the
April meeting and that could be finalized.
In dealing with SACS, a couple of
other things. Number one is that the
report has to be filed by September the 22nd and so we will proceed
with those three, obviously, one has been done and the other two in terms of
concepts, have been agreed to so I don=t foresee any problems there at all with the report and Dr.
Glaze and Dr. Heilman and others will work on those
reports as they have in the past. I
would also point out that I called back to SACS on two occasions, that there
are no penalties or sanctions associated with the team, which will probably be
two maybe three people, that will visit after the September 22nd
deadline. Now they=ll schedule that time so I could not project as to when they
would come, but they will look at those three items in terms of the progress
toward completion.
So in regards to SACS, that pretty
well covers it and we will, as I said, start to move very quickly in terms of,
number one, the evaluation process and I would just point out in terms of the
search; I know that=s an issue for you; but I would say that observation will be
made. Of course, I don=t have anything to do with that. That=s strictly up to the Trustees, when they start and when they
do it. And as I would say in dealing
with SACS and also in response to SACS when we up to Atlanta in December, was
that- of course, it is a suggestion, not a recommendation-but on the other
hand, it is something I think, if handled correctly, the work that you=re doing could be constructive. I=m just saying that if we=re going to push the Board, then I think that=s not going to be as constructive. So I think that we ought to be looking
forward to that and here=s some good criteria, hopefully you=ve developed those and they will be using the Association of
Governing Board=s standards that have been previously established and those
will also be put on the table hopefully during our meeting in Montgomery on
February the 4th.
Initiatives- I just wanted to talk a
little bit about the purpose again, not to go over the details. As I have stated in my original plan, my
first year=s objective was to deal with the SACS issue and I=m very pleased and hopefully you are too, that one is behind
us at least in terms of probationary status.
I would also say that in terms of that, it was complicated considerably
because, I=ll have to admit to you, I had not anticipated spending about
25% of my time on athletic events during this past year, which is about the
average that I ended up spending dealing with searches, budgets, and all the rest
that go with that. So that was an
education for me. I do believe that
first year we accomplished a major objective.
The second was to establish a pattern
of behavior and that=s the one I want to elaborate again on. I=ve said that at least three or four times here. I just want you to know the easy year was
last year. The easy year was last
year. The more difficult year will be to
establish a pattern of behavior, a pattern of behavior that this is what
Trustees do, this is what Presidents do, this is what Faculty does, all of the
issues associated with that because there is some overlap, but I hope that
during this year, and I would really say this year, pretty much the first half
of this year, we=ll be able to effectively accomplish that objective. Now that=s going to be a difficult one, because it=s easy to pass guidelines and resolutions. It=s another thing to enforce it and that=s what I will be about this year and you=re going to see some other changes and you=re going to see some people that are upset as I try to make
sure that the institutional control is in place.
And in the third step is that we will
start a search for my replacement and I hope that number 2, step number 2, is done
correctly, that person will have a good chance of success. Now again, I just wanted to repeat-the
initiatives are on the table primarily to enable us to establish that pattern
of behavior that confirms that there is a degree of institutional control here. I just, it might be of interest to you, I
read the NCAA are pushing that very hard and that was one of the issues that it
had for the whole organization, in terms of involvement of trustees in
Athletics. And of course, they also, in
many other institutions involved in others.
I believe the trustees, I know, have done everything I=ve asked them to do and I=m confident that we will be successful this time. But again, there=s not been a pattern of behavior, this is as far as you go,
then it=s hard to say how far each one should go. So I believe this is the primary purpose for
these initiatives and I hopefully, when we meet on June the 17th, we
can safely say that pattern has been established.
Now I would point out that these
initiatives have levels of difficulty.
Some are easier to handle than others and hopefully some of them will
start to spin off, which will help us to establish that pattern by not having
them all come together in June. Because
if they all came together in June, I really think that would create an overload
and would work against us in that regard.
So I want to indicate to you that we go forward on these initiatives and
that it is my intention to make some substantial recommendations during the
Trustee Meeting on June the 17th that will be here in Auburn, and I
hope that the established Faculty Committees will certainly be closely attuned
with the appropriate initiative. We=ll have active involvement, provide your input, because
regardless of what some say, I do not have a personal agenda. I didn=t ask Trustees for these six initiatives nor anyone
else. But what I=m trying to say is that if you have an active involvement, I
don=t have a predetermined answer. I will just want to make sure that we
establish the concept of institutional control here.
Now, the other thing that I would
point out to you, there will be another topic- I=m now leaving the initiatives-we=ll have another trustee confirmation. As you know, those have been narrowed down to
four. All four are strong candidates,
this is an at-large position and so it can be in or out of the state. We anticipate that the Governor, I think the
28th or something like that, will have a second round of interviews
for those four then will make his recommendation to the Legislature, which
starts in the first day or two of February and I would anticipate early on in
February and certainly confirmation by early March will be another new Trustee,
which I would remind you, would constitute 7 new trustees out of 14 that have
been appointed within the last two years or so.
So I feel that=s also healthy for us as well.
Now, my position as I deal with
establishing institutional control involve one other step. A lot of this you won=t see much of but I wanted to at least point it out to
you. I think we now have a unique
opportunity to heal the wounds of the past and to focus on positioning Auburn
for the future. I think it=s in your best interests and the University=s best interests, and in the state=s best interests if we do that. And so this will be a major objective of mine
this year and I hope you will actively participate in that effort. And as we move forward, if we just focus on
what=s in the best interests of Auburn instead of >You offended me 5 years ago=, I think we=ll have a chance at having success in that regard and I really
believe that will be to everyone=s best interests.
I think one of the ways to focus on
the future is state funding. And I
wanted to make a few comments and then I want to introduce Sid, if he will, to
come down. I just want to be, as I
usually am, fairly direct. As State
Superintendent who made major budget recommendations each of the last 8 or 9
years, it was always with some relief when I had higher education go before me,
because it always made me look better than I was. And I want to say that Auburn has not faired
well in the legislative process now for as long as I=ve been around, and that=s been a long time.
And there are two primary reasons: everybody can point to a little project
here, a little project there, a bond issue here, but when you add it all up in
terms of what the total sum of that gain was, it=s minuscule. And here
is, I think, is the issue that I would like to call to your attention. Auburn has not been effective, not because of
any deliberate problem or incompetence or anything like that, but for two
things. First, it had no specific
agenda. And up until a month ago, I
would have been hard-pressed to say to you >This is Auburn=s specific agenda=. We now have a
specific agenda and I=ll ask Sid to elaborate on that in just a minute. We also have an agenda that has more buy-in
from other institutions of higher ed. I
would remind you that in Alabama we have four levels of higher education, which
makes it more complex in terms of getting people to cooperate. You have community colleges, you have
historically Black colleges, you have regional institutions and the research
institutions. So basically the other
three distrusted the research institutions.
When Auburn and Alabama talked, people got uneasy. I think one of the issues we have to keep in
mind is this, as I=ve talked to the Chair of our SACS committee, Mr. Casteen and others, also the President of Virginia Tech
when we were in New Orleans, is that I think we are just a few steps behind
Virginia and some other states to where caps on tuition are going to be
enforced legislatively, as they are there.
The trustees can pass whatever tuition increase they would like, but the
Legislature there in that state can override it. So what I guess we=re getting at is this: if we look at that as a problem, then
we have to face up with that being the case and costs continue to increase, we=re now looking at problems associated with support of
academic programs and a difficult time with having salary increases and so
forth. So how do we avoid that
dilemma? I really think that by having a
focused effort in the Legislature, we can establish Auburn this year as a force
that has to be dealt with and how do we best, how can we best accomplish
that? One of the advantages, since I
also served on the University of Alabama Board of Trustees, I had a
relationship with them of trust and respect, and Alabama is now working with us
well. And I believe that if Auburn and Alabama
can stay shoulder to shoulder here, we are much more likely to experience
success, because in the past, if you could get Auburn and Alabama fighting
between themselves, then it weakened both and allowed weaker parties then to
shift right in there and take over where perhaps it would have been better
placed in one of the Auburn or Alabama programs.
Now, what I=m asking for you and what I would say that we must make sure
that we must be focused, and that=s why we must make sure that as I go forward as Interim
President for this six-month period, that there is no doubt that we are all
together, and that is why Auburn and Alabama, we meet, talk, email on a regular
basis. So this is going to be very
critical for us because right now, we are not a force. Right now, we do not have that clout, and so
it=s going to be very difficult, but I=m optimistic that with what Alabama is bringing to the table
and what Auburn is bringing to the table, we will be successful. Now I would like to introduce Sid McAnally. Sid and I
have worked together on Amendment One.
That=s probably not a recommendation, since we were unsuccessful
in getting that one through, but nevertheless, he was very instrumental in
that. Sid=s an Auburn graduate, practicing attorney, and what I=ve found him to be is very experienced in the State Capitol
and the State House, which is where the Legislature meets, very influential
with key legislators as well as the Governor and so what I=ve asked Sid to do today is outline our basic agenda or
strategies and then after that, Dr. Larkin, we will be glad to respond to any
questions.
Dr. Larkin: Ok.
Sid McAnally: This is like old times for me, seeing Dr. Penaskovic go to the mic,
reminded me of about 21 years ago or so when Yuroslav
Pelican came to campus, a religion writer who held himself out as fluent in
five ancient languages-and I was a Religion Minor then-and there was a lot of
debate about whether anybody could be fluent in five ancient languages. So after his presentation he took questions
and Dr. Penaskovic stood up and asked him a question
in one of the foreign languages he claimed to speak and he answered it. So we knew that he knew one. The other thing is seeing Larry Gerber. I was a History Major and Dr. Gerber would put
these extensive outlines on the blackboard.
They were incredible, they were like a novella. And one day he had finished his outline,
walked out, and Dr. Pickering from the Political Sciences department, who
always carried a briefcase, walked into our History class, set his briefcase
down, turned around, erased the entire board, turned back around, realized he
was in the wrong class, picked up his briefcase and walked out. Then Gerber comes back in and he couldn=t..... (laughter)
I=ve got a real challenge, which is to talk to you about the
state budget picture in just a few minutes.
When Dr. Richardson asked me to talk about the challenges the state
faces, I generated about a 27-page outline and know that I=ve got about five minutes.
So what I=d like to do is show you a few slides, talk to you about
some of the challenges the state faces and then answer any questions you may
have. Initially, I know that most of you
are fairly sophisticated politically and I would remind you that Alabama is
unique in the number of dollars that we earmark. The latest numbers that have come in shows
that Alabama earmarked about 83% of all revenues that come into the state. I know you hear lots of numbers tossed
around, but 83% is the last number based on actual collections and
earmarking. 24% is the national
average. The next highest state is
Nevada, and they=re in the 60's. If
the people of the state had their way with earmarking, it would be about
400%. The people in Alabama like
earmarking. It=s just a character trait of our state and it=s just not going to go away anytime soon. The ETF-the Education Trust Fund-by statute,
has all sales tax dollars, with very few exceptions, earmarked into ETF by
constitutional amendment. All income tax
dollars are earmarked into ETF. And so
when you read about the structural imbalances in Alabama=s two funds-the General Fund and the Education Trust
Fund-you need to know that all the growth taxes go into the ETF and no growth
taxes go into the General Fund.
Although I know that ETF is really our
focus, I thought it would be helpful to talk about the General Fund for just a
few minutes, because that is what really will drive politics in the state this
year to some degree. Can everyone hear
me alright without a mic? I=m sure you can....it=s ok. Is everybody
ok?
Dr. Larkin: We=re recording it so....
Sid McAnally: Oh, so that=s another reason not to put it on. You=ve read about the fact that the General Fund is in trouble and
I just wanted to explain to you a little bit-these are numbers that come from
the Legislative Fiscal Office, they=re very fresh numbers-you see that this is 100% of the
monies that get paid into the General Fund.
And the General Fund is sort of a mongrel. It=s picked up a lot of little dollars over the years from lots
of places. So when you see the other
percentage being 30%, that is hundreds of small taxes that get paid into the
General Fund. The more significant are
broken out individually and you know how small the other category is when
Estate Tax that is at 1.9% get broken out.
But let=s talk a little bit about these. Some of these taxes are relatively
steady. The insurance company taxes that
come into the General Fund are fairly steady.
Court costs have been increased by statute. The Alcoholic Beverage taxes are relatively
steady. There is the seasonal play
there, but on the whole, over the course of a year they are fairly steady. The troublesome things in this chart are the
amount of Estate Tax that you see-I=ve already referenced it-1.9%.
You may know that the Federal Government has chosen to phase out estate
taxes and Alabama has received up to-in 2002, the state received about $80
million dollars in estate taxes. We had
a lower collection year last year, but that line item will be completely gone
from state revenue resources after this year.
2005 is the last year the Feds will allow states to collect estate
taxes.
Oil and Gas Severance Tax-that number will
probably grow if the oil and gas prices stay where they are, but it was a good
number last year. You also see Interest
Income-6.35%. Our Interest Income is
down 60% from the 2001 number and that primarily is based on interest rates,
which seem to be going up incrementally, so we=ll probably see a little bit more money there. But that is the General Fund Income picture
for 2004. The other thing I wanted to
mention to you is that if you look at one-time receipts of 9.78%, now that doesn=t seem like a very big number, but now imagine that almost
10% of our General Fund is one-time money that was generated last year either
through transfers or one-time taxes and that money is not coming back. And that is very troublesome as you get into
hyper inflated things like medical costs.
If we could look quickly at the-this
is just the General Fund=s spreadsheet and again I won=t spend a lot of time on this, but you=ll see the beginning balance of $141 million dollars came in
this fiscal year, is reduced to about $59 million dollars by FY >06, the coming budget year.
And many of us believe that it=s going to be completely zeroed out, that $59 million
dollars won=t be there based on supplemental appropriations that have to
be made. You also see the transfers into
the General Fund for >05 don=t exist in >06 and one-time revenues-and let me just run down this
quickly: Abandoned property-that=s people that don=t pick up dividend income, life insurance, things like
that. Alabama Trust Fund=s unrealized gains is just a gain in stocks or bonds. Attorney General=s Settlement Fees is litigation the Attorney General pays
into the General Fund. Again, all these
are just one time fees-$54 million dollars which will not be available for the
General Fund this year. The regular
session increases-this is one that people think >Well, we raised all this money last year; where did it go?= Well, the reality
is, because of the strange nature of the way we collect taxes in Alabama, we
will actually collect less in >05 than we did in >04. So the revenue
collection drops from 140.4% to 139.9%.
Then look at these differences.
This is the difference in the availability of dollars as we go into the
year with the General Fund. That becomes
a serious problem if you were just going to level fund in the General
Fund. But this is what the state faces
as it looks at the coming year. The
amount needed just to keep up with the >05->06 is $66 million dollars.
We=re short just to keep doing what we do now, if we kept
everything level.
The cost of insurance has gone up $4.7
million dollars, that=s health insurance premium costs to the General Fund. 5.5 increase in the retirement rate and then
you may remember during Amendment 1, we talked about a 27th pay period. There was an anomaly in the calendar that
forced a pay period-it happens once a decade or so-there=s a 27th pay period, and it fell last year and by
agreement, the legislature pushed it into this year and if they could, they=d push it into next year, but I don=t think that=s going to happen. So
that 21 is going to show up. Where we
get into real trouble is with Medicaid.
The way the Federal Government does the Medicaid formula, we are
receiving less for every dollar we put in >06 than we did in >05. The reimbursement
rate has dropped-I think it=s 13 cents per dollar.
That generates a shortfall of $126 million dollars. We=ve got 75,000 children, low-income children, in the CHIPS
plan; they don=t have health insurance otherwise. That increase is estimated to be 4.4-that
gets us to 229. That completely ignores
the federal court order that we=re under and DHR, the RC case, which is estimated to be $15
million, the Wyatt case and mental health, which is estimated to be around $40
million, and corrections, which will probably be in receivership by the end of
the year, their budget asked is about $255 million dollars. So, when you hear people talk about the
General Fund, that gives you just a glimpse inside the challenges that the
General Fund faces.
On the other hand, the Education Trust
Fund, as you see, is a much simpler handler.
As we mentioned already, that by statute, most of the sales taxes in
Alabama flow into the General Fund.
Sales taxes were up, collections were up about 7% last year. By constitutional amendment, income tax goes
to pay public school teachers= salaries, because the school systems went bankrupt in the
30's and that was the only way income tax could pass. That money all goes into the ETF and is
dedicated to teachers= salaries. So, the
growth, again 7% there. So we=ve got this extraordinary imbalance in the system-we=ve got money in ETF, no money in General Fund. Already there=s a group of legislators who have proposed a transfer to
take about $200 million dollars out of ETF and transfer it over to the General
Fund. Paul Hubbard from AEA says he doesn=t think that=s going to happen and in the past, that=s generally meant that was not going to happen. But it will be interesting to see how the
politics play out as we approach >06.
The projected condition of ETF, which
is what we=re here to talk about.
Beginning balance of $181 million dollars is increased to $270 million
dollars. Then you see the estimated
revenues from LFO have been increased from 4.5 to 4.7. We have total revenues coming into ETF-$4.6
billion in FY >05, estimated to be almost $4.9 billion in FY >06. The magic number
is here: the difference between the available dollars for FY >06 and FY >05 spending is $554 million dollars. Nobody=s ever seen that number or a number that looks like that
before. That is a tremendous number in
carry-over dollars and in new dollars into ETF.
Now you also have heard lots of talk about a K-12 pay raise. And I want you to focus with me on the
box. In the 2002 legislative session,
the Legislature passed something called the National Teacher Pay Raise
Act. It was a piece of legislation that
said: >If the Legislative Fiscal Office and the Executive Budget
Office project increases of more that 3%-5%, then public school teachers (K-12
certificated) automatically get a pay raise=, based on a formula inside that bill. The bill also contained language that said if
the Legislature gives more than the formula allows, the bill is, has
evaporated. It=s null and void. Nobody
ever thought that would be a possibility.
But look what=s happened this year.
The growth estimate from LFO was 241.8.
The maximum amount of annual growth available for teachers= pay raise under the pay raise bill is 45%. Stay with me, because this gets pretty
good. Maximum amount of growth available
for the teacher pay raise and fringe increases is $158 million dollars. And here=s where the K-12 group got trapped: they didn=t think in 2000 that fringe benefits would skyrocket in costs,
nor did they do anything to manage the increase in healthcare costs. So what=s happened is the skyrocketing healthcare costs that chewed
up the available pay raise under the bill, which means that under the National
Teacher Pay Raise Act, only $42 million dollars is available for a K-12 raise
and that is about 2%. So obviously, by
focusing on the 7% raise, K-12 is saying >We=re through with the National Teacher Pay Raise Bill; we=re going to go after 7%=. That=s relevant to us for a couple of reasons. One, if the legislature were to meet that pay
raise, it would almost assure proration in coming
years because it would demand it to keep up with a recurring cost, recurring
growth, around 5%, 4.7% to 5% and there=s no historical support for that kind of growth for a
straight line in the future.
As Dr. Richardson said, Auburn and
Alabama have for years sort of passed each other in the hall. But there=s been no coordinated effort. And this year, Matt Patera,
Chancellor of the University system, and Dr. Richardson on behalf of Auburn
University, came together and agreed to a four-point legislative agenda to
recapture PEEHIP dollars that since two fiscal years ago, higher education has
to absorb. That wasn=t true in the past but it=s true now. To recapture
retirement costs-both of those things now come out of the University=s General Fund.
To pursue a pay raise-and many of you
may have seen a press account where the higher education and partnership talked
about a 7% raise. I want you to know
that compensation for instructors at institutions of higher education in
Alabama is a critical action point because we all realize the economic engine
that=s going to drive the state is the higher education
system. It has to work for Alabama to
work. But there is no history in the
state of a link between K-12 pay raises and higher ed pay raises. And so this year, we have said >So when you think about K-12, you=ve got to think about what=s happening to higher education salaries=. We=re also pursuing a bond issue to provide capital resources
for the university. So that four-point
plan has been agreed to, not only by Alabama and Auburn, but also by other
institutions of higher education in the state.
That may not sound like much, but it=s the first time it=s ever happened. And
legislators are not used to all of higher ed coming with a unified agenda. Now, will that be true for the next, for the
rest of the legislative session? There
are going to be defections-that is the nature of the game. But we have commitments from the major players
and we have already been working with members of the Legislature, to explain to
them why this is important, because if you look at the way higher education has
been funded; in 1994, higher education took a cut under the James
Administration that it has never recovered from. We=ve got a lot of work to do, a lot of back filling to do, and
that centers around telling our story effectively. And there is a great story to tell at
Alabama. There=s an even greater story to tell, I would argue, at
Auburn. And so you=ll be hearing a lot from us in terms of keeping you informed,
getting your ideas about what=s going on campus, a lot to ask you to be involved in the
legislative process and look forward to answering any questions that you may
have as we go forward. And I guess now
it would be appropriate for Dr. Larkin to see if there=s any questions.
Dr. Larkin: Now let me remind everybody, that if you=re going to ask a question, go to the microphone, please
identify yourself and your affiliation and also for those who care, we are
videotaping this session. I was supposed
to make that announcement at the beginning, so just be mindful that you are
being taped, not that it will change anybody=s questions, I=m sure.
Sid McAnally: Oh, so you tell us this after our presentation.......
Dr. Larkin: Oh, you search out the press. You said you were a master at that, ok?
Sid McAnally: That was for Dr. Richardson. I don=t search out the press.
Dr. Larkin: So if you have a question, ask it now.
Sid McAnally:
Terrific!
Dr. Larkin: This is good! Before
Christmas, Richardson and I and Conner and other members of the leadership
team, we met at his office and talked about the new year and one of the things that
we agreed on is that neither one of us, certainly the two of us, would not do
any name-calling or anything like that.
You=ll remember, I made the statement about a >bonehead decision= or something like that.
I think you probably took offense, but we made a decision that we would
not call each other names on either side and this has gotten off to a really
great start. Nobody has questions or
anything, so maybe you=ll see it in the paper tomorrow, I don=t know. No
questions? Thank you very much, I appreciate
it.
Yes?
Surely you jest. Do you really
have a question or not? Ok, he=ll stand to that microphone and you can go join him over there
and since you=re close together, you all can settle it right over there.
Richard Penaskovic,
Philosophy: Presently, there=s no mechanism for removing a trustee from the board. And I remember reading in the papers before
Christmas, Dr. Richardson, that you were going to work with the Legislature on
this, and I wondering, has any progress been made on this? Or is it too early to tell? Is there any timetable to achieve this? What are your thoughts about this?
Dr. Richardson: Thank you, Dr. Penaskovic. Let me just comment that it=s actually taken a slightly different direction. Currently, Auburn and Alabama are recognizing
the constitution, therefore it takes a constitutional amendment, that is, you=d have to go out and have a vote for that. SACS has adopted new standards. We, in the last SACS study, were one of the
last institutions to come under the old standards, so we will now go forward
with new standards. The new standards,
and I=ve talked with the University of Alabama people and they have
a finding there, which the new standards stipulate that trustees must, I mean
the board, must adopt a policy to address that very topic, the removal of
trustees. So we=re waiting then for Alabama to come out with it. The problem is this: let=s say we=re in general agreement that Trustee X should not be on the
board. And let=s say that all the trustees agreed with that except for the
one, obviously. Because there is no
provision and it takes a constitutional amendment, the person could still sit
there and participate, even if all the trustees....so eventually it=s going to take legislative action and then a constitutional
amendment, but I do believe that the University of Alabama will come up with
such a standard. We=re going to look at that and if that is approved, then
certainly by SACS, then certainly I=m going to look at that.
We have not given up on that, but as I=ve talked with the Governor, the long tedious process of
legislation, because we still have some serve on various boards of trustees,
that we=re not sure we can get it through. But I think that eventually it will have to
come out and I=ve very pleased that SACS has set such a standard.
Dr. Larkin: Any other questions?
Thanks, Richard. Thanks,
guys. Let=s move forward.
Debra, you are going to come and you are going to talk a little bit
about the Rules Committee=s nominations and elections.
Debra Cobia, Secretary: Thanks, Willie. I
just wanted to remind you that in February, we=ll be calling for nominations for persons to serve on the
Rules Committee with an election to follow in March, at the March Senate
meeting. So if you have any interest in
serving on the Rules Committee, you could contact me ahead of time and I=ll be more than happy to submit your name as a
nomination. If you have no interest in
serving but you know of colleagues who would be good Rules Committee members,
please encourage them to allow you to nominate them. We=ll be electing three new Rules Committee members; those are
two-year appointments. The Rules
Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the President about who
serves on university committees and for appointing members of senate
committees. So it=s a very-those are among their tasks, there are others-but
those are the major time consuming initiatives and it=s a very important committee and we need people who are
really interested and willing and enthusiastic.
So I hope that you will all consider submitting yourselves or others as
potential Rules Committee members.
Thanks.
Dr. Larkin: Thank you very much.
We got a little bit out of order, so I want to make one announcement in
terms of the Senate Nomination Committee.
I have asked Cindy Brunner to chair this committee along with members Samia Spencer, Judy Sheppard, Arlette
Wilson, Gary Mullen and Jean Weiss.
According to the online Faculty Handbook, the Nominating Committee shall
present two names for each of the offices of Chair-elect and
Secretary-elect. The names of the
nominees shall be sent to the membership at least 21 calendar days prior to the
Spring Meeting. And my charge to this
committee is to search for excellent candidates who give the faculty a broad
range of differences to choose from, in terms of their philosophy about shared
governance and other things. If any of
you are interested in being considered for this very glamorous, very time
consuming yet rewarding, where you make a lot of friends and few enemies, I
would encourage you to contact Cindy Brunner or members of her committee. If you have persons in mind that you think
would make a good candidate for either of these positions, we ask that you recommend
those to Cindy as well, even if you have not contacted them to ask them if they
want to be considered. That committee
will do that later on and then they will bring back two persons who hopefully
will be balanced in their approach and will give you an opportunity to choose
and look at those differences. Any
questions about that appointment?
Yes, please?
Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I would
like to reiterate what Dr. Larkin has said and encourage you to submit names to
us. My goal is to start out with a large
slate of nominees, be those affirmed or not, and we will do the
contacting. My email address, which is
by far the best way to get in touch with me, is brunncj@auburn.edu. We will be meeting for the first time this
Thursday afternoon, we=re getting started a little bit late, we were constituted
later than planned, but I=ve got an ambitious goal.
I would like to have our four candidates for the two offices identified
for you by the February Senate meeting.
That gives us about three weeks, so we=ve got a lot of arm-twisting to do and wish you hadn=t made it look like such a gloomy responsibility. Actually, most of us on the committee have
served in one or the other of the two capacities as officers and, I think, with
few regrets, so we would like to encourage you to volunteer, if that=s appropriate and otherwise encourage you to nominate one
another and your other qualified colleagues.
Dr. Larkin: Although we have many among you, Cindy is one of the most
thorough faculty persons we have at the university, so as we looked at
everybody it was my pleasure to name her as Chair of this committee and I=m sure she will do a very good job.
Dr. Bransby,
if you will come forward, I=d like for you to give the Administrative Evaluation
report. And here again, after he speaks,
you will have the liberty of asking questions.
Dr. David Bransby,
Agronomy & Soils: I=m going to be very brief.
The report of the Administrative Evaluation Committee has actually been
posted on the Senate web site, so all I=m going to do really is give you some background and some
conclusions. To start off with, just the
committee consisted of me as chair, Dwayne Cox from the Library, Ann Janer, Clinical Pharmacy, and Herb Rotfeld,
Marketing, who is the new chair and Paul Starr.
The staff position was, in fact, vacant.
Before I go into just summarizing what
we found, I do want to emphasize what the charge of this committee is and in
particular, that the committee shall oversee and conduct a periodic evaluation
of university administrators involved in university teaching, research, and
extension programs and provide a report of aggregate data to the Senate, which
is what I=m doing now. The
reason I wanted to emphasize this is that people who knew I was in this
position often have asked me >Do the administrators use these results?= and I have to respond that is not part of our charge. It=s not my business to find out if the administrators use them
or not. I=d ask the administrators.
I=ve essentially five, uh, six points in the summary and
conclusion. First, our response rate was
35, just over 35%-sounds low for those of us who know nothing about surveys,
but in fact, it=s about the same as what we got when we ran a survey in
2002. Bruce Gladden was responsible for
heading that up and it=s considerably higher than what is usually obtained at
universities for this kind of survey.
Usually it=s somewhere between 20% and 30%, so our response rate was
pretty good. The survey was effective in
determining differences in faculty responses among administrators, colleges and
survey questions. And so I think it
provided useful information; what I mean there is that there was some distinct
differences that came out among colleges, among the administrators within
colleges, and so on. So we certainly got
some clear-looking results.
General strengths-I looked at in
general what were our strengths, what were our weaknesses. General strengths of both deans and
department heads were in office management, which I think is a tribute to our
administrative staff and also in projecting a good image of the colleges and
departments, which is most important.
The most distinct general weakness was failure of deans and heads/chairs
to specifically make attempts to improve performance relative to the results of
the last survey. I just want to
emphasize that when Bruce Gladden sent out the results of the last survey, he
specifically in his cover letter encouraged administrators to meet with their
departments and their colleges and discuss the evaluations and request
input. Also, in discussing the survey
with deans and department heads before we sent it out, they emphasized that
this must not be used for firing people.
It must be used for improvement.
So we asked these questions, which were different from last year, from
the last survey, these last two questions we added in this time: Have these
administrators improved and did they contact you as faculty and asked how they
could improve? And the responses to those
questions were the weakest.
The last two points: number 5-the
faculty identified two deans and at least 7 department heads that were very
weak and the way I catagorize very weak, they were
more than one standard deviation below the average score on the last
question. And the deans and Provost were
requested to look at these cases very seriously. I must also point out that we surveyed all
the department heads, including interims, and deans, including interims.
Finally, you=ll remember, we did this in hard copy-we mailed out and got
everything back in hard copy. That was
one heck of a lot of work. The reason we
did that was that we had some specific requests from people who were concerned
about the security of online types of surveys.
I don=t know whether it was worth it. It was one heck of a lot of work and I would
suggest to the incoming committee to look very seriously at running an online
survey, if that=s open to discussion.
Dr. Larkin, that=s all I have to say and I would be happy to take questions,
if there are any.
Dr. Larkin: If you have questions, you can go to the microphone,
identify yourself and your affiliation and ask.
Thank you, I appreciate that very much.
I know that this is a pretty hard job.
Let me reiterate that Herb Rotfeld is going to
be the incoming-he is the chair now of this committee. I would suspect that the committee would be
operated a little bit differently in terms of the approach and so at some
point, I=m sure it won=t be me, perhaps Conner will work with Herb and allow Herb
to come and present to you how he=s going to approach this and then we=ll go forward. But we
appreciate your work on this and encourage the committee to work very closely
together and move forward.
Who took my....come on, Bransby, you=re supposed to do better than that, sir. You took my agenda there. (Laughter) This
shows you how much he cares about me.
Ok, I=m going to ask Larry Gerber to come forward. I=ve really enjoyed just getting reports from Larry. This may be the most important thing that I
will do during the time that I=m chair and that is, having appointed this Ad Hoc committee
to look at the Presidential Search process and I=d like for Larry to come and report and at the end of that
report, we=re going to take action on this. We=ve tried to get this on the agenda for the board meeting on
February 4th; it appears we may not get it on the agenda, but they=ve agreed to allow us to put the report in the board book so
that they will have access to this and then we=ll make our recommendations to go forward as a result of this
report.
Dr. Larry Gerber: Before I start, I want to recognize the members of the Ad
Hoc committee and I must say, it was really a pleasure working with this
committee. We=ve worked quite harmoniously and I believe that we really
reached a consensus about the substance of the report, which we presented to
you. So I don=t think it=s necessary to read this very long list, but I really do
appreciate the work all the committee members put into producing this final
report.
I=m sure that most of you do remember at the November senate
meeting, I presented a preliminary report, including the text of the draft of
the report of our Ad Hoc committee and took some feedback and questions and I
hope that you now have all had a chance to read the final draft of our report
which was posted on the Senate web page a week ago and which I=m hopeful you will vote upon today. I=m not going to go over the entire report again, I did a
reasonably thorough review of it last time.
What I want to do this time is just point out the modifications that
have been made from the November initial draft report.
One modification, which was basically
in response to some of the feedback, in fact, it was about the only feedback I
got from the November meeting, had to do with the issue of whether there should
be administrator representation on the Presidential Search Committee and the
committee basically reconsidered its original position, about which we had
ambivalent feelings and decided in response to the feedback we got, that there
should be administrative representation on the search committee and so we added
an administrator to the search committee.
We did recommend that we thought the administrator should be at the Dean
level or below. We still thought there
were some legitimate concerns, we think, about having a Vice President on the
search committee. We did think it
appropriate to add an administrator. So
we enlarged the committee from 17 to 18.
I did a fancy PowerPoint last time,
saw no need to do that again. So, just
as a reminder of the composition we=re recommending, the composition would include: three
trustees, seven faculty-two coming from AUM, an administrator, three alumni,
two students, a staff member and an A & P member, for a total of 18. And we also made available the material that
was put up on the Senate web page, some of the other recent Presidential
Searches that our committee looked at in coming up with a recommendation, not
only about the composition of the search committee but also about the
procedures that the search committee should follow. And I won=t go over those now, unless I=m asked, but you did have a chance to look at those if you
wished. There was one element about past
history that we did not include in the report; specifically, it does not appear
as a link on the web page, and that is how this committee compares to the last
time Auburn University conducted a search for a president, which was in 1991-92
and I do want to at least remind people what the composition of that search
committee was and see how it compares to what we=re recommending now.
In >91->92, there were 14 members of the presidential search
committee. There actually was not, as my
understanding, a trustee who actually directly participated. There was one trustee who helped coordinate
the activities of the search committee.
There were five faculty members from Auburn University main campus, and
one from AUM. So there were six out of
fourteen faculty members on that committee, three alums from main campus, one
alum representing AUM, the student body presidents of AU and AUM, one staff
person and one administrative person.
So, in some ways, I=d say the biggest difference in what we=re recommending now from what occurred in 1991->92, is actually there would be more trustee representation,
proportionately, there=s actually slightly less faculty representation, although
the absolute numbers have increased the size of the committee.
I think our sentiment on the Ad Hoc
committee that, given our recent history, everything ought to be done possible
to get everybody on the same page on the search. We still believe, and this is the premise of
our report, that the faculty are the heart of the institution, and that there
ought to be very substantial faculty representation on the board, on the
presidential search committee and that ultimately, the main responsibility of
the Board of Trustees is choosing the President out of finalists identified by
the search committee, but we did recommend more board representation on the
search committee itself to try to reach consensus before and throughout the
entire process.
Other changes-there are really only
two other changes to our report. One has
to do with the criteria, the recommended criteria for a new president of Auburn
University. As I hope all of you
realized, we conducted an online survey.
We initially did it for the faculty, received somewhat over 200
responses online to a survey among the faculty.
I received a request from the leadership of the Staff Council that they
also wished to have the survey that we had prepared be available to staff
members, so they made it available to staff and we received, I believe, 126
responses from staff. If you, as I hope
you have, read the wording that appears in the report about presidential
criteria, we made nothing absolute in our recommendation, but we, I think, our
search committee was very much in agreement with one of the major results of
our survey and this was true, both of the staff group as well as of the
faculty, that whoever should be hired it=s highly desirable, if not required, that the person have
administrative experience at a university and have had a record at a university
in terms of scholarship as well as administrative experience and that the
person should have an earned doctorate.
But the wording of our report also indicated that we could see
exceptional circumstances when an individual who had academic experience but was
not currently in academia might be a desirable candidate as president of the
university.
The last-and this is where I=ll stop and take any-actually I hope Willie will entertain a
motion once I=d finished-the last slight modification to the draft report we
supplied had to do with the timing that we=re recommending for a presidential search. There=s no change in the timing itself. We=re recommending that the presidential search should begin as
quickly as possible, with the goal of having a president in place actually by
next January, but at the latest by July of 2006, which would, this is the one
modification in the wording. We made
reference to the fact that the special investigating team from SACS sent to
Auburn in September, this last fall, made a similar recommendation, saying that
they thought it would be desirable to have a new president in place no later
than July of 2006. And so we made
reference to the SACS suggestion as well, but still think that it would be
appropriate in line with what Dr. Richardson said at the time he was appointed
Interim President, when he indicated that he only wished to serve for two years
at that time and also given the fact that by January of 2006, we will have gone
five years without having conducted, without having a president in place who
was selected through a national search process.
I don=t think there=s much need for me to make any preliminary remarks, so I
would hope that someone would entertain a motion to adopt the report.
Dr. Larkin: Since you=re the chair of the committee, why don=t you offer a motion for adoption representing the
committee.
Dr. Larry Gerber: I move as chair of the committee, although not a member of
the Senate, but chair of a Senate committee, I would move that the adoption of
our report, the adoption and approval of our report.
Dr. Larkin: Since this is coming from a committee, it does not require
a second. If you have a question about
this report before we proceed, please go to the microphone and identify
yourself and your department or unit.
Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: Larry, Dr. Richardson mentioned today an AGB set of
guidelines, criteria, standards for presidential search and indicated that the
board was likely to use that set of standards, if I understood him
correctly. Can you tell us how that AGB
set of standards may vary from this recommendation?
Dr. Larry Gerber: I=m actually, I=m reasonably familiar with AGB and I=m not aware of a specific document from AGB that would spell
out the composition of the search committee or that would certainly talk about
the timing of the search, so what I thought that Dr. Richardson was actually
referring to was the use that Auburn, the Board of Trustees made in 2001 when
they retained Dr. William Weary, who at one time had a connection to AGB and
has consulted in presidential searches, who made certain recommendations to the
board back in 2001 of a general nature, they weren=t that specific, which he thought was consistent with AGB
philosophy. But I am certainly not aware
that there is any AGB statement which would spell out the composition of the
search committee or that would deal with some of the other issues that our
report deals with.
Conner Bailey: Thank you.
Dr. Larkin: Other questions?
Please....
Harriette Huggins, A&P Assembly Chair: It was our agreement....
Dr. Larry Gerber: Yes, it was and I apologize. As I spoke, I thought I was making a
mistake. And I cut you off, if you want
to go ahead.....
Harriette Huggins: First of
all, we appreciate the opportunity to contribute to, some of our preferences
and adding to the survey. And we also
appreciate the attempt at representation of a number of constituencies, but I
want to call your attention to the fact that all constituent groups, campus
groups, including representatives from AUM, except staff and A&P, I have
been in contact with Chancellor Nance, and there is only one organization at
AUM that includes staff and administrative and professional assembly employees
and so I don=t want them to feel left out and I think it maybe sends the
wrong message because every other group has specific recommendation for an AUM
candidate and not these two groups.
Thank you.
Dr. Larkin: Thanks very much.
Are there other questions or comments?
Dr. Larry Gerber: Now I could ask a question and that is, if you, I take the
suggestion as a friendly suggestion. I
could tell you from the point of view of the Ad Hoc Committee, certainly our
concern was how large the committee we were proposing was already getting. But I think that concern should be noted in
any minutes and should be conveyed as one.
I don=t think it should be considered as a hostile suggestion to
the committee.
Dr. Larkin: Ok, there is a motion to adopt this report on the
floor. If there are no other questions, in
readiness, all of those in favor of adopting this proposal or recommendation,
please indicate by saying Aye. Opposers, nay.
Alright, we will move this report forward to the board. We know that this is just advice for
them. It probably will not look the same
and of course, that=s left up to them, but I think we have done due diligence to
come up with a set of recommendations for them to look at and what I=m going to do is communicate with Mr. McWhorter to see if I
can set up a meeting with myself, Conner, and also with Larry to talk about
this process just a little bit. And then
the other thing is, when the board does decide to bring this forward to discuss
and do whatever they are going to do with it, we=re going to work with John Mouton as our faculty
representative and Larry and myself to make sure that-John is our
representative but Larry worked through the report and so we want him to be
involved as well-and the three of us will get together and we=ll negotiate that process.
But I just want to express my appreciation to Larry and the rest of the
committee members. Because you have
completed your work and we have acted upon it, you are no longer needed, in an
official capacity, so thank you very much.
Dr. Gerber: Thank you. Can I add
just one thing?
Dr. Larkin: Please...
Dr. Gerber: Thank you for those kind words. One last comment I would make about the
report, I do think that it=s important to consider the report in its entirety. It=s not just a bullet point, just look at the composition of
the search committee, just look at the date.
It is a report that we spent some time working on and the entire
rationale for our approach and a description of why we think the presidential
search is so important and if handled properly could be a major step forward
for Auburn University. So we hope that
whenever you consider the report, you don=t just come back to what did we say about the composition of
the search committee, that you look at the entire report.
Dr. Larkin: Alright, thank you.
We are moving along quickly. Let
me just ask, is there any unfinished business that should come before this
assembly?
Let me take a moment of personal
privilege. On last Saturday morning,
Vivian and I took off and went to Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana,
to watch our daughter compete in the Miss Purdue University Scholarship
pageant. We got there and I videotaped
that whole thing. We are going to have
in the month of February a showing at our house of that video and we will be
charging $5 per person, because it=s going to take that amount to pay for all of the gowns and
shoes and swimsuits and all of that kind of stuff. She placed 3rd runner-up and she
sang a soulful rendition of Etta James= AAt Last@. And I=m videotaping and I=m listening to the song and I must admit, that I started to
cry because I did not know she had such beautiful pipes. She can sing, and you should have been
there. But I tell you guys, it=s kinda hard to watch your
daughter grow up and walk across a stage with a swimsuit on and hear these
people in the back screaming and yelling and the catcalls and everything. And this one guy said AWOW!@ and when I looked back I said >Excuse me, that=s my daughter= and he said >Well, wow, then.@ At any rate, we=re very proud of her, just like I=m sure you are of your children.
Let me ask if there=s any new business.
We=ve had a good meeting.
I appreciate it and I did look at you, Jack, and I wondered if you would
return to the Senate meetings because you don=t have anything to write about. We got along so well today, it was like
cousins, don=t you think? This
meeting is adjourned. Thank you very
much.