Conner Bailey, Chair-elect: Good afternoon, it’s 3 o’clock and I’d like to call this special called meeting of the University Faculty to order. Our chair, Dr. Willie Larkin, expresses his regret, due to a prior engagement addressing a national convention out of state, he was unable to join us today and asked me as Chair-elect of the University Faculty to represent him.

What I would like to do today is very briefly, and there are seats down front gentlemen and ladies, is to very briefly review the set of actions that have led us to this position, to having SACS sending a special committee to Auburn University, and to share with you the pertinent sections of these special committees’ report. I will then ask Dr. Patricia Duffy, who is the Secretary-elect of the University Faculty, to introduce a resolution-this is a resolution coming from the Executive Committee and will not need a second.

At that time, I would like to honor a request by Interim President Dr. Ed Richardson to address the faculty. He will do so and then I would like, if there are questions of clarification that those in the audience have for Dr. Richardson, at that time, that would be an appropriate time, I believe, to address these to Dr. Richardson. At that point, after those questions of clarification have been answered, I would like to move forward to the debate and discussion on the motion properly. I would like these discussions to be guided by the principles I’ve got listed up here. One is that we will vote by secret ballot at the request of Dr. Larkin, at his suggestion. And the results of this will be announced immediately after, as soon as the ballots have been counted. Two members of the Steering Committee, Bob Locy and Leanne Lamke, will do the counting for us. We will also, for those of you who wish to stay and hear the announcement are certainly welcome to do so, we will also endeavor to get the results posted on AU PROFS as soon as possible. This will probably take place somewhere close to 6pm. Debra Cobia, our Secretary, is going to be in class and will take a break at that point and post the results, if they’re not available before she has to leave for class.

This is a meeting of the University Faculty and any person holding a faculty appointment is, of course, free to speak regarding this resolution. And we’d ask that you use the microphones provided, this helps us record for the minutes the names and comments made by people. Please introduce yourself by name and department, if you will.

To the extent possible, once the discussion starts, I would like to have alternatingly, an individual who wishes to speak on behalf of and in support of the resolution followed by someone who is in opposition to the resolution. And I would like to go back and forth, I don’t want to have a whole series of people on one side. I want to give equal opportunity, as balanced as possible, for people on both sides of the issue an opportunity to speak. If at such point, there are no people on one side or the other, then we will simply proceed with whoever wishes to speak. Also, if you have more than one comment to make, please wait until others have all had an opportunity to speak.

So, how did we get here? Back in 1997, Auburn University at Montgomery was up for reaccreditation. At that time, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools-SACS- put Auburn University on notice that there were problems regarding governance. Notice from SACS is a non-public form of notice, warning if you will, that says ‘You have some problems that need to be addressed.’ Some years later, April 2001 to be precise, a Joint Assessment Committee was established, representing the University Senate, the Alumni, the SGA, the Staff Council, and the A&P Assembly. This body, the JAC, reported to SACS a complaint listing a number of problems associated with governance at Auburn University and asking that SACS investigate these problems. Among these problems were matters that are continuing to be the subject of interest and concern by SACS, and these include business relationships between Board members, and the Administration responded at first by July 2001, by stating that the controversy that led to the JAC complaint was a result of differences of opinion on policy matters and that the Board of Trustees had jurisdiction over these policy matters. The Administration subsequently sued SACS in August 2001, I believe. In January 2002, a federal judge issued a ruling indicating which of the JAC’s complaints did indeed fall under the jurisdiction of SACS. An attorney, James Bradley from Columbus, was hired to report to SACS to investigate the matters that SACS was investigating. He issued a report in December 2002. This report was judged inadequate by SACS. Attorney Bradley was requested to initiate a second, more thorough study, which he did. That report presumably has been reviewed by SACS and the Administration of Auburn University, but that report has been sealed by the federal judge because it dealt with detailed financial data involving individuals. In light of this legal battle between SACS and Auburn University, our planned reaccreditation visit by the SACS team of April 2003 was postponed until February 2004. When the visit did take place in February 2004, those governance issues that had been identified by the JAC and confirmed by a federal judge as being relevant to the SACS inquiry were not included in the subject for the February visit. The February visit resulted in-this is a very important point that we’re all aware of and we should be very appreciative of-resulted in a very clean bill of health for academic programs. Much credit for this goes to the team that put together the report, chaired by Gene Clothiaux and Linda Glaze.

The SACS Special Committee that visited campus in September 2004 was charged with examining those matters that came up, associated with the JAC Complaint Letter. When the Committee visited in 2004-September-they applauded Auburn University for their efforts, making significant progress on most matters of concern, notably Athletics. But they identified three remaining issues. One of these was that the Board needed to conduct an assessment of the individual holding the office of President, noting that no assessment or evaluation of the President’s performance had been conducted in a number of years. The Board has agreed that they will do this. The second item was that each Board member needed to certify in writing that they were committed to the accreditation process. The Board members individually have now done so. The third item is the more tricky of the three concerns, and it calls for the Board of Trustees to quote "take appropriate actions to ensure that it lives up to its own Code of Ethics and that the Board is not controlled by a minority of its members." What you have before you is a copy of the exact wording that the SACS Special Committee presented. Do you all want to come sit down? We’ve got plenty of seats. In this report, which you can all read and I won’t bother reading at this time, it’s very clear that the SACS Special Committee identified the relationship between two individuals on the Board of Trustees as being troubling. That is the business relationship between Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller. They did identify one possible source, one possible solution to the problem, which is to bring in an independent third party to investigate this matter, this relationship.

That concludes the remarks that I’m going to make that lead up to the resolution, which Dr. Duffy will present.

Patricia Duffy, Secretary-Elect: Thank you. I’m introducing a resolution on behalf of the Executive Committee. The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS Auburn University’s efforts to regain full accreditation remains in doubt despite the University’s best efforts because of the relationships between Mr. Robert Lowder and Mr. Jack Miller which were reported by SACS’ Special Committee to be in apparent violation of the Code of Ethics of AU Board of Trustees;

First, yesterday I contacted Dr. Larkin in regard to my visit to the report of the CNR Committee report to SACS, which I will be before them on this coming Friday, and I tried to describe for him what I felt were in our best interests, issues that were in our best interests in regard to addressing SACS. I think I’ve made it clear, but I would repeat again that since I have been here now, about nine or so months, that this has been my number one priority and I’ve done every single thing that I know to do, including asking SACS if there is more that I could do, including having the Governor meet with SACS twice to ask the question to see if there was something I was missing. I realize that you have a right to approve the resolution and that’s up to you, and you can just do what you would like. But I would like to offer just two or three bits of information that I think are important at least, from my perspective.

Number one-I would ask a two part question: Is it your intention to take the necessary steps to enable Auburn to remove its probationary status or is it your intention to see that the probationary status remains? I’d have to admit to you that the timing of this meeting leads me to believe the latter is the case. In my opinion, I don’t think there’s any doubt that sufficient steps have been taken to meet and, in fact, exceed any SACS standards that’s printed in their book and I’m prepared to offer those to the Committee, as I mentioned, this coming Friday.

I think Dr. Bailey accurately described the sequence of events and really it boils down to the last one that he identified, but I would ask that you again review the wording of that and since I did attend the exit interview and since I’ve had numerous conversations both with the Chair of the Special Committee as well as SACS since that time, trying to get my hands around exactly what I was being asked to do. I would ask that you review the word which says that ‘it appears that there is a conflict between the two trustees, Miller and Lowder.’ I would say to you that it might be helpful in this regard to be aware of how it works in Alabama. I’ve talked to trustees from Michigan, where the trustees there, and I think Bill has confirmed that Nebraska does the same, that they elect their trustees by popular ballot. I think for us, at least from my experience of dealing with elected boards, that would not be in any university’s best interests. But in Alabama there’s a different procedure, and in other states they have similar ones, but I would just describe for you how it works, and if you already understand it, just bear with me.

First, as you know, the Governor is responsible for submitting a name to any of the universities the name of a trustee for any of universities to the Alabama Senate. In Auburn’s case, because of some legislation that was passed a few years ago, as you know, there’s a five-member committee of which two members consist of the Alumni Board, usually the President and President-elect, two members of the Auburn Trustees and the Governor or his designate. Those five interview anyone that expressed an interest in being a Trustee. Now I would point out that the next vacancy occurs right after the first of this calendar year, and that the interviews will be conducted during the month of December for the replacement of this trustee.

So once this group, this five member committee, decides this is the person to send forward, the name is sent to the Senate Confirmation Committee and if it survives the review by the Senate Confirmation Committee, it is then sent to the General Senate for a vote. If the Senate confirms, then the member is confirmed for a specific term of office. There is absolutely no provision, we’ve looked, there’s no provision in the code of Alabama that permits the removal of a member of the Board of Trustees. So to hold us to that standard, and I say to hold us for, in this case, SACS, that was implied as something that even if the Governor agreed and all of us agreed, there is no such provision to occur.

I would also offer in regards to the wording about the two trustees, that there was no evidence offered to support the appearance of a violation of the Code of Ethics. I called SACS, Dr. Allen is our contact and asked him on more than one occasion, ‘Is there something you can offer me so I can know how to respond?’ And there is no evidence, or there has been no evidence presented so that we could prepare an appropriate response. I would think, to me at least, the term innocent until proven guilty, comes to mind. So I think for any organization or elected official or individual to hold Auburn to such a standard, that is, a trustee must resign in order to meet accrediting standards, not only exceeds any existing SACS standards, but it also would exceed Alabama law. I believe, therefore, it would be inappropriate.

I’m also of the opinion, and this is perhaps more important to me at least, than those, is that I do not believe that it would achieve the desired objective, in other words, the resolution. And I believe it will polarize future discussions. You as faculty members are the heart of this university. You have every right to consider this and vote on it one way or the other. That’s your call-I’m not here to try to influence you other than to offer you my opinion. You’ve made very valuable contributions, not only to this university, but also to this state and nation and for that we are indebted. And I still remain convinced that reasonable people that are singularly focused on the best interests of Auburn University can reach a satisfactory agreement on any topic, controversial though it may be.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and I had planned to leave because I have another meeting at 5, but I think, Conner, you said if there are any questions for clarification, I’d be glad to try to respond to those. That’s my statement. Thank you.

Wayne Flynt, History: This is just a matter of clarification, Dr. Richardson. You said you had done everything within your power to end the probationary period and I was wondering if that included asking Mr. Lowder if he would voluntarily step down from the Board in order to promote the healing process that you’ve talked so much about and my thought, my reason for asking that is, you’re obviously correct in a legal way of compelling him to step down. But have you asked as a process of doing everything you possibly could, since he’s such an obvious flashpoint for this controversy, if he would just voluntarily do that?

Dr. Ed Richardson: Thank you, Dr. Flynt. No, I have not asked either Mr. Miller or Mr. Lowder to step down in the best interests. I have taken the other step that was offered to me. The, in the body of that report, you will see a statement to say that they recommend-SACS-recommends that I employ or secure the services of another outside independent organization or individuals to review this conflict of interest. Of course, if you will remember, in our conflict of interest, if such conflict exists, the trustees have signed the statement that they would either sever that conflict or step down. So I am, that’s what I’ve been doing for the last week or so, is trying to secure, not one but actually three, that would be able to review in great detail whether or not such a conflict exists. Then, Dr. Flynt, if such a conflict exists, then by the Board’s own policy, one of those two options will have to occur. I have not asked them at this time. We anticipate, of course I had a about a week’s notice before the deadline to submit reports, which happened to be on November 15^th, but I anticipate that one of the reports will be complete prior to Friday. The other two will have to be sometime after the first of the year. And I’m just going to work as hard as I can. I think, if nothing else, particularly the out of state organizations with which I’m dealing, will give us procedures and guidelines that will serve us well for the next round, which will come in June when you have to complete the next Conflict of Interest Statement.

Bob Locy, Steering Committee: I’m curious. You mentioned your conversations, frequent and often with SACS concerning the situation. In any of those conversations, has Dr. Allen or anyone else from SACS given you any indication as to why specifically Trustee Lowder and Miller were named in their report as specific flashpoints? What was the basis for them making such a bold statement as to why that was there? You said there was no, that they gave you no data to support their concerns. But why then did those two names come up specifically in the report, first of all and second of all, has SACS indicated to you that this could be appropriately resolved, from their point of view, were they to step down or be out of the loop or would we still have basically a policy problem that would leave us in violation of concerns that they had?

Dr. Richardson: Those are good questions. I’ve asked those questions myself and if I can remember them, I’ll answer them in this way. First, in regard to my conversation, which has almost been on a weekly basis, sometimes twice a week, in each of the proposals that I presented, I’ve submitted to SACS beforehand and said ‘Now is this sufficient, like the Code of Ethics, will this do it?’ and if they said ‘Yes’, then I submitted it to the Board for approval. But I would say that in regard to the two, why their names were selected, no. I did ask the question. I did not get an answer, either in terms of the reason. I think that if you also noticed in the body of that report, it indicated that it had differed with the Audit Committee’s assessment. I asked on what basis was that difference, and I was again given no reason for that difference of opinion. I asked the Audit Committee to go back a second time, and to review each of the Code of Ethics forms to see if there was something there that I missed.

I want to go more specifically to your question. I believe that there is a clear business relationship between the two. Mr. Miller is on the Board of Directors of Colonial Bank. He does, his firm, by the way, not him personally-he has five attorneys from the firm that does the business for Colonial Bank. And of course, I think the amount that was identified-$2.6 million, whatever the amount was-came from the report that Colonial Bank is required to submit, so I’m sure that’s accurate. But I would say that in terms of the relationship, we have, and I’ve made numerous inquiries, from at least 20 institutions of higher education from all over the southern region, the SACS region, and this is a very common practice in many institutions that have closer relationships than anything that Auburn has. So, to answer your question, no, they would not tell me why the two were identified. I’m just surmising, based on what I have heard. No, they did not at any time suggest that the problem would be resolved if one or both would step down. I’ll have to admit to you that I did contact the Chair of the Special Committee afterward for clarification, which is permitted, and asked in terms of by what standard could I use to try to determine if a relationship is excessive. I mean, if you just stop and think about it, an average person on a trustee board could say ‘Well, this firm loaned me $80,000.00'-that would be a lot of money to me. But for another trustee that has lines of credit for $80 million dollars at four banks-that’s not much money. And so it’s just an ambiguous standard there. I would hope that we would be able to, in addressing the committee, indicate that we have again looked, the outside agency have asked me, they are hard at work and one hopefully would be finished, and if there is such a conflict, we will adhere to the Code of Ethics’ standard that has been adopted. But I think we would prejudge them ahead of time. I would hope that they would not have listed two individuals. In fact, I asked the Chair: ‘Just tell us we’ve got a problem’, because when you start into identifying individuals, particularly business and professional people that have stockholders and so forth, just that opens a door that I would not like opened again.

Rik Blumenthal, Chemistry and Biochemistry: Just to clarify one point first. On much of your statement to us about this resolution focused on the fact that there is no legal mechanism in this state to remove a trustee. The implication I read into your words is that it was unfair and improper for SACS to ask us to remove a trustee. This leads to conclude from your own words that SACS has, in other words, not directly said it, ‘Remove this trustee and that solves this problem’. The only remaining problem. Now, your implication that the world of higher education in Alabama will collapse if we ask for the resignation of Mr. Lowder, I think, is a little excessive. We asked for it three years ago. We, the faculty, the faculty Senate and five other bodies on this campus asked for the resignation of trustees and of course, it didn’t happen, but in fact, it didn’t cause any dramatic collapse but it did make the statement: ‘There is a problem with the Board of Trustees’. Something had to be done. When you got here, when you arrived, you came and spoke to us and I asked you at that time, that first meeting, if you would join those campus organizations representing every group on campus, join us in addressing the problem that got us on probation-the trustees-to step down. You said ‘I have a better plan’ and ‘I can do other things and make this work and get us off probation’. You’ve done everything you can do. You’ve said to us you’ve done everything you can do, short of my plan, ask the trustees to step down. Now it comes to the point where are we going to thumb our noses at SACS. If you say ‘Please step down, as a personal request from a friend and former member of the Board’, we say ‘Please step down, this is a request from the faculty’, every editorial board of every paper in this state, as far as I’ve read, has asked for the resignation of these two trustees. So we’re not alone in this thinking. We’ve come to the last step, it’s the end of the game. You’ve run every trick play you’ve got in your book and there’s one play left in the play book, our play, and now you’re saying ‘I’m not going to do that play; I’d rather lose.’ At least that’s my interpretation. Now is that a correct interpretation of your opinion-you’d rather lose than ask for Mr. Lowder’s resignation?

Dr. Richardson: Two things-the answer is no, I’m not conceding defeat. To the higher education collapse, that was not my language that was yours, because I just felt that in terms of the provisions that we have, there are no provisions for removal. I would have to say this: I intend and I have, that’s all I’ve been doing for the last two weeks, is trying to secure individuals/representatives of organizations both in and out of the state that have no connection with any of the trustees, which is what SACS and the Special Committee has specifically asked me to do. So that’s the last play in my book. So I’m playing that one and since I’ve never coached, I guess we can use that analogy. I would say that I am totally committed to meeting those SACS standards; I’m totally committed to doing everything they’ve asked me to do that has not already been asked by SACS. If it has been put in writing saying ‘Yes, that is what’s going to be required’, then I would have taken a different approach. But I still believe, that there’s a good chance that the probation will be lifted, particularly as I’m able to demonstrate the more detailed financial reports that have been compiled.

Conner Bailey: I’m sorry, Dr. Bradley has a question.

Dr. Bradley: Ok, well I take offense at that, although you can have your impression. I’d like to share an impression that I have, and that is, my impression is that you and Mr. Lowder are playing chicken with SACS. I believe, I say I believe, that you know, and I believe, that Mr. Lowder knows, that one act overnight could solve this probation problem. And that would be Mr. Lowder’s resignation from the Board. And I believe, because I believe the two of you believe that and know that, that you’re playing chicken with SACS. That’s my perception.

Dr. Richardson: Yes, that’s what is in writing and I’m accepting what they put in writing and I believe that to be the case.

Dr. Richardson: I really don’t know. Captain Williams, I would say, I wanted to have not just one opinion. I wanted people to work independently, have groups both in and out of the state to address that. One will be complete hopefully this week, but I could not consider that to be a definitive report. I would hope that it would demonstrate to SACS that we’ve made every effort, we have found nothing. Dr. Bailey mentioned the two Bradley reports, which confirmed that there were no conflicts. We’ve had our Code of Ethics, which each trustee has signed under threat of perjury. We’ve asked the Audit Committee for a second time to review it. I hope accumulatively they would say they have done everything within reason, even though two reports are yet undone. But they could clearly leave us on probation until the other two are there and I just don’t really know the answer to that question. Thank you.

Conner Bailey: Dr. O’Leary....And we will then have for those who came in a little late, we will then have open discussion on the resolution. This is time for clarification of statements Dr. Richardson made.

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: I’m a little mystified at this moment by why you think these three independent reports would satisfy SACS when you believed a few months ago that an audit committee comprised of members of the Board would satisfy SACS. And you’ve referred multiple times to your communication with SACS, particularly with Dr. Allen, and your distress at the fact that he was not giving you specific answers to questions that if I understand the accreditation process correctly, he could possibly have given you because he’s the Executive Officer of SACS and that he speaks on behalf of the organizational apparatus, but the decisions are made by the members of the Site Visiting Teams that actually do the accreditation and present those reports to the larger body at the time of their annual meeting. So I can’t understand how Dr. Allen could possibly have given you an answer.

Dr. Richardson: Sure. I’d like to answer that -it’s a fair question. Early on during my tenure here, the Governor and I traveled to Atlanta to meet with Dr. Rodgers and Dr. Allen. One to convey our commitment to doing whatever SACS required, but also to find out what’s it going to take. During that meeting, both Dr. Rodgers and Dr. Allen-Dr. Allen is our specific contact person-both indicated that if I had questions or needed information, to be sure and call both of them. So I’ve just taken advantage of that offer that they gave both the Governor and myself. The Governor has since gone back one additional time, as you know. In terms of why do I believe it, I’ll answer it this way: I really believe the question has been answered. But in the since of cooperation, since SACS is not satisfied and they put in writing ‘Deal with these outside independent organizations’, I’m going to do what they suggested. And that’s the only choice I really have and that’s why I’m doing it. Whether that’s sufficient or not remains to be seen. But that’s what they’ve asked me to do and that’s what I’m prepared to do.

Bruce Gladden, Health and Human Performance: I’m in favor of the resolution, but my comment is not directly related to that. Is there any provision for voting other than being here?

Bruce Gladden: I mean, the turnout is disappointing, to say the least, to me. The thing I always fear about this is that we’ll have a vote and it doesn’t look like that many people compared to the whole faculty. But I guess that’s a segment that we need to continue, to look into ways that other people can vote who are not actually here. I know there’s something to be said for hearing the discussion, but that’s just a concern I have.

Conner Bailey: Thank you. Last year the University Faculty considered electronic voting. We did so this year for officers. We specifically declined to do that with regard to resolutions, because, as you said, to hear the discussion and debate and also there might be, well that primarily, but also that there may be revisions of a resolution. But that is an open question and is certainly something that can be revisited. As of today, it’s those faculty in the room that will vote when the ballots are distributed.

Larry Gerber, History: I just wish to speak very briefly in support of the resolution. I’m actually somewhat surprised at Dr. Richardson’s response to questions indicating that he did not think asking Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller to resign would have been possible steps in doing all he could possibly do in getting Auburn off of its probationary status. But I think this resolution makes evident sense in that if you put yourself in the place of a trustee, even if you had done nothing wrong whatsoever, in Mr. Lowder’s 20 years of service on the board, which is far longer than any new board member could possibly serve, because under the current constitution, 14 years is the maximum term, if you had done all you could for Auburn University, you had a perfectly honorable 20 years and you were being unjustly accused of a conflict of interest, would you not put the interest of Auburn University ahead of your own ego and be willing to make sure that one of the leading obstacles to us getting off probation would be removed? I think that there’s just no compelling response to the wisdom of at least asking Mr. Lowder to honor that obligation that he should feel to Auburn University.

Bob Locy, Steering Committee: I would like to speak in support of the resolution, and I’d specifically like to address Dr. Richardson’s remark that he made at the initial part of his remarks and reiterated in response to a question, that this is an ill-timed meeting if we expect to get off SACS’ probation. I would argue that it was certainly the thinking of the Faculty Senate Steering Committee at the time we proposed having this meeting to the Executive Committee, that this was the perfect time for the meeting. Because we can have this meeting prior to the meeting of SACS to consider our continuing probation and we can ask Mr. Lowder to step down for the continuing good of the University, with his service remaining completely distinguished and unmarred, and not push this thing to the brink, and if he truly loves Auburn University as it has been publicly stated that he claims to do, that it would seem that it would be the appropriate and honorable thing to do, and I don’t think there’s any malice intended at this point and time in asking him to do so. If we wait until SACS may continue us on probation, maybe Dr. Richardson is right, maybe they will agree that adequate measures have been taken. That certainly doesn’t seem to be the spirit of the report that they sent us, however. And if we continue on probation, we then find ourselves in a situation where a confrontation about this could get dramatically more certainly heated because we are being pushed clearly to the final brink where this crisis has to be resolved within a year or we could absolutely lose probation. The other point of view is that none of us knows what SACS is going to do in the upcoming December meeting. They could choose to give us the kiss of death at that point and time and if Mr. Lowder would step down, it would certainly appear that would be avoiding such a possible stern action and not push us to that extent to do that. Thank you.

Steve Camphor, Biological Sciences: I don’t know, this is sort of strange. I actually favor what’s being said in the resolution. I am concerned about the timing that we’re doing this, not so much I guess for the reasons that Dr. Richardson is concerned, but my feeling is that if we pass this resolution, and SACS either continues our probation or worse, removes our accreditation, we provide the university administration with a convenient scapegoat that they can blame for what happened, even though it really had nothing to do with it. And this will distract attention from the actual real problems that exist. Secondly, if we don’t pass a resolution, and SACS either continues our probation, or worse yet, removes our accreditation, we’ve lost our chance to make a strong statement in the matter of Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller. Finally, if we pass the resolution and SACS removes us from probation, we look like fools and incite the ire of not only Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller, but also possibly other board members who will view our actions as inappropriate. Now I don’t know what the situation is. I get the impression that a motion to postpone is probably not in order, am I right? I’ll make a motion that we postpone this until after SACS makes its decision. If somebody will second it, we can vote and if not we can go wherever......

Steve Camphor: Am I right-is Friday the day that SACS......I’m sorry....

Cindy Brunner, Pathobiology: I am from Pathobiology, but I would like to point out that I’m representing myself as a faculty member of Auburn at this meeting and not necessarily my department. I would like to speak against the motion to postpone or delay the vote on this issue. I find myself in a precarious position because I have never supported a resolution like the one we’re looking at today. I do support this resolution and I support considering this resolution at this time. I am on the Rules Committee and we deliberated this very question of when to put this resolution before the faculty and we decided that it was appropriate to do it now. My rationale for opposing the motion to delay the vote is that, although it would appear there’s a link between the problems with Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller and the university being on probation, that link is not as strong as it might seem. I think it would be a mistake to wait until after SACS has made its decision because Mr. Lowder and Mr. Miller’s business relationships have been an issue for many years. The issue was raised most visibly in the Spring of 2001. But it has been an issue ever since then and even Mr. Lowder’s relationships were an issue before Mr. Miller came on the board. So, that issue will not be resolved even if Auburn University is taken off probation. That issue remains and I think our resolution deals with the broader question of whether it’s in the best interests of Auburn University that these two gentlemen remain on the board.

The second thing I’d like to point out is this is my understanding of the JAC process. I don’t believe it was the intention of the JAC that Auburn should be put on probation. I don’t think that committee was established with that goal in mind. It’s my recollection that the JAC was established to try to find a mechanism to which these questions could be investigated, and as it turned out, SACS became the tool, SACS became the investigative tool, but the goal of that group was not to place us on probation so I think we need to disconnect the issue of probation with the issue of Mr. Lowder’s and Mr. Miller’s presence on the Board of Trustees. Therefore we need to vote today.

Missy Josephson, Physiology, Anatomy, Sociology: I’m in favor of postponing the vote on the resolution. I have two, or one request and an amendment, and then a comment. The amendment would be to not vote on this the day after SACS makes its decision. I’m sure there won’t be a written report at that time, at least I would not think so. I think we should have a written report with exactly what their reasons are, if we’re still on probation. So, at some later date, I think your suggestion of the March Faculty Meeting would be fine, but earlier than that, if the report comes earlier than that.

The comment I wanted to make is that I think we should address, keep our business to addressing SACS’ requests, even though originally it was a much broader problem. I would prefer to see the things that we’ve set in motion, I would prefer to see them work out and if we are still on probation after next week, then is the time to do something this extreme, in asking these two particular trustees to step down. So I’m in favor of postponing the vote.

Conner Bailey: Missy, I’m not sure that we got a...did you mean to amend the motion that is standing on the floor? Ok, could you give us some wording that you would prefer to use?

Conner Bailey: Yes? Yes? Subsequent to the.....Bill Souser is acting as Parliamentarian. Subsequent to release of SACS report is sufficient? Do I have a second to that amendment or would-I guess that’s sufficiently substantial, we should not take that as a friendly amendment. Is there a second to that amendment to the motion? OK, Steve, is it ok to accept that? We will accept that as a friendly amendment then. So the amendment would be now to postpone...the motion would be to postpone consideration of this resolution until a point after the SACS final report is issued. Is that right, Steve? Ok, I’m sorry. Kathryn was there first.

Kathryn Flynn, Forestry & Wildlife Sciences: I want to speak in support of Cindy Brunner’s comments. I feel like, I joined faculty here in 1992 and oddly enough, we’re still talking about the same people and the same problems and I’m getting older and less patient and eventually, regardless of how good people are in a position or how much they love a place, they can become negative energy, if you want to use some new-age type terminology, and regardless of whether this independent body finds inappropriate relationships between these two people, the rank and file tend to feel, at least from my conversations with faculty, that this is a given and it is a continuous problem. Anytime there’s a discussion, these two people’s names come forward. I don’t know either one of them, I can’t say one way or the other, all I know is what I read in the papers and hear on campus. But I feel like we’ve reached the point where as faculty, we’re the lifeblood of the university, there are no academic issues that SACS has with us, and yet we are the people who are, who stand to lose more than anybody else and then by default the state loses, but our livelihood, our professional lives have been dedicated to this university to building programs and we are basically a laughingstock. It’s an embarrassment to be on probation and for reasons such as we have, it makes it even worse. So I feel like even if the independent investigators, or whatever you want to call them, decide that there isn’t an improper relationship, they’re not positive points in the governance of this university and as a faculty member, I’m really frustrated at this continuous problem that really besmirches all of our reputations and it shouldn’t. We don’t deserve this and I think that just from the standpoint of making a statement, regardless of timing, it’s time to make a statement and if later on there’s more issues with SACS, we can make another statement. But there’s no reason why we can’t have another resolution later that reiterates this one, I would imagine, but I’m firmly in support of Cindy’s comments and I think we should not postpone and should vote in favor of this resolution.

Judy Sheppherd, Journalism: I’m going to speak against postponement, although these are good arguments and we all know the overarching problems are much more than the probation. The governance of the university is the heart of this, whatever SACS says and wants us to do, we all know that there are steps that need to be taken. I wanted to address the three reasons why this gentleman proposed the postponement.

The first one was that, and I believe, if I stray let me know-that we will be made a scapegoat. Apropos of Dr. Richardson’s comments about he believed this was the whole intent and purpose- which I do find really, really insulting, as if that is our goal, to bring down the university, which is something he has also said in the past-he came to a Journalism Advisory Council meeting a few weeks ago and explained to that group that the reason he has been going and talking to editorial boards all across the state was to find out why does Auburn get so much negative press? Why? Other universities have their problems-why is Auburn constantly in the news for these bad things? And I imagine they told him why, but he’s still asking that question and he’s still using ‘It’s the media’s fault’ or perhaps now it’s the Senate’s fault or the faculty’s fault. It’s never the fault of the people we all know it is. It’s a shell game and we really have to keep insisting that this attempt to divert us and to blame us for these problems does not, we don’t let that stand. So I think we’re going to be a scapegoat if it doesn’t go the way they want anyway. We already are.

The second thing, I think, was that there’s a possibility that it might not pass and that would be embarrassing, but you do the most you can. You know, that’s all you can do. You go ahead and try and if other people don’t agree, this is indeed a free country and I’d rather try than not try.

I think the third thing is, we would look like idiots if we do pass it and SACS then removes the probation without that. You know, who cares? Really? We really just need to make our statement. We’re not really...if SACS doesn’t or does extend probation, do we really think it’s what we do here that’s going to do that? We need to say to the world, essentially, and this is really to Bobby Lowder and Jack Miller: ‘Please go’. We all know...how many millions have been spent to protect these people’s positions on this board? When will they ever say ‘Look, yeah, we may be at fault for this or maybe even a little bit of fault.’ It’s time to stop letting people like Dr. Richardson stand up here and tell us it’s going to be our fault. It’s not. We know who’s fault it is and we need to address this yet again to these same people.

Virginia O’Leary, Psychology: I find myself standing in the very same position in which I stood almost two years ago, urging this body to take the high road, to support what I see as the moral imperative. We’ve heard yet again today from another President, appointed without the appropriate consultation of all the many constituents of this university, talk about the legal definitions that give rise to certain of his actions. And yes, you can cast this in terms of the legality that nowhere in the Alabama constitution is there provision for the removal of one or more trustees. But there is a moral imperative. Regardless of whether you view yourself as having done what you are, quote ‘accused’ of doing, there comes a point where the moral imperative suggest that you stand and graciously step aside, if the finger is pointing at you as the problem. And we have asked repeatedly for that moral imperative to be followed and I think that we must once again, take the high road and make that request, regardless of the consequences. If you think we would look foolish if this resolution didn’t pass, or if SACS determined in its wisdom to remove us from probation, I think we will even look more foolish and in fact, aggregate our responsibility to educating the students of the citizens of Alabama, if we fail to respond to the moral imperative here and request the resignation of Mr. Miller and Mr. Lowder today.

Christa Slaton, Political Science: I’m not going to add much new to what has already been said, but I think that I want to speak against the motion for postponing. Not only do I think that the faculty are not the problem, but one thing that I heard, my perception, since Dr. Richardson’s talking about perceptions, is that one of the things that he seems to be saying is that SACS is part of the problem, not just the faculty. SACS is not part of the problem. SACS is in favor of Auburn doing all it can to get us off of probation and I think we need to make that clear also when we speak today. The real problem is the members of the Board of Trustees and I would love to see Dr. Richardson be as strong an advocate for Auburn University as he is for Trustee Lowder. He doesn’t seem to see that his role is to get us off probation as much as it seems to be to defend Trustee Richardson. And I would like to make it very clear that not only do the faculty not believe we’re the problem, but also SACS is not the problem. SACS is helping us.

James Goldstein: Ok, so I’m in order? Ok, so we’re back to the resolution. I just wanted to comment on something Dr. Richardson said when he was impugning our motive about why we want to do this today. In case there’s anybody here, although I seriously doubt it, who might be persuaded by his argument that the timing of this resolution risks a negative outcome from SACS, and I just wanted to point out that the timing wasn’t in our control. We the faculty wanted to see what SACS’ report had to say and with SACS’ permission, their report wasn’t released in draft but after Dr. Richardson had a chance to correct some issues and so on. So I think, correct me if I’m wrong, I think it was November 15^th that the, SACS’ material was finally published and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that we were almost at Thanksgiving break, so we would have loved to had a resolution like this earlier, if we’d had the document before us. As educators, if we do get blamed for a negative outcome, it’s a teaching moment. We may get scapegoated, but, as I teach my Freshmen Composition students, the fallacy of Post Hoc/Proptor Hoc, we won’t be the cause of any decision that SACS makes, whether it takes us out of accreditation or keeps the probation or not just because we take an action today, so I do speak in favor of the resolution.

Conner Bailey: The ballots are being distributed right now, while this is happening, I see that there is at least one person, ok, are there others besides Paula Sullenger who wish to address this matter? There’s Mr. Boney-with the indulgence of the body, I would let these two individuals speak and then we’ll.....yes?

Conner Bailey: Is there a second to that motion? It’s not debatable? All those in favor of calling the question please signify by saying Aye. All those opposed, indicate by saying Nay. Questions called.

You have before you ballots....You have before you the ballots. As this is a meeting of the University Faculty, this is a ballot only for faculty. There’s a number of administrators, of course, we know who hold academic rank. Once the count has been completed, I will announce it and I will move for adjournment of this meeting. We will post the results on the AU Profs list serve later this afternoon, early evening.

You got it? No abstains? Ok, so that’s 131, ok, 131 to 91? To 9, oh, I’m sorry. Would you write that somewhere.....

The results are as written: 131 votes in favor of the resolution. 9 votes in opposition to the resolution and no abstentions. Thank you very much. I’m going to call this meeting to adjournment.