Call to Order

Minutes of the University Senate

July 12, 2005

3 p.m.

Broun Hall Auditorium

Present: Conner Bailey, Richard Penaskovic, Patricia Duffy, Kathryn Flynn, Bob McGinnis, Dan Bennett, June Henton, John Heilman, John Tatum, Zachary Bryant, Harriette Huggins, Isabelle Thompson, Leanne Lamke, Garnetta Lovett, Bob Locy, Werner Bergen, Eleanor Josephson, John J. Pittari, Jr., Anthony Moss, Jeff Tickal, Sridhar Krishnamurti, Gary Martin, Randy Beard, Sadik Tuzun, Dennis DeVries, Robert Weigel, Jim Saunders, Sareed Maghsoodloo, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Daniel Mackowski, Robin Fellers, Cindy Brunner, Forrest Smith, Robert Norton, Roger Blashfield, Paul Starr, Saryaln Smith-Carr

Absent, sending a substitute: Diane Hite, Charles Mitchell, Ted Tyson, Larry Crowley, Ann Beth Presley, Judith Lechner, Charles Gross, Christoph Hinkelmann, Ruth Crocker, Ken Tilt, Tin-Man Lau, Jim Gravois, Darrel Hankerson, John Rowe, Joe Sumners

Absent, no substitute: Willie Larkin, David Wilson, Larry Benefield, Wes Williams, Timothy Boosinger, Michael Moriarty, Sheri Downer, Jenny Swaim, Jefferson Jones, David Cicci, Mario Lightfoote, Barry Fleming, Raymond Hamilton, James Guin, Rik Blumenthal, Debra Worthington, Alvin Sek See Lim, Renee Middleton, Jon Bolton, Larry Teeter, Alice Buchanan, Thomas A. Smith, Richard Good, Kem Krueger, Bernie Olin, James Shelley, Marllin Simon, Anthony Gadzey, Vivian Larkin, Thomas W. White, LTC Bill Shaw, Tom Williams, Howard Thomas, Tracey Oleinick

Conner Bailey called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Conner Bailey called for approval of the June 7th minutes. Dennis Devries moved that the minutes be approved. They were approved by voice vote without opposition.

Remarks from President Richardson

President Richardson said that at the June Board of Trustees meeting issues to be dealt with in next year were discussed. He said that the higher administration is dividing the tasks and making timelines. He said that the University website will have details about how the initiatives are broken down and who is to lead each one. These will be people who interact with faculty committees.

He reminded the Senate that this (July) is the month that we prepare our legislative agenda for next year. He said he believes that next year will be more difficult from a financial point of view because predictions are that the revenues, which are currently coming in at a high rate, will moderate. He said that work with the University of Alabama will begin in the next few days and that work will focus on sustaining those things that we were able to accumulate last year, such as full funding for fringe benefits. Also he said, they will work to ensure that if K-12 is granted a raise, that higher education will be allocated money for a similar raise.

President Richardson announced that the Board of Trustees is starting the process of searching for a new university president. The Board is looking for a search firm. The search process will likely be discussed at the September Board of Trustees meeting. He said that he hopes to establish institutional control to get a highly qualified person for the Auburn University president.

Also in September, the Board of Trustees will take up the concept of formation of an institute and the AU system initiatives.

Questions and Answers:

Judy Sheppard asked for an update on diversity.

President Richardson asked John Heilman to come forward to reply.

Provost Heilman said that his first priority as Provost was the dean searches. With those addressed, he said, he is planning to move forward on the Associate Provost for Diversity. David Wilson, Lynne Hammond, Kelly Alley and others have worked on a position description. He said the position would involve successful implementation of the diversity strategic plan, strategies for recruiting and retaining a diverse faculty, recruitment and retention of racially underrepresented students, and academic and human resource programming. He mentioned two aspects of this position to consider as we move forward. Faculty experience is one consideration. Given the responsibilities concerning recruitment and retention of faculty and students, he asked what are the desired qualifications and minimum qualifications in terms of faculty experience. Another issue is whether we want to have a national search in this case. He said that we know that diversity is a central priority and he doesn't believe it will change with a new president or provost. He said it thus might benefit us to look at a national pool.

Cindy Brunner asked about the interviews for the termed dean of Agriculture.

John Heilman said the information was sent out and that Russ Muntifering would interview the next day.

Cindy Brunner said she had not seen an announcement. She said it was not in the AU Daily that morning.

John Heilman asked if she had seen the announcement sent out on Friday.

Cindy Brunner said she had not.

John Heilman said the announcement was sent out on Friday to the College of Agriculture, but that a broader message may not have been sent out. He said Richard Guthrie and Joe Touchton would also be interviewing. He apologized for not sending out information to other units earlier.

Richard Penaskovic said that, for the Associate Provost for diversity, he believes we do want a national search. He also said he believed the person should be hired at the Associate Professor level or higher, not at the Assistant Professor level.

John Heilman asked the Senate leadership to develop a sense of the faculty on these matters. And he asked that those conversations be held right now.

Announcements from Senate Chair Bailey

Conner Bailey said that Willie Larkin would normally report his observations from the June 16-17th Board meeting to the Senate today, but that he is out of town at a professional meeting and unable to attend the Senate. Conner Bailey said that at the Board Meeting Dr Larkin did present a statement developed by the Executive Committee regarding post tenure review. The outline of this statement was distributed to Senators (via email).

Conner Bailey said the subject of post tenure review first emerged prior to the April 2005 Board meeting. The Senate leadership advised against such reviews and the administration delayed action until the June Board meeting. Conner Bailey said that the Senate leadership has had lengthy discussions with Dr Heilman and Dr Richardson as well as with the president pro tempore of the Board, Mr. Earlon McWhorter.

He said that the leadership's position is simple: Post-tenure review is not necessary and the timing is terrible. More than any other group on campus, the faculty is evaluated on a regular basis. This is true of tenured faculty as well. To the extent that evaluations are not experienced uniformly, that is a management problem and not a problem of the faculty. He said the issue of accountability is important. He noted in passing that the Senate Administrator Evaluation Committee is engaged in a significant overhaul of administrator evaluation process.

He said that the Senate leadership also pointed out that developing a process for Academic Program Review and a Strategic Plan were time-consuming tasks, and that they were also tasks that were allowing the faculty and administration to build a firm foundation for true shared governance.

He said the timing is awkward for two reasons, with Academic Program Review and Strategic Planning we have a lot on our plate. Taking on another large task has the risk of slowing us down. The other two items are important and leading to strengthened shared governance. He said that adding post-tenure review at this time would be counter-productive.

He noted that Dr Heilman was at the Senate meeting to speak to this issue later in the agenda. He said that if there are Senators or faculty who wish to offer a critique of how your Senate leaders have dealt with this matter, he invited comments.

He said the Academic Program Review Committee is hard at work. Art Chappelka is chairing the committee. He said we are making very good progress and we will hear about that in fall Semester. He noted that Strategic Planning is also moving forward and that Bill Sauser was at the Senate meeting to provide a brief update.

He said there has been progress on the Senate initiative concerning the Ombudsman position. He said that Dr Heilman has sent forward a recommendation to the President.

Conner Bailey discussed the intimate relations policy. The Staff Council and A&P Assembly have commented on the draft that came from the Senate. The Senate draft prohibited relations between employees and students and also employees and other employees if there was a supervisory position involved. Conner Bailey said that the Staff Council and A&P Assembly believed existing policies on nepotism could be modified to include non-family nepotism.

On electronic privacy, Conner Bailey said the Senate leadership has been in lengthy discussion with the Academic Computing Committee and with Dr Heilman. Conner Bailey said some matters need to be worked out. He said he hopes to come back soon with a policy for the Senate to vote on.

Action Items

1) Approval of appointments to Senate Committees

Kathryn Flynn acknowledged the work of the Rules committee in terms of weekly meetings of two hours apiece for some time. She said it is a significant time commitment. She said that the staffing recommendations were posted on the web and Senators were notified. She made a motion to approve nominations. The motion passed on voice vote without opposition.

2) Handbook revisions: resolution on P&T committee

Kathryn Flynn presented the resolution to revise the handbook concerning the Promotion and Tenure Committee. She said we could not comply with the Handbook with respect to staffing this committee because there are no full professors in the clinical track. She made a motion to approve the resolution.

Conner Bailey opened the floor for discussion.

Cindy Brunner said that her understanding was that tenured faculty in lieu of a clinical track faculty member would be in a standby position, not a regular position.

Sandra Clark-Lewis a clinical-track faculty member, and she was concerned about turning all the "wills" into "mays." She said it was a concern because there may not be a representative for the clinical track.

Kathryn Flynn said there may not be a person willing to serve.

Sandra Clark Lewis presented an alternative wording to the resolution, which included a qualification for the resource person that he or she would understand the clinical track and also changed the "mays" back to "wills."

Patricia Duffy said she was concerned that the Rules committee could not guarantee that a non-clinical person could have this sort of understanding.

Anthony Moss asked if the changes would be for the short term.

Kathryn Flynn said the language should be flexible enough for the long term.

Cindy Brunner asked about changing the "may" to "will" for "will" for Research faculty as well as clinical faculty.

Sandra Clark-Lewis asked if, in light of discussion on the amendment, the resolution could be sent back to committee. The chair asked if there was a motion to postpone consideration of the amendment to the next Senate meeting, by which time it can be revised and edited by the committee. Dr. Brunner provided the motion, it was seconded and passed by voice vote without opposition.

3) Resolution in Support of Junior Faculty Mentoring Report

Jim Groccia read the resolution and moved its adoption

Missy Josephson asked if there were any statistics on the number of new faculty that come in each year.

Jim Groccia said he does not have any numbers. The $10,000 request is for first year or two of the program at the 20 faculty member level.

The motion passed on voice vote without opposition.

Information Items

1) Strategic Planning process (update) from Bill Sauser

Bill Sauser said that Phase 1, from May to July, involved asking the right questions and that Phase 2 is answering the questions and putting together strategic goals. On target toward those goals. 4 forums, info through emails. (Show of hands for those involved -- many hands raised.) Info from 4 forums, draft of about a dozen strat quests. Reviewed by 30 person committee. Number of forums scheduled for AUM and this campus. Late July and late August (late August in Auburn).

Anthony Moss asked about the nature of the questions.

Bill Sauser said the questions will be posted. He provided some examples.

2) Post-Tenure Review: Rationale and Process from John Heilman

John Heilman presented 9 points:

1. Many peer institutions have such a system.

2. ACHE and the legislature are likely to pay a lot of attention to having systems like this in place. There is a general issue of accountability. Also we should be positioning ourselves pro-actively and politically. He said he would rather have us set agenda than have others tell us what the agenda is.

3. He said post-tenure review stands in a context of accountability that includes Academic Program Review and evaluation of administrators.

4. The development of post-tenure review can fit into the development of academic program review, which is underway right now.

5. He said this is not a wheel that we need to invent. A lot of other institutions have done it.

6. He said it has been stated fairly and accurately that there are many reviews underway. Post tenure review is done on a cyclical basis. Individual assessment processes relate to points in time. They are like snap shots. He said it is healthy in the life of a professional career to have periodic revisiting.

7. He said that the Senate leadership posted a statement that we are connected. If we are connected, it doesn't add up that we aren't ready to do this. He said we need to get the best presidential candidate, and he said it would look bad if we have so much mistrust that we can't do this.

8. He said that AAUP was aware that PTR was coming a decade ago. It can be a matter of career development and he would look to have it done that way here.

9. He said there would be faculty participation; that it should come about through shared governance and faculty input.

Anthony Moss said his department already has procedures for evaluation. He asked what this would add or whether it was meant to create a consistent evaluation process across the university.

John Heilman said we should not add on another huge layer of process and paperwork. He said this would provide a longer term, cyclical view, rather than a snapshot. If procedures are in place that provide that kind of review, please pass then along to the Steering Committee. He said we should not add on to a system that is working and effective a lot of make-work requirements.

Judy Sheppard commented that faculty should not be told again that our objection to something will harm our reputation as faculty. She said it is not what we are doing that is harming our reputation. She asked John Heilman what he meant by "accountability."

John Heilman said it was not his intent to bash faculty by saying that here is something that will make the university look bad. He said that national level candidates looking at accountability will be looking at the level of mistrust in an institution they would be asked to provide leadership for. When it comes to accountability, he said the notion he has in mind is not to a trustee, a legislator, or an angry parent. It is to ourselves and our institution, to provide a regular account of how we are doing. He would rather take the assignment on ourselves, rather than have it imposed on us.

Bob Locy said that the issue of outsiders forcing us to do post-tenure review has emerged periodically. He said there was a great deal of mistrust on the part of his colleagues on what would make this come up again. He asked for an explanation of the new circumstances that are leading post-tenure review to be proposed at this time.

John Heilman said the issue is getting attention in state governments nationwide.

Bob Locy said it has been going on for 10 years.

President Richardson came to the podium. He made an analogy with K-12 test results. He said that before an election cycle, governors go to a conference and they come back with pre-prepared legislative items. He has had three discussions with our governor on this topic. He said post-tenure review provides additional protection for everyone. He said if an administrator gets down on someone, post-tenure review could provide information that shows he or she is performing well. He said that if we get in ahead of time, if it does come to the state, we'd be in position to drive the train.

Sadik Tuzun said he thinks we are trying to regenerate Auburn University. He suggested we call it periodic review, to regenerate faculty. He said it would be helpful for faculty who wanted to take on new directions.

President Richardson said that John Heilman convinced him to present it that way. He said it was the faculty representative at the Board who used the term "post-tenure review," which is where the term came from.

Cindy Brunner asked if the failure of a tenured faculty member to demonstrate productivity could be grounds for dismissal.

President Richardson replied that ultimately there must be some sanctions or else the process is worthless. The question is how many years of non-productivity.

Cindy Brunner asked about workload analysis.

President Richardson said that workload analysis would eliminate the idea that only teaching count.

Larry Gerber said the administration in general has not done a good job of explaining to the Board or to the public how much evaluation currently takes place. He asked why President Richardson couldn’t describe more fully to a wider audience the extent of current evaluations. He said that faculty members currently only get merit raises, not across the board raises. He asked if the administration has done a survey of cost-benefit analyses in terms of added value compared to the time and paperwork involved.

President Richardson said people outside the university see tenure as a way to protect incompetence. He said post-tenure review could help us to show how much we are evaluated.

Richard Penaskovic posited the case of the faculty member who year after year teaches classes but doesn't do any research or outreach. He asked if losing tenure subverts the tenure process.

President Richardson says that it would strengthen tenure, not subvert it.

John Heiman said there are extremely good faculty members at Auburn who concentrate exclusively on instruction, do a wonderful job at it, and are promoted to full professors. He commented on Sadik Tuzun's previous remarks about a faculty member taking on new projects or new directions.

Conner Bailey thanked President Richardson and Provost Heilman for being willing to discuss post-tenure review. He said that the Steering Committee is the group that will draft any post-tenure review process.

He mentioned that the names of new senators are posted on the website and that a few departments have not elected new representatives. (See the Senate-Roster-2005-2006.)

John Heilman asked to follow up on Conner Bailey's remarks. He said that whatever we call this review, it is a serious process. He understands why these questions are being asked. If an administration wants to go forward on this, the administration should be willing to answer questions.

Unfinished Business

(Name inaudible) asked about uncompensated summer work for faculty on nine-month appointments.

Conner Bailey: said that David King will make a presentation about uncompensated summer work probably at the September Senate meeting.

Anthony Moss made the motion to adjourn. It passed on a voice vote without opposition. The meeting adjourned at 4:40.