Minutes of the University Senate
May 3, 2005
3 p.m.
Broun Hall Auditorium
Submitted by Patricia
Duffy
Present: Conner Bailey (Chair), Richard Penaskovic (Chair-elect), Patricia Duffy (Secretary), Kathryn Flynn (Secretary Elect), Bob McGinnis, David Wilson, Dan Bennett, Larry Benefield, Wes Williams, Michael Moriarty, Leanne Lamke, Garnetta Lovett, Robert Locy, David Cicci, Diane Hite, Eleanor Josephson, Barry Fleming, Raymond Hamilton, Anthony Moss, Ted Tyson, Rik Blumenthal, Larry Crowley, Debra Worthington, Sridhar Krishnamurti, Alvin Sek See Lim, Ann Beth Presley, Renee Middleton, Judith Lechner, Charles Gross, Jon Bolton, Sadik Tuzun, Dennis Devries, Robert Weigel, Larry Teeter, Jim Saunders, Alice Buchanan, Ruth Crocker, Tin-Man Lau, Saeed Maghsoodloo, Jim Gravois, Roger Wolters, Hugh Guffey, Darrel Hankerson, Daniel Mackowski, John Rowe, Robin Fellers, Joe Sumners, Cindy Brunner, Forrest Smith, Kem Krueger, Bernie Olin, Roger Blashfeld, Tom Williams, Saralyn Smith-Carr, John Heilman, Charles Mitchell, Werner Bergen, Thomas A. Smith, Paul Starr, Isabelle Thompson.
Absent, sending a substitute: Zachary Bryant, Harriette Huggins, Ken Tilt, Howard Thomas, Tracey Oleinick, James Shelley
Absent, no substitute: Willie Larkin, Don Large, June Henton, Timothy Boosinger, Sheri Downer, John Tatum, John Varner, Jefferson Jones, Mario Lightfoote, John Pitarri,, Jeff Tickal, James Guin, Gary Martin, Darrel Hankerson, Randy Beard, Christoph Hinkelmann, Richard Good, Marllin Simon, Anthony Gazdzey, Robert Norton, Vivian Larkin, Thomas White, Bill Shaw.
Conner Bailey called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
He noted that the minutes for the March 8th Senate meeting are not yet available, but would be available by the June meeting. The minutes for the April 5th meeting were posted. Conner Bailey called for approval of the minutes of the April 5th meeting of the University Senate. Rik Blumenthal moved that the minutes be approved. The motion passed on voice vote without opposition.
President Richardson was called forward. Conner Bailey announced that because of an out-of-town appointment, President Richardson's time with the Senate would be limited.
Remarks from
President Richardson
Legislative Effort: President Richardson said he believed Auburn was fortunate in the legislative process, although we will not know for certain what the final agreements will be until the process is finished next week. He believed we will get additional continuing appropriations of around $18 million per year, rather than one-time appropriations, to make-up for the loss of payments by the state for fringe benefits. Also there is an allocation to salaries. Salaries in the past were supported through tuition increases. He said we should be able to continue our efforts to meet regional averages on salaries without substantially increasing tuition. President Richardson noted that the Auburn-Alabama team worked well together, and he hopes the efforts will be expanded. He stated that revenue estimates for next year are lower than this year, and thus it will be a more difficult and more competitive year and our efforts will need to be even more targeted.
Board of Trustees Meetings: At the April meeting, the Board asked that we wait until the legislative session is over before we approve a tuition increase. President Richardson believes we will have an increase in tuition close to what was recommended. He noted that the June agenda is large and that the Board will likely start its committee meetings on June 16th (Thursday) around lunchtime. He said the meeting of the full Board will start at about 9 on Friday morning.
On the agenda for the June Board meeting:
1) Code of Ethics forms (round 2). They will be turned in at the June meeting.
2) Election of officers.
3) Strategic plan. President Richardson hopes we will start to move quickly toward involving a number of different people. He hopes that the strategic plan will be completed in the fall. Faculty will have an opportunity to participate.
4) Also on the June Board agenda are the remaining three initiatives: Agriculture, AUM, and academic program review. President Richardson said that very few specific recommendations would be put up for approval in June. He said that the concept of an institute for agriculture and related programs will be presented in June and that next year we will decide what is under the institute umbrella. He said that there would be adequate time for review before final decisions. President Richardson said that academic program review would follow the same pattern. He said that he had hoped to have criteria and a schedule established already, but that has not happened. He also said that he hopes to establish the criteria and schedule in the fall and start reviews in the second half of the academic year.
President Richardson mentioned that we have a new provost, John Heilman.
Questions and Answers:
Rik Blumenthal said that he read in The Plainsmen that the Administration is reconsidering the academic forgiveness policy.
President Richardson replied that reconsidering academic forgiveness policy has not been discussed directly or indirectly by anyone in the Administration.
Rik Blumenthal questioned President Richardson's decision about not speaking to certain reporters. President Richardson did not respond to Rik Blumenthal's comments.
Bob Locy asked for clarification on the type of recommendations that might be made at the June Board meeting. Specifically, he asked for assurance that reorganization of units outside the College of Agriculture would not be made.
President Richardson said nothing like that will be brought to the Board in June. He said it would be discussed during the next academic year and faculty committees will be involved, but there will be no specific recommendations along those lines on June 17th. President Richardson noted that Board policies allow the Auburn University president to form institutes without Board approval. He said there would be no specific recommendations other than the Agriculture/Forestry College and School.
Announcements
from the Senate Chair
Senate Chair Bailey noted the tragic loss in an automobile accident of Dr. William (Bill) Carey from the School of Forestry and Wildlife. Another faculty member, Scott Enebak, was also injured in that accident. Conner Bailey stated that Bill Carey came to Auburn in 1990, working in Forestry in the field of Forest Nursery Management, Plant Pathology, and Entomology, and that he was an accomplished scientist, who loved what he did. His untimely passing is a tragedy and Conner Bailey, on behalf of the Senate, extends his condolences to the family.
Conner Bailey will continue the recent practice of allowing anyone from a represented group to ask questions or take part in discussions from the floor. If it is obvious that many wish to speak, he requests that senators be allowed to speak first.
Conner Bailey introduced Provost John Heilman and asked him to make a few remarks.
Remarks
from Dr. Heilman
Dr, Heilman told the Senate that he is focusing on several things right now.
1) Bill Sauser will talk about Strategic Planning. Opportunities for input will be available beginning this summer. Those who are not close to AU geographically can use the internet to provide input.
2) We are looking at an entering fresh class of 4,000, above the target of 3,700. He offered assurance that enrollment management is working with deans to accommodate this large number.
3) We have a short budget cycle. Merit recommendations are due on the 20th of May. The Provost's Office will be working with deans to complete needed work. It is important to have completion of all faculty and staff reviews.
4) Academic Program Review. Dr. Heilman recalled the old system, with five-year reviews conducted by faculty outside the unit. He believed these were productive and could be a starting point.
5) Open Administrative Positions: Three dean positions need to be filled. The Assistant or Associate Provost for Diversity also needs to be filled.
6) He said he had received an email message that morning concerning the strong likelihood that U.S. Vice President Cheney will speak at graduation. Dr. Heilman said that to the extent possible, the talk will be apolitical. He said that individually we must decide what sort of free speech is appropriate. Dr. Heilman expressed his opinion that graduation is about our students and their families, and that this is a great day in their lives. Dr. Heilman urged civility and noted that part of the spirit of a university is hearing opinions that we may disagree with. He stated that Auburn is a "class" organization and wants to be seen as such, which requires treating our guests politely, even guests with whom we disagree strongly. He expects to welcome the Vice President with the Auburn Spirit, that is, with respect.
Bob Locy asked about Academic Program Review. Having completed the SACS self-study, how will the Academic Program Review be different? Will it be redundant?
Dr. Heilman responded that the SACS report was an institutional-level review. Academic Program Review will be closer to units. Units that go through national accreditation benefit from that process. Units that don't have that kind of review could benefit from it. This initiative is to ensure that when questions are asked about how programs relate to each other and whether programs should be kept, we can answer the questions on our own schedule.
Questions and Answers:
Barry Burkhart asked how Vice President Cheney was invited to speak at graduation.
Dr. Heilman said he was not clear how that happened.
Jim Gravois commended Auburn University for allowing the Arlington West group to come to campus.
Dr. Heilman replied that Dr. Ansel from Liberal Arts and the department heads from Liberal Arts get credit. (Dr. Heilman subsequently thanked Student Affairs and Wes Williams for their part.)
Sadik Tuzun asked what would be presented at the June Board meeting regarding the AU-AUM relationship
Dr. Heilman said it was important for there to be some clarification of the relationship between AU and AUM. President Richardson initially posed four models. President Richardson has since made it clear that neither fusion nor complete separation would be the final decision. There were two middle alternatives, the status quo and a closer and more organic relationship. This last option is perhaps preferable. What does it mean in practice? Faculty would have opportunity for input on details.
More
Announcements from the Senate Chair
Conner Bailey thanked the faculty volunteers for committees. He said that the Senate Executive Committee has met twice with Dr. Heilman and once with President Richardson. Conner Bailey and Richard Penaskovic met with Mr. McWhorter. Normally the Immediate Past President would make a presentation about the Board meeting, but Dr. Larkin is unable to be here because of a professional engagement. Conner Bailey also attended the Board meeting. He noted that the budget and tuition issues were covered by President Richardson. He related that at the Academic Affairs Committee meeting, chaired by Trustee Jack Miller, Mr. Miller organized a workshop on the relationship between residence and academic achievement. On the table is housing on campus for married students, particularly international students with families.
Action Item
Jim Gravois presented a resolution from the Faculty Grievance Committee. He provided some background on the function of this committee. The Faculty Grievance Committee decides whether there should be a hearing on a particular case brought forward by a faculty member. If there is a hearing, a separate hearing committee is constituted. This resolution refers to the hearing committee. Sometimes a hearing takes place and is not brought to a conclusion. This resolution would amend the Handbook to help ensure that cases are brought to a conclusion. Dr. Gravois read the resolution.
Resolution to Ensure Timeliness in Faculty Grievance Hearings
Cindy Brunner asked if another time limit, rather than 30 days, was considered.
Jim Gravois said that no other time had been considered but that the final wording would allow for an extension.
The resolution was passed by voice vote without opposition.
Information
Item: Strategic Plan
Conner Bailey introduced Bill Sauser. Bill Sauser presented information about the Strategic Plan. He made the same presentation to the Senate that he provided at the April Board of Trustees meeting.
Questions and Answers:
Cindy Brunner asked who will be on the "broad based strategy team."
Bill Sauser replied that there would be 30 to 40 people from various constituencies.
Cindy Brunner asked at what point the Senate or faculty would get to review strategic goals before they were sent to the Board for approval. She stated that she did not want to learn about the plan in the paper the day after the Board meeting.
Bill Sauser replied he believed that President Richardson would ask the Senate and other groups to provide feedback.
Richard Penaskovic asked if it would be better to wait for a permanent president to develop the strategic plan.
Bill Sauser replied that the Board is asking for a set of over-arching goals, for example, where the university is trying to go. Thus, the plan is a starting agenda, not a lock-down of what the new president will do. Identifying the goals would give presidential candidates pertinent information about the institution.
David Bransby stated that Group Solutions has already consulted for Auburn University several times, and he hasn't spoken to a single faculty member who has been happy with the consulting firm. He encouraged Bill Sauser to look at other options.
Barry Burkhart said that the strategic plan was an extraordinarily top-down process and he suspects that to this point faculty involvement has been minimal to nil. Secondly, he said that the process is ambitious in terms of timeline as it allows only one month for faculty input to be gathered. He suggested that faculty be involved now rather than in the future.
Bill Sauser said John Jensen, John Heilman, and he himself had put together a structure that will allow faculty to be involved. He said they want to identify 6 to 8 priority goals and will need a lot of input.
Rik Blumenthal asked how the large committee of 30 or 40, including all groups, will be selected.
Bill Sauser said that faculty officers will either be part of the committee or choose delegates.
Conner Bailey said that the Rules Committee normally selects faculty nominees for committees. He thanked Bill Sauser for bringing this topic forward at this early stage of development.
Information
Item: Reorganization of Agriculture
Conner Bailey introduced John Jensen who presented a set of visuals. John Jensen stated that the objective of this initiative was to position agriculture to be vital for the future and for Auburn University to be able to help the state manage its natural resources and be better able to respond to the needs and opportunities of Alabama citizens. He emphasized that these recommendations are draft recommendations and will not be in the President's hands until May 9th. They are still receiving input. The President has taken off the table reorganizing Agriculture by moving units from one college to another. They are trying to get to the "nitty gritty," which is about the formation of an institute and some other management changes in the Experiment Station and Extension System.
Questions and Answers:
(Secretary's note: To the best of my ability, I have summarized comments and questions form speakers. However, I do not have summaries of comments from everyone who spoke during this portion of the meeting. The discussion was lengthy and fast-paced, making it impossible for me to get a full sense of every speaker's words during the meeting. Some remarks were not audible on my personal tapes. A full transcript is being prepared with verbatim comments from all speakers.)
Cindy Brunner commented about the level of faculty involvement and stated that not everyone had heard about the institute. She said she would like to talk about recommendation 3 (to move units), which is not on the table. (During his presentation, John Jensen appeared to indicate that he had received considerable faculty input.) Cindy Brunner said that she didn't know how input was solicited from units beyond the College of Agriculture. If recommendations are going to involve other units, she believes solicitation for faculty input must go beyond the College of Agriculture.
(Note from John Jensen: The web address seeking faculty input was printed in the AU Daily on February 14, 2005.)
Tony Moss commented that a clause in recommendation 1 (from the visuals), seems to be saying that moving of other units into the College of Agriculture could still happen.
John Jensen replied that a lot of discussion will have to occur during the next academic year as to the constitution of the institute.
Tony Moss asked if the input is needed before May 9th.
John Jensen replied that this input is not needed before May 9th. For now, we are looking at a broad concept. His feeling is that President Richardson supports the idea of an institute. The recommendations are coming from the commission to President Richardson. Then there will be a lot of discussion about make-up and leadership of the institute.
Jim Bradley said he spoke on behalf of the whole department of Biological Sciences. His first comment was that he was glad to see that recommendation 3 (moving units) is off the table for now, but Jim Bradley's assumption is that it is not off the table permanently. He expressed several concerns about the process leading to these recommendations. He noted that of the 29 people on the commission, there was not a single faculty member other than John Jensen. Although commodity groups were represented, no faculty or deans were included. Jim Bradley stated that he thus believes the recommendations have no validity. He noted that the commission was recommending changes that affect teaching, research, and extension, without a single bit of formal input, on the committee, representing faculty members. Jim Bradley said that today was the first time he had heard about the website for input. He asked whether the Dean of COSAM, the Dean of Human Sciences, and the Dean of Education were informed about the website.
John Jensen replied that it (the request for input) started off with Extension and Experiment Station people. All peopled funded by those organizations received emails (about the website). John Jensen further stated that moving units was not a recommendation but a discussion.
Raymond Henry said he has been here since 1983. He said that the department that is now Biological Sciences split from Agriculture about twenty years ago and about 70 percent of the positions have turned over since then. With each new hire, he said, they have moved further from Agriculture in intellectual philosophy. He believes that the departmental identity is now with COSAM and these changes cannot easily be reversed.
Jonathan Armbruster asked if the commission did any homework with respect to trends on where Biological Sciences departments are located in other universities. He stated that in the SEC, there are no universities with Biological Sciences in Colleges of Agriculture. He further stated that of 50 major land grants in the United States, only 5 have Biological Sciences in Colleges of Agriculture. He said he believed it would be detrimental to students coming into Biological Sciences to move the unit because the students do not expect to find the department in the College of Agriculture.
John Jensen, replying to the question of whether the commission had looked at the placement of Biological Sciences in other universities, said, "No."
Sharon Roberts commented in detail about the possible negative impact on teaching missions of moving Biological Sciences out of COSAM. She stated that the
Department of Biological Sciences provides strong fundamental understanding of biological processes. She said she believes that the same interdisciplinary interactions that are central to research are also central to the education of biologists. She commented on the extent of the interaction in teaching across units. She said that if some faculty members are moved into Agriculture or if faculty members from Biological Sciences are dispersed into various units inside Agriculture, this move would disrupt the curricula. Further, she stated that COSAM houses the pre-health program, which is one of strongest in our state. Advising for this program is done in the dean's office in COSAM but a large amount of the teaching is done in Biological Sciences. She said that if faculty members are moved to Agriculture, it would disrupt the interaction between teaching and advising. She also said that if the program is moved into Agriculture, she believes there would be a loss of visibility for the pre-health program.
John Jensen said he appreciated her comments.
Kathryn Flynn, from the School of Forestry, said she has an extension appointment. Initially, she said, knowledge of the ability to comment did not appear to go to out to everyone in ACES because she was unaware of it for a while. She also commented on the Group Solutions listening sessions, saying that she had very negative feedback on how the consulting firm managed meetings. She was told that the questions were leading, and that faculty as a large group felt uncomfortable with Group Solutions. She said there was not a lot of support for the concept of an institute in the School of Forestry and Wildlife. She noted that in Florida, forestry is not preeminent, and thus she does not believe the model will enhance Forestry and Wildlife.
Jean Weese said she has been at Auburn for 18 years. Food Sciences is partly housed in Human Sciences. When she came here, she was told it would be enhanced, but the program has diminished immensely. She believes that probably the best place for Food Science is in Agriculture. She urged faculty to look at the needs for the state of Alabama with regards to reorganizing or moving units.
Jim Barbaree, the Chair of Biological Sciences, said he is delighted that the recommendation to move units is off the table. He asked the faculty from Biological Sciences to stand up to show opposition. (A number of faculty members stood up.) He said that their department had a meeting and not one member voted to go into the Institute. He said they are opposed to moving into Agriculture.
Bob Cook, head of Geology and Geography, said there were no positive responses from his faculty with regard to moving. He compared the situation to COSAM deciding it had some problems and that the solution would be to pull Poultry Sciences into COSAM, and letting Poultry Sciences faculty find out about the proposal through the grapevine. He said he is opposed to not being involved in a decision process that could involve them for years and that he did not like finding out about it secondhand.
Sadik Tuzun asked about the benefit of an institute and how department structures will be affected. He commented that institutes are usually run by directors, not vice presidents.
John Jensen replied there has not yet been a decision on leadership or how the departments would be affected. He said it is not clear who will benefit. He said the institute would be made up of the Experiment Station and Extension System. He also said it may hurt the College of Agriculture, or it may help, that the outcome will depend on the programs we are advised to take on, addressing the needs of the people of Alabama.
Bill Hames asked where could there be another College of Agriculture that has Geology and Geography in it. He said he believes there isn't one.
John Jensen replied that moving Geology wasn't in the recommendations.
Patricia Duffy asked how the Institute will address financial problems.
John Jensen said that to have influence with the sate legislature we have to deliver something that they feel they can support financially. To do this, we must set aside a sum of dollars for issues-based programs to convince legislators that our work is very relevant. Then, he said, we might be able to get more funding.
Bob Locy thanked John Jensen for coming to the Senate. He said he was upset about limited faculty input. He said he would like to see us build a better program in basic plant sciences. He noted that we have lost a number of faculty members in this area in Agriculture. He asked John Jensen to comment on the rationale for proposing Biology would move into Agriculture. He noted the tremendous negative reaction to what has been proposed and also to the lack of information about what has been proposed. He urged John Jensen to develop something that is workable.
John Jensen agreed that the Extension System and the Experiment Station have lost many people. With regard to the lack of information and input, he said that before the deans could be consulted by the President about the commission draft recommendations, the material was put out. He said there was an intention to have a productive discussion about the recommendations, but the way the material was released precluded that sort of dialogue. He also said there would be no need to move departments if the institute forms an umbrella.
Cindy Brunner asked about a comment from President Richardson. She noted that Bob Locy had asked whether the Board would be asked to approve specific recommendations at the June meeting. She commented that President Richardson also said that Board policy allows him to form institutes without Board approval. She said that something in his remarks makes her wonder if he is planning to make a recommendation regarding a merger of Agriculture and Forestry and Wildlife.
John Jensen said President Richardson has indicated all along that there would be separate deans for Agriculture and Forestry and Wildlife.
Rik Blumenthal said he wishes for the College of Agriculture to do well, but there is an image problem for some students. He said that changing the name won't fool anyone because students would still know where they were going and the types of jobs they were preparing to do. He also said that creating a bureaucracy above the deans' offices will not make Agriculture more efficient.
Conner Bailey commented on the time (5:20 p.m.) and noted the commitment from the substantial number of faculty still present. He indicated he would take a few more remarks and then adjourn.
Art Chappelka asked about a talk President Richardson gave in Clanton to about 300 or 400 people at which President Richardson spoke about the institute as a "done deal." Art Chappelka thought he had heard President Richardson say "merger" between Agriculture and Forestry and Wildlife but said he could be mistaken. He asked John Jensen to comment on the Clanton meeting.
John Jensen said that all along President Richardson has said there would be a separate College of Agriculture and School of Forestry and Wildlife.
Bill Hames said there may have been a presentation given somewhere where Geology and Geography was mentioned.
John Jensen then recalled there had been some discussion of moving GIS/GPS, but that it was not currently being considered.
Conner Bailey thanked John Jensen for attending.
There was no old business and no new business. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 by voice vote without opposition.