Minutes of the Senate Meeting
January 13, 2009
Broun Auditorium
3:00 p.m.
Submitted by
Sue Barry

Present: Robert Locy, Sue Barry, Kathryn Flynn, Dennis Devries, David Cicci, Richard Brinker, Paul Bobrowski, Timothy Boosinger,  R. Lee Evans, Anne-Katrin Gramberg, Sharon Gaber, Bonnie MacEwan, Todd Storey, Andrew McLelland, Winfred Foster, Norbert Wilson, Sondra Parmer, Werner Bergen, Barbara Kemppainen, Christopher McNulty, Paul Swamidass, Anthony Moss, Yifen Wang, Paul Holley, Rik Blumenthal, Brigitta Brunner, Laura Plexico, Sanjeev Baskiyar, Carol Centrallo, Jim Witte, Michael Baginski, Robin Huettel, Claire Crutchley, Allen Davis, John Mazaheri, Larry Teeter, Jim Saunders, Mark Fischman, David Carter, Raymond Kessler, Ellen Abell, Shea Tillman, Robert Bulfin, Andrew Wohrley, Steve Stuckwisch, Howard Goldstein, Constance Hendricks, Claire Zizza,  Daniel Parson, Jan Kavookjian, Bernie Olin, Guy Rohrbaugh, Robert Voitle, Chris Correia, Peggy Shippen, Scott Lewis, Jon Segars, Emily Myers, M. Scott Phillips, R. D. Montgomery

Absent sending a substitute: Larry Crowley (Brian Bowman), John Saye (Leanne Skinner), Dan Gropper (?), James Goldstein (?), Jim Wright (Charles Hendrix),  
Absent no substitute:  Larry Benefield, Barbara Witt, John Mason, Jeff McNeil, Lauren Hayes, Lindsey Stevenson, Valerie Morns-Riggins, Joe Molnar, Bill Hames, Ruth Crocker, Charles Mitchell,  Michael Clay, Ronald Neuman, Allen Davis, Casey Cegielski, Edith Davidson, Bart Prorok, Don-Terry Veal, Mike Bozack, Changhoon Jung, Del Epperson, Gwen Thomas,
Bob Locy called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:  The minutes of the November 11th Senate meeting were approved by voice vote without opposition.

Remarks from the President:
Dr Gogue complimented the Committee on Graduation Rate Improvement for their excellent report.  This report offers some good suggestions regarding the graduation rate which has been going down steadily since when we were on the quarter system.
Dr Gogue also commented on the financial situation in the State of Alabama that could diminish Auburn’s revenue by 68 million dollars. In the meantime, everyone is watching the news concerning other universities across the country.  He complimented Don Large on his management of Auburn’s finances which has given us some degree of flexibility that some other institutions don’t have.  For example, he mentioned   that Utah State, one of his former employers, had to lay off around 600 employees.  However, as well as we have been managed, we will have to deal with the realities of the recession at some point, but Dr. Gogue made it clear that the academic part of the institution would be the last to be affected.  He will have more information in February, but it will be May before we have the final figures concerning our financial situation.
Dr. Gogue discussed the Consulting Policy as well.  He believes that having faculty engaged with state and federal agencies, industries and businesses, and not-for-profits is extremely important work. He said that he would like to encourage consulting where it is appropriate and recognize and reward those who contribute in various ways to the groups that he mentioned.  Therefore, he fully supports the policy.
Dr. Gogue made several other announcements.

Questions and Remarks
Connor Bailey (Ag Economics, not a senator) asked about the name of the new Provost.

Dr. Gogue said that he could not give the name yet.

Connor Bailey asked if it was one of the three that we interviewed.

Dr. Gogue responded that it was one of the three, Dr. Apple from Delaware, Dr. Mazey from West Virginia, and Dr. Rafert from Clemson.

Remarks from the Chair
Bob Locy, (Chair) made several announcements:

Action Items:
Amendment to Summer Calendar : Robin Jaffe, Chair of Calendar and Schedules Committee
Robin Jaffe moved that the Summer Calendar for 2009 be changed so that the Independence Day holiday would fall on Friday, July 3 instead of July 6 to follow the current university policy.

Questions and Remarks

Roy Hartfield (not a senator) asked if this would address the issue of having to move class days around.

Robin Jaffe responded that normal days on the calendar were addressed so that a Thursday is a Thursday, a Wednesday is a Wednesday, etc.

Bob Locy (Chair) called for question. 

The motion passed by a voice vote.

Consulting Policy and Conflict of Interest Policy:  Roy Hartfield, Chair Faculty Welfare Committee
Roy explained that the Faculty Welfare Committee had worked to rewrite the Consulting Policy so that consulting might be considered more reputable and that consulting could be better facilitated.  Therefore, Dr. John Mason, Vice President for Research, suggested that they split the policy into a consulting policy and a conflict of interest policy.  However, the Senate will not vote on the Conflict of Interest Policy at this meeting.  Instead he proposed that the Senate vote on a revised Consulting Policy and a place holder for the Conflict of Interest Policy.  He also suggested that the Senate leadership set up a process by which a new Conflict of Interest Policy will be developed.  Therefore, the Conflict of Interest Policy presented at this meeting would not be the final document on this matter.

Royhighlighted several changes in the Consulting Policy.

Roypointed out that this has been a long and careful revision process.

Questions and Remarks

Patricia Duffy (Assistant Provost for Undergraduate Affairs , not a senator) stated that in the recent past faculty members who had Cooperative Extension appointments had different rules for consulting than faculty members who did not, and she wanted to know if these different rules for Cooperative Extension employees will continue under the new policy or whether they will be treated as other faculty members under the new policy.

Roy responded that the committee was aware that faculty with an Extension appointment were not allowed to do consulting, but that there was no way to address that issue in this policy.

Patricia Duffy’s response was inaudible.

Roy Hartfield responded that they have separate rules entirely, but that there were some additional restrictions.

Jim Witte,(Senator, EFLTI) asked how you differentiate between outreach and consulting.

Roy responded that he thought outreach was considered to be an activity that you might do as an extension of your assignment.  However, something along the lines of a problem that a company or a government agency would bring to you, such as a need for an optimum configuration for a missile for example, that’s not exactly outreach.   Nevertheless, the lines between the two could be fuzzy.

Sanjeev Baskiya (Senator, Computer Science) stated that at the beginning of a term a faculty member may be assigned a certain percentage to outreach.  Therefore, he wanted to know if the committee foresaw a certain percentage being allotted to consulting or would it be part of outreach in terms of the percentage assignments.

Royexplained that the committee had originally thought about including consulting more or less as a line item that the department head and the faculty member would agree upon as part of a person’s assignment. However that idea was dropped in deference to the Extension people.  

Jim Saunders (Senato, Geology and Geography) applauded the committee’s efforts and pointed out that only lip service had been made in terms of counting consulting toward tenure and promotion.  He felt that consulting activities have not been looked upon favorably by people serving on tenure and promotion. Therefore he felt that many assistant professors and even tenured professors shy away from this.  However, in his opinion it was actually an indicator from the free market as to the quality of instruction and research here at Auburn.  So he would like to see consulting considered in tenure promotion with words to that effect in the Faculty Handbook.

Roy Hartfield agreed that in the future some credit should be given.  Currently the promotion and tenure committee is trying to look at people’s assignments and how what is shown in their packets reflects their assignments.  Therefore, whether or not it was counted as part of the load would make a difference.  

Drew Clark (Director of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment)stated that in his position he has to sign off on all UPO-10s, and therefore he could speak with some authority on the subject of payment for work done for extra compensation.  He said that If we do away with a system of prior consent or approval, which would mean no paper trail until after the fact for people who engage in consulting or internal consulting for extra compensation, then their payment would probably be delayed until the end of the year.  Then he asked permission to read a brief paragraph from an e-mail to Dr. Gogue.   It read as follows:

Our procedures call for prior approval of consulting activities by the faculty member’s department head and Dean as well as by the Provost. This system of internal controls was designed to make sure that the proposed consulting activity does not impede other university functions, it also gives payroll a basis for approving and disbursing extra compensation and it makes possible to document the extent to which faculty are allocating their effort to out-of-classroom activity. Sometimes in the past our governing board has asked for periodic reports on the faculty’s consulting activity and I’m told so in the spirit of making sure senior professors were not neglecting or abandoning their instructional responsibilities. I spoke last week with Larry Williard, who is Director of the Education Division of the Department of Examiners of Public Accounting for the State of Alabama. He says that this office takes no position on what Auburn University’ Consulting Policy should be within the law, but does expect us to maintain adequate internal controls over consulting activity. In the case of controls for extramural consulting he suggests that we be able at a minimum to document for each consulting activity, whom it was with, the dates and times it occurred, and whether there was any compensation. He also strongly commended our current practice of being able to document prior approval at a level above that of the consultant, for example the level of a department head would be above the level of a faculty member consulting; if it was a dean consulting, Provost would be above that.

In my office (just one more paragraph) last November or so an examiner from the Department of Public Accounts came to my office wanting to see the paper work on consulting activity for an Auburn University faculty member with a specific client. The reason he came to my office was that a complaint had been filed that the consulting activity was excessive and was double-dipping, and as you know that had been in the news a lot. While they can’t discuss particulars, Willard did divulge that this particular case was the result of a complaint. Their examination of our records, which included prior approval lead them to conclude that while the facts were indeed as alleged in the complaint, the complaint was without merit since we could document through prior approval that the consulting activity in question was approved per policy and was within the University policy. I believe if you check with either the Department of Examiner of Public Accounts or with our own internal auditing office, they will offer abundant caution about dropping the feature that calls for prior approval of at least one level above that of the consultant.

Roy Hartfield responded that the committee was not proposing a final version of the Conflict of Interest Policy where the safeguards Drew mentioned would be addressed.

Tim Boosinger (Senator, College of Veterinary Medicine) stated that consulting is important to the College of Veterinary Medicine and that at any given time since he has been Dean they’ve had 5–10 percent of their faculty participating in consulting activities, and they have worked within this structure which is sometimes difficult. Therefore he was supportive of many aspects including the ability to group the days together and to simplify the reporting process. However, he shared some of Drew’s concerns about insuring appropriate oversight in order to protect the reputation of the University.

Tim also explained that some colleges and schools have unique situations that need to be considered, and they might be considered in the document by giving the offering unit some local policy making jurisdiction that would be compatible with this document. As an example relating to those that have clinical programs there is difficulty defining the difference between consulting and moonlighting. His question concerned how consulting might achieve all of the positive benefits that Dr. Gogue would like for us to see vs. just having outside employment on days in which the university is paying their salaries. Also at the College of Veterinary Medicine, where they operate a teaching hospital there’s a potential for conflict of interest within this region because we depend on referrals for teaching material and in some cases material for retrospective studies.  Therefore, he felt that flexibility was important and that maybe clinical programs would need to have a local policy.

Roy felt that certain groups could have their own policy, but that these issues would be addressed in the Conflict of Interest Policy. Based on this discussion he felt that the Conflict of Interest Policy needed to be improved.  

Tim Boosinger (Vet Medicine)mentioned that they have dealt with continuing education activities by having the activity approved by the department head and by providing an unfunded request for travel, but there is oversight provided by the department head. He felt this could be a solution, but on the other hand maybe they are underreporting their activity if it really is consulting.
Royagreed that there has been substantial underreporting, but that the process has not been friendly to the consultant. 

Tim Boosinger replied that they have had some rare events where there were abuses that have caused them difficulty.

Gaines Smith (Director of Cooperative Extension in Alabama) pointed out that there are at least two areas of concern as far as Cooperative Extension people being involved in consulting, e.g. receiving extra compensation for consulting work for which they are paid through Cooperative Extension. That would be obviously a conflict of interest. However, if that is occurring out of state, it is acceptable. Basically, he felt that the overall consulting policy being presented was broad enough, but that discussions on conflict of interest were needed, and his unit wants to be involved in those. They will have to be sure that recent legislation did not change any of the previous guidelines.

Bob Locy explained that the conflict of interest policy would be going to our new Faculty Research Committee. They will be looking at what changes are needed, and he promised to tell the committee that Extension would like to have a voice in those discussions

Rik Blumenthal (Senator, Chemistry and Biochemistr) As a former chair of that Faculty Welfare committee, who initially dealt with this issue of consulting and the consulting policy, said that there was significant underreporting via the UPO-10s. Also there is a lot of consulting going on that is unsupervised. He liked the proposed changes, and he didn’t spot anything objectionable. However, he felt that he had not had sufficient time to consult with his faculty concerning the Consulting Policy. He felt that it was important to bring people into compliance, but his faculty needed time to examine the policy and to give him feedback. Therefore, he moved to postpone a vote on this issue for one month so that his faculty could have an opportunity to examine this policy.

Bob Locy (Senate Chair) called for a second.

Someone seconded the motion.

Bob called for the vote since there was no more discussion.
The motion passed by a voice vote.

Degree Enrollment Cap Policy, Linda Glaze, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Affairs
Linda explained that when we changed the way students were admitted, we did not change our policy. As a result one of the recommendations was to establish an enrollment management council that focused on strategic enrollment and fiscal planning rather than on tactical issues and strategies. The idea was to bring together individuals who would be impacted by decisions related to the number of incoming freshmen in terms of 1) providing classes, 2) providing academic advising, 3) providing instruction, and 4) impacting our university budget.

Linda went on to explain how colleges and departments have begun to raise the minimum GPA for admittance into specific programs and how this has impacted some students chances to graduate. These GPA requirements are higher than our academic standards to graduate which is 2.0.  On the chart that she distributed she listed majors that require 2.3 or more for permission to register for classes in that major. Education has a 2.5 GPA requirement for teacher certification that is mandated by the State. The chart provides evidence of the limited possibilities for students to complete a major if they are below the 2.3 level. So when Liberal Arts put in a request to raise the GPA for Liberal Arts majors, the Provost refused to approve their request.
Linda explained that after some investigation, the council decided to adapt the enrollment cap policy created by the University of Georgia that was sent to Senators for their perusal. Basically, there are two approaches for dealing with limited resources in terms of seats for students within a given program. One approach is to have caps, and Auburn currently has four such programs -- Building Science, Nursing, Early Childhood and Elementary Education.  The latter two admit students in cohorts based on the number of seats available.
Linda is looking at another approach for those students who fall outside the GPA requirements mentioned above, but who are still in good standing in the University.  So the approach her office is considering deals with grades in gatekeeper courses. Her office will be looking at the space programs have to offer for their degrees and what prerequisite courses or gatekeeper courses are required for students to be successful in that program. If a student can’t pass these, it is highly unlikely that the student will be successful in that major. This seemed like a more logical approach than an overall GPA requirement. Therefore she was proposing the Degree Enrollment Cap Policy as a solution to the problem.

Questions and Remarks
Jim Saunders (Geology and Geography, Senator) commented on our declining graduation rates, and the number of students floundering as they try to get their GPAs at a level required for a major. As a father of one of these students, he felt that if students are in good standing in the university, they should be able to major in something. Therefore, if enrollment management is a problem, then he favors other approaches.  He suspected that this could become a legal problem

Linda Glaze stated that since she isn’t a lawyer, she couldn’t comment on the legal issue, but the problem is real and needs to be dealt with.

Rik Blumenthal (Chemistry and Biochemistry, Senator) liked the idea of departmental criteria for enrollment management, but he did have certain problems with the document. In the document there are “a–e” criteria that can be used for enrollment management.  

Linda Glaze wanted to know the section he was referring to, and he replied Section 4.

Rik  quoted the criteria in “a” through “e” in Section 4 of the Enrollment Cap Policy. He felt that since departments are diverse, the policy needed a change in wording.  He felt that setting down three criteria and then saying you must have two of these three did not allow departments sufficient flexibility to come up with criteria to meet their departmental needs.

Linda had no problem with Rik’s comment. She suggested that if a department is creative enough to come up with something else that fulfills the spirit of the policy, she didn’t see a problem.

There was a general discussion about the change in wording until James Goldstein made his suggestion.

James Goldstein (English) moved to replace the word “must” with “may” …be based on consideration of more than one… in “e” of the criteria in Section 4.

Bob Locy called for a second to the friendly amendment.  
The motion passed by a voice vote.

Information Item:
Student Support Services & Living and Learning Communities Nancy McDaniel, Executive Director Education Support Services
Nancytalked about 1) the role of student support services, 2) the student success center, and 3) how they play into the development of the learning communities that will be coming online in 2009-2010.  She suggested that student academic success is influenced by a number of variables, but first term GPA and first year persistence are the two most important variables. Therefore bringing students together in cohort groups and supporting them with student services were considered as one way to help students be successful in their first term. Freshman year requires a lot more than orientation, and within these living and learning communities, university staff work with students on academic transition skills and study strategies.

Nancyexplained that Student Counseling Services has developed eight communities this semester in order to be more proactive in helping students before they are so far behind that they can’t catch up. Much of the progress in this area is due to Dr. Glaze sitting in on the readmission committee and hearing students talk about how they got to the point of suspension and expulsion, but also that there was nowhere for them to go due to GPA requirements in various departments. The Cater Center is currently serving nearly 600 students whose GPA does not allow them to go into the major of their choice. Therefore, they are working with an interdisciplinary model of academic advisors, personal counselors, career counselors, and academic coaches to help these students get the right fit in the quickest way possible and they have had some great success stories.

Nancyexplained that learning communities are based on a student’s college major or interdisciplinary theme. Students take linked or clustered courses in cohort groups of 25.  For example, it may be a theme course, such as the Earth Smart course taught by Sharon Roberts and Gisela Buschle-Diller, which weaves in freshman study strategies and skills with environmentalism. In addition, they are co-enrolled in an English class and a larger lecture class giving them a natural study group. The theme is woven through these groups, and the ultimate goal is to have faculty who communicate not only with the students but also with each other.

Nancymentioned that these approaches may be residential and non-residential, but the important element is for students to make connections with particular faculty members.. Auburn will have a number of interdisciplinary living and learning communities coming online this Fall when we will involve approximately 20 percent of the incoming freshman in these communities. One of the possible options will be “women in engineering” which will focus on preparing women for the rigors of the engineering curriculum.  Others that already exist in COSAM are conservation biology, marine biology and micro-biology. 

Nancyalso reported that current data for Auburn students involved in learning communities show that they have higher percentage rates for good academic standing and that they persist at a higher rate than students who are not in learning communities. They also report an easier transition into university life.

There were no questions or remarks and the meeting was adjourned at 4:30