Minutes
Senate Meeting: May 17, 2022
3:30 p.m. via Zoom meeting

A video recording of this meeting is available.
Please refer to the recording for details not included in the minutes.
Presentations are available from the agenda for the meeting.

Attendance Record is at the end of the minutes.

Todd Steury, Senate Chair, called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm. The Chair noted the rules that would be used during the meeting. He introduced the officers of the Senate, the Senate administrative assistant, and the members of the Senate Steering committee who approved the meeting’s agenda.

A quorum was established when 48 senators responded to the quorum poll via canvas.  In all, 81 senators attended the meeting.

Approval of the minutes from the Senate Meeting of April 19, 2022
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) proposed three edits to the minutes as presented.  The first was to ensure that readers were made aware that Chair Todd Steury was speaking in a personal capacity when he expressed his gratitude to President Jay Gogue for his service to the university in the section labelled “University Senate Chair Todd Steury remarks.”  The second was the correction of a typographical error (“taking” to “talking”) under the information item, “Update on SACSCOC reaccreditation.”

The third was a more significant edit to the minutes of the discussion of the same agenda item, which, in Duha Altindag’s opinion, omitted some important information.  He requested the editing of the statement “Chair Steury then interrupted Michael Stern to ask him if there was a central question he wished to ask” to instead read “Chair Steury then spoke to ask Michael Stern if there was a central question he wished to ask.” He asked for the addition of these specific sentences after “What followed was a back and forth between the Chair and Michael Stern about speaking rights under Robert’s Rules”: “Chair told Michael Stern that he cannot ask multiple questions. During this conversation, LTC Nate Conkey hollered ‘Oh my Gosh’ which was ignored by the Chair. In addition, Chair ignored two points of order raised by Zach Schulz.” After “he would never speak in Senate again while Todd Steury is Senate chair,” Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) asked that the following be inserted, “LTC Nate Conkey hollered again, ‘No objection,’ and this comment the Chair also ignored.”
Chair Todd Steury asked if there were any objections to these proposed amendments of the minutes.
Ralph Kingston (Senate Secretary) spoke to say he had no objections to adding “personal” to characterize Chair Steury’s thanks to President Gogue.  He noted that he also thanked President Gogue for his service. Kingston apologized for the typographical error and took the opportunity to also extend a personal apology to all individuals whose name he had misspelled over the course of his tenure as Senate Secretary.
In terms of the sentences which Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) had asked to be inserted, Kingston noted that he had purposefully chosen brevity in summing up that exchange. He urged senators to not create a precedent in which it is expected that every single comment made in senate meetings is included in the minutes. He warned that Senate should not expect its secretaries to write transcripts.
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) responded that he was not asking “for the whole transcription of everything that was said out loud.” He said that he believed that “this particular conversation… was important and therefore details of this important exchange should be included in the minutes.”

Lisa Kensler (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) asked about the purpose of adding more detail about that specific event.  She noted that zoom typically creates a transcript.  She supported the call for keeping minutes crisp and clear.
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) responded that “in my opinion, in other people’s opinions, the Senate Chair has been applying the Robert’s Rules of Order incorrectly. He is making up some rules that do not exist.” He said that he “wanted to include my changes in the record so that it shows some of the things he did.”
Octavia Tripp (Secretary Elect) asked how, when she takes over recording the minutes of meeting next academic year, she would decide which exchanges need to be extended out in more detail.  She noted that meetings are saved and recorded and that detail can always be found there.
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) replied that, in his opinion, “secretaries should record the minutes as they wish, and if someone would like to extend a particular portion of it, they can … make a recommendation during the meetings.”
Laura Kloberg (Senate administrative secretary) offered to transcribe the section of the meeting if this was what the senate wished.
Chair Steury then moved to ask senators if they had any objection to the specific requests that Duha Altindag made in terms of these amendments.
Hearing no objections to the amendments, Chair Steury asked if there were any objections to accepting the minutes as amended.  Hearing no objections, the minutes as amended were approved by unanimous consent.

Remarks and Announcements on University Matters
University Senate Chair Todd Steury remarks
Chair Steury thanked senators for their suggestions for top issues for the new administration. The Senate leadership will identify the three issues most mentioned, and these will be shared with President Roberts.  He noted that senators can continue for the moment to add comments to the discussion forum.  Faculty members who want to contribute should get in touch with their senator. 

President Chris Roberts remarks
President Roberts, at the start of his tenure as President of Auburn University, spoke about his enthusiasm for his new role, for Auburn University and its mission. He stressed his willingness to engage with shared governance.  He will visit each department on campus with Interim Provost Vini Nathan over the next couple of months.  He will also be visiting with other groups on campus, including the Alabama Cooperate Extension System (ACES.)
He concluded by expressing his pride at the work of faculty, staff, and administrative professionals on campus.

Interim Provost Vini Nathan remarks
Interim Provost Nathan welcomed Chris Roberts in his new role before moving quickly to a series of short announcements.
She noted that, at the April board meeting, the Board approved the doctoral program in nursing and the renaming of the College of Forestry, Wildlife and Environment. In early May, the university held a series of graduation events. She thanked faculty for their participation. In all, 4625 students graduated. 
Interim Provost Nathan also shared the news that all the interim dean searches have now been completed. Last academic year, Auburn had 1521 full-time faculty, including tenure-track, research, and instructional faculty. Auburn will be welcoming 85 new faculty members this fall.

Chair Steury invited questions for President Roberts and Interim Provost Nathan, but there were none.

Action Items
Change to 2023-2024 Calendar to accommodate Juneteenth
Presenter: Karen Battye, Chair of the Calendar and Schedules Committee
Karen Battye presented the change to the 2023-2024 calendar to accommodate the addition of the Juneteenth holiday.
Hans-Werner Van Wyk (senator, Mathematics and Statistics) asked about the inconsistency of numbers on the calendar displayed. Karen Battye explained that this is because the calendar shows a mix of calendar dates and academic term days.
There were no other comments or questions.
VOTE RESULTS: 52 total in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstaining. The calendar change was approved by Senate.

Approval of 2024-2025 Calendar
Presenter: Karen Battye, Chair of the Calendar and Schedules Committee
Karen Battye presented the calendar proposed by the Calendar and Schedules Committee for the 2024-2025 academic year.
There were no comments or questions.
VOTE RESULTS: 55 total in favor, 2 opposed, 3 abstaining. The calendar was approved by Senate.

Senate Committee Nominations
Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Chair of Rules Committee
Ralph Kingston presented the names of nominees to senate committees for three-year terms starting in August 2022. This almost concludes the work of the Rules committee this year, though he will still need to bring the nominee for the Steering Committee and nominations to the Faculty Grievance committee to Senate in June. He also noted that Rules was still looking to fill one spot on the Core Curriculum and General Education committee and one spot on the Tuesday Parking Appeals Board (a university committee.) He thanked the members of the Rules committee for their work on putting the nominations together. 
There were no comments or questions.  Chair Steury noted that the plan was to vote on all the nominations together, but that senators were able to make a motion to consider them individually if they wished.  Senators proceeded to vote on all the nominees together.
VOTE RESULTS: 56 total in favor, 1 opposed, 1 abstaining. The nominations were approved by Senate.

Research Data Policy
Presenters: Linda Gibson-Young, Chair of the Faculty Research Committee; Ali Krzton, Research Data Management Librarian, member of the Faculty Research Committee
Linda Gibson-Young outlined a brief history of the policy and noted responses from the Faculty Research Committee to questions and concerns expressed in the last Senate meeting. She highlighted the addition of a sentence specifying that faculty and staff own copyright to their scholarly works, including (but not limited to) teaching materials, syllabi, class notes, tests, lab manuals, and study guides.
She also noted that the Office of the Vice President for Research is responsible for implementing the policy.  It is the office that is responsible, as opposed to an individual.
Linda Gibson-Young then highlighted that as of January 25, 2023, the NIH will require all PIs applying for grant to have an institutional data management policy in place. She expects that the NSF and the Department of Defense will follow by doing the same. Ali Krzton noted again that Auburn is unusual in that it does not already have such a policy in place. 

Stephanie Shepherd (substitute senator, Geosciences) shared a note from David King (senator, Geosciences) who is against the policy believing it goes too far.  For her own part, she is excited to see an explicit note in the policy about the intellectual ownership of teaching materials.
There were no further comments or questions.
VOTE RESULTS: 48 total in favor, 5 opposed, 3 abstaining. The policy was approved by Senate.

Information Items

Social Media Screening Process
Presenter: Jaime Hammer, General Counsel
Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) started her presentation by contextualizing the social media screening process as part of the pre-employment background checks that the university already does and will continue to do when making new hires. Checks are conducted only on finalists: an offer of employment is made to finalists subject to their successful completion of the background check. Candidates sign a waiver or acknowledgement prior to the checks being done.
HR uses a third party to conduct these background checks.  It has a contract with a company called Truescreen. When this contract was signed, the university decided to include a social media screening as part of its pre-employment background check.   Truescreen uses another company called Social Intelligence to conduct the social media screening. Jaime Hammer’s understanding is that Social Intelligence also works for other universities as well as for corporate clients.
Truescreen looks at public-facing information on social media platforms.  Things like potentially unlawful activity, violence or online threats, racism and/or demonstrations of intolerance, and sexually explicit materials, are flagged. If a flag comes up, that information gets sent to the hiring institution and the hiring institution, not the company, evaluates what to do next. At Auburn, it comes back through University HR and is sent to the office of the General Counsel.  The General Counsel’s office in consultation with the office of the Executive Vice President evaluate the concern and decide whether to continue with the hiring, or if there is enough of a concern that it is deemed necessary to request additional information. The reports generated by Truescreen are subject to the Free Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  In the event that the university considers not moving forward with a candidate, the candidate is entitled to be informed as to why and given a standard amount of time to respond as well as a right to appeal.
The university has been conducting these checks for a little bit over a month. Nine applicants have been flagged. In all nine cases so far, the candidate was not eliminated from the hiring process.

Mitchell Brown (not a senator, Political Science) spoke to raise two concerns. One was a concern about the categories that generate flags. She worried that these might impinge on academic freedom, as some faculty are very active on social media as part of their work and some of their work can be controversial.
Her second concern was this was another way in which decisions about hiring are being removed from the faculty in the hiring unit and invested instead in the central administration.  She asked whether faculty in the hiring unit might be consulted about whether or not flagged social media was in fact concerning.
Jaime Hammer noted that this is a policy for all employees, not just faculty. She argued that routing flags to a central place helps avoid other violations of freedom of speech or academic freedom.  Currently the final decision as to whether to proceed with hiring rests with the Executive Vice President’s office. It is reasonable to assume, however, that, if they were dealing with something that involved academic freedom, or something that had a truly unique academic component, reaching out to the faculty would be totally reasonable.  They have not had a situation like that yet, however.
Scott Ketring (senator, HDFS) asked for clarification that when there is a flag, that the person receives a report of the flag, what it is for, and has the possibility of making a response.
Jaime Hammer responded that this was absolutely correct.
Scott Ketring then asked how the university might draw a clear line in determining cases.  How does one decide whether a comment is intolerant? One person’s protest might by be considered an egregious act by someone else.
Jaime Hammer responded that they have a system in place that does its best to ensure that decisions are not being made for illegal reasons, including following the law on employment discrimination, and protections of academic freedom or political speech.  The administration is aware that context matters – each issue needs to be considered in context.
Carole Zugazaga (substitute senator, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work) noted that 9 individuals being flagged in the space of a few months seems high. She asked how many applications were screened in total.
Jaime Hammer responded that she did not know how many people were finalists for jobs at Auburn.
Michael Fogle (substitute senator, Physics) asked about how social media screening might be applied to students who are hired as employees, including if they are only temporary employees.  Chair Steury asked whether Temporary Employment Services (TES) and student workers also go through background checks.
Jaime Hammer did not answer this question immediately but subsequently confirmed that student workers are not subject to background checks.  TES employees are.

Richard Sesek (senator, Industrial and Systems Engineering) echoed concerns that 9 flags in the space of about a month might represent a large proportion of hires. He also spoke of his concern as to what candidates are flagged for, and whether being flagged taints them during the job hiring process. Jaime Hammer noted that only finalists (people already holding a job offer) were subject to the check.
Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) asked if there is a standardized process for checks, and if there are any limits set on the process.  How far back do they go?  Does the check look at sites like RatemyProfessors?
Jaime Hammer suggested that having a third party apply its algorithm to conduct the checks is a form of standardization.  This is better than hiring committees informally googling candidates. She reiterated that the sites that are checked are all publicly facing, and only things the candidate have posted publicly are checked.
Roy Hartfield replied that it would be good to have a specific list of websites the company checks, and what is considered as a flaggable item.
Jaime Hammer said that it might be possible to get a list of the sites checked, but the algorithm used would be proprietary.  The company does not make any value judgment on the flagged items.  It turns over flagged issues to the university for critical analysis.
Roy Hartfield asked if there is anything the General Counsel or administration is doing to limit activities that are outside normal practice, for example reaching out to references which the candidate has not listed.  Jaime Hammer responded that she does not know.  This would be a question for HR.
Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy) was curious about how this process might have affected the case of Jesse Goldberg. As an incoming lecturer, Goldberg posted comments critical of the police on the web which generated a significant degree of hostility online.
Jaime Hammer responded that she does not know if his posts would have been flagged.  If so, the case would have had to be evaluated like the others.
Jennifer Lockhart asked what Jaime Hammer’s determination would be in a case like that.  Jaime Hammer answered that, if judging a case, she would have to look at the entire context of the posts, but beyond that she would not comment on a specific case.
Melody Russell (not a senator, Curriculum and Teaching) expressed again the worry that social media checks might be a vehicle for employment discrimination.  She noted in particular the potential for implicit bias built into the system, including religious bias.

Ali Krzton (not a senator, Libraries) asked if there was any human review conducted by the third party, or if this only happens when flags are sent to the university. Jaime Hammer did not know.
Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) agreed that the specifics of algorithm were important, because bias can work its way into the system.  The fact that the same company is used by other institutions does not guarantee a clean bill of health.
LTC Charles McMullen (senator, ROTC Air Force) asked how social media checking was any different to the other checks carried out when hiring, for instance of publications. Jaime Miller agreed that social media could be regarded as another platform where people publish.
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) if TrueScreen would “be able to give some examples of past flags.” Jaime Hammer said she would check on this and if it was available in a format they might be willing to share.
Alan Seals (not a senator, Economics) asked if the university uses a third party to monitor the social media of existing employees and faculty. Jaime Hammer responded that it does not, that she is aware of.
Ryan Comes (not a senator, Physics) asked about how the process fits in the university organizational chart. He wondered why the Provost’s office is not involved in a process that involves hiring decisions, but the Executive Vice President is, despite not having line authority over HR or the Provost’s Office.
Jaime Hammer responded that she believes the Executive VP has line authority over HR. Ryan Comes said this was not indicated in the most recent org chart online. Hammer noted that it is the same process for all employees, academic and non-academic, and this would be a reason all background checks are routed through HR.
Ryan Comes (not a senator, Physics) asserted that it is an issue of faculty self-governance if the Provost and the President are not the ones making the ultimate decision.
At this point, Vini Nathan (Interim Provost) requested to speak, noting that the Provost is informed if there is a flag in terms of hiring for positions that report to the Provost.  Her assumption is that, if there is a flag on a faculty hire, the hiring dean would be informed.
Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) asked “who might know whether the current employees are being screened?”
Ron Burgess (Executive Vice President) asked to respond. He assured senators that current employees are not being, and are unlikely in future to be, screened.

Update on Sustainability
Presenter: Mike Kensler, Director, Office of Sustainability
Mike Kensler (Director, Office of Sustainability) shared a presentation on how Auburn University is doing in terms of sustainability. In particular, he discussed the assessment process operated by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE).  Auburn undergoes this assessment every three years.  Auburn currently has a silver STARS (Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System) score – 64.13, or less than one point below a gold ranking. All new construction on campus is LEED silver certified and the university gets significant credit for its commitment to green building.  The Gogue Performing Arts center is gold certified. Other high-scoring activities at the Auburn include the collaboration between Tiger dining and the aquaponics program in the School of Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences.
Mike Kensler then asked what is next for sustainability at Auburn.  He hopes Auburn can join the Okanagan Charter, an international charter for health-promoting universities and colleges. Auburn is updating its Climate Action Plan and the Office of Sustainability expects to work on a Sustainability Strategic Plan to dovetail with the next University Strategic Plan.  One of the greatest opportunities for impact would be the adoption of solar energy.  Unfortunately, Kensler shared, Alabama energy policy currently makes solar energy generation difficult to develop. 

Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) spoke to ask Michael Kensler a series of related questions.  His first question was, in terms of the university’s current AASHE star rating, “what is Auburn’s goal? Is Auburn trying to be in gold, and, if so, is 65 points enough for Auburn?” His second question was “which of our peer institutions locate in this scheme.”  His third question was if “the projects Kensler mentioned towards the end of the presentation… are successful, where will they take [Auburn University] in this rubric?”

Mike Kensler repled that the goal of the Office of Sustainability was to be as high as we can, as sustainability is essential to the university’s land grant mission.  There is no reason, he noted, why Auburn can’t be among the top institutions with platinum medal status.

In response to Duha Altindag’s second question, Kensler noted that, Auburn has moved several places up in relation to peer institutions.  For example, we used to be below the University of Florida, but are now quite a bit above.  We are below universities like Texas A&M in the rankings, however. In effect, Auburn is in the middle of where our peer institutions are.  That is a significant improvement his office is pleased about, but not satisfied with.

New Business

Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) brought up his concern about the overlap between final exams and graduation ceremonies.  He noted that the Registrar, Karen Battye, has suggested that adjustments to the calendar cannot solve this problem and that we may be well served by returning to the possibility of shortening exams.
Chair Steury said he would discuss this with the Senate leadership and try to address the issue and report back.
Vini Nathan (Interim Provost) spoke to inform senators that the Provost’s Office had already started a conversation about this issue but shortening exam times is unlikely that this on its own to solve the problem completely.  The root of the problem is increased enrollment.

Richard Sesek (senator, Engineering) asked what faculty can do to influence state policy limiting sustainability initiatives, for instance the past ban on LEED building mentioned by Michael Kensler in his presentation, or the regulation of the cost of solar power.  He added a concern that advocacy on such issues might trigger a flag on a social media check.
In response, Michael Kensler spoke on the history of LEED certification in the state of Alabama, noting the good news is that the objection to LEED was rescinded.

Adjournment
Hearing no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 5:26 by unanimous consent.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ralph Kingston

Attendance Record – May 17, 2022

Senate Officers
Present:
Todd Steury, Chair;
Mark Carpenter, Chair-Elect;
Ralph Kingston, Secretary;
Don Mulvaney, Immediate Past-Chair;
L. Octavia Tripp, Secretary-Elect.

Administration
Present:
Jeffrey Fairbrother, Dean, College of Education;
Susan Hubbard, Dean, College of Human Sciences;
Joe Hanna, Interim Dean, Harbert College of Business;
Steven Taylor, Interim Dean, Samuel Ginn College of Engineering;
Janaji Alavalapati, Dean, Forestry and Wildlife Sciences;
James Weyhenmeyer, Vice President for Research and Economic Development;
Royrickers Cook, Associate Provost and VP, University Outreach;
Gretchen Van Valkenburg, Vice President, Alumni Affair.
Absent:
Ana Franco-Watkins, Interim Dean, College of Liberal Arts.

Ex-Officio Members:
Present
Vini Nathan, Interim Provost;
Shali Zhang, Dean of Libraries;
Oluchi Oyekwe, GSC President;
Robert Norton, Steering Committee;
Robert Cochran, Steering Committee;
Cheryl Seals, Steering Committee;
Danilea Werner, Steering Committee;
Clint Lovelace, A&P Assembly Chair;
Ashley Reid, Staff Council Chair.
Absent:
Jake Haston, SGA President.

Senators:
Present:
Lisa Miller, Accountancy;
Roy Hartfield, Aerospace Engineering;
Valentina Hartarska, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology;
Molly Gregg, ACES;
Vinicia Biancardi, Anatomy, Physiology & Pharmacology;
Jacek Wower, Animal Sciences;  
Kevin Moore, Architecture;
Kathryn Floyd, Art and Art History;
James Birdsong, Aviation;
Anthony Moss, Biological Sciences;
David Blersch, Biosystems Engineering;
Mark Tatum, Building Sciences;
Bryan Beckingham, Chemical Engineering;
Wei Zhan, Chemistry;
J. Brian Anderson, Civil Engineering;
Kevin Smith, Communication and Journalism;
Peter Weber, Consumer & Design Sciences;
David Han, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences;
Chris Schnittka, Curriculum & Teaching;
Liliana Stern, Economics;                    
Andrew Pendola, Educational Foundations, Leadership & Tech;
Michael Baginski, Electrical & Computer Engineering;
Sunny Stalter-Pace, English;
John Beckmann, Entomology & Plant Pathology;
Damion McIntosh, Finance;
Nathan Whelan, Fisheries & Allied Aquaculture;
Zhaofei (Joseph) Fan, Forestry & Wildlife Science;
Stephanie Shepherd, substitute for David King, Geology & Geography;
Kimberly Garza, Health Outcomes Research and Policy;
Zachary Schulz, History;
Scott Ketring, Human Development & Family Studies;
Richard Sesek, Industrial and Systems Engineering;
Ben Bush, Industrial Design;
Andreas Kavazis, Kinesiology;
Kasia Leousis, Libraries;
Jeremy Wolter, Marketing;
Hans-Werner Van Wyk, Mathematics and Statistics;
Sabit Adanur, Mechanical Engineering;
Virginia Broffitt Kunzer, Music;
Chris Martin, Nursing;
Clark Danderson, Nutrition, Dietetics, & Hospitality Management;
David Mixson, Outreach;
Peter Christopherson, Pathobiology;
Sarah Cogle, Pharmacy Practice;
Jennifer Lockhart, Philosophy
Michael Fogle, substitute for Luca Guazzotto, Physics;
Peter White, Political Science
Ken Macklin, Poultry Science;
Joe Bardeen, Psychological Sciences;
Carole Zugazaga, substitute for Janice Clifford, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work;
Rebecca Curtis, Special Ed. Rehab. Counseling/School Psychology;
David Strickland, Supply Chain Management;
Amit Mitra, Systems and Technology;
Charles McMullen, Lieutenant Colonel, ROTC, Air Force;
Nate Conkey, Lieutenant Colonel, ROTC Army;
Matthew Roberts, Captain, ROTC, Naval;
Adrienne Wilson, Theatre;
Robert Cole, Veterinary Clinical Sciences.
Zachary Zuwiyya, World Languages, Literatures, and Cultures.
Absent:
Nancy Haak, Communication Disorders;
Shenenaz Shaik, Computer Science and Software Engineering;
Feng Li, Drug Discovery and Development;
Daniel Wells, Horticulture;
Alan Walker, Management.