September 1, 2009
Senate Meeting Transcription
Kathryn Flynn, chair: I’d like to call the meeting to order. If you’re a senator or serving as a substitute please remember to sign in at the back on the roster. Also I’m asking that senators sit in the rows labeled Senators closer to the front if possible. This will allow me to identify who are senators when people get up to talk. Senators have the first opportunity to comment, ask questions, and only after all senators have had their opportunity do guests of the Senate get to approach the microphone.
The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes for July 14, 2009. Dennis DeVries, the Secretary, sent a link to all senators and the minutes are posted on the Senate Website. So at this time I’d like to ask if there are any additions or changes to the minutes that were posted? (pause) Hearing none the minutes will stand approved as posted.
The next item on the agenda are comments from Dr. Gogue, so at this time I’d like to invite him forward.
Dr. Gogue, president: Thank you and I’m delighted to with you today and certainly want to welcome everybody back to campus, we missed you, those of you that were away in the summer, we certainly missed you. Wayne Alderman has reported that our freshman class this year will be our highest ACT ever, it’s a little bit over 26. I think you may recall last year it was about 25.9 and the year before that it was in the 24s, so there’s been a remarkable increases in quality of students at Auburn over the last couple of years and we’re excited about that. We were very concerned going into this year particularly on housing for new students. We had eight new resident’s halls, 1700 new beds, as to whether they would all be completed in time. They were completed in time, students were able to move in in an orderly fashion. Also the dining facility opened and has received good comments. I have not eaten there but I’ve receive good comments about the food in the dining hall. I would also point out the contract that’s been let that will reopen the food service opportunities in Foy, in the basement, is that correct Don? It should be in the October time frame from what I’ve been told.
Also wanted to mention and say thank you to a number of faculty and staff members that have worked very hard in the last month to try to address the H1N1 virus, the flu if you will, and try to provide guidance not only on the campus, but to our students, parents of students, and I think a policy has been developed that tries to address components of that relative to the academic side so I would just say thank you to those that have been very engaged in that.
Since we last met the Legislature did have a special session they focused only on the [sewer ?] in Birmingham, they did not focus on PAC. We had been told or led to believe going into that session that they may address PAC, they did not. The head of the Alabama Retirement System has provided a report on their analysis of PAC and its actuarial soundness, and only from what I have read in the paper, it would show that they are short about 53 million dollars a year, that’s roughly the number. Probably going into the next Legislative Session it will be an agenda item also that will be discussed.
I wanted to complement those that engaged in research in the past year and I know a number of you in this room have done so. I was pleasantly surprised when we looked at the data from a year ago, the College of Human Sciences actually had the department on a per faculty basis that generated the most research dollars and it was an impressive total, $757,989 per faculty member. They nudged out Fisheries that is traditionally in that category. Fisheries came in at $619,399 per faculty (member). A couple of other research announcements that have occurred I think since we last met, yesterday we received notice that the department of energy made a competitive award to Auburn for 4.9 million dollars. During July we got word from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the NIST program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology of a 14.4 million dollar award. And yesterday I had a chance to visit some of the work that our folks have done over at the Lee County Justice Center. And they had won a grant through ADECCA for several hundred thousand dollars to have a solar powered Jail, I think it covers about 80% of their power needs, but it’s quite interesting.
Let’s see, Don I want you to come up and talk a little bit about the employee educational waiver and what we’re trying to do. While Don’s coming up the Board of Trustees will meet on September 25, that’s the meeting in which the budget for our upcoming year starting October 1, we hope to get final approval on. The second that we’ll present to them is sort of our second year components of the strategic plan. Faculty Committee reviewed what we had done in the first year, made recommendations. We completed about a third of the items totally out of the 35 elements in that plan. The others, there was progress made on many of them, some were not completed, obviously they were not complete enough to say we’ve done those. We will roll those into the second year we’ll add about 12 or 15 new ones, that will be discussed with the board on the September 15 meeting. Also on that agenda for the Board of Trustees is the expedited construction for the MRI project which cuts across about nine different colleges on our campus.
Don if you will come up and share where we are on the waiver.
[6:42]
Don Large: Several of you have asked about the status of the dependant waiver, and if you’ll recall a number of years ago the Board passed a policy that allowed for a dependant tuition waiver up to one half of tuition. We have always interpreted that, you got that no matter what; if your child for instance got a full scholarship then the amount equal to half of tuition we would apply toward some other cost for you as a benefit. But it was pointed out to us recently by the examiners that that’s not consistent with the Board Policy, so what we’ve decided to do is to go back to the Board and see if we can get down to adopt the policy consistent with the way we’ve been interpreting or administering the benefit.
We were going to take it in this September meeting, but we’ve decided to wait till the November Meeting, it’s only another 5 or 6 weeks later. It doesn’t change any of our current administration currently, we’re still processing the way we always have. We can administer it for next semester similar to what we always have if the Board concurs. We just started thinking that bringing it at the time of asking for budget approval during a time when the reductions are dramatic. It just wasn’t the best time to isolate this subject. So we will bring it forward in November, probably along with a significant discussion of tuition in general. And probably a tuition restructuring plan that goes to a cost per credit hour, simplifies our current tuition method of charging. It may also look at some other pricing issues that have been brought on…that will be brought to us by Noel Levitz Consulting Group that’s looking at a number of tuition issues. So we think it better to put it in November, not now, but do our best to have the Board adopt the policy consistent with the way we’ve been administering it. So that’s the status on that.
Dr. Gogue, president: Any questions for Don? What we’re trying to do is look at the cost of education not just the cost of tuition. So that will be the strategy, but I think Don indicated this fall no change, spring, no change and hopefully we can have the discussion that’s appropriate. Are there any questions for me? (pause) Thank you all for being here.
[9:57]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Thank you Dr. Gogue. I’m going to try to keep my comments brief today because we actually have a pretty ambitious agenda, and I want to try to get through that if possible. This is the first Senate Meeting of the new academic year and I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome all the new Senators and also all of the people who are returning who are in the middle of their tenure. I appreciate all the work that you do and I can predict that we have a pretty busy year ahead of us. Since this is the first meeting I sent out a little letter to everybody kind of going through some procedures that I want to try to follow this year. Remind everyone that if you do have comments or questions there are microphones at either side of the room. We tape the meeting so that we can have transcripts produced at the end of each meeting, that way if anyone ever wants to go back and rummage through they have the opportunity to do that, but if you speak from your chair then they are typically not audible on the tape. So if you have comments or questions, if someone in the audience has some information if you would go to the microphones I’d appreciate it. Also when you do that, state your name, and if you are a senator the unit that you represent and if you’re not a senator mention that you’re not. I’d like to try this year because we are going to have pretty busy agendas it looks like to try and keep people to limit their comments to not more than about three minutes. Non-members of the senate are allowed to speak but they must do so after all senators have had the opportunity. If a discussion develops on a topic where we have pro and con positions then we will alternate with people who are in support and people who oppose to provide a balanced discussion. If a senator wants to call the question during a discussion then you have to be recognized, you must go to the microphone to call the question, you cannot do it from your seat and if you do call the question from the floor then the Robert’s Rules of Order say that you are not recognized and it won’t be in effect. So those are just some general things that hopefully will help the meeting to kind of stay on track.
I’d like to encourage everybody, Dr. Gogue mentioned the contingency plans that had been developed they were sent out by the faculty mail list. If you haven’t taken the time to look at those, I’d encourage you to do so. If you’re like me you’re starting to have students who are e-mailing you that “I have symptoms of the flu, of strep throat, or stomach virus; and so it would be helpful if you familiarize yourself with those contingency plans and with the existing policies on absenteeism and illness.
I’d also like to mention that Dr. Mazey is going to hold a series of open forums. I believe an e-mail has already gone out to this effect, but just to remind you that the first open forum will be September 16, it’s a Wednesday at 3:00 p.m., it will be in room 1160 in the Library. These are forums that will allow faculty to come and ask questions of Dr. Mazey, and the first one is going to focus on the P&T process (Promotion and Tenure).
Other than that I don’t really have any comments. I would like to move through to the first item on the agenda which is Resolution, it’s an action item, it’s a resolution concerning the establishment of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Positions and I’m going to call Dr. Mazey for that.
[13:51]
Dr Mazey, provost: We have a Resoulution on the Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Positions. Let me say that we have had discussion in the Senate meetings at least on two occasions about creating these positions. When the material was sent out it also appended the appointment of Lecturer/Senior Lecturer which was what initiated the discussion with the Senate Leadership, but we had decided that in meeting with AAUP on two occasions about this that all we are really doing today would be approving, hopefully approving, this Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Positions and then as the resolution will state a faculty…actually associate provost will lead the committee, but a faculty composed committee will really come up with the policy and procedures for these positions. So that document that was appended really will not go into operation. What will come forward to the Senate again of course will be what the committee’s work will be.
We will certainly, one of the benefits of this is to allow those instructors to be here longer than 5 years and to be in these positions. We have looked at the models at Clemson and North Carolina State that have these positions. So I will read the Resolution on Lecturer/Senior Lecturers. It says:
WHEREAS, Auburn University currently has “instructor” faculty that have a maximum five year appointment;
WHEREAS, there is a need to provide term appointments to instructional faculty that accommodate a major undergraduate credit load;
WHEREAS, such non-tenure term appointed faculty will have full-time status and be reviewed on an annual basis;
BE IT RESOLVED, that Auburn University Office of the Provost will establish the faculty title of lecturer/senior lecturer and appoint a faculty committee chaired by the Associate Provost to establish the procedures to hire, evaluate, and terminate faculty members in these positions.
Questions?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: I will mention that this is a resolution from a Senate committee so it does not require a second.
James Goldstein, senator from English: It’s not so much a question as a comment I’d just like to make briefly. I do support the resolution, I support the way that it looks to improve the situation for contingent faculty at Auburn. And the Department of English is certainly the department that has relied the most on non-tenure track faculty. So I want to thank Dr. Mazey for including within this resolution the provision for the faculty committee. I want to make clear for the members of the Senate and our guests what’s at steak in this issue. Long-term non-tenure track faculty such as these lecturers would have to receive due process that would be comparable to what tenured faculty get or else the University faces a very real risk of being censored by the AAUP, so that’s what we all want to avoid. So many of my colleagues might not be aware of the risk that we would face if we don’t provide proper due process protections with them. So whoever ends up on that committee that’s going to be one of the issues you’re going to need to look at. [17:36] Thank you.
Dr Mazey, my name’s Steve Brown and I’m a senator from Political Science: In my department based on the information that went out that accompanied the resolution has several concerns and if I could just abbreviate these and have you address them, maybe they were address at previous Senate meetings, I’m a new senator and did not attend those but they seem to be categorized into 3 different areas. What this proposal does for the individual faculty member who’d be hired under this provision as a Lecturer or as a Senior Lecturer was, what does it do to our existing faculty and what does it do to our graduate program? I’d just like to explain in these 3 areas what my department’s concerns are. Primarily with the faculty member that would be hired as an instructor/senior instructor would that not be creating in some sense an underclass, a professional underclass that’s not quite and instructor, but not quite tenured and what does that do in terms of their pay and in terms of their ability to be here long term, what does it do in terms of their professional status? Kind of between the lecturer and the faculty position? What does it do in the instructor position if they leave after 5 years if the Lecturer position can be re-uped several times, is that not just basically defacto tenure? And what does that do to faculty that have gone through the process of getting tenure itself? And finally if this replaces tenure-track slots what does it do to those of us that have a graduate program? If we have to choose between a higher cost tenure-track slot that can teach undergraduate and graduate programs that may be feel compelled to get a Lecturer position that can only teach undergraduate courses; what does that do to the diversity that we might be depriving our graduate students?
Dr. Mazey, provost: Our intention was never to replace tenure-track faculty with these positions. There are currently instructors here at Auburn, but we’re not allowed to have them beyond the 5 years. And at other institutions they do have these Lecturer/Senior Lecturers that can be rolling 1, 2, 3 year appointments, so it’s not defacto tenure, so we need to look at those institutions to see what the models are. These are primarily used at the undergraduate level and in certain disciplines such as English is currently using them, so that would be our intentions and much of what you bring up will be addressed then in terms of the policies and procedures that the faculty committee will work on.
Steve Brown, senator Political Science: may I ask a follow-up question?
Dr. Mazey, provost: Sure
Steve Brown, senator Political Science: To what extent will the department have consideration in terms of going…if there’s a single slot that’s available and we have to make a choice between hiring a Lecturer to do a large section or a tenure-track slot is that completely up to the department to choose?
Dr. Mazey, provost: I would hope that the Dean and the Chair would work together, we would not want to put these positions in departments that do not want them. I think we want to put the positions in the departments where they will be supported.
Steve Brown: thank you very much. [20:44]
Kathryn Flynn, Chair: Are there any other questions? If not, I would like to ask that all of those in favor… could you go to the microphone?
Ted Becker, not a senator, Political Science: I’m one of the people in the Political Science department that commented on the material that was put into my box, I just happened to see it this weekend. I did not know this was even being considered. In all due respect to the English department which has a great need for this, I don’t know why we have to have a university policy along these lines. Seems to me, and I’ve been teaching at many universities, probably the oldest person in the room and seen the evolution of American Higher Education over the last 50 years first-hand, I don’t think this is a good development. I don’t care if Clemson (or) North Carolina State are doing it, how about the rest of the universities in America?
I think it’s a good idea, this is only a resolution and that you are going to have a committee to discuss it, but I would suggest that the faculty discuss it and among other things the forums that the Provost is going to be holding—among other things that should be discussed in the forum it should be broadly I would say circulated and publicized throughout the university to discuss this matter. Because as my colleague Dr. Brown has pointed out, it seems that some of us and I’ve talked with some other people in the College of Liberal Arts that this is setting up, institutionalizing an underclass, I call it a lumpenproletariat of university instructors and kind of having like a little minor’s Southern Union established within Auburn University. And I don’t think that is particularly good for this university. I can understand some of the practical reasons for it, but I basically feel that it’s a mistake to do something like this and I would like to take a period of time for the faculty to deliberate on this and not just leave it up to the Senate, and a committee, and the administration. So I think this is a very important issue that needs to be discussed and thought about by the faculty as to whether or not we want to go down this road or not. I think that the National AAUP, the Chronicle of Higher Education, people from there should be brought in to discuss this as a national movement and what’s happening, what are some of the problems. I just happened too fast, too quickly, and I don’t think that in this university setting we should just be buying this without a lot of deliberation by the faculty, because it’s a really major move in the sense, institutionalizing a substrate of faculty. So I would suggest that the resolution be at least put aside for a while until there is some real faculty discussion on this, because I hear a lot of complaints from my department about it.
Dr. Mazey, provost: The Resolution is here but certainly we can discuss it at the open forums that we will start in September.
Robert Weigel, foreign language not a senator: [24:25] I would just like to comment since I’ve been following since the summer and this idea of the second-class citizen or lumpenproletariat, I mean we do have it. I see this as a very positive thing. If you have, like our department, like English has many instructors that we pay very little money, they have a great education; this is the only way to make their status better because it would be a dream to think that we in Foreign Language would get all classes covered just with faculty. Clemson, pointing out Clemson I don’t know why it always this university, but I lost one of the best instructors we had in French an ABD very committed to Auburn, would like to come back, but I had to tell her “your time is over” and they took her and there she can work, so yes there is danger, but also this is not…let’s help those people who truly are second class citizens and make their lives better because this is what this can do, it’s not going to make it worse. Thank you.
Dr. Mazey, provost: Thank you.
Michelle Sidler, English department, former English department interim chair, current head of the first year writing program meaning that I have supervised a lot of the instructors: Our department ranges from 30 to 45 instructors a year, many of them very committed to Auburn, give good teaching and then after 5 years we make them part-time if they even stay. I think right now what we have is a system that punishes very good people who are committed to Auburn. And anything that we can do to help that situation would be great. There is no way we are ever going to be able to hire 30 to 45 professorial faculty in our department, so we really need an alternative for some of the folks who put in good work, thanks.
Dr. Mazey, provost: Thank you Michelle. [26:26]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Does anybody have any questions or comments? If not I’d lke everyone who is in support of passing the Resolution to say aye.
Group: Aye.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: All those opposed? (pause) The resolution passes.
I will mention that we will be working with Dr. Mazey’s office and the Rules Committee to form the committee that will work on developing the policies.
The next item on the agenda is one that also was an information item at the last meeting. It’s a Resolution changing the charge and composition of the Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee. And at this time I’d like to call Linda Glaze forward to give some background on why the Rules Committee is recommending this change. [27:44]
Linda Glaze, assoc. provost for undergraduate studies: Good afternoon. Can you hear me? I’m not used to speaking with a mic. Basically where we’re at is that as you know I have given several presentations about the work of the Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee and last year we had a General Education Taskforce that came up with some recommendations and with the arrival of Dr. Mazey, in February I guess that was, my question as chair of the Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee is: how do we bring those two processes together? And so I started meeting with Kathryn in March in asking well what’s the process you want to use in terms of reviewing those recommendations? The three recommendations of that General Education Taskforce was one; to change the structure of the Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee, to expand it more to a General Education Committee the second was to consider and their strong recommendation was not to really through out our current core but to align it with the state-wide articulation and general studies committee work which has 4 basic areas; written composition, humanities, math and natural science, and history and social sciences. And the third was to align the work of the core curriculum committee in the area of student learning outcomes to the coursework that we require.
And after having met with Kathryn, I came up with a couple of possibilities of what they might want to do and I met on a couple of occasions with the Senate leadership when Kathryn was ready to take this problem on. If I were to say what my first choice was, was really to have a committee that was aligned to our student learning outcomes and the Senate leadership thought I was crazy. So the second option was to look at having a committee that really reflects the fact that general education is required of all students, it’s not an arts and science requirement it is a university requirement and so therefore all departments or their representation, the colleges, should have the say in what undergraduates need to know when they graduate. It is not really an arts and science requirement, it’s a university requirement. And so after having met with them, then they came up with…they asked me to put that recommendation in writing, which I did and after that, we are where we are. As I put in that, the way I envision the whole process is trying to bring together tow processes that were running separate railroad tracks and make them come together was that we would first expand or change the Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee to reflect the recommendation of the General Education Taskforce, that committee would then review the recommendation and then that recommendation either way would then come to the full Senate for discussion, because general education impacts the whole university not just one or two areas. So I hope that’s the background you wanted.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: At this time what I’ll do is read the resolution and then we can open the floor for discussion. [31:46]
Resolution to Change the Name, Membership and Charge of the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee
Whereas, the General Education Task Force Report made the recommendation to “Expand the role of the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee to encompass and more broadly address general education outcomes”, and
Whereas, all colleges and schools contribute to undergraduate-student learning outcomes that the Senate has approved for general education, and
Whereas, the composition of the existing Core Curriculum Oversight Committee does not include a representative from each of the colleges and schools, and
Whereas, the name “Core Curriculum Oversight Committee” is not reflective of the expanded role of the committee,
Therefore, be it resolved that Article 4, Section 11, of the University Senate Constitution be revised to change the name, composition, and charge of the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee.
And the change that the Rules Committee had recommended is to have the committee consist of the Provost or designee as chair, and faculty membership would be distributed as follows: two people from the College of Liberal Arts, each representing different areas of the core curriculum; two from the College of Science and Mathematics, one representing Mathematics and one representing Natural Sciences; one from each of the remaining colleges or schools, excluding the Graduate School, and one from the University Libraries. The Director of Assessment would remain on the committee as a non-voting ex-officio member of the committee, and the responsibilities of the committee would be to recommend goals for general education in the Core Curriculum and monitoring the University’s effectiveness in fostering student achievement of these goals. Toward this end, the committee shall oversee the assessment of student learning in the Core, including the evaluation of courses, and may recommend to the University Senate changes in the Core Curriculum and general education. [33:45]
And with that I open the floor for questions and comments.
James Goldstein, senator for English: I appreciate the notion that with a new general education outcomes the new committee really has more on its platter than oversight of the core curriculum, on the other hand there still will be a core curriculum at Auburn University and my own sense is that by having fuller representation of the units that teach in the core that that committee will have more substantial advise from the departments that are most involved in the core. My concern is that if we pass this resolution as it is, the next move for the Senate will be to approve the members of the committee, and if anyone has looked carefully at that list of people to be on this new committee, neither English nor History which are the two units that teach the greatest number of courses in the core, would be represented on the new committee for quite some time. So I consulted with all the senators of the College of Liberal Arts and a strong majority of them support an amendment that I’d like to introduce, which in a nutshell would keep the current representation of the units that teach in the core on the committee, but then expand it to of course include representatives from all of the nine core teaching departments. I had provided a copy of the amendment that I now propose and I mark this up in two parts; the upper part revises the clean copy of what the main resolution would have Section 11 read, so my changes as amended that I’m proposing, that the faculty membership would have and if my math is correct, it would total 17 faculty members to be distributed as follows, so this repeats from what is in the current core committee: There shall be 7 representatives from the core areas, 1. composition or literature, 2. fine arts, 3. history, 4. mathematics, 5. natural sciences, 6. philosophy, 7. social sciences, and then the rest of it would be the same as what the main motion is, so: two from COSAM, one from math one from natural Science, and then one from each of the nine core teaching Colleges or Schools except for the graduate school.
Appreciating that if my amendment were to pass there would be no slate of candidates for this hybrid and so I’ve written language for implementation of this which if necessary could be divined from the question, but basically which everyone has seen the Senate has been given two lists, one for the core committee as it’s presently structured for the membership of that should this resolution or any amendments fail, one for the new committee, so in order to for Dr. Glaze to have a committee to work with immediately if my resolution passes. We would first approve the slate for the Core Committee members and then take the people who don’t appear on that list from the list of Core Committee General Education because the way that the Rules Committee had worked it out if the main motion passes, no presently serving member of the Core Committee would be bumped off of their term. Which by the way would lead to an anomaly that if we pass the main motion there will still, for the short term, be three members of Liberal Arts because there currently are three serving members of Liberal Arts on the Core Committee. I was a member doing a one-year finishing of a term last year the Core Committee but that term expired so I’m not on the Core Committee, so I’m not on any of those lists. Anyway that’s my amendment, thank you for your patience.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: So we have a motion to amend the current resolution. Do I hear a second?
Someone: I second.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Okay. Any discussion? [38:52]
Chris Corea, senator from the department of Psychology: I just want to quickly speak in support of the amendment. I was asked to consider it and discussed it with a broad range of faculty from my department including the chair and Dr. Elizabeth Brestan Knight who currently sits on the Core Curriculum Committee, and she in particular was just in favor of this more inclusive configuration of membership. Her perception was that often work on this committee the original Core Curriculum Committee is somewhat hindered and delayed when there is not broad representation of folks teaching across the core and thought that that would carry over into the work that the expanded committee would be asked to consider. So I just wanted to offer that in support that the more representation from the core curriculum that’s on this committee perhaps the more efficient and ultimately the more effective their work will be. Thank you. [39:53]
Steve Brown, senator from Political Science: I’d just like to offer our support also for this amendment. Dr. Glaze had mentioned that there’re alleys of General Education as the taskforce has designated as well as the realities for the students are put forth in this initial motion. I would just like to encourage the senators to vote on and think about the realities of actual teaching here at Auburn, where so many classes are taught by English and History in the Liberal Arts that this committee be composed of adequate representation to reflect the realities of the core curriculum here at Auburn and would encourage them all to support this amendment.
Thank you Mike (for letting her proceed first). Emily Myers, department of Sociology, anthropology and Social Work: I too uphold our senators and we would like to support this amendment for broader representation on the committee, for many of the same reasons that have already been mentioned.
Mike Stern, senator from Economics: I also support this amendment, but I have one question. If we vote in favor of this amendment are we also voting in favor of the suggested implementation?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: At this point we are, it’s not separated, unless somebody makes a motion to separate.
Mike Stern: Well, I will make a motion to separate them.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Is there as second? Who? Constance?
Mike Stern: It’s two separate issues, I just think that if I support the amendment, I think the implementation should be thought about a little bit, because I haven’t really had a chance to think about it because I haven’t seen the amendment before this composition. But I fully agree if you are going to revise the Core areas that are obviously likely to be in the core are almost overwhelmingly going to be, if they aren’t present for the discussion it doesn’t seem to me that the outcome would carry as much weight of legitimacy otherwise, but I would certainly support the amendment but I think the implementation needs to be discussed separately.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: All those in favor of separating, say aye.
Group: Aye
Kathryn Flynn, chair: All opposed? Say nay. (pause) I am assuming everyone is abstaining. I suppose it passes then. All right so we have, what we’ll do then if no one has any comments or questions we will vote on the amendment to the resolution. All those in favor of the amendment say aye.
Group: Aye.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Those opposed? (pause) I am assuming everyone that didn’t vote is abstaining. So the amendment passes. So now do we have a motion to accept the implementation clause? [43:00] No, sorry my mistake got lost in Robert’s Rules.
Is there any discussion of the implementation procedure? If not, all those in favor of the implementation procedure say aye.
Group: Aye.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Those opposed, Nay? (pause) The implementation procedure also passes.
Okay so now we have a resolution with an amended description of the committee. Does anybody want to discuss the amended composition, or are you ready for me to call for the vote?
The parliamentarian reminded me that I should let you know that this resolution is an amendment to the Constitution and it will require a two-thirds majority (vote) of the Senate, not of the people here, but of the Senate. So if there’s no further discussion then I would like for you to raise your hands if you are in favor of the amended resolution and implementation policy. (counting) [45:51]
Okay, I counted 55 people who voted in favor. A two-thirds majority of the Senate requires 58 votes so the resolution failed to pass because it did not meet a two-thirds majority. For that reason we will put forward the slate of members for the committee as it currently exists for approval. This is the slate of members that is presented to you from the Rules Committee, it does not require a second, so all in favor of the members nominated by the Rules Committee? Oh, is there any discussion first? Does anybody have any questions about the slate of members?
Jennifer Brooks, senator from History: I need clarification on exactly how we made the transition that we’re voting on.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: How we made the transition?
Jennifer Brooks: Basically, how this fits in with what we just approve in terms of the amendment.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Okay. The Amendment was defeated or it was not approved by two-thirds majority of the Senate, so therefore it didn’t pass. And so the only committee structure that we have is the existing committee structure. Because the change in the committee structure is a change in the Constitution of the Senate which requires two-thirds majority, and since we only had 55 people vote in favor and a two-thirds majority of the senate is 58 votes, it was basically defeated. Constance?
Constance Hendricks, senator from Nursing: I ask for a point of clarification. I believe that there are Senators present who were unsure of what the actual process entailed in that last vote. Now maybe it is my misunderstanding, but I perceive that Senators may have been under the impression that when they voted to accept the amendment that the process was over, and that they may not have understood the process. So I am merely brining up a point of clarification. That’s why you had, Madam Chair, the question prior. And I failed to introduce myself, Constance Hendricks, senator, Nursing.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: The parliamentarian says that the prevailing group can call for a recount. So is that what you would like us to do?
Constance Hendricks: Yes, madam chair with clarification of what our action would entail, that would verify what voting for or voting against might mean. For clarification for us to vote again.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Okay. [49:10] You want to speak first?
?Mike Stern: I don’t understand this procedure, but how many Senators are present here today?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: We have 58 Senators here.
Mike Stern: Okay, so there are 58 here that would have to vote in order to pass? Now if it doesn’t pass don’t we then need to vote on the resolution because this is an amendment?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: That’s what we did. We voted on the amendment and we voted on the implementation
Mike Stern: Right but you have… we didn’t vote on the original [49:54] but we voting on the amendment, but the amendment failed
Kathryn Flynn, chair: But the amendment failed.
Mike Stern: You said we did amend the original.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: We did amend the original, we adopted James Goldstein’s amendment that was approved by the Senate, by majority of the Senate. The implementation procedure was approved by a majority of the Senate, so that now becomes the resolution.
Mike Stern: Okay, so we need a two-thirds to pass the amended resolution.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: You need a two-thirds majority, yes.
Mike Stern: And all 58 that are present must do so.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Yes.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Did everybody who’s a Senator sign in at the back? (not me, a few call out) If you’re a Senator and you did not sign in, if you’d please do that then we will recount and see what happens. [50:56]
[51:46] I apologize for the confusion, and we’ll give Russ Muntifering a chance to do a recount of the number of Senators present. We have a couple of people who want to make comments while we’re waiting. [52:08]
Anna Gramberg, College of Liberal Arts, senator: I applaud my colleague from Nursing to admit she was confused, I think a lot of us were too. Would it be too German to ask for a written vote?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: It would not be too German (laughter) we don’t have ballots but if you have a piece of paper just tear it off and once we get the numbers we’ll. How about we have people stand up and we’ll go through and count. I’ll get two people to go up the aisles and we’ll count, okay? So there will be no question.
Michel Smith, department of Mathematics and Statistics, not a Senator: I think I have a question of a parliamentarian. It appeared to me that the amendment was approved by a vocal vote, is that correct?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: yes
Michel Smith: But this resolution requires a two-thirds vote.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Amendments require a majority, the resolution, which is amending the Constitution requires two-thirds majority.
Michel Smith: That’s my puzzlement I guess, I don’t understand why the amendment, which is essentially to me sounds the same things as the resolution, does not require a two-thirds vote. One more thing…
Bill Sauser, parliamentarian: Michel, in the process of putting together the main motion the various amendments do not require a two-thirds vote they pass by majority. But once the main motion has been perfected and is put up for a vote, since in this case, the resolution amends the Constitution, it would require two-thirds vote of the full Senate.
Michel Smith: I guess Id like to ask one more thing. Since most of this was done orally and I’m not sure I caught all the words, I would like to know exactly what it is that we are voting for.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Okay, would you like for me to reread the Resolution? [54:38] Well actually the Resolution is not going to fit what has been approved as an amendment. (To parliamentarian: So how do I do that, he didn’t write it as a Resolution?)
Okay, so what we are going to be voting on is the change, the amendment that was proposed by James Goldstein from English. In it, Section 11. The Core Curriculum and General Education Committee shall consist of the Provost or designee as chair and faculty membership, and 17 faculty members to be distributed as follows: There shall be 7 representatives from the core areas, one from composition or literature, one from fine arts, one from history, one from mathematics, one from natural sciences, one from philosophy, one from social sciences, and one from each of the remaining Colleges or Schools excluding the Graduate School, and one from the University Libraries. The Director of Assessment shall serve as a non-voting ex-officio member of the committee. The committee shall have the responsibilities of recommending goals for General Education in the Core Curriculum and monitoring the university’s effectiveness in fostering student achievement of these goals. Towards this end the committee shall oversee the assessment of student learning in the Core including the evaluation of courses and may recommend to the University Senate changes in the Core Curriculum and General Education.
This also has the implementation part connected to it. In the event of the passage of this amendment and passage of the main Resolution so amended the Senate shall in the same meeting vote to approve the membership of the committee for 2009–2010 in a two stage process as follows: the Senate shall first vote to approve all of the candidates presented by the Rules Committee for the new Core Curriculum General Education Committee, and second the Senate shall vote on the candidates from the list from the Core Curriculum Oversight candidates presented by the Rules Committee who’s names were not included on the list of Core Curriculum General Education Committee candidates. [57:20]
We have 64 Senators or their proxies here today. Is there anyone who would like to discuss the Resolution that’s just been read?
Mike Stern: We need a two-thirds vote because this is changing the Constitution?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Yes.
Mike Stern: Matters of implementation go into the Constitution?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: It’s a composition of a constitutional committee and it would require a two–thirds vote. Yes.
Mike Stern: Well the implementation was separated, right? So it seems to me only the first part requires a two-thirds vote.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: That’ true, you’re correct. Yes sorry.
Mike Stern: We have to vote separately on the implementation. But the implementation only requires 50% then? So if this fails then we’re going to have a majority vote of implementation of something failed?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: That’s correct. It would be null and void but because of the way it’s set up, that’s what we would have to do to follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
James Goldstein : Am I recognized? [58:58]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Yes.
James Goldstein, again: My sense is that we already voted on the implementation and since that doesn’t change the Constitution and doesn’t need a two-thirds (vote) we don’t have to do that part over. As long as I’m up here I’ll just point out that if we don’t get two-thirds to approve the amended motion then all we have is a Core Curriculum committee, and we will have to clean up this mess sometime in the future. So I would strongly urge, although at least there would be a committee for Dr. Glaze to begin working with this month. Although I would urge every Senator present or their proxy to support this amended…obviously I’m the one who proposed it, but the alternative is not pretty. (lots of laughter) Thank you.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Thank you.
Constance Hendricks, senator from Nursing: Point of information, madam chair. Perhaps if we could be given the total number of Senators so that we all might understand where the two-thirds number is coming from. It might help us understand where you are coming up with that number.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Okay, We have a total membership in the Senate of 87, and my calculations, two-thirds of that would be 58, and that’s where the two-thirds majority would come from. And we have 64 of those people here today. Does anybody have any further… [1:01:02]
Mike Stern: Point of order, we require 58 or 59?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: 59, let me see where I did my calculations 87 divided by 3 is 29 times two would be 58.
Mike Stern: So 58 will do it, doesn’t need to be more than two-thirds but exactly two-thirds.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Yes that’s exactly two-thirds majority. Okay, does anybody have any other questions or comments? If not, all those in favor of passing the amended resolution say aye. Well actually, stand up, stand up. (more laughter) [1:01:57] [1:03] Okay, everyone can sit down. I’d like to thank you all for your patience. We got 58 votes. (applause)
Painful as it was, we got the motion passed. The Resolution passed.
Okay that means that the next item on the agenda is to approve committee membership and that goes to the implementation that we passed by majority vote. So what we have to do is look at the existing Resolution from Rules for the new committee, which is this (8-28-09).
What this does is give representation, it approves the people who are currently on the committee and then it gives representation to the other units on campus who are not currently represented. Does anybody have…this is from the Rules Committee it does not require a second, does anybody have any questions or comments?
Mike Stern: what precisely does it mean, Pharmacy three question marks, in terms of what we’re voting for? [1:04:20]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: We have not filled the pharmacy slot. This has happened in the past, we leave it vacant we have someone we are working with on the pharmacy, I just didn’t have time to get it finished. So what we’ve done in the past when we have the smaller units it’s sometimes hard to get all the committees filled before we have the vote and we have someone that should be available in the next week.
Mike Stern: What’s the method by which this list comes about, is it just nomination out of the Rules Committee or what’ the process by which this is formed?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: There’s a call for volunteers in the spring for Senate and University Committees. Faculty are able to volunteer, the Rules Committee takes the list of volunteers and tries to match people up to the committees that they are interested in. If we don’t get volunteers from units that have a need for a member then we go out and solicit volunteers.
Mike Stern: Does the Rules Committee generate it.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: The Rules Committee generated this list, yes. [1:05:26]
All those in favor of this slate of members say aye.
Group: Aye.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: All opposed? Nay. (pause) the slate passes.
Now, and I may have to have James come help me, to make sure that I do this the way he has outlined and that was passed. [1:06] (laughter)
James Goldstein: Permission to approach the bench.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: (laughter) Permission granted.
James Goldstein: The bigger group they were already just a group, they carried over onto the list we just looked at. Now the only new ones to add are the 5 on the bottom, Mary Mendonca was also on that other list too. So it’s the English representative, History, and Mechanical Engineering that are the only new members.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: So what he’s saying is that English, History, and Mechanical Engineering would be the three additional members that would be needed. So all in favor… Does anyone have any questions or comments? Okay, all in favor of…
Mark Fischman, senator from Kinesiology: That list you have on the screen is from 8-24-09, we were given a new list from 8-28-09.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: they are different committees
Mark Fischman: Core Curriculum and General Education Commmittee
Kathryn Flynn, chair: That would be if this Resolution had not passed then this would be the Nominations for the old Core Curriculum and Oversight Committee, which no longer exists. We’ve replaced it with the new General Education and Core Curriculum [and Oversight] committee.
Mark Fischman: I don’t understand what that list is for then.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: What this list is for: when James introduced, James Goldstein introduced his amendment what he did was to hybridize the existing core curriculum oversight committee and the proposed General Education Core Curriculum Committee. And what he did as a favor to us was to then suggest a way to, if his amendment passed we would be able to staff that committee at this meeting, because they need to begin work for this academic year. And so the amendment that we just passed has membership, 5 members from the college of Liberal Arts, 2 from COSAM, and then one from each of the remaining units excluding the graduate school. So what he suggested to do was take the Rules recommendations for the new committee which did not have, it had 2 members from Liberal Arts, excuse me it had 3 and it needed 2 more, and then take the list that would have been approved if the Resolution failed and take the people from that list who would fill the slate. Does that make sense? No?
Mark Fischman: I’m just glad this group is not in charge of reforming health care (laughter)
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Here is the implementation plan, that was passed.
Mike Stern: How many total representatives are supposed to be on this committee?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: 17 faculty.
Mike Stern: Okay, can you please place up the thing that we just approved, the slate of people? Alright, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, I didn’t count the top two. Is the Library not considered? For every member, there are 17 members of the committee or what? [1:11:17]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: We have a hold over from last year that will add an additional person from COSAM, and that will account for the difference in the number. Because we named a person to the committee last year from the department of geography and there was a request from the committee that we add someone from geology which is a natural science, geography is, even though they are in the same department, is not considered a natural science so we didn’t conform to the requirements of the committee at that time. So we have one extra member on that committee already.
Mike Stern: So how many members are we supposed to have on what we just passed? I mean…
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Well (we’d have) 17 as the committee morphs into its new form. [1:12:12]
Mike Stern: There’s 17 members period of the committee.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: No, there’s not 17 members because you have administrators who are also members.
Mike Stern: But other than administrators, 17 does that included Library representative, 17 total
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Yes.
Mike Stern: There will be 17 total members besides administrators
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Well when this was discussed in the Rules Committee we made the choice not to bump people off the committee, we would keep the existing membership through the change because it didn’t seem fair to have someone who was currently serving on the committee and then ask them to step off. [1:12:51]
Mike Stern: So what did we just approve, the 17 people. Is that the committee now that will be serving under the thing that we passed with 58 votes or…?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: James would you like to address…,you’re the one that came up with this model. Do you have any comments.
James Goldstein: I’m not sure I can explain it any better. I never claimed that it was elegant. Yeah, my implementation portion kept the anomaly that the Rules Committee during steering had originally introduced that for a temporary period there would be more representatives on the committee than the actual language of the amended Constitution would require. [1:13:54] I think that’s the best that I can say.
Mike Stern: I just want to point out that this is why I made a motion to separate implementation, because I don’t think it was thought out properly.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Well it passed so now we deal with it.
Patricia Duffy, I am from ag econ in the provost’s office, I’m not a senator: But I have it counted out for you, for the long run, not for the little interim. You’ll have 5 from Liberal Arts, 2 from COSAM, and this is just the faculty, and then you’ll have 10 from other units, 1 from AG, 1 from education, 1 from business, 1 from engineering, 1 from forestry/wildlife, 1 from pharmacy, 1 from nursing, 1 from human sciences, 1 from the library, 1 from vet med, so there’s 10 additional representatives outside of the 7, so you had on your first slate, you had everybody the two additional members of Liberal Art who I think were English and History if I am remembering correctly. Roy Knight was already approved in the first slate, so it’s Michelle Sidler and I cant see… Morris Bian from History. [1:15:16] I can’t see, I can’t hear, I smell…my sense of smell is still working but it’s not helping me right now. So those are the two that need to be approved. (applause)
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Thank you Patricia. So is everybody…(thinks someone is coming to the microphone) It was just a fake.
Patricia Duffy: I’m sorry, I forgot Architecture, sorry I left out a college.
Mike Stern: Okay so there’s a committee that consists of 17 people that will have 19 people on it?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: For one year, yes. And that’s a holdover from what exists now…
Mike Stern: But was that in the Constitution? [1:16:06]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: No. we are working with an existing committee that had one or two extra people on there for reasons that were a request by the chair
Mike Stern: So are they voting or just not participating or just what occurres?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: I’m not on that committee, I don’t know.
Mike Stern: If the Constitution says there’s a committee with 17 members, then there are 17 members on the committee.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: If the chair asks for a specific needs, a specific expertise area to fulfill some requirement of the committee, the Rules Committee has been willing to name that person for some period of time. And that’s what has happened here.
Mike Stern: So there will be 19 voting members of the committee?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: For one year. Yes.
Mike Stern: I’m not an expert on Senate Rules Committee construction, whatever, so I’d ask the parliamentarian, If the Constitution says there’s a committee with 17 members, does there have to be 17 members on the committee, that are voting? Otherwise what does the number of membership mean?
Bill Sauser: When the motion was put forward there was a motion to separate and thus the Constitutional Amendment has passed, the separation, the implementation was a different motion and that’s the one she’s putting into effect.
Mike Stern: So what are we voting on now? There are two more members to a 17 member committee or…?
Kathryn Flynn, chair: The list is what it is.
Constance Hendricks, senator from Nursing: In a transition in committee structure, in any group, transition requires flexibility. And so what will happen in the transition is we will have 19, and as those two persons who’s term ends in 2010 roll off the committee will then comply with bylaws as we have just amended. And the committee will from that time on be constituted with 17 persons.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: thank you. Okay, is there any other question or comments. If not, I am asking you to approve the two additional names from English and History for the General Education and Core Curriculum Committee. All those in favor.
Group: Aye.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: Those opposed?
One voice: Nay.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: The motion passes. [1:18:58] Thank you.
I appreciate your patience. We are now going to move to the information portion of the agenda. And I am going to call on Claire Crutchley to come forward, she’s going to introduce some information related to the academic calendar.
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: good afternoon everyone, I am anticipating that this will come as a n action item next time. What I would really like for all of you to do is take this back to your faculty, talk to them and discuss the issues of the calendar.
Right now, there is a handout in the back which was attached to the agenda, but also on the back of has some information that Patricia Duffy collected about other schools. I’m representing the Steering committee on this and when Auburn went from quarters to semesters, the Senate passed a Resolution that all Semesters would have 75-class days. And that is what the Calendar Committee operates under, they are required to put 75-class days into the academic calendar. So what’s happened though is that 75-class days and all the other requirements don’t fit into a normal 365 day year. And since Auburn cannot expand the year we need to look at some issues some ways to make this calendar work. So this is not coming from the Calendar Committee, the Calendar Committee will work with whatever the Senate passes. So if you choose to keep the 75-class day or if we move to a different one.
There are lots of constraints in the calendar and a lot of them you know, we need 5–6 days of exams. I did a poll and this is kind of an aside, but I did a poll to try to figure out about labs and studio classes, I polled, tried to get to every college every department and that will be used to help implement the calendar if we do a shortened calendar. But I got some comments about the exam day, I just said any other comments you want to give to me, people said, “when you have 5 class days and you overlap exams, I have students that are in, who have another exam and that might be fine for a small section but I have a 300 class section and I have a lot of students I have to reintroduce.” Anyway we can’t go shorter than 5 and 5 is causing problems for some faculty, 6 is optimal, but I’ll just say 5–6.
We need 2 days between exams and graduation, and that has not been happening lately and in future calendars it looks like it’s not happening. Spring semester there was only one day for grading for faculty, I know in our department there was a faculty member who had an exam Wednesday night full of graduating seniors, gave an essay exams, had one day to grade all those essay exams, didn’t do it and there was a lot of stress on a lot of people because of that. I think we need to have 2 days, and that’s pretty much policy but unfortunately with the length in calendars that hasn’t been happening. And what’s probably happening is those other faculty who say I only have one day to grade go to multiple choice exams, so if we’re thinking about academic rigor and what do we want to keep with the University do we want our graduating seniors to have multiple choice exams or do we want them to have essay exams just because of the length of the calendar. So when you think about academic issues make sure you take into account everything on academic issues.
Fall Semester: I’m hearing stories and sometimes we don’t hear these stories, but of students who try to go see an advisor after their grades are turned in and everything is shut down. So I think we need an extra day after graduation that students can go see advisors, see faculty, have offices open, so we really do need at least one day there.
This may be too small (referring to the powerpoint slide). The registrar’s office said that they need 9 days to do all the processing they do between semesters. And this process is academic actions, check prerequisites, check scholarships, this does not mean 9 work days, well it means 9 work days for them, but it means 9 actual days, they work on weekends, they work at nights. I believe these 9 days are to let them have some sleep between the semesters I think that was my gathering.
Student needs: they need to be able to talk to advisors and faculty between semesters and however we may feel about GAPing of classes, it is a policy, they need time to do this so they can register for the next semester. And I don’t know how many of you are dealing with students who come into your class late, but I have a lot of them, and also to appeal grades which again we may not be to happy when students appeal grades but it is part of the policy, so try to get that done between semesters.
Other considerations: This summer’s graduation was on a Monday and the move in day for Freshman and Sororities was Saturday before the Monday of graduation. That’s not a good construction. And also I am hearing from a lot of faculty that they need more time between semesters. One college likes to take an international trip after spring semester, their students come back late or the faculty come back late and can’t start summer semester because there is such a short time between spring semester and summer semester. Other people want to get their blackboard courses up between semesters and some faculty say well I need more time to do research. So I am hearing from faculty those considerations also.
Can we go to less than 75 class days? And this is what’s on the back of the handout that I gave you. There a lot of universities that have less than 75 class days. I will tell you right up front though Alabama and Georgia have 75 class days. So we have 2 of our SEC peers that have 75 class days, so we’re not saying that everybody does but most schools that we find do have less than 75 class days if you want to look at this handout that Patricia Duffy prepared it’s on the back (table).
A lot of this goes back to when Auburn went from quarters to semesters. And Patricia Duffy also looked that up, than you, and she found out that the last 2 years before we went to semester transition, every quarter had 46–47 days. So if you translated that, that was fall, winter, spring, if you took the higher class days 47 that’s 141 class days in fall, winter, spring, now we have 150 days, fall and spring. So we added 9 days to our semester, 9 class days to our semester in the ordinary academic year when we did our transition. So we used to be able to teach in a shorter amount of time. So Auburn also used to be able to teach…
How could we keep 75 class days? If we are so concerned that we need that academic calendar so we can keep 75 class days, how can we squeeze these into the calendar? Well I tried to think of creative solutions, we could eliminate Memorial Day and Labor Day. Probably that means that classes would be held when offices are closed. I don’t know, that would have to be decided by I guess the president, if that’s how that happens. I doubt we’ll take July 4 and teach on July 4 unless July 4 is a Saturday and not take a July 3rd day. I doubt we want to take Martin Luther King day and teach then, so anyway that’s one way. We could shorten the Thanksgiving break. Students have asked again and again for a fall break, a 2 day fall break and the answer has always been well we have a week of Thanksgiving break. So if we shorten the Thanksgiving break and didn’t give a fall break, I don’t think the students would be happy. It’s my perception, they may be perfectly fine with it, I may be wrong. And of course there’s the December break, shorten our holiday break and the spring break I doubt those are going to go over too well either. But those are ways that we can get more days in the calendar.
Other ways that we can. When we first went to semesters we did not have an exam day for our mini-mester only for the 10-week semester, but I think that only gives us one day. We could only get one day because I think they only do those Friday and Saturday, so I think that would give us only one extra day.
So what are we going to do? I don’t know, I haven’t made a proposal yet, but what have I done? I’ve collected all the information as I said at the beginning. We really want to hear from faculty. Do they truly need 75 class days in the semester, if they do the calendar committee is going to have to restructure and take those days from somewhere.
In October I plan to present a resolution to the Senate with a shortened semester and after that resolution is presented then the Calendar Committee will take that resolution and change the calendar. They will probably have to change it one way or another, leaving 75 class days and shortening some holidays somewhere, or having a shorter semester perhaps 72 class days and having larger breaks between the semesters. So that is all I have for you now. I welcome any questions or comments.
Herb Rotfeld: If you back up one screen if you would to your strategies.
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: Please introduce yourself.
Herb Rotfeld from the department of marketing, not a member of the Senate but I didn’t see people rushing to the microphone: Just a couple of items of history of things. There as you mention, how many days we had to the quarter. When we went to semesters people were specifically talking about the shrinking quarter calendar and wanting to have some standards and length with things and when you end up with 72 days, one thing you end up with is, I’ll say, inconsistent academic standards. Because classes don’t meet 5 days a week. So if you have a Monday, Wednesday, Friday class or a Tuesday/Thursday class some people will have 14-week semesters some people will have more. The summer term one exam day was added because without it you had a group of classes that had their final exam on the last class day, which defeated certain things. Which brings up the one strategy that’s been obvious to me for several years and is not on your list. Why do we have a ten-week summer term? We have two mini terms of 5 weeks, most people, according to the registrar that talked once, said that’s what most people on campus are doing; why not a single 7.5-week summer semester? That’s conspicuous by its absence.
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: You’re right I didn’t point that out. I did have one college that said they needed the 10-week, I think it was education and I don’t have my notes with me, they said make sure we have a 10-week summer (semester). Is anyone from education here? I’m not sure (about the college), but that is a possibility.
Guy Rohrbaugh, senator from philosophy: I was just curious, how low do some of those other schools go?
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: Did you get the handout? We have, oh, now I don’t have my reading glasses, University of Minnesota, some of them have shorter falls than they do springs, so most of them are between 70 and 75.
Steve Brown, political science I’m a senator: I was going to say Claire, I was on this committee, the Calendar Committee before and we talked about this same thing. And I have a couple of questions I guess. We were never able to find where the Senate actually authorized 75 days when we were on it. We looked and looked and it seemed like let’s just throw this number, and we could be wrong on that. The other thing I thought was interesting is that with the calendar there seemed to be this big discrepancy between what science and mathematics wanted with the 75 days and what others wanted. Virginia, I put a schedule together when I was on the calendar committee in Virginia only has 68 days. 68 fall semester and 70 spring and it’s comparable to some of these other ones, they take it out of other areas. But anyway if you could just clarify maybe before that October resolution if the Senate actually did take action, and did formalize that 75 day thing, I’m just curious about it.
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: I don’t have the exact date, but I am very sure that it was passed in the senate.
Patricia Duffy: I was there it was in ’98, I’m not sure of the exact month, was it October, Herb? I’m Patricia Duffy again. It absolutely did pass as a Senate motion. [1:33:01] When we were debating before we implemented the semester was discussed in the Senate and then it was in 2005, 2004 we had a revote on it. I did introduce that motion you’re right, Herb. I did introduce the motion to revote on a shorter (term) Senate it was defeated at that time by a handful of votes I believe.
Claire Crutchley, chair-elect: Any other comments or questions? Well again I welcome your comments and I will bring a resolution next time, next month. [1:33:42]
Kathryn Flynn, chair: We have one final item. If you’ll bear with us for just a few minutes, I am going to call up George Crandell who is associate dean of the Graduate School and Paul Harris who’s associate director of the University Honors College. They are going to present information on an accelerated bachelor’s and master’s degree program.
George Crandell, associate dean of the Graduate School: Good afternoon and thank you for your patience as the last person on the agenda, I’ll try to give an accelerated presentation. What we are proposing is an accelerated bachelor’s and master’s degree program to meet the needs of special students at Auburn University. As Dr. Gogue already mentioned we have increasingly better students coming to Auburn and this is one program that I think and the Honors College agrees will help these students. The goals of the program are to attract outstanding students to Auburn to encourage students to enroll and complete the Honors Program and also to encourage students, outstanding students to begin their graduate education at Auburn. It’s a plan that fits with the Auburn University Strategic Plan in terms of the Honors College by providing value to students, to providing a challenge to them and also making effective use of their time. These are things that the Honors Committee Taskforce also recommended. It also helps to meet the needs of the graduate school in terms of enhancing our programs and helping us to reach our goal of 5,000 students.
There are a number of benefits that also accrue to students, it offers them the opportunity to earn the bachelor’s degree and the master’s degree in less time and less cost by from counting from 9–12 hours toward both degrees. And it also enhances their employment prospects. It’s increasingly not just about a bachelor’s but a master’s degree is kind of an entrance requirement for employment. There are also benefits that accrue to Auburn University in terms of it enabled us to recruit outstanding students. It also enables us to enroll exceptional Auburn University students in our own graduate programs and it fosters the kind of interaction between undergraduate and graduate education and that you see in some of the best research institutions. Although there is a great emphasis on Honors students participating in the program and we hope that it will enable more Honors students to enroll and complete that program, it is a program that will be open to all students at the university. They are not required to participate in the Honors College.
It’s also a voluntary program in the sense that any college or school or program that wants to implement such a program can do so by proposing it and having it go through the university curriculum process, but if an accelerated degree is not one that is not particularly appropriate for your degree program, there’s no requirement that you participate in this kind of program. And finally just to give you some indication this is not something that we are inventing, it is a program that has been implemented for a number of years at many of our peer institutions. The program that we are presenting is largely modeled after the one at Georgia and NC State, but is a very popular program at other institutions that we consider our peers. Be glad to answer your questions, I am joined by Paul Harris from the Honors College who can also answer questions as well. [1:37:23]
Dale Coleman, representing the college of agriculture: Just out of curiosity on page 3 of the proposal it says, honors students who are making satisfactory progress toward completion of the requirements of the Honors College will be given priority consideration for admission to graduate school. How will that be implemented? How will that graduate school give priority to a student if they are applying to one college or another whether they came through this program or not?
George Crandell: That would be in terms of meeting the requirements for admissions to the graduate school. Individual departments can set their own admissions requirements. And as the proposal indicates, departments or the programs that are proposing these accelerated programs can set higher standards for admission than other that are set in this guidelines.
Yasser Gowayed, senator polymer fiber engineering: You have given this a thought, how can this proposal impact regular master’s programs and without thesis? Now we have regular master’s programs how will this proposal affect regular master’s programs? How will it affect enrollment in it? How will it affect current students that are in it?
George Crandell: Well I’m not sure that it would adversely affect the students. The idea is to encourage students to continue their graduate education by completing their requirement for the undergraduate degree at a faster pace. I’m not sure how it will affect enrollment. The students will still be completing the same degree requirements for the master’s degree.
Yasser Gowayed: you will have two types of students, master’s students going at the same time, ones with regular two years with 36 hours say for example, and others that are going with less number of credit hours and going for the same degree getting the same level. I see that as a disadvantage seen from the eyes of regular master’s students, that the other students coming from the same program got a better advantage over them. Do you think that would have a negative effect? If students stick to their university rather than venture going to another university which we always promote as giving different culture?
George Crandell: thank you. I think they are completing the same degree requirements whether they are taking the accelerated program or the regular master’s program.
Paul Harris: Let me make an addition to this. What we did when we started this conversation over a year ago, we were trying to really from the Honors College point of view, we have so much rigor in our Honors thesis that we wanted to give an opportunity for those students who bring AP credit hours into Auburn who, in this case were enrolled in the Honors College, but they don’t necessarily have to be, and the idea was that when we spoke to parents and potential students and we told them that there would be an opportunity that within 3 years with that AP credit you would finish your undergraduate degree and then you could enroll in the master’s program. That was one of the biggest talking points was that when we would meet with parents and potential recruits all throughout the state and when we went out of the state. What we did in order to assess the need, we got in touch with Drew Clark’s office and they ran the following parameters. And the parameters were run at the end of spring semester, those were students who had completed their freshman year at Auburn, who had 45 semester hours or more and who had a GPA of 3.4 or above. And we were really surprised we had over 500 students who met those parameters. So not all those students were in Honors College, so there obviously is a need on this campus and what we wanted to do is when we brought this to the Curriculum Committee we wanted to make it clear that as George had mentioned, that it’s not just for the Honor’s students, although the honor’s students who are completing their senior project who in fact bring in their AP credit and it’s quite common for them to bring in more than 15–20 semester hours into Auburn we found that this would be a need where we could not only encourage students and create an incentive for them to complete an Honors thesis, but at the same time we could add to the quality of our graduate programs here at Auburn. So that’s a little bit of the background from the Honor’s College point of view.
George Crandell: Are there any other questions?
Jennifer Brooks from History, senator: the question I had about this and I’m not very familiar with accelerated programs so this may be reflected in these other programs. How does the mechanism work exactly in what you’re proposing so that students could count undergraduate credits as graduate credits? So they could count…sounds to me from the proposal that one could take, count an undergraduate course towards receiving your graduate degree.
George Crandell: That is correct for master’s programs that allow 30 hours, they would be allowed to count up to 9 hours and for larger programs that count up to 36, they’d be allowed to count 12 hours as essentially those hours would count toward both degrees.
Jennifer Brooks: Okay, what does that mean in terms of differentiating between the expectations in standards of an undergraduate course versus a graduate course and part of what I’m thinking of I’m sure you’ve already thought of this, but I’m thinking of SACS also, in terms of differentiating quality between types of programs.
George Crandell: Well as you can see some of these institutions that have programs already are SACS institutions so I don’t think that SACS has a problem with this, allowing the courses to count for both. At the graduate level the students are still required to take the same number of hours for graduate credit and I think in terms of the undergraduate course they are receiving a better quality course in that they are in the same class with other graduate students.
Jennifer Brooks: So would this be essentially maybe expanding what we already do where we have the split courses the split 5000, 6000 course, is that what you’re proposing?
George Crandell: Yeah, I think some of the programs that would be most amenable to doing this would be those that already have piggy-back courses and where the course could count for both the undergraduate and the graduate degree.
Jennifer Brooks: Okay, I don’t mean to belabor a point but my experience with those courses is that there are additional requirements, in other words a student who’s a graduate student taking a split course has many different requirements in order to receive that credit than an undergraduate, so is there a mechanism here that ensures that?
George Crandell: Well the programs will be the ones submitting the requirements for the degree and they could hold the students to higher expectations in the course that they put forward to be counted for both the undergraduate and graduate degree.
Jennifer Brooks: when this comes again it would be for me at least helpful to maybe have more specific clarification on how SACS would view that issue. And I say that because I came from an institution 4 years ago when I came to Auburn and that institution was on probation for 2 years for this almost exact issue. So I would like to see that clarified.
George Crandell: Thank you.
Tony Moss, biological sciences, senator: So what you’re saying then is that with the overlap in the undergraduates forth year they would start to take graduate courses at that point, as many as 9 hours of graduate classes in that
George Crandell: Probably so yes,
Tony Moss: So would this then necessarily be a program that would allow for theses to be carried out in the graduate school and would an honors student continue to have thesis?
Paul Harris: And you know you work with honors students all the time and you know, I think anyone who has worked with our honors students has carried those thesis through know the rigor that’s involved with that and what Jim Hansen and I had envisioned is that is would be a continuation of that. That is very similar to the European system of the N-fil and D-fil in that sense. You are carrying on that you already have a very established undergraduate research and you are just carrying that on to the next level so we do envision that. But again as George had stressed it is very departmental specific here. But we simply want to provide that opportunity to those departments who want to keep the best students here for that extra year.
Tony Moss: Thank you.
David King, geology geography, senator: This is sort of related to the issue you’re discussing about. Accelerating master’s programs, you know we could teach a lot more classes if we had some more faculty or if their teaching loads in the introductory classes were lower we could offer more graduate courses and students could get their course work out of the way faster. And also in the summer when many people don’t have support and are not around, if we were supported we could supervise students more in the summer and that would accelerate their program.
Sanjeev Baskiyar, computer science, senator: Just wondering these 9 to 16 credits, sorry 9 to 12 credits will they be restricted to 5000 level courses only or would you count 4000 and 3000 courses toward graduate programs, just for clarification?
George Crandell: They wouldn’t necessarily be graduate level courses to be counted for graduate credit. The departments would identify the course they would submit and then those courses would have to be approved by the graduate council and the university curriculum committee as well as part of the program.
Sanjeev Baskiyar: Thank you.
Kathryn Flynn, chair: That completes the action (information) items on the agenda. Is there any unfinished business that anyone would like to bring forward? Any new business? If not I’d like to thank everybody for your patience, I think we got a lot of work done today and I look forward to seeing you in October. The meeting is adjourned. [1:48:27]