Transcript Senate Meeting
October 9, 2018
Michael Baginski, Chair: Welcome to the October 9, 2018 meeting of the University Senate. This is our third meeting of the 2018–19 academic year.
If you are a senator or a substitute for a senator, please be sure you sign in onto the sheet at the top of the room. Be sure you have your clicker, because we will be using them today. Second, we need to establish a quorum. We have 87 Senators in the Senate and we need 45 for a quorum. Please press A on your clicker to show you are present.
Let the record show that we have 49 present to start the meeting, so a quorum is established. I now call the meeting to order.
I would like to remind you of some basic procedures for the Senate meeting for senators and guests. Let me explain the Senate rules about speaking. The rules of the Senate require that senators or substitute senators be allowed to speak first and then after they are done guests are welcome to speak. If you’d like to speak about an issue or ask a question, please go to the microphone on either side aisle. When it is your turn, state your name and whether or not you are a senator and the unit you represent.
The rules of the Senate require that senators or substitute senator be allowed to speak first, then after they’re done guests are welcome to speak.
The agenda today was set by the Senate Steering Committee and posted on the Web site in advance, it’s now up on the screen. The first order of business is to approve the minutes for the meeting of September 11, 2018. Those minutes have been posted on the Senate Web site. Are there any additions, changes, or corrections to the minutes? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Do I have a second? All in favor of approving the minutes say aye please.
Group: Aye.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Opposed? (No response)
The minutes are approved. Thank you. [2:11]
Now, I have a few brief remarks for the Senate. First, I know that Hurricane Michael is now approaching the coast and it should track well east of us. As of yesterday, it was supposed to give us one to two inches, but I’ve been told that we are only going to get a half inch so far. But the hurricane is something that is unpredictable and since the predicted path of the hurricane isn’t 100 percent sure, we may be in for something much worse, so please stay tuned to local news and weather. You should have the AU Alerts also coming at you if there is a problem. Hopefully the storm will not affect your fall break plans or the Tennessee Auburn football came this Saturday.
Second, a registration is now open for the 2018 Auburn Research Symposium. It’s a day-long event designed to give faculty, students, and alumni a chance to learn more about the variety of research underway at Auburn University. They symposium takes place from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday October 23, 2018 at the Auburn University Student Center.
Finally, let me just mention the Competitive Research Grant may be applied for, this is something that is internal. This is within the university but it’s important.
They are due by 4:45 p.m. on November 9, 2018. They will undergo a thorough evaluation by peer review panel. Funding for all the grants is for a 2-year period and more information is available at the Intramural grants program link.
There’s a six-minute video that takes you through how to apply for the program grant. If you need more information you can contact Bob Holm or Jonathan Cullum.
Next. Now, I’d like to introduce the officers of the Senate and our administrative assistant. Dan Svyantek is the immediate past chair, Nedret Billor is the chair-elect, Beverly Marshall is the secretary, and Adrienne Wilson is the secretary-elect, and James Witte is our parliamentarian. Finally, our administrative assistant, who we couldn’t do anything without, is Laura Kloberg. Are there any questions before I continue?
For the first action we will have Beverly Marshall come up to present the replacement members of Senate Committees to be voted on.
[4:44]
Beverly Marshall, secretary: We have 2 committee positions that need to be voted on today. Often times we have a couple of straggler situations where we don’t have a volunteer for a committee. Often times, too, we have someone who’s left the university, retired or whatever. So, these are some vacancies that we need to fill.
With your clicker, if you would vote A for yes and B for no. A=60, B=0. We have 60 votes in favor, thank you.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Next we have Aurora Weaver. She will do a brief presentation on amendments to the Faculty Handbook regarding multi-year contracts. [6:03]
Aurora Weaver, member of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: This is a pending action item that I believe you will be voting on at the next Senate meeting. Can you all hear me?
As a member of the University NTTF (Non-Tenure Track Faculty) Committee, over the last 2 years we discussed ways that we could improve the recruitment and retention of strong individuals holding these positions. In doing so we often review concerns or put out inquiries to say, “what could we do that would improve the retention of our good employees?”. [6:52] In doing so we actually were able to request of the COACHE Survey regarding job satisfaction. We were able to get the results for the individuals on our committee that are NTTF members. Upon reviewing that, as a committee we determined that recruitment and retention of these individuals would be improved if we were able to offer multi-year contracts. This would be following suit with some other institutions that are already doing this. What we did is we drafted a request to the Senate Leadership for consideration. In doing so, the Senate Executive Committee and Provost’s Office drafted the revision to the Faculty Handbook with the modifications in response to our request about the feasibility of offering multi-year contracts.
The revision of the Handbook is in sections 3.5.1, 3.5.2, and 3.5.3. The jist, even though I included that in the slides, so you may have already reviewed the actual language that we did, is to allow a department or an academic unit to offer multi-year contracts, up to 3 years to well qualified individuals. Now, this is pending annual performance reviews and available funding and approval of the dean. [8:17 bk] That was what we suggested, the language that was written up by the Provost’s Office and the Senate Executive Committee was taken to the Faculty Handbook Review Committee and they modified a little bit of the grammatical language, but overall approved this unanimously. This applies to our Lecturer title series which is section 3.5.1, our clinical title series 3.5.2, and, you can’t see it (on the screen) our research title series 3.5.3.
This is just for information, you are not voting on anything today, but I did include if you have not yet looked at the specific language these next slides are showing you exactly how the language will read. It’s allowing for individuals that have shown strong performance to be rewarded and see that their academic department and dean values their contributions and it would be something that would put a little bit of that control that each department unit’s hands. [9:38 bk]
Does anybody have any questions about this modification? (no response) Thank you for the time, I appreciate it.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Thank you.
Next, Emmett Winn will be talking about tenure on hire. [10:11 bk]
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: Good afternoon, it’s good to be back. It’s been a while since I’ve presented anything to the Senate. I will be super brief, this is information only. I was specifically asked not to read it. So, I won’t be reading the actual guidelines. I’ve brought some paper copies if anybody wants them. They are also provided with the agenda in a pdf and we’ll get Laura to flash it up there in a minute. (not found right away)
Anyway, if you take a look at it, those of you who are familiar with the approach of the tenure process notice that it mirrors the Faculty Handbook very closely in the way that it looks and things that it requires.
So, some background, tenure-on-hire has been practiced at Auburn University for many years, probably decades, recently some senior University Promotion and Tenure Committee members asked for guidelines to bring a little more consistency to the dossiers that are submitted to them for tenure-on-hire cases. The Provost’s Office then worked with the Senate Steering committee and we drafted some very simple guidelines (these would be Provost’s guidelines) and then the Faculty Handbook Review Committee, Ralph is here, reviewed these and helped us with some of the language to bring it in line. Then all 3 groups approved this.
The guidelines are included online, as I said. Briefly, I will tell you that the guidelines are structured to address the needs of 2 different reasons for tenure-on-hire. The first one you can see, is an external search has been conducted for a faculty member who currently holds tenure at the rank of associate professor or professor at an accredited university or college. This includes hiring for administrator positions such as chair or director of a department or school. Since I know many of you here today, I know that many of you received tenure-on-hire through this process. It is a common reason for tenure-on-hire and is well understood by the university.
Reason number 2 may not be as familiar to folks, this is when an external search has been conducted for an assistant and/or associate professor. (and I put it in red) The selected candidate does not currently hold tenure at the rank of associate professor at an accredited university or college. While hiring an untenured candidate with tenure at Auburn should be an exception, it may be appropriate in cases of strategic hiring, in order to do this.
Reason 2 is less common but is needed and the rational is as explained in the guidelines, “over the past several years, Auburn University has recognized an increased need for providing tenure on hire in filling certain faculty positions with highly qualified individuals. Examples include the very successful Strategic Hiring Initiative (which some of you know as Cluster Hires) and in recruiting diverse faculty.”
The guidelines make it clear that in these circumstances, the process needs to mirror the standard tenure and promotion process at Auburn. So, when hiring an untenured candidate with tenure at Auburn the process should resemble as closely as possible the standard tenure process at Auburn, including letters from external reviewers and the inclusion of teaching evaluations in the dossier.
That’s it. The Senate Leadership, the Provost’s Office, and the Faculty Handbook Review Committee developed these guidelines together. This is information only so that you will know that these guidelines will be coming out and posted on the Provost’s guideline Web site and some reference to it will be put into the Faculty Handbook. So that you can reach those by clicking through the Faculty Handbook.
That’s it, thank you. Are there questions?
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: What if you are an assistant with tenure?
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: I guess what you’re asking is what, if you are and assistant with tenure at another university and you have been hired at Auburn University through a faculty led process, and the faculty has decided that they want to award you tenure-on-hire at the level of associate.
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: Does it?
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: That’s what you are asking me?
[some over speaking here between the speakers, a bit garbled.]
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: It may be assistant…There are people here on this campus that have assistant professorships that have been offered tenure. [15:25 bk] I know of at least 2 people who when through that process.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: You cannot use this process for people at Auburn.
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: I know that, I know that, but if they are an assistant professor some place else and have tenure, obviously you are going to promote them to an associate professor.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: I think what you are asking me is; “What if a faculty member at another university is at the rank of assistant with tenure, and the faculty at Auburn University, who led the search process, now wants to hire that person as an associate professor with tenure.” Is that the question you are asking?
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: That’s not what the thing here says, it says you are coming in with an associate professorship, if you’re an associate or full professor at another university with tenure.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: That’s right.
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: The other line was that, if you could go back to it I think it was your second slide where you talked about…it didn’t say assistant professor.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: That’s right because I haven’t answered the question I’ve just restated it for you.
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: Yes, you restated it.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: The guidelines do not provide for that eventuality.
Robin Jaffe, senator, Theatre: That’s what I wanted to hear.
Emmett Winn, Assoc. Provost of Academic Affairs: Thank you.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Any other questions? Thank you Emmett.
Next, we are going to be discussing the possible reduction in the number of Senate meetings. Beverly Marshall will be doing that. You will need your clickers.
Beverly Marshall, secretary: Thank you again for those of you who submitted your Senator Survey. We’ve distributed many of your concerns and those of your constituents to our various Senate Committees, so they may begin to address those that fall under their mission.
Regarding the functioning of the Senate we would like to address a few items that could be, I’m going to use the phrase ‘low hanging fruit.’ Many suggested that we reduce the number of meetings, have an orientation for new senators, and make Senate meetings more efficient and less boring.
In response to those comments we have a couple of items for potential consideration. This is not for a vote but just for feedback at this time. It is not even an information item. The changes would require an amendment to the Handbook and would ultimately be under the domain of the Faculty Handbook Review Committee. However, I would like your feedback as to whether or not we should proceed. These are again comments coming from you as part of the Senator Survey. Currently the Faculty Handbook states that the Senate shall have one regular meeting each month during the months of August through June except December as scheduled by the Rules Committee. We’d like feedback on a couple of items.
One, do you think the August meeting as an orientation for new senators, roughly a third of our Senate, perhaps a little more beginning a 3-year term, and we have rotating Administrative appointments. We thought that a good way to use clickers would be to get some immediate feedback, which again is just a suggestion from the survey. I would like feedback on the following.
1.Senator orientation
Do you think we should have an orientation for new senators? Press A for yes and B for no.
A=44, B=20
2. Use August slot for orientation
Assuming you are in favor of an orientation, do you think this would be a good use of the August Senate slot? Not have a meeting in August, use that slot for an orientation. Press A for yes and B for no.
A=46, B=16
3. September Start
Would you be in favor of the regular Senate meetings commencing in the month of September, which would be a reduction at the beginning of the year in one meeting. Eliminating the August meeting and having it start in September. Press A for yes and B for no.
A=47, B=9
We had some people that didn’t vote on that one, I’ve lost you already, it’s like class. [chuckles from Senate]
4. Eliminate June meeting
This past June we failed to have a quorum. When we fail to have a quorum, we are unable to conduct any pending business including even the approval of minutes. Attendance at the June meeting is often a problem, would you favor elimination of the June meeting? Press A for yes and B for no.
A=54, B=4, C=1
We are not done yet, keep those clickers, we appreciate that feedback. Again, this would not eliminate the ability to call a special meeting. It would just mean a reduction in the actual number of meetings. So, what we would look at proposing would be starting in September and ending with the May meeting.
So today we had 2 committee members to vote on, and I tried to make that as interesting as possible. [much laughter] These volunteers actually came forward between September 18 and September 20, which was 3 weeks ago. Those committees have already in some cases started to meet and should have started their work at the beginning of the fall. So, we are delaying the composition of these committees, they have been approved by Rules, and again it is now 3 weeks later. This is not efficient, and I will refrain from calling this boring, but at a minimum it’s not interesting. So, there are some possible solutions. We are going to use the clickers. Again, this not a vote for a change, which would require going through the Faculty Handbook Committee, you would see this later if we do this but at this point is just for your feedback.
5. For the committee changes that occur after the start of fall semester, which is when these committees go into place. When the new term begins would you favor allowing these to be approved by Steering and Rules? We can still have them as an information item, but they would not require Senate vote. Press A for yes and B for no.
A=45, B=12
6. In the spring, some of you are new senators so you don’t know what I am talking about, but in the spring we have a large number of approvals as all of these committees need to be filled. Their term expires at the end of summer semester and then new committees are formed at the beginning of fall semester. When most of those committee assignments are made, we are throwing up a long list. What we would like to do is consider voting using an online anonymous survey instrument like QUALTRIX. Press A if you would be willing to use an online survey instrument to vote for that, and B for no.
A=58, B=1, E=1
Now I am going to hold you to it. if we do this, you do have to actually answer the survey. [25:29]
Thank you for your feedback today. Just reminding this is not a vote at this time. Any changes to the number of meetings or voting process requires an amendment to the Faculty Handbook, but thank you for your input today.
Michael Baginski, Chair: The last thing I am going to talk about today is an overview of the General Faculty meeting that is coming up on the 23rd of this month. We could have had more, but wanted to keep it to a reasonable timeframe.
The first person will talk on the Mell/Engaged Active Student Learning EASL facilities over at the Library. This will be the learning spaces and faculty development coordinator, Wiebke Kuhn. The second thing we will hear about is the faculty exit survey strategy. Annette Kluck and Dan Svyantek will be talking about that. A construction update, I am the one that champions this because I am always complaining about parking all the time. Dan King will speak on that. Then the new safety director is Kelvin King and he will be here talking about what his plans are for campus safety and security. I met him, and he is a great guy, he’s ex FBI, and has some plans he would like to share with us about safety. Finally, Don Andrae will be talking about parking and traffic. Dan King and Don will be talking about traffic and parking as a whole. I don’t know how they are going to do it, but I know they are.
This concludes our formal agenda for today. Is there any unfinished business?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: I have a question on the multi-year contract. Regarding the non-tenure multi-year contract for non-tenure track faculty. In our college we have a couple of people that teach that are non-tenure track faculty that are program champions. So, would those fall under this new procedure or possibility because it did specify, clinical, lecturer, and research.
Aurora Weaver, member of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: Are they currently on annual contracts?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: I believe they are. I think they are.
someone in the audience not at a microphone: Good question. I am not sure they are on an annual contract?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: Yes, they are on one-year contracts. So, they teach and are also responsible for doing a lot of engagement.
Aurora Weaver, member of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: But you are not sure if they are a lecturer title series, a clinical title series, or a research title series? Is that your question?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: They are not any one of those.
Same person not at the microphone: Lee Colquit are you here?
:
Lee Colquit (also not at microphone): She is 12 months, I don’t know where she might fall among these categories.
Beverly Marshall, secretary: Is she an annual contract? Okay.
Aurora Weaver, member of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: My understanding is that they may might fall under the title of lecturer title series and they may not be aware that they are. (more assessing-multiple voices). If they are TES, but it doesn’t sound like they are
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: I don’t think they are TES…
Michael Baginski, Chair: Could you send the specific question one more time and send it to Beverly Marshal or me and we will get it to the Provost and get you an answer?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: Okay. Thank you. [29:55]
Aurora Weaver, member of Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee: I would say from my own experience a lot of the clinical track series also carry a heavy load of outreach, so that doesn’t preclude someone, they could still be a lecturer title series or a clinical title series employee on the NTTF status and be doing a lot of research a lot of outreach and a lot of service for the department. So, I think if you clarify and cc our office and pass it on to our (committee) chair, we will get down to that. Any other questions while I am up here?
Dora Bock, senator, Marketing: Thank you. [30:26]
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: Since we’re discussing stuff out of order, you didn’t call for any questions about Beverly Marshall’s presentation. I was wondering if you are willing to take questions and comments for it?
Michael Baginski, Chair: What do you have?
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: I have some comments about what she was talking about in terms of what she was talking about in terms of reforming the Senate.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Go ahead.
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: So, if we are talking about reforming the Senate, I don’t know of the survey sent out, I didn’t see it, and was not surveyed about it, but there are 2 things I would bring up about the reforms that were suggested. First is the Senate should be made to represent the faculty, so it should not have non-faculty representatives, it should not have administrative appointments, etc. It should actually be a faculty senate instead of a university senate in keeping with other institutions. Second, I don’t think that the Senate has a policy by which it impeaches and removes officers of the Senate who do not represent the faculty or do not enforce the Faculty Handbook protections for the faculty against administrative abuse. So, I would certainly recommend those two, but of course wasn’t surveyed about it and didn’t hear of any discussion. [31:37]
Now with regard to your comments about the upcoming General Faculty meeting, I saw it on the agenda released that there weren’t any remarks listed by the President’s Office or the Provost’s Office. So, does that mean that they will not be speaking at the General Faculty Meeting?
Michael Baginski, Chair: To the best of my knowledge they won’t be.
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: Okay. In general I would find that universities Senate meetings and General Faculty meetings, in my experience of my 14 years here, are of little value if the top administrators of the institution won’t even bother to attend and address the faculty.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Michael, I want you to think about this now, we entertain you (hear your opinion) all the time, but from now on if you are not making a motion, just don’t keep on yakking.
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: Excuse me?
Michael Baginski, Chair: I want you to make a motion or get away from the mic.
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: I don’t believe you have that authority.
Michael Baginski, Chair: I do.
Michael Stern, not a senator, economics: No, you don’t, parliamentarian does.
Michael Baginski, Chair: Anyway…
Finally, is there any is there any new business? Hearing none, I now adjourn the meeting. [32:52]