11.11.25 Senate Minutes

Establish a Quorum

The attendance vote was opened, and a quorum was established with 73 members present as of 3:32 pm. When the quorum vote closed at the end of the meeting, 86 senators or substitutes had responded present.

Senate Meeting Minutes from October 14, 2025 were approved by unanimous consent.

Link to minutes from October 14, 2025: https://auburn.app.box.com/file/2028766002434?

Remarks and Announcements

University Senate Chair: Virginia A. Davis

Chair Davis began her remarks by acknowledging the stress that faculty have been facing this year as they navigate the changing landscape. She thanked the administration for listening and trying to be responsive to concerns. Finally, she highlighted that the American Association of University Professors, an advocacy organization, will be conducting a brief survey to gather faculty perspectives on academic freedom and shared governance. The survey will be sent to all faculty.

President: Chris Roberts remarks given by Kelli Shomaker

Shomaker began her remarks by noting that President Roberts is meeting with members of our Board of Trustees on time-sensitive matters that recently emerged, and he sent his regrets that he was unable to attend. She began with the AU alerts that were received by everyone last Thursday morning. Shomaker noted that Auburn experienced a technical issue with the mass messaging system, which triggered templated messages to be sent. She stated that they understand the concern that this caused and reassured the Auburn University community that timely and accurate communication remained their highest priority on all matters related to campus safety.

Next, Shomaker gave an update on the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting scheduled for Friday, November 21st. She noted that the day before the board meeting, senior leaders will be providing updates at the workshop regarding advancement, strategic plan, and research and scholarship. After the presentations to the Board are complete, the updates will be disseminated widely to campus and other stakeholders. There were a range of facility projects that will be brought forward for different levels of approval including a new student housing project that will replace the Cambridge Residence Hall, the central dining build-out at The Edge dining facility, a Solon Dixon dorm replacement, The Bee Lab, the Beef Cattle Evaluation Center barn replacement, and a comprehensive analysis of Haley Center.

Shomaker also gave an update on the Executive director search for ACES. She noted they were in the advanced stages of a national search, and the three finalists completed campus interviews last week. The Search Advisory Committee, which is being led by Senior Vice President for Research Steve Taylor, will be submitting their summary sometime in the next few days.

Provost: Vini Nathan

Provost Nathan began her remarks with the course materials review. She noted there was a special called faculty meeting the next day and she was looking forward to participating in that meeting. She then reiterated her fundamental guiding principles in the academic enterprise which is that academic freedom is fundamental; open dialogue strengthens teaching and learning; and that civility and respect define Auburn’s academic community. She is confident that we can continue to achieve all three of the above while complying with the law.

She also shared on a related note that many faculty have had breakfast with her over the course of the last two and a half years. These faculty gatherings have been very useful and enjoyable, since they have provided an opportunity for informal discussion and dialogue. She plans to continue to have these breakfast meetings. She also felt it would benefit and serve all of us well if she had a select group of faculty to serve as her informal advisors. With input from the deans, she set up a faculty academic advisory group with one tenured faculty from each of the colleges and from libraries. She reached out to each of the prospective members, and all 13 have agreed to serve. She will also share the names in her monthly news to disseminate this broadly. She noted that the 13-member group is an additional sounding board on academic matters at a systemic institutional level. She clarified, so there is no confusion, that this advisory group is not set up to dilute the authority of the deans, the department heads and chairs, our curricular structures, our undergraduate curriculum committee, our graduate curriculum committee, or any of our governance bodies or committees. Additionally,  he shared that this advisory group is not to dilute any existing policies, processes, or systems.

Provost Nathan then gave updates regarding Board of Trustees meeting. She had a fairly robust academic affairs agenda to present in front of the board. One action item from the College of Education is a proposed restructuring and renaming of the agriscience education courses to agriscience leadership and communication. She also shared five information items. One item was from the College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment which is a leadership and planning option in their parks and recreation management. One item was from the College of Human Sciences which is an option in pre-health and nutrition. The final information items were three new certificates tha  are being planned from the College of Nursing, a graduate certificate in emergency nurse practice, from the College of Forestry, Wildlife, and Environment an online graduate certificate in environmental law, and from the College of Human Sciences, an online undergraduate certificate in hospitality service.

Finally, Provost Nathan announced her office will be conducting a national search for the Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness. This national search will be launched in early spring of 2026. Dr. Angela Wiley, who will start in January as the Associate Provost for Faculty matters, will chair the search Advisory Committee. The search firm Isaacson Miller will assist in the process. Provost Nathan will serve as the interim leader of this unit from January 2026 till a permanent leader is seated.

Questions:

Diana Samek, senator from Human Development and Family Science, asked for more information about the AU Alert, particularly the active shooting that was followed by the two additional glitches or errors. She noted that it was big glitch or error and many of her colleagues had to go into lockdown practice in their classrooms. This gave many faculty a lot of stress, a lot of anxiety, and mental health issues. She also noted that when these glitches happen, they undermine efforts when real attacks are present. She requested more information about how this happened and how this is going to be avoided in the future.

Kevin Robinson, Vice President for Institutional Compliance and Security, gave more detail and background into the incident. He shared that there were three emergency buttons that were installed in 2023 at the airport. When the buttons were installed, the vendor had some things set up incorrectly even though these were tested. He shared that additional buttons were added to the campus security building and that same incorrect programming was copied into those newer buttons. Even after testing it did not result in multiple notifications like the incident. Robinson shared that the programming has been corrected quickly and tested. He noted the vendor owned their mistake in this. He also agreed completely with Senator Samek that it was unacceptable to have these kinds of mistakes. His office is evaluating everything related to the emergency notifications including what systems Auburn uses.

David Blersch, senator from Biosystems Engineering, noted that his statements and questions were similar to Senator Samek and he appreciated the statements from Mr. Robinson. He wanted to add on and call for a formal investigation. This is due to the concern and anxiety that was generated in his unit from that event. He asked if there could be a formal investigation, a report given to this body and a report for any steps for remediation to regain the trust. of the university community in that system.

Rehman Qureshi, Senator from the Graduate Student Council, asked about the Provost's current minimum stipend level and the required amount to qualify for a graduate tuition fellowship. He noted it is just under $10,000 per year at $808 per month. He asked, “can we expect this amount to be updated to better reflect the economy?”

Ash Abebe, Interim Dean of the Graduate School, replied that the amounts that we have at the minimum have been set at least 15 years ago and they have not been updated for a while. He thinks it might be time to reevaluate those minimum amounts and bring them up to standard. Abebe believes that they're too low at this point.

Business Items

Vote on 2028-2029 Academic Calendar

Presenter: Karen Battye, Committee Chair

Battye noted that the 2028-2029 calendar was presented last month. The 2028-2029 academic calendar has 70 days in the fall term, 72 days in the spring term, the standard 48 days in the summer and a 24 day-24 day minimester split. The calendar has a two-day fall break and a standard spring break in the first week of March term.

Voting Results: 78 Yes / 2 No / 1 Abstain

The 2028-2029 academic calendar was approved.

Vote on Ad hoc Committee for Faculty Grievance Policy Review Motions 

Presenter: David Miller, Committee Chair

Chair Davis began by noting that the Ad hoc Committee for Faculty Grievance Policy Review was bringing four separate motions to the floor. The motions were shown all together, but the discussion and voting would be completed individually. She also noted that since this is a change to the faculty handbook a two-third majority of the body, or 60 senators, would need to vote yes for the motions to carry. 

First motion: The language in Article 6, Section 2, of the Senate Constitution that currently reads: ‘A grievance may be filed by one or more faculty members affected; it may be directed against the action of one or more administrators or other members of the faculty’ be amended to ‘A grievance may be filed by one or more faculty members affected; it may be directed against the action of one or more members of the faculty or administrators’.

David Miller stated that the motions were the result of a comprehensive study of peer institutions and an attempt to bring the Auburn University policy in line with best practices. The first three motions are meant to address an ambiguity in the existing language about whom a grievance can be brought against.

He stated that the first motion simply removes the word other and reverses the ordering of the last phrase to clarify that a grievance can be brought against non-faculty administrators. The intention is to clarify that the ‘or’ is a disjunctive ‘or’ rather than an appositive ‘or’. This amendment will make it clear that administrators don't have to be other members of the faculty to be grieved against.

There was no discussion on the motion.

Voting Results: 71 Yes / 5 No / 3 Abstain

The motion passed.

Second motion: The following language be added to Article 6, Section 2, of the Senate Constitution: ‘Should a complaint arise from the action of some other party, an administrator could take corrective action, and a grievance may be directed against the administrator’s action or failure to act.’

Miller explained that this motion followed up on the language from the preceding motion. It is intended to clarify what happens when a complaint arises from an action by someone who is not an administrator or member of the faculty. He noted that this language would bring the Auburn policy into alignment with best practices elsewhere.

There was no discussion.

Voting Results: 65 Yes / 8 No / 6 Abstain

The motion passed.

Third motion: The following language be added to Article 6, Section 2, of the Senate Constitution: ‘For the purposes of faculty grievance, an administrator is someone who holds authority, individually or in conjunction with others, to effect decisions that affect the performance of faculty responsibilities.’

Miller explained that this motion addresses a particular problem that the Ad hoc committee faced, which was that it was hard to determine who counts as an administrator at Auburn. There isn't a definition readily available. To grapple with that problem directly, the Ad hoc committee defined what an administrator is for the purposes of faculty grievance.

In discussion, a senator asked if the word “effect” should be with an ‘a’ instead. Miller responded that the Ad hoc committee is trying to define the scope of the class of people who count as administrators. The intent is that these are people who have the authority to put into effect decisions that can alter the performance of faculty responsibilities. Miller finished by stating the verb is effect rather than affect.

Voting Results: 68 Yes / 6 No / 6 Abstain

The motion passed.

Fourth motion: The following language be added to Article 6, Section 2, of the Senate Constitution: ‘Interactions with other University committees or processes do not limit or change a faculty member’s right to file a grievance on appropriate grounds.’

Miller noted that the final motion addressed something that came up in our survey of peer institutions. Many peer institution policies describe how the grievance policy is supposed to interact with other processes that might occur on campus. He stated that in the deliberations in the committee, they decided they preferred a more permissive approach. The motion simply states that a grievance is still allowed, even if something else is going on so long as the grievance is on the grounds that are permitted by the grievance policy.

There was no discussion.

Voting Results: 66 Yes / 8 No / 3 Abstain

The motion passed.

Faculty Handbook Committee Report

Presenter: Sara Wolf, Committee Chair
Wolf began by noting the members of the Faculty Handbook Committee. She noted that Norman Godwin is the Provost Office’s representative and as soon as he steps down from his official office, he will be replaced by Angela Wiley. Wolf showed the various departments and colleges that the members were from, and the committee is a very well-functioning group of people. She stated that the charge of this committee is to receive and solicit feedback for changes to update the faculty handbook. The committee also recommends changes to the University Senate as it deems appropriate. Wolf noted that in relation to that charge, the committee receives those recommendations from a variety of places, whether it's email from faculty or more formally from Senate leadership or university leadership. Questions also arise from committee deliberations. She stated that the committee welcomes inquiries and requests for review via any of the appropriate communications tools that are available to us on campus. The requests can be confidential.

Wolf spoke about recent activity which included several requests for deliberations. One request was specifically involving the faculty grievance policy. She noted that members of the Faculty Handbook committee as well as members of the Faculty Grievance Committee had a joint meeting. The results of that conversation essentially were very parallel to what the Ad hoc Grievance committee found. There was a representative from the Faculty Handbook Committee on the Ad hoc Grievance Committee.

Another request received was to weigh in on whether or not internal letters of support or dissension would be given to candidates for promotion and tenure should be anonymized. The conversation revolved around the timing of when those letters are presented and whether or not they are rebuttable, which they are. The conclusion was that those letters would remain identifiable due to the fact that they are rebuttable, as well as to the timing of when they are given. Doing so maintains the transparency of the process of voting on promotion and tenure.

Another inquiry was made to discuss how departmental promotion and tenure votes are communicated. That discussion is ongoing. The committee has a motion almost ready to present to the University Senate. The issue is that the current method may inadvertently reveal who voted which way in some departments, depending upon the distribution of those votes, the attendance of the members at committees, as well as the numbers of people within one particular level that could vote. The Faculty Handbook Committee is working to try to clarify that language and make it as simple as possible.

Information Items

New Business

None.

Adjournment

Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 4:23 pm.

Attendance