10.21.25 Faculty Minutes

Call to Order

Meeting was called to order by University Faculty Chair Davis at 3:30 pm.

The Faculty Meeting Minutes from March 25th, 2025 were approved by unanimous consent. Link to Spring 2025 Faculty Meeting Minutes.

Remarks and Announcements

University Faculty Chair: Virginia A. Davis 

None.

President: Chris Roberts

President Roberts shared an update on three items. First, Auburn’s institutional accreditation is through SACSCOC: the reaffirmation process was completed in 2022 and reaffirmed in 2023 for ten years. He explained that our next comprehensive review will be in 2033 and that SACSCOC has a new president, Auburn graduate, Dr. Stephen Pruitt. The SACSCOC is currently being led through a review of standards and processes to look at more broad goals. Auburn will continue to monitor for updates.
Roberts shared that at the same time a consortium of public higher education systems is proposing a new national accreditation model called the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE). He shared that this effort, which is being led by APLU president Mark Becker, is not yet approved by the Department of Education. Roberts stated that Auburn is paying close attention to the developments at both SACSCOC and CPHE, but we are not under any pressure to yet decide this complex and significant matter.

Second, President Roberts shared more information about the Trump administration’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education that enumerates policies in eight areas. He shared that on October 1st nine universities were invited to consider this compact and asked to provide feedback with their ultimate decision being due at the end of October. On October 14th, the offer was extended to any U.S. higher education institution. Roberts shared that Auburn was not among the initial set. Some in the initial set have declined to sign and indicated their institutions have some common ground with some of the defined areas. He stated that Auburn is studying the compact very closely and comparing notes with leaders across other institutions. At the moment, Auburn is not under a specific timeline to align with any position on the compact. Roberts stated that we will continue to work hard fulfilling our trifold mission of instruction, research, and extension and meeting the needs of our students and our constituents.

Finally, President Roberts shared information about changes to the 10-year-old budget model. While the model has been incrementally tweaked on an annual basis, Auburn has matured over the past 10 years. The budget model has served Auburn well around transparency and revenue generation/distribution. He stated that the work that has gone into our strategic plan, our new goals and aspirations, changes in the landscape of higher education, our board’s intent to keep undergraduate enrollment relatively flat, and rising costs influenced the decision to explore a better and different budget model beginning in fiscal year 2027. He shared that the change will help propel towards our next chapter of excellence with a focus on increasing and diversifying revenue, managing our costs, incentivizing performance, and allocating funds that support and elevate our mission. He also shared that the adjustments to the budget model can facilitate faculty working more collaboratively across colleges and disciplines. Roberts stated the effort will be led by our Chief Financial Officer Kelli Shomaker and Provost Vini Nathan.

Provost: Vini Nathan
Provost Nathan shared four updates with the University Faculty. First, information about professional improvement leave was posted in AU News and on the Provost’s website. She shared that the deadline for applying for leave in the Fall of 2026, Spring of 2027, or Summer of 2027 is November 21, 2025. Nathan shared as a reminder that an ad hoc committee reviews the proposals. The makeup of the committee is typically five members, and representation depends upon proposals. Final notification will go out in February 2026.

Second, Nathan shared that a steering group composed of faculty and led by Associate Provost for Academic Affairs Chase Bringardner and co-chaired by Engineering Professor Jeff LaMondia is putting together a process for our core curriculum review. She stated the committee will hold sign-ups for listening sessions. Faculty are welcome at one or more sessions for those interested in participating.

Third, Provost Nathan shared that in order to ensure course and instructional materials are compliant with SB 129 and applicable federal laws, a small group of colleagues have begun looking at how other institutions are dealing with these issues. The group included Provost Nathan, Chase Bringardner, Ash Abebe, Asim Ali, and Mark. A dialogue with the deans has begun before it is shared with the faculty. She shared this is intended to be a faculty-driven process to look at course materials, including syllabi, for maintaining compliance with state law SB 129 and other federal laws and guidelines as they may be applicable. More information will be forthcoming, but she clarified that no one in her office is looking at faculty syllabi. They will ask faculty to review their syllabi and course materials then work with the department, associate dean, and college dean as appropriate. Nathan added that many departments had gotten into the habit of collecting syllabi as a part of their accreditation or other requirements. From a compliance perspective, this is an institution-wide effort that we will start continuously doing. She asked that faculty stay tuned and assured that there will be an open dialogue around it.

Finally, Provost Nathan shared that the faculty compensation study has gone back and forth and as of the previous day, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, Dr. Norman Godwin, has discussed the most recent contract terms and deliverables from Huron. The goal is to align what Auburn needs with Huron is doing. Once things are complete, the contract will go to our CFO, President, then the steering group. While Dr. Norman is winding down his role, he is keen on finishing up this contract before passing it onto Dr. Angela Wiley.

Questions: 

Carey Andrzejewski, professor from Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, asked that in light of the impending syllabi review, could they “speak to the expectations for academic administrators like department heads and deans, what they should be prepared to do to protect academic freedom?” She also asked that as best as they were able to offer an explanation “as to why a dean might refuse to speak on academic freedom in a department meeting.” Provost Nathan responded that the first piece is a compliance matter and that SB 129 is a state law which has been in place since October 1, 2024. She stated that the review is being brought up due to a concerns that a couple of courses may not be compliant with state law or federal guidance. Nathan explained that as Chief Academic Officer that from a compliance perspective the only way Auburn can say we are continuing to meet our mission and have the academic freedom for faculty is to do an audit. She noted that the audit should be done by faculty teaching those courses, and each college may choose to do it in a slightly different way. Nathan reiterated this is a faculty-driven process and that an email will be shared shortly to frame the process. For the second question, Nathan stated she cannot weigh in on someone’s professional behavior as she was not sure how to respond.

Michael Stern, associate professor from Economics, stated that a federal court has already found that SB 129 does not restrict the reading materials of a course. He asked, “what basis was the professor told that she could no longer use a textbook in the middle of her class at this institution with reference to SB 129?” He also asked, “why would syllabi that just articulate reading materials in a class need to be audited with respect to SB 129?” Provost Nathan stated she is not going to respond due to pending litigation. She responded to the second question by noting that for course syllabi and material, Auburn University has a responsibility to comply with the law.

Carey Andrzejewski, professor from Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, stated that AAUP holds that university administrators have a moral and professional obligation to uphold and defend academic freedom as a core institutional value. She asked, “what do you expect academic administrators like department heads and deans to be prepared to do to protect the academic freedom of faculty?” Provost Nathan asked if Andrzejewski had a specific example she could share where a department head or administrator has run afoul of a faculty member’s academic freedom because the inference was that Auburn had done something. Andrzejewski replied it was more of a general question of institutionally and she was not at the meeting to make accusations, but faculty were anxious. President Roberts also responded that within Auburn’s Board of Trustees policies and procedures there is an entire section where academic freedom is described as faculty-centric within our areas of expertise and academic discipline. He stated that he knows some interest is due to recent laws and interpretations of existing laws in the state and national landscape. Roberts wanted all faculty to know that we will continue to act consistent with the laws and regulations while also upholding academic freedom and intellectual viewpoint diversity. He felt both could be upheld.

BUSINESS ITEMS

Discussion and Vote on Motion by Matthew Hoch made in the March 25, 2025 Faculty Meeting
Presenter: Matthew Hoch
Motion: “That at the next University Faculty Meeting, consider the following statement: ‘The University Faculty affirms that faculty may grieve faculty or administrators (regardless of their faculty status)’ for discussion and vote at the Fall 2025 Faculty Meeting. This is not a handbook revision. This is a request for discussion.”

Before discussion of the motion, Chair Davis reviewed Robert’s Rules of Order and explained how faculty could engage with debate. She then asked if there was unanimous consent for limiting each person to speaking for up to 3 minutes. With no objections, debate was limited to three minutes. Chair Davis also explained the vote was set up in Zoom with four options” yes, no abstain, and I’m a guest not a faculty member. The meeting relied on the honor system for voting.

Hoch, professor from Music, first offered the friendly amendment to clarify the language of his motion.

Amended Motion: I move the University Faculty open the following statement for discussion and vote of approval: The University Faculty affirms that faculty may grieve faculty or administrators (regardless of their faculty status).

Chair Davis asked if there was unanimous consent to accept the friendly motion. Hearing no objections, she ruled the amended motion was accepted.

Hoch then spoke in favor of the motion, stating that he agreed with the findings of the ad hoc Grievance committee which presented at the October Senate meeting. He felt it was important that the faculty had input on this issue.

Sara Wolf, professor from Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, stated that she does not support the motion because the work of the ad hoc committee had achieved its purpose.

Luke Oeding, associate professor from Mathematics and Statistics, spoke in favor of the motion.

Roy Hartfield, professor from Aerospace Engineering, also spoke in favor of the motion.

Michael Stern, associate professor from Economics, stated that he supported this motion and wanted to point out that the fundamental problem is there are no consequences for administrators or others in positions of power from violating this motion. Chair Davis stated that this was outside of the current motion and not up for discussion at this time.

Luke Oeding addressed the prior comment that the motion should be voted against because of a prior committee. He stated that it should not matter what the Senate has done as a vote voices the opinion of faculty members.

Lisa Kensler, professor from Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, asked a point of information. She asked if Sara Wolf spoke against the friendly amendment. It was clarified that the friendly amendment passed with unanimous consent and Sara was speaking against the original motion.

With no more hands raised, Chair Davis moved to end debate and vote on the amended motion. 

Secretary Prado shared the following results:
Yes — I approve the statement. 84
No — I do not approve the statement. 17
Abstain — I choose not to vote. 23
I am a guest, not a faculty member. 22 

The amended motion passed. 

Michael Stern moved for division of the assembly. After an attempt to complete a division of assembly with the thumbs up reaction in zoom, Ed Davis, associate professor from Mechanical Engineering, made a parliamentarian inquiry about the use of division of assembly when the votes were already recorded. Lisa Kensler asked if the zoom polls could be set to not be anonymous. Secretary Prado replied that she downloaded the results and noted it contained information on voting. She stated that we could complete another vote and share the results. Matthew Hoch objected to another vote since participants might have left the meeting since the first vote. He suggested that Secretary Prado should share the data if everyone approved. Secretary Prado responded participants did not realize this was a [roll call] vote when they voted. Chair Davis responded to the point of parliamentary inquiry and stated the parliamentarian ruled that the electronic vote cannot be called to division. The motion continues to carry, and we do not need to proceed any further and share the results.

(Note from Secretary Prado: The original intention was the zoom vote to be anonymous. The results were downloaded to an excel file and identifying information was removed. The original vote on zoom was deleted to ensure all votes remain anonymous.)

2026 Nominating Committee Presentation
Presenter: Todd Steury, Committee Chair
Steury shared the members of the nominating committee as Matthew Clary from Political Science, Adrienne Duke-Marks from Human Development and Family Science, Andrew Pendola from Educational Foundation's Leadership and Technology, Stephanie Shepherd from Geosciences, and Adrienne Wilson from Theatre and Dance. He noted the committee’s charge is to present two names for the offices of chair-elect and secretary-elect. Steury described the self-nomination process to send a CV of less than 10 pages and one-page statement of vision which could be emailed to anyone on the committee. Nominations can also be made by submitting a nominee’s CV of less than 10 pages. He stated that nominations are due by January 8, 2026. The committee will review and evaluate all received nominations carefully. The committee may conduct interviews to select candidates. The candidates will be announced no later than March 3rd. He detailed the process to nominate by petition: petitions must be received with the signature of 10 faculty members, and no faculty member may sign more than one petition for the same office. He noted that those presenting petitions must present them to Secretary Prado no later than 14 calendar days prior to the spring faculty meeting which is March 10, 2026. Steury shared that voting for candidates will open on Thursday, March 19, 2026 and close the day of the spring faculty meeting. Secretary Prado will send out information on instructions for casting ballots.

INFORMATION ITEMS

Updates from the Sponsored Research and Economic Development Office 

Presenter: Steve Taylor

Taylor shared an update on the research and creative scholarship programs and the impact of recent funding and other activities in Washington, D.C. Taylor started with three depictions of Auburn’s seal that include the fundamental pillars of a land-grant institute: instruction, research, and extension. He noted that faculty have engaged in these activities since 1856 and will continue in the future. He shared a snapshot of creative scholarship and research on campus. In FY24 Auburn received a record $344 million in new contracts and grant awards with 84% coming from federal sources. In FY25, there were over 40 individual grants totaling $20 million in grants that were terminated or received stop work orders. Taylor shared that compared to FY24 faculty submitted almost identical number of proposals which they deserve recognition because there were fewer opportunities this year. Overall, FY25 funding was down to $240 million. He then broke down funding levels by specific agencies and compared FY24 to FY25. All agencies except NSF and USDI had a decrease, but for NSF this was due to NSF funding all money up front instead of incrementally each year. Taylor noted that changes at the federal level will continue to impact Auburn’s extramural funding. There has also been an increase in questions from the federal government for information related to drawdowns when the Grants Account Office submits invoices. He noted that the indirect rate may decrease to as low as 15% or have a change in structure.

Taylor also shared that there are new compliance requirements implemented by federal agencies, and his office continues to work to provide resources to faculty to help. He noted that Dr. Jennifer Kerpleman, Associate Vice President for Research, has been leading a team science series to bring together faculty in a new way to look for new opportunities for faculty to team together in diverse disciplines. Also, the University Senate has sponsored faculty discussion sessions with his office that have led to good discussions. Taylor also shared that looking ahead, OSTP and OMB released FY27 R&D priorities for faculty to view for new opportunities. 

Questions:
Duha Altindag, associate professor from Economics, stated that he read in the news that the White House issued a call to universities for expanded access to federal funding with demands. He asked, has Auburn been offered and will Auburn accept? Taylor replied that he thinks [Duha] is referring to the compact and President Roberts noted in his remarks that Auburn is still evaluating how we respond. 

Digital Accessibility Support for Faculty
Presenters: Asim Ali, Shawndra Bowers, Emily Camp, Lindsay Doukopoulos, Brandon Simmons Asim Ali began the presentation by sharing how the Biggio Center will support the faculty to meet the revised Digital Accessibility requirements for teaching materials. He explained three options for faculty support: do-it-yourself (DIY), learn and do together, and full-service option. The DIY option includes step-by-step guides, checklists, and short trainings for faculty to remediate their own content with confidence. The learn and do together option includes one-on-one sessions and drop-in workshops. The full-service option will let the Auburn Online team complete the work for a fee from departments. 

Brandon Simmons shared that his unit was responsible for campus-wide instructional technologies including Canvas. While the platform is accessible, he shared that faculty will need to ensure material they add to it meets the accessibility guidelines to ensure students receive an exceptional student experience. The Biggio Center developed the PAWS framework which stands for page structure, alternative text for images, well-formatted files, and specific links. Simmons mentioned the UDoIt Tool is available now in Canvas to help faculty fix their course. 

Lindsay Doukopoulos shared that she leads the Biggio Teaching Unit composed of faculty working through the same process to make courses accessible. She explained her team is troubleshooting the technology and seeing how it applies to different disciplines so it will be as effective as possible. The unit will have drop-in work sessions with an ice cream social model to incentivize people to come together. Doukopoulos shared they will also offer on-demand workshops for departments. 

Shawndra Bowers shared that she leads the Auburn Online Unit which was created to help faculty design and deliver high-quality online and hybrid courses that truly work for Auburn students using Universal Design for Learning principles. She shared they were turning on DesignPlus automatically, which is an add-on for Canvas that will help faculty check things like alt-text, link descriptions, and color contrast. The team is also building accessible Canvas templates with built-in accessibility checklists that will be available from Canvas Commons to be added to courses. Finally, they will have an option that lets Auburn Online handle the remediation. Bowers explained that the process will work through an intake form. Her team will review it and work on remediation to meet the federal accessibility requirements. Faculty will receive a final report detailing what was fixed and what still needs attention. 

Finally, Emily Camp, manager of the Biggio Testing Center, shared that Biggio’s commitment to accessibility into the exam room by providing secure test administration for standard and extended time exams. She shared that they deliver more than 14,000 exams each semester at the test center at Biggin Hall. Students needing accommodations can test alongside their classmates, which creates a more equitable testing experience for students. She shared that this means faculty spend less time managing exam logistics. Camp explained they are a nationally recognized test center and certified by the National College Testing Association, which means they uphold the highest standards for testing integrity. Recently, they have expanded to provide professional and licensure testing for students and community members. 

Ali ended with the note that the Provost’s office has offered to cover the cost of a set number of courses in each college, including a substantial number of courses that are part of the core. Biggio Center is in communication with the deans and associate deans to provide that service. 

Questions:
Rebecca Riggs, senior lecturer from Biological Sciences, asked if the remediation services covered PDFs. Ali replied they are looking at licensing UDoIt Advantage to help remediate documents. They are still in the vetting process but will share an update soon.

Sara Wolf asked what the procedure is if faculty would like to take advantage of Auburn Online remediating course. Ali responded they were coordinating with the associate deans for academics in each college and faculty can reach out to their college leadership. 

NEW BUSINESS

Roy Hartfeld moved that we adopt the following statement:
The University Faculty do hereby declare that the Employee Relations Policy, which improperly appears on the Provost's website, is not recognized as applicable to the faculty of Auburn University, and all policies relevant to faculty discipline or dismissal are contained in the Faculty Handbook.

Duha Altindag seconded the motion.

Chair Davis stated the motion will be placed on the agenda for the Spring 2026 Faculty Meeting for discussion and vote.

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Davis adjourned the meeting at 4:56 pm.