04.19.22 Senate Minutes

Establish a Quorum

A quorum was established when 45 senators responded to the quorum poll via canvas.  In all, 81 senators attended the meeting.

Approval of the minutes from the Senate Meeting of March 15, 2022
Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

Remarks and Announcements on University Matters

University Senate Chair Todd Steury remarks

Chair Steury began by informing senators that the administration had established a Presidential leadership transition group. Senate chair elect Mark Carpenter will serve on the committee.  The administration has also created an ad hoc parking committee. Mark Barnett will be representing the faculty on this committee.

Finally, Steury noted that this was President Gogue’s final Senate meeting. He extended his personal thanks for President Gogue’s leadership over the years, and, in particular, for his support for shared governance.

President Jay Gogue remarks

President Gogue summarized some of the issues which will be treated in the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting. The meeting will include an orientation session for two new trustees: Zeke Smith and Catherine Aderholt. There are only two new incoming trustees as one vacant trustee position has not yet been filled by the Alabama Senate.

On Thursday afternoon, the trustees are scheduled to meet with Dr. Belle Wheelan, President of SACSCOC, to discuss standards and what is expected during the reaffirmation process. Trustees will make decisions on the restoration of greenway in the Parkerson Mill Creek area, the purchase of chillers for the College of Veterinary Medicine, a project to resurface roadway and parking at the Solon Dixon Forestry Education Center, and the College of Forestry and Wildlife Science’s proposal to build an Environmental Education building at the Kreher Preserve and Wildlife Center.

Trustees will also consider the creation of PhD in Nursing with a focus on education and a request from the College of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences to change its name to the College of Forestry, Wildlife, and the Environment.

The Board will also be discussing tuition.  President Gogue shared that he expected the Board to discuss a 2-4% increase.

President Gogue then proceeded to discuss the bills which had been before the legislature, including the proposed legislation on “divisive concepts.”  This bill ultimately failed to pass. A law permitting the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit did pass but the bill does allow that campuses have the right to pass their own rules. He noted that it was important that senate should express its views on this issue to the Board.

President Gogue concluded his last-ever report to senate by sharing that it had been an honor for him to return to Auburn to serve as President. He thanked faculty for their support, their help, as well as their professionalism and flexibility.

Interim Provost Vini Nathan remarks

Interim Provost Nathan began her remarks by noting the appointment of Jason Hicks as the new Dean of the College of Liberal Arts.

She then spoke on how Auburn University has been working to accommodate students displaced due to the war in Ukraine. There have been two requests to date. The university is dealing with such requests on a case-by-case basis.

She closed her remarks by thanking faculty and staff for their work over the semester. She announce that Amazon’s Dave Clark, a graduate of the university, will speak at commencement.

Chair Steury then asked for questions from the floor.

Scott Ketring (senator, HDFS) asked about social media screenings of candidates for university positions.  He was curious how screenings of new hires would be carried out and how the university would deal with potential issues of bias and the protection of first amendment rights.

President Gogue asked if Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) and Executive Vice-President Ron Burgess (VP) could respond to this question.

Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) noted that what the university is doing is formalizing a social media component to its standard background check.  The background check is conducted by a third party.  Unless something is flagged, that third party conducts the screening and does not pass information to the university which might color decision making. In addition, legal protections, including first amendment protections, still apply. If someone is flagged, the candidate is given opportunity to review and explain.

Ron Burgess noted that only two cases have been flagged since the university started operating social media checks.  In both cases, the issue was reviewed quickly, and the hires proceeded.

Scott Ketring asked for further clarification on who was responsible for dealing with candidacies flagged by the third party within the administration and what exactly might constitute a red flag.

Jaime Hammer responded that the current process is that flagged cases come to a legal review and a review by General Burgess’s office.

Luca Guazzotto (senator, Physics) asked for updates on the other dean searches, including COSAM and Pharmacy.

Interim Provost Nathan responded that the search for the interim Dean of Pharmacy is ongoing.  There are two internal candidates and the administration hopes to make an announcement in the next two weeks.  They have already announced the appointment of interim Deans of Engineering and Business. The Provost’s Office is in the final stages of procedural steps for the COSAM dean and she is not ready to discuss that search.

Action Items

Committee Nominations

Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Chair of the Rules Committee

Ralph Kingston presented the names of nominees to fill three-year terms on 13 senate committees beginning August 2022.  He noted the hard work put in by the Rules committee putting together this slate and that he will be bringing more nominations to Senate in May.

Todd Steury noted that the default would be that Senators would vote on the nominations as a single slate, but that, if a senator wished to make a motion, it was possible that the nominations could be voted on individually.  No senator made such a motion and the vote proceeded on all the nominations together.

VOTE RESULTS: 54 total in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. The nominees were approved by Senate.

Change to the Senate Constitution related to composition of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee

Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Chair of Rules Committee

Ralph Kingston explained that this change is being made in order to rectify the inadvertent exclusion of the Libraries from representation on the committee when the DEI committee was originally added to the Senate constitution in April 2021.  He noted that the DEI committee was asked if it wished to make any other changes to its membership and it had said it did not.

Todd Steury and Ralph Kingston reminded senators that this motion needed the support of 2/3s of senators to pass and that it was important for all those with voting rights to vote on this motion.

VOTE RESULTS: 60 total in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. The motion passed.

Change to 2022-2023 Calendar to accommodate Juneteenth

Presenter: Karen Battye, Chair of the Calendar Committee

Karen Battye presented a minor change to the 2022-2023 academic calendar to accommodate the Juneteenth holiday.  There are no changes to fall or spring semester.  The addition of the Juneteenth holiday was achieved by dropping a reading day at the end of the summer.

Scott Ketring (senator, HDFS) noted that several holidays fall on Mondays during the summer.  He worried that, teaching a seminar on Mondays during the full summer semester, he would only be able to teach 7/10 classes.

Karen Battye assured him that he would get an extra Monday at the end of the semester on July 31 and thus would not lose a class day.

Sara Wolf (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) shared her sense that spring break seemed to be moving earlier in the semester.  She asked if this is the case, and if so, what was causing it.

Karen Battye said she would look into this and get back.

Chair Steury noted that Karen Battye would be presenting on changes to the 2023-2024 calendar and the calendar for 2024-2025 in the May senate meeting and this issue could be brought up again then.

Tony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) asked about the overlap between graduation and the final exam period and whether they were efforts to ensure this would not continue to occur.

Karen Battye responded that she working with the provost’s office on the scheduling of graduation ceremonies as well as looking at exam schedules, including, potentially, the shortening of exam windows.

Tony Moss noted that there was discussion in the past about reducing the length of exams to 2 hours. Karen Battye confirmed that they were looking at that, added that Auburn is one of the few large institutions that run 2 ½ hour exams.

VOTE RESULTS: 53 total in favor, 3 opposed, 4 abstaining. The amendment to the 2022-2023 calendar passed.

Pending Action Items

Research Data Policy

Presenter: Linda Gibson-Young, Chair of the Faculty Research Committee

Linda Gibson-Young explained that the research policy came out of the need for submitting data management plans to funders when making grant applications.  Some national sponsors (including NSF and NIH) are looking for verifications of policy at major institutions. Specifically, they are asking researchers to speak to their institution’s research data policy when they are seeking funding.

The policy was previously brought to senate in January 2022 and there was sufficient concern among faculty and senators to table the policy for additional review through the Faculty Research Committee.  The Research committee listened to faculty feedback and worked with the General Counsel’s office to review and revise the policy.  General Counsel also addressed senators on the legal questions related to research data in the March senate meeting. Since January, the FRC has also been hearing from researchers who have been turned down for not addressing a policy or made aware of concerns that Auburn has not a policy in place.  It seems that funding bodies are employing algorithms to search proposals for specific terms related to data management.

Laura Gibson-Young highlighted three main issues in the policy.  The definition of research data remains broad in the policy because only a broad definition allows the institution to meet its obligations.  She noted the addition of specific mention of the university’s copyright and patent policies, and their relationship to the proposed policy on research data. The committee has also created a specific section on exceptions to university ownership of data, including those related to sponsor agreements and self-funded research.

Finally, she noted that the policy does not override or supersede other requirements related to the retention of research data operating in the university (for example, IRB requirements, contract terms, and records retention policies.)

Sara Wolf (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) asked about the definition of “intangible research” data. She found it troublesome that the university owns ideas and things that do not yet exist.  She asked if a better definition of intangible research data could be included in the policy.

Laura Gibson-Young asked if Grant Garber (University Counsel) or Ali Krzton (Data Management Librarian; member of the Faculty Research Committee) could speak more to the issue and they were invited to do so by Chair Steury.

Ali Krzton offered that tangible data is something you can hold in your hand. Intangible, in contrast, might be something that is solely computational. “Intangible” does not refer to ideas that have not yet been put down on paper.

Grant Garber added that the term “intangible information” was borrowed from the OMD circular A-110, which establishes uniform administrative requirements for federally sponsored research. It is intended to get at data or other information that doesn’t have any physical existence.

Sara Wolf continued to worry that the term “intangible information” was too broad. Linda Gibson-Young noted that “intangible” corresponds to what funding bodies like NIH and NSF expect.

Chair Steury advised Sara Wolf that she might get in contact with Linda Gibson-Young to discuss the issue further.

Tony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) noted that research is a progression of concepts and ideas and that innovation has in the past been driven by ideas borrowed from researcher to researcher.

Linda Gibson-Young stated again that, without a data management policy in place, Auburn researchers are risking losing the support of sponsors. A policy is needed, and the challenge is putting together a policy that Auburn faculty and senators agree.

Tony Moss noted that there may already be a COSAM policy in place.

David Blersch (senator, Biosystems Engineering) then took the debate in a new direction, noting that he was struck by the absolute nature of the final sentence of the section of the policy on Exceptions, that “determinations by the OVPR are final and are not subject to appeal.”  This is not a particularly good or transparent mechanism for solving disputes.

Linda Gibson-Young said she would take this back to the Faculty Research committee.

Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) returned to the definition of data in the policy and the assignment of ownership.  He noted a range of different types of data and the different sorts of ownership and protections that could be asserted over it.  He asked if the policy might be more specific in terms of its definition of what is meant by “ownership.”

Linda Gibson-Young noted that the definition of ownership in the policy is written to protect researchers’ ongoing ability to secure funding.  Funders see that the ownership of the data belongs to the university. If it is mismanaged, it would take the issue to the university rather than to the individual PI, and it would impact on future sponsorships university wide.

Ali Krzton (Data Management Librarian, member of the Faculty Research Committee) added that with respect to data generated under sponsored projects, which Roy Hartfield specifically mentioned as requiring an alternative ownership arrangement, Auburn University is also executing the contract with the sponsor and so is also held to the conditions of the contract. 

Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) said he recognized this. He still believed, however, that the definition of ownership could be more defined in the policy.

Ali Krzton then moved to address the issue of ownership of data and the definition of data.  She noted that some of the things faculty were concerned about were not actually research data. In the interest of clarity, she offered a concrete example of the line between tangible and intangible data. A researcher observing animals in the field compiles a record of their behavior. This is research data. Notes scribbled in the margin of a research notebook, for example ideas for a future paper or a next research proposal, on the other hand, do not constitute research data.  A sponsor can ask for the raw data on the animals’ behavior but the whole notebook and the ideas or musings in it belong to the researcher unless an explicit agreement is made and signed between the sponsor and the researcher that they do not.

Chair Steury brought the discussion of the agenda item to a close, reminding senators that it would be voted on in the next meeting.

Information Items

Update on SACSCOC reaccreditation

Presenter: Mark DeGoti, SACSCOC Liaison

Mark DeGoti provided an overview of SACSCOC and the process through which the university will be reaffirming its accreditation this coming academic year.

The process begins with the submission of a Compliance Certification Report on September 8, 2022, for off-site committee review. In January 2023, the university will submit a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) and Focused Report which is a response to the findings of the off-site committee review. Then an on-site committee will come to campus between February 27 and March 2, 2023, to evaluate both the Focused Report findings, the QEP, and the Department of Education’s required standards. THE SACSCOC board of trustees will then produce its final response in August 2023.

DeGoti then moved to explaining the QEP in more depth.  It is a commitment to enhance overall institutional quality and effectiveness by improving student learning outcomes and/or student success.  Auburn’s QEP will focus on improving student placements.  Katie Boyd (QEP director) will be talking to senate about the QEP at a later date.

At this point, 41 of 73 narratives have been fully drafted or completed for the Compliance Certification Report due in September.  Two out of three of the off-campus instruction site visits have also already been completed.

DeGoti concluded his presentation by noting, as President Gogue had done earlier, that Dr. Belle Wheelan, President of SACSCOC, would be meeting with the Board of Trustees this week. He believes that transparency is key to a successful process and he wants everyone to know what is happening.  His office has organized a monthly countdown in the AU News and Katie Boyd will be actively engaged in socializing the QEP going forward. There is a website dedicated to the reaffirmation process: www.auburn.edu/academic/provost/sacscoc 

Michael Stern (not a senator, Economics) asked who Mark DeGoti reported to.

Mark DeGoti noted he meets with President Gogue. 

Michael Stern then asked if Mark DeGoti had reviewed a letter sent by Dr. Stephanie Kirschmann to President Leath on September 21, 2018, regarded a potential special review of the university by SACSCOC. 

Mark DeGoti said he had heard of the document but he had not read it.  He did not know if he has received it.

Michael Stern asked DeGoti to confirm if he has reviewed any responses made by the university in response to that letter.  Mark DeGoti stated again that he has not read the letter.

Michael Stern then ask if the President of SACSCOC was invited to meet with the Trustees and asked how normal this is.

Mark DeGoti responded that the SACSCOC President’s assistant said that she speaks regularly with board members across the country.  DeGoti said that he had made the decision to invite her as there has been a number of changeovers in both the administration and in the Board of Trustees and it would be good for everyone to learn about the process.

Chair Steury then interrupted Michael Stern to ask him if there was a central question he wished to ask.  What followed was a back and forth between the Chair and Michael Stern about speaking rights under Robert’s Rules. Chair told Michael Stern that he cannot ask multiple questions. During this conversation, LTC Nate Conkey hollered “Oh my Gosh” which was ignored by the Chair. In addition, Chair ignored two points of order raised by Zach Schulz.  At the end of this discussion, Chair Steury again invited Michael Stern to move directly to his substantive question, to ask it, and to relinquish the floor.  Michael Stern (not a senator, Economics) accused Steury of bias and of violating his first amendment rights, adding that he would never speak in Senate again while Todd Steury is Senate chair. LTC Nate Conkey hollered again, “No objection,” and this comment the Chair also ignored. [This paragraph was amended by unanimous consent in the Senate meeting on May 17, 2022, and the additional text agreed during that meeting has been entered here verbatim, without any stylistic or other edits.]

Chair Steury again invited Michael Stern to move directly to his substantive question, to ask it, and to relinquish the floor.  Michael Stern (not a senator, Economics) accused Steury of bias and of violating his first amendment rights, adding that he would never to speak in Senate again while Todd Steury is Senate chair.

Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) asked whether there was an opportunity for faculty to provide input into the process, and whether the institution is required to follow its own rules as part of the SACSCOC accreditation.

Mark DeGoti said he was open to hearing about ideas for more faculty input into the process, including in Senate and during the on-site visits. In terms of policies, DeGoti confirmed that the do have to show evidence that the university does follow its own policies and procedures, including those in the Faculty Handbook.

New Business

Scott Ketring (senator, HDFS) asked if there could be a presentation on the issue of social media screening in the next Senate meeting by someone from the administration.    Chair Steury said he would try to set something up for the May senate meeting.

Adjournment

Hearing no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 4:59 by unanimous consent.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ralph Kingston

Attendance