03.15.22 Senate Minutes

Establish a Quorum

A quorum was established when 52 senators responded to the quorum poll via canvas.  In all, 79 senators attended the meeting.

Approval of the minutes from the Senate Meeting of February 22, 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 called directly on new interim provost Vini Nathan to address the senate.

Interim Provost Vini Nathan remarks

Auburn University’s new interim provost, Vini Nathan, noted that she had three priorities during her limited time in the position.  Those are to manage the significant number of transitions taking place at the dean level across the university; to continue the success of the university’s academic, research, and outreach missions; and to smoothly and successfully navigate the SACSCOC accreditation process.

There were no questions.

Action Items

Vote on Rules Committee Members

Four senators were nominated at the February Senate meeting to stand for election for the Rules Committee.  All four candidates appeared on the ballot and senators were able to vote for as many candidates as they wished. To be elected, a candidate had to win a majority of votes.  The three new Rules members were then deemed elected in the order of their vote tallies.

There were 64 votes cast in total. A candidate had to receive 32 votes to win a majority of votes.

The following had the support of a majority of senators and were deemed elected: David Han (56), Kasia Leouisis (53), David Blersch (49). Liliana Stern (26) was not elected. Chair Todd Steury and Senate Secretary Ralph Kingston thanked all four candidates for their willingness to serve.

Vote on statement about Russia’s attack on the Ukraine

Presenter: Todd Steury, Chair of the Steering Committee

Chair Steury presented the text of a motion condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine

Liliana Stern (senator, Economics) proposed the amendment of the motion from the “Russian Federation’s aggression toward the sovereign nation of Ukraine” to “Russia’s war against Ukraine,” to acknowledge the scale of Russian actions.

Luca Guazzotto (senator, Physics) suggested that aggression might be changed to “invasion.” Liliana Stern argued it should be “Russian invasion and war in Ukraine.”  Asim Ali (not a senator, Biggio Center) agreed that it was important to use the word “war.”

Amendment: Change “Russian Federation’s aggression toward the sovereign nation of Ukraine” to “Russian invasion and war in Ukraine” was passed by unanimous consent.

The body then moved directly to vote on the main motion.

Vote to approve the statement:

Be it resolved that the University Senate, as the representative body of shared governance at Auburn University strongly condemns the Russian invasion and war in Ukraine as being in violation of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations — an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.

VOTE RESULTS: 50 total in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. The motion passed.

Vote on statement about Divisive Concepts Bills

Presenters: Todd Steury, Senate Chair; Melody Russell, Chair, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee

Chair Steury reminded senators that this item came out of the last senate meeting. The statement under discussion had been crafted by the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion committee and had been approved by the Senate Steering Committee for inclusion on the agenda.  He then invited discussion, comments, or questions about the statement from the floor.

The discussion that developed largely centered on textual and grammatical corrections to the statement: in particular, whether it should be “principles of Academic Freedom that protect” or “principles of Academic Freedom that protects.”  Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) asked Senate to consider a separate edit, adding “staff” to the first line.

In addition, Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) asked for clarification as to who the “we” in the statement referred to. Chair Steury responded that his belief was that it referred to the University Senate and offered to make that explicit.

Later, Kate Thornton (not a senator, Global Studies, member of the DEI committee), related her belief that the point of the statement was that it came from the senate, but that it would be also be sent up to be sent out by the university administration.   Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) said that her understanding was that it was a statement sent by the DEI committee to the senate, to be sent out by the senate.

The debate on language was brought to a point of formal amendment when Sunny Stalter-Pace proposed a more substantial amendment to the beginning of the statement, changing the first sentence from “We reaffirm the principles of Academic Freedom that protect the rights” to “We reaffirm that the principles of Academic Freedom protect the rights.”

Ralph Kingston (Senate Secretary) and Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy) both pointed out that rewording means that Senate would be affirming its understanding of the object of the principles of Academic Freedom and not affirming the principles of Academic Freedom themselves.

Vote on the amendment: changing “We reaffirm the principles of Academic Freedom that protect the rights” to “We reaffirm that the principles of Academic Freedom protect the rights.”

VOTE RESULTS: 31 total in favor, 13 opposed, 6 abstaining. The amendment passed.

Another amendment followed, to include “We, the University Senate of Auburn University, reaffirm…” at the start of the statement.

Sabit Adanur (senator, Mechanical Engineering) noted that the text of the motion speaks on behalf of students and asked whether Senate has the right to do so and whether such a declaration might more properly come from the SGA. Jake Haston (senator, SGA President) said that he had no problem with the inclusion of students in the motion.  Chair Steury noted that the SGA President was a voting member of the University Senate.

The amendment was approved by unanimous consent.

The Senate then proceeded to a third amendment, to include “staff” in first sentence so that it reads “protects the rights of faculty members, staff, and students...”

Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) suggested that “administrators” should also be included, and this was incorporated into the amendment by unanimous consent. The text would now read: “protects the rights of faculty members, staff, administrators, and students...”

Hearing no objections, this amendment was approved by unanimous consent.

Debate on the full statement then continued.

Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy) noted a question in the zoom chat as to whether or not academic freedom actually applies to administration and staff.

Lt Col McMullen (senator, ROTC, Air Force) then raised his hand to say that military service personnel are not permitted to be involved in political action.  He asked that the names of individual senators should not be added to the statement when it moves forward.

Chair Steury said that individual names would not be included with the statement. He also, however, pointed out that the fact that the vote would be anonymous would make it difficult to signal that any particular individual member vote had not participated in the vote.

Some senators questioned whether the statement was in fact a political statement, arguing that academic freedom is not a partisan political issue.

Other senators weighed in with suggestions as to how to document Lt Col. McMullen’s desire to abstain from the vote. It was suggested that, if those in McMullen’s situation wished to have their non-involvement recorded, they might temporarily absent themselves from the meeting for the duration of the vote, and that, by that means, their non-participation might be recorded in the minutes. Some, including Nathan Whelan (senator, Fisheries & Allied Aquaculture), took the opportunity to record their non-participation in the vote in this fashion.  His and Lt Col. McMullen’s not voting on the statement is hereby recorded officially in these minutes.

Vote on the statement:

We, the University Senate of Auburn University, reaffirm that the principles of Academic Freedom protect the rights of faculty, administrators, staff, and students to express and challenge ideas, present different viewpoints, engage in scholarly debate, and share their authentic voice through their own pedagogical ideology and intellectualism, without interference from political entities or fear of censorship, sanction, and retaliation. We further affirm that Academic Freedom includes the ability to introduce, teach, and discuss current scholarly theories relating to race, sex, gender, sexuality, religion, and other dimensions of diversity. A robust and free exchange of ideas, and debate over their validity, is a core value of higher education and, promotes intellectual curiosity. We reject any efforts that serve to silence faculty, students, or staff or threaten the intellectual integrity of institutions of higher education.

VOTE RESULTS: 46 total in favor, 4 opposed, 3 abstaining. The Senate voted to approve the statement.

Pending Action Items

Change in FHB related to composition of DEI committee

Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Chair of Rules Committee

Ralph Kingston (Senate Secretary) noted that this was a simple amendment, fixing an error made at the time of the creation of the committee by adding a representative from the Libraries to the committee.  He noted that the DEI committee had been consulted prior to the change being formulated and it had indicated that it did not wish to make any other changes to its composition at the present time.

Chair Steury noted that this would be an action item in the next senate meeting.  As a change to the senate constitution, it would require a vote of 2/3s of senators to pass.

Information Items

Updated ticket policy

Presenter: Beverly Marshall (chair, Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics)

Beverly Marshall (Chair, Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics) presented on changes to the rules on staff/faculty tickets to athletics events on behalf of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics. The main change is the inclusion of a warning that policy violations are subject to Alabama ethics law; the removal of outdated information, including phone numbers; the inclusion of gymnastics and softball in the policy; and the inclusion of digital tickets and links to more information. There are no changes to eligibility, seat selection, or the policy regarding away games and the post season for football.  Faculty continue not to be allowed to sell their discounted tickets at a profit.  Not only can violations result in forfeiture of ticket privileges but selling tickets for a profit is a violation of Alabama ethics law, and the Alabama Ethics Commission has the power to levy fines and criminal charges.

In response to a question from Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy), Beverly Marshall confirmed that faculty and staff can sell their tickets, just not for profit. The ethics violation is committed if faculty or staff profit from their position as state employees.

Updated election guidelines

Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Chair of Rules Committee

Ralph Kingston began by explaining that the reason this is an information item and not an action item is because the guidelines are based on provisions within the Senate constitution.  They are not new rules, but old rules repackaged to make them easier for heads and chairs when conducting senator elections and deans to use when running elections to the Faculty Grievance and Dismissal Hearing committees. The document will be sent out each year when the Senate Secretary contacts them to launch elections.

Kingston highlighted some specific issues treated by the guidelines. He noted that senators must be elected by secret ballot.  He noted that all faculty are eligible to serve as senator and that all faculty are eligible to vote for senator.  The guidelines make it clear that all faculty, tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track, are eligible to vote and to be elected.  Finally, he noted the importance of an open call for nominations as part of the process.

The same concern for transparency underpins the guidelines for deans running elections to the Faculty Grievance and the Dismissal Hearing Committees.  The guidelines also explain that the committees have different rules of eligibility to vote and to serve.

Liliana Stern (senator, Economics) asked if it was possible for it to be added that unit leaders should contact all members of the unit at the same time when soliciting nominations, and that chairs should be neutral and should not endorse or favor any particular candidate. Kingston agreed that an addition saying that all faculty members in the unit should be contacted at the same time would definitely be useful and, hearing no objections from the senators present, he would make this edit.

Legal considerations on intellectual property for faculty

Presenters: Grant Garber, University Counsel

Grant Garber (University Counsel) spoke on the issue of intellectual property and in particular about questions on the ownership of research data which came up in a previous Senate meeting.  Under the existing university policy, faculty own copyright of their scholarly works, including the materials produced for their teaching (including zoom recordings), research publications, presentations, drafts, etc. There are exceptions, including where the university commissioned the work; where the work is undertaken with a substantial commitment of institutional resources (for example, when the research required university staff time or significant time on a very expensive piece of equipment); and where the faculty member enters into specific agreements with sponsors or publishers. 

The presumption in terms of patents is that the university owns the patent / invention. Royalties are shared with the inventor. The university may reassign ownership back to a faculty member if it does not want to pursue patent protection in an invention.

Garber expressed his opinion that, in the event of a conflict, the policies on copyright and on patents should be given priority over the new policy on research data – that is to say, if an intellectual product can be captured by a definition of a copyrightable or patentable material, it should be the presumption that they are copyrightable or patentable. He believed the Faculty Research Committee will be including a similar provision in the revised version of the policy it will be soon presenting to senate.

In terms of a policy on research data, Garber noted that the university needs to operate a broad definition of research data because any policy it creates has to cover the different definitions of data used by different sponsors.  A single definition must be a broad definition.

The general rule is that the university owns research data generated by researchers performing their institutional responsibilities.  The researcher is entrusted as steward and custodian of that data.  The research data policy proposed by the Faculty Research Committee reflects what is already the case in this regard.

Garber went on to explain that institutional ownership is necessary to meet institutional responsibilities and contract obligations. These include data privacy, security, and confidentiality requirements, records retention requirements, audit and/or public accessibility requirements, and ensuring that research is undertaken under appropriate IRB and IACUC protocols, and without breaching export controls, etc.  In terms of patents, the university ensures that the proper documentation is in place. The university also ensures that students have access to the data they need to complete their work.  Finally, he noted that a failure to meet obligations in one project might negatively impact other researchers’ ability to secure future funding from the same sponsor.  Many sponsor agreements require that the institution own the data.

He argued, however, that researchers enjoy significant authority and responsibility over their research data.  The researchers are entrusted with control of the data, to do what they think best to advance their work, including deciding on how to analyze it, use, share it with collaborators, publish and disseminate it in the way on the terms the research believes best.  This authority is anchored in the principle of Academic Freedom.

Garber then proceeded to treat the question of what happens to the ownership of data when faculty leave the institution.  He noted that the university’s obligation in terms of handling data appropriately does not necessarily end when a faculty member leaves. It is routine, however, that, when faculty members leave the university, the university allows the researchers to take their research materials and data with them.

In conclusion, he presented the relationship between the institution and the researcher as a partnership.

Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy) asked that, given the practical differences between stewardship and ownership are so small, why could the university not carry out its obligations as a steward rather than an owner?

Garber responded that sponsors often require ownership in order to ensure that the university is accountable. He also noted that some obligations are better handled by experts within the research administration, by specialists in data security, IT infrastructure, export controls, relevant FRA requirements, confidentiality requirements, etc.

Sara Wolf (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) welcomed Garber’s suggestion that patent policy and copyright policy should have priority over the data policy.  She noted that there is significant overlap between research data and scholarly product: for example, field notes can be considered as either.  She wondered whether, if the university retained ownership of data after a faculty member leaves, what the university can do with the data, and whether disseminating that data through reproduction, adaptation, distribution, public display, public performance, and digital audio transmission, can be removed from that list.  

Garber responded that it was important that there was a clear process to decide on questions of overlap and the need for particular exceptions to the broad policy.

Michael Fogle (not a senator, Mathematics and Statistics) noted that some of the work faculty members do is not confined to Auburn but is instead the outcome of collaborations between universities.  He hoped that this, including the agreements faculty enter into with outside laboratories in terms of data sharing, was taken into account. 

Garber agreed that there needs to be a discussion about this.

Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) welcomed Garber’s specific mention of the primacy of specific ownership obligations specified in contracts, noting that some contracts give ownership to the faculty member specifically.

Hartfield then asked about a specific example – the ownership of equations. Equations are on the line between a copyrighted object and a piece of data. He asked if the university has a position on these.

Garber said he would have to look at this, and that an equation was probably on the line between a couple of different categories of intellectual property and data.  He reassured Hartfield that the intention of the new data retention plan is not to change the status quo.

Hartfield made one final recommendation before the discussion came to an end.  He recommended that the Vice President for Research should bring the Principal Investigator Handbook, mentioned by Garber during his presentation, to the Senate for consultation whenever it is updated.

New Business

None

Adjournment

Hearing no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 5:17 by unanimous consent.

Respectfully Submitted,
Ralph Kingston

Attendance