AU Senate Meeting

Establish a Quorum

• A quorum was established, with 48 Senators. 48 Senators responded to the quorum poll.

• Approval of the minutes from October 18, 2022, with no corrections raised. Minutes approved.

• The Chair then invited the AU Administrators to make remarks.

Remarks and Announcements

AU President: Christopher B. Roberts

• President Roberts welcomed everyone and shared information about the enrollment and Facilities for Auburn University.

  • Enrollment - 35,000 freshmen applications 10% higher than the previous year.

    • Over 400 of the freshmen admitted were through the Auburn First Program.

  • Facilities – The BOT approved 9 facilities projects. Seven of the 9 were related to the Academic enterprise. President Roberts make note that approval was given for a new building for the College of Education, Gulf Coast Engineering Research Center, College of Architecture Design Commons, Renovations in Lowder Hall for student advising suites. He mentioned that at the next BOT meeting, the STEM Agriculture building would be discussed for approval.

• President Roberts mentioned the excitement of celebrating the AU faculty at the upcoming Faculty Awards Celebration.

The Chair thanked Dr. Roberts and asked Interim Provost Nathan to share her comments.

AU Interim Provost: Vini Nathan

• Discussion of the purchased property by AU in Huntsville AL.

• The approval of a degree program in Library, Media and Technology in the College of Education.

• Dr. Nathan shared information on the College of Human Science (Nutritional Sciences) completed their accreditation had their exit interview showing that they had a strong program.

• Dr. Nathan shared information on the Mission Enhancement funds for which16 units of the university received funding.

• Dr. Nathan gave an update about internationalization efforts at Auburn as it related to a previous question concerning Auburn’s international programs. She mentioned that Dr. Andy Gillespie of the office of International Programs will be looking at strategies for continual support of Auburn’s international programs to support Auburn in a more competitive and meaningful ranking as it relates to the US and Times rankings.

Questions

The Chair then asked if there were questions that should be recognized from President Roberts or Provost Nathan.

• Dr. Tony Moss asked a question for clarification of the approved facilities from the BOT concerning College of Architecture Design Construction.

  • President Roberts shared that there was a proposal to create studio and laboratory spaces for the College of Architecture Design Construction. Dr. Moss thanked Dr. Roberts for the clarification.

• The Chair then asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none, the Chair continued with the agenda for the meeting.

Information Items

Update on Academic Policies

Presented by Norman Godwin, Associate Provost for Academic Effectiveness.

• Dr. Godwin discussed that many of the Academic policies have outdated language and processes. He discussed that there is a review of the policies in his office and discussed that there is work being done to create good policy statements and create a better usable website. He furthered mentioned that an ad hoc committee had been established that includes Faculty, the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Director of Student Services, and the Registrar’s office to develop and suggest revision of the policy.

• The chair asked for any questions in response to Dr. Godwin’s presentation.

  • Dr. Tony Moss asked the question if the new policies would come across to the Senate for ratification by vote.

    • Dr. Godwin responded that it depended upon the policy. He gave an example of the Academic Standards Committee being included in the review of policy which fall under the Senate.

  • Dr. David Blersch asked a question about the anticipated schedule for the review process and how policies are revised along with how are policies announced or presented to the university?

    • Dr. Godwin explained that announcements would be made based on potential changes that will have gone through the review process. Dr. Godwin gave various examples of how this would be implemented as far as making announcements.

Report for Senate DEI Committee

Presented by Melody Russell, Chair of Senate DEI Committee.

• Dr. Melody Russell gave a presentation from the DEI committee, providing an update. She explained the charge, committee membership, along with the university Senate Inclusive Excellence Award. She explained the criteria, eligibility, application process and application timeline. She furthered explained that the award would be administered by the University Senate Committee and housed in the Office of Inclusion and Diversity. The recipient would receive 10,000 per year for three years.

• The Chair asked for questions. No questions were asked, and the chair continued with the agenda.

Report from Ad Hoc Committee on Rank Above Professor

Presented by Jada Kohlmeier, Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee.

• Dr. Kohlmeier gave a summary of the committee and recommendations. She gave the charge of the committee that was formed by the past university senate leadership. The committee was asked to research ranks above professor. Dr. Kohlmeier discussed that they did an extensive look at different ranks from various institutions. The committee is recommending a rank above Professor. Dr Kohlmeier gave a very detailed presentation including all details that were discussed among the committee members.

• The chair then asked if there were questions.

  • Dr. Luca Guazzotto asked several questions:

    • Is the process the same as the standard tenure and promotion process? And

    • How do you qualify for this promotion?

    • Dr. Kohlmeier responded to the questions by first explaining that the committee was charged with whether having rank above professor was a good idea. The committee was not charged to develop a detailed accounting of the guidelines, standards, and the committee process. She also suggested if the Senate decided to move further with this concept, the details would be decided by the senate.

  • Dr. Melody Russell asked a question about the rationale for rank above professor. Then she made the comment that she was still not clear on what needed to done next. She stated that she was not clear on how this idea came up and why would you want to move forward with this since criteria was not in place. One major question Dr. Russell posed was, does this mean we automatically move forward?

    • Dr. Kohlmeier reiterated that the committee felt like this would be an excellent way to honor a professor who had achieved an extra level of exceptionalism. Dr. Kohlmeier did mention that one part of the rationale was keep the professor from leaving the institution and going into private industry.

  • Provost Nathan asked to make some clarification about the level of rank above Professor. Provost Nathan expressed that this was a beginning process and has not been vetted through the Deans, President, and other university leadership to see what the implications may be. This is an idea not a mandate nor a call to action. There are things that must developed before one can move on. There needs to be ongoing clarity about whether this concept is a rank or award.

  • Clarification was made by the Chair that this was informational because there are several things that must be done before the idea could be brought back to the Senate.

  • The Chair recognized Dr. Zachry Schulz for a question. Dr. Zachry Schulz offer a motion that the senate consider this for action in the next Senate meeting to start the discussion. Dr. Tony Moss seconded the motion.

  • Dr. Melody Russell asked what the discussion would be since the concept of level above Professor will move forward to an action item?

The Chair asked for other questions. No questions on this item and the chair moved on with the agenda.

Action Items

Vote for Replacements to Senate Committees

Presented by L. Octavia Tripp, Senate Secretary.

• Dr. Tripp presented the nominees for replacement for Senate Committees:

  • Academic Program Review - Chris Lepczyk, CFWE

  • Administrator Evaluation - Evelyn Bornier, Foreign Languages

  • Competitive Research Grant - Vinicia Blancardi, CVM

  • Faculty Handbook Review - Allison Plumb, Speech Language and Hearing

• The chair explained the voting process for the Senate Committee Replacements.

• The Chair set up “Vote for replacements to Senate Committees”

  • The vote was 45 approved and 1 respondent abstained. The Chair thanked the new members for their cooperation.

Vote on FALL 2023 Calendar Change (Change start date from Aug 21 to Aug 16)

Presented by Karen Battye, Registrar.

• Karen Battye brought up the fall calendar for 2023. She explained the beginning date and the ending date using a PowerPoint for the revised Fall Calendar 2023. She presented a very detailed explanation for needing to revise the calendar.

• After the presentation the chair asked for questions:

  • Sunny Stalter – Pace asked a question. Is the start date the same as the start date for fall semester 2022 with only one day for fall break?

    • Karen Battye address Dr. Stalter-Pace question by saying that that this trade off is only going to be every fourth or fifth year. Karen Battye also said that it might be an issue with faculty but it is the faculty choice of how they may want to handle the situation. There was much discussion about the start date by various faculty members. After much discussion it was time to vote.

• The Chair opened the vote for “Change for Fall 2023 start date”.

  • Results were as follows; 41 yes, 8 no. and 1 abstained. Therefore, the start date for August 16th, 2023, passed.

New Business

• None.

Adjournment

Chair Mark Carpenter adjourned the meeting at 5:01 p.m.