Auburn Academe
The Newsletter of the Auburn Chapter of the American Association of University Professors
Volume 10 Number 1 Winter 1999
President's Notes
by Yvonne Kozlowski
This issue of Auburn Academe contains an abbreviated version of Barry Burkhart’s two essays on the problems of governance at Auburn University recently published in the AU Report. If ever there was a time when it was p
ossible to see hope for change, it presents itself now during the regular Alabama legislative session. Two bills in the senate call for a constitutional change in the process for nomination to the Auburn Board of Trustees. This proposed legislation also e
xpands Board membership to candidates residing outside the State of Alabama. Full text of this proposed legislation have been posted at the following internet addresses:
House Bill 306 can be found at http://www.legislature.state.al.us/searchableinstruments/1999rs/bills/hb308.htm;
and Senate Bill 644 can be found at http://www.legislature.state.al.us/searchableinstruments/1998regularsession/bills/sb644.htm
The Auburn Chapter of AAUP invites you to attend an open forum on this proposed legislation on
April 1, 1999 at 4:00 pm in Tichenor 206. There is a need for us to j
oin with other interested groups to lobby for change. Dr. Paul Parks will be spearheading the campus effort to see this legislation through this year's session. Join us for discussion on this topic and find out how you can lobby for positive change.
The Need for Reform is Pressing
By Barry Burkhart
There is core problem in the management of
Auburn University and that problem is the Board of Trustees. However, the
problem is not the people on the board, many of whom sacrifice time and
effort to make the board work. I believe a focus on an ad hominem analysis
misses the larger point. The core problem for Auburn is the antiquated and
unjust political process by which the members for the Board of Trustees are
selected. We cannot fix the Board by having new players as long as the game
by which these players are picked is rigged and my assertion is that the game
is inextricably rigged as long as the game is a purely political game. In the
next few months, six new board members will be appointed, including two board
members who have been serving since their terms expired in 1995, but who
defied the governor's attempt to replace them by exerting political influence
in the state senate. These six new members and the new governor will have a
majority in the newly constituted board and, thus, will be in a position to
determine whether Auburn will lead this state into the 21st Century
or whether Auburn will be a provincial and ineffectual institution. Unless we
have board members selected because they can serve as guardians of the more
noble destiny, the former outcome is, by historical precedent, the more likely
outcome.
What can be done about this problem? My belief is that many
of the difficulties which can be traced to the Board could be attenuated or
eliminated if Alabama followed the lead of progressive states and universities
and revised how board members are nominated, selected, and appointed. The
second set of recommendations require changing the constitutionally prescribed
structure of the Board. These archaic and provincial standards were
appropriate, perhaps, for the Auburn of 100 years ago, but no longer serve
the interests of the Auburn University of today. The recommended changes are
clearly in line with contemporary standards and I cannot imagine that they
could be opposed by anyone familiar with higher education leadership. The
recommendations are:
the state
residency requirement for Trustees should be eliminated.
the terms
of trustees should be changed from the current length of 12 years to 6 years
the number
of terms a trustee can serve should be changed from the current standard of
unlimited number of terms to two terms.
the state
legislature of Alabama should establish a Board Candidate Advisory Council to
develop criteria for selection of trustees, describe responsibilities and
duties of Trustees, identify and recruit qualified candidates, and recommend
two to four candidates for each new trustee appointment. This council should
include representatives from the Alumni Association, faculty, and student
government. Several states (Kentucky and Minnesota among them) have developed
procedures like those advocated herein and the procedures of these states
could be used to develop such guidelines.
the senate
confirmation committee should be eliminated to allow full vote by the Senate
for approval of Board nominees.
no current
member of the legislature should be allowed to serve on the Board.
the Board
of Trustees should recognize by formal declared policy and by supporting
appropriate changes in the state constitution that its primary functions are
to establish broad policy for the institution and to protect the university
from external pressures. Toward these ends, the wording of Amendment No. 161,
Section 1, of the constitution of Alabama should be changed from "Auburn
University...shall be under the management and control of a board of trustees
to "Auburn University...shall be governed by a board of trustees." Similar and
parallel changes should be made in the Board Policy and Procedures Manual.
a conflict
of interest statement, similar to those in effect at Alabama A&M and
Alabama State University should be placed into Chapter 48 of the Code of
Alabama, 1975, for Auburn University.
The third set of recommendations is internal to the Board
and requires changes only in the Board policy manual. These include:
members of
the Board of Trustees should disclose personal assets and potential conflicts
of interest by filing a standard ethics form as required by other public
officials in Alabama.
the Board
should develop procedures for reprimanding members for misconduct,
inappropriate behavior, or failure to perform responsibilities at an expected
level and should develop mechanisms for removal of a member(s) from office for
just cause as required by SACS.
members of
the Board should recognize that only the full Board can make decisions. The
board should be self-disciplining regarding individual trustees attempting to
influence the President or other university administrators.
the Board
should develop a formal training program to be provided to all trustees, both
new and current members. Training could be in the subjects of ethics, board
duties, history and philosophy of higher education, lay governance, finances,
and review of academic programs.
the
Board's policy manual should include a declaration of its role as
protector of the University. Moreover, the Board should include a policy
definition that the other core role for the Board is to develop policy, not
manage the day to day affairs of the University. The Board's previous
involvement in targeting individual faculty because of personal philosophical
differences in beliefs must be acknowledged as never appropriate and clearly
outside the role of any board member. As stated by SACS, "there must be
clear distinction, in writing and in practice, between the policy making
functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration
and faculty to administer and implement policy."
faculty-
Trustee contact should be encouraged. A semiannual meeting of the University
Senate Executive Committee with the Board is a possibility, as are additional
informal contacts.
Members of
the Board of Trustees should be encouraged to attend regional and national
meetings for governing boards as a part of their professional development.
Additionally, the Board should use a professional agency to review and make
recommendations in the areas of board composition, qualifications and
orientation of new members, and policy and procedures.
These recommendations are nothing less, in parallel terms,
than what is expected by the Board of all Auburn faculties, staff, and
administrators. There is nothing to be feared by these changes; if specific
ones are genuinely not feasible or overly burdensome, then Board should so
respond to those specific ones. However, if most of these are reasonable
suggestions which have the potential to solve the core problems which the
Board has faced, then I would expect the Board to work for their
implementation. Expecting less of the Board is to believe that they do not
love Auburn. I believe, in fact, that the majority of Auburn's Board members,
present and past, love Auburn and wish for a better future than the past
would predict.