Auburn Academe

Open Forum

Stakeholders= Participation in the Selection of

University Administrators

March 2, 2001

3:00 P.M.

206 Tichenor

President=s Notes

by George Crandell

Auburn University, Inc.

After a relatively smooth transition from the quarter system to semesters, accomplished in large part by hard-working faculty members who repeatedly are called upon to do more with less, Auburn University now faces a more tumultuous transition, a change in leadership, and a possible change in direction. The shape of things to come may well be determined in the next few weeks or months as the search for President William V. Muse=s successor begins.

What is certain is that the selection of the next university president will decidedly influence the model that Auburn University seeks to emulate. What is uncertain, and what should be of grave concern to faculty, students, and alumni alike, is who will participate in the selection process. Will the collective voices of faculty, students, and alumni be heard?

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in its Statement on Government, emphasizes the primary role of board and faculty in the search for a president. At the very least, faculty and the board Ashould agree that no person will be chosen over the objections of the faculty.@ Ideally, faculty should participate as full partners in the search and selection process, along with students and alumni.

Speculation has already begun about possible successors to President Muse, but the names of individuals are really less important than the choice between two models of institutional governance. What is really at stake in this selection process is the choice between Ashared governance@ and the Acorporate@ model.

The AAUP has often warned that Athe corporate model is infiltrating higher education,@ and its impact can already be felt at Auburn University. AUnder its influence, faculty work is defined in terms of profit and loss; students are seen as >customers=; and education is a commodity packaged to fit customer demand, priced to suit the market, and designed for efficient delivery.@ Frequently, and with no sense of embarrassment, university administrators market Auburn, citing the U.S. News & World Report rankings, as one of the Abest buys@ in higher education. If only Auburn aimed to be among the best in quality, university administrators and faculty alike then would have something to brag about.

The alternative to the Acorporate model@ is one based on shared governance. In the Ashared governance@ model, the governing board, administration, faculty, and students share an understanding of their interdependence. They understand Athe usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action . . . to solve educational problems.@

The Acorporate@ model privileges the governing board and/or the administration above all others. The Ashared governance@ model privileges no one. Instead, it prescribes limited roles for all constituencies, including as the AAUP Statement on Government recommends, the governing board: AThe governing board of an institution of higher education, while maintaining a general overview, entrusts the conduct of administration to the administrative officers, the president and the deans, and the conduct of teaching and research to the faculty. The board should undertake appropriate self-limitation.@

Recognizing the significance of the search process and the even greater importance that the choice of an institutional model will have on the future of Auburn University, the Auburn Chapter of the AAUP is sponsoring an open forum on the topic of AStakeholders= Participation in the Selection of University Administrators.@ The forum aims to educate both faculty and the governing board about the joint responsibilities of shared governance. It also aims to combat the infiltrating influence of the corporate model that 1) threatens to diminish the role of faculty in institutional governance; 2) weakens professional standards by relying on a contingent workforce of part-time faculty; and 3) offers students a diminished educational experience.

Scheduled speakers include: Mr. Jack Venable, member of the Auburn University Board of Trustees; Associate Professor Larry Gerber, Secretary/Treasurer of the Alabama Conference of the AAUP, Professor Bruce Gladden, Chair of the Auburn University Senate, Professor Gene Clothiaux, a former chair of the University Senate, and Distinguished University Professor Richard Jaeger, Electrical Engineering.

The forum, free and open to the public, is scheduled for Friday, March 2, 2001 at 3:00 p.m. in Tichenor 206. AllBincluding faculty whom columnist Paul Davis labels Aapathetic@ and Asilent@Bare invited to attend and participate in the discussion.

Shared Governance and the Search

for a New President

By Larry Gerber

The events of the last couple of weeks have created a crisis at Auburn University. Now that the Board of Trustees has summarily and prematurely terminated Bill Muse=s service as president, Auburn is on the brink of a serious collapse of faith in the process of governance. In these circumstances, the selection of a new president, which even in the best of times is a critical decision for any university, may well determine the fate of Auburn University for decades to come.

There is no question that the Board of Trustees has the power and legal authority to make the final selection of the next president. In fact, the selection of a president is the most important decision any governing board of a university makes. However, a wise board will recognize that the process of selecting a president should be utilized to build consensus and to reinforce the common purpose of the various constituencies of the institution. A search handled unilaterally or guided by hidden agendas can leave lasting scars that will take many years to heal and make it virtually impossible for a new president to be effective. On the other hand, a search process that provides for meaningful faculty involvement and for input from students, staff, administrative and professional personnel, and alumni can strengthen the institution and make the job of a new president much easier.

The American Association of University Professors, in its 1981 policy statement on Faculty Participation in the Selection, Evaluation, and Retention of Administrators (published in the Red Book), acknowledges that there is not just one search process model that must be followed in selecting a president. The statement instead establishes the principle that the faculty ought to play a primary role in the process and that no president ought to be selected over the objection of the faculty.

The president pro tempore of the Auburn Board of Trustees has already indicated in the press that the board intends to establish an advisory committee to assist in the search. Such a procedure was used a decade ago when Bill Muse was hired. It is critical that the faculty be well represented on this advisory committee by individuals nominated by the University Senate Rules Committee, and that representatives of the students, staff, the A & P group, and alumni also be included, with those representatives also chosen by their own constituents. Because of their crucial role in the university, faculty ought to have greater representation than other constituent groups on this committee. Such a committee might also include one or two members of the Board of Trustees, though the final judgment of the entire board would be exercised at the very end of the process.

No decisions about the conduct of the search ought to be taken until the advisory committee is in place. The board has indicated its plan to utilize a search consulting firm. The use of such consultants may be justified, given the current circumstances that will make it extremely difficult to attract candidates for the position. But no consulting firm ought to be retained without the direct involvement of the advisory committee, since it will be crucial if consultants are used that they be experienced in the field of higher education and can demonstrate past success in searches that emphasized academic criteria and fostered consensus among university constituent groups and their governing board.

It is especially important that the advisory committee be in sole charge of screening applicants and determining a short list and that no candidate who is not approved by the advisory committee be sent along to the board for consideration. Finalists must also come to campus to meet with various groups before any final recommendations are made. The advisory committee may identify more than one viable candidate and the board would then have the responsibility of choosing from among a list of approved candidates. And, of course, the board will have to approve the final selection, so that in the end someone will have to be acceptable both to the advisory committee and the board.

It is imperative that the search process be a legitimate one and that faculty and other constituent groups develop confidence in the process as it proceeds. Given the board=s track record, this will be very difficult, but if the board does not take active steps to develop and justify that confidence, the future for Auburn will be bleak.

Upcoming Forum

Our Fall Forum on Teaching Effectiveness was one of our most successful ever. The response has been so positive that we are developing a follow-up forum on the same topic. The working title is AWhat Is Effective Teaching?@ A date has not yet been set and we are still looking for one or two more speakers. Contact George Crandell, 4-9062, if you would be interested in speaking.

A transcript of the Fall Forum is now online at /academic/societies/aaup/forumf00.htm.