Faculty Senate Meeting
February 11, 2015, 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Butler Board Room
1) Public Safety – Dan Nichols and Phillip Morse (2:30)
2) Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton (3:00)
3) Provost’s Report – Scott Bass (3:15)
4) Faculty Manual Revisions – Candy Nelson (3:30)
5) COTC Reporting Form – Larry Engel – (3:45)
6) Undergraduate Regulations – Mark Hayes (4:15)
7) Honors in the Major – Larry Engel & Michael Manson (4:30)
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
*** The complete Recording for this meeting can be
January 14, 2015
Found at http://www.american.edu./facultysenate/agendas-minutes.cfm
Present: Professors: Lacey Wootton, Larry Engel, Candy Nelson, John Douglass, Maria Gomez,
Billie Jo Kaufman, Despina Kakoudaki, Iris Krasnow, Joshua Lansky, Christine Lawrence,
Jonathan Loesberg, Jun Lu, Mary Mintz, Glenn Moomau, Arturo Porzecanski, Andrea Pearson,
Steve Silvia, Chris Simpson, Provost Scott Bass and Interim DAA Mary L. Clark
Professor Wootton called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Chairs’s Report – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that she had no discussion for the Chair’s report other than the
approval of the December 3, 2014 minutes.
Professor Wootton opened the floor for discussion of the December minutes. There was no
discussion; the Senate VOTED and the minutes were approved 17-0-1 in favor.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass welcomed everyone back from break. He stated that there are a number of
initiatives that are in motion and that it will be important to complete them in the spring term.
1) SET’s and the current system will no longer be supported as far as the technology aspect,
and a new system needs to be put into place. There has been a committee charged with
this task and the expectation was that the new system would be approved by the Senate
this term, allowing for IT to have a full year to implement in Fall of 2016.
2) Social Media Guidelines for faculty. A Senate ad-hoc committee is working on
recommendations from the Senate for faculty as to what to put in their syllabi in terms of
protection of intellectual property and use of recorded material in the classroom.
3) Graduate enrollement for Spring term did not meet overall budget guidelines for the term
and for the year. CAS has implemented a new management system and this has helped
CAS to exceed last year’s enrollment numbers. SPA is on target but the remining units
did not meet the target numbers for enrollment from last year’s numbers.
The law school’s numbers have been hit the hardest, which is a national phenomenon.
Both the law school and the MBA are showing a weakness. There is expectation of a
rebound over time for the law school as the economy improves and for the MBA and
other Masters Programs in the business school. Kogod has completed an agreement with
2U for an online MBA that will start in October of 2016. Additionally, approved by the
Faculty Senate • January 14, 2015 Minutes
Page 1 of 4
Senate Curriculum Committee is an online MA in Analytics, which will be intergrated
into the MBA.
4) The campus climate for students remains a sensitive subject. With the increased diversity
of the student population, there have been some negative exchanges. As a result Campus
Life and Interm DAA Mary L. Clark have worked together on a series of programs and
events for students and faculty on issues of race, gender and class.
Communications at AU – Terry Flannery
VP of Communications Terry Flannery gave an overview to the Senate of how emergency
communication is handled at AU. She presented the actual time frame and “chain of command”
on the event last December, “Gunman on Campus”. The step by step presenation showed the
connection with Public Safety, local authorities, students, faculty and the media.
Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) – Jon Tubman
VP of Graduate Curriculum Jon Tubman returned to the Senate with the revised COTC
Disclosure Questions and draft form. The revised form was reviewed and tabled with some
changes to be returned to the Senate in February 2015. The changes included:
1) To include a reporting period on the face of the form
2) Put the procedural statement first before the reporting form
3) Clarify “1 out of 5 days” as written in the manual
Professor Simpson asked who would have access to the data provided on the COTC form: Who
from the Provost’s office has access. Does the Provost’s have access to the data?
VP Tubman stated that while the process goes through the intial set-up, he would be a systems
administrator. After the launch of the actual form to faculty, the DAA would be the systems
administrator because the data relates to faculty actions.
Professor Simpson requested that clarity be made on what information is exactly expected from
faculty as to time committement vs. monetary.
Professor Wootton agreed that the document be revised with the requested changes and brought
back to the Senate in February.
Budget Update – John Douglass
Professor Douglass stated that the University Budget Committee is midstream in the budget
process. The committee will meet again on January 23, 2015. For now, the revenue side did fall
short due to graduate student enrollment. There will be a tuition increase to catch the university
up with its peer institutions. The increase being looked at is between a 2 ½ to 4 ½ % increase as
approved by the BOT. Other increases include merit increase for faculty, minimum wage
Faculty Senate • January 14, 2015 Minutes
Page 2 of 4
increase for mainly students, medical and dental plan increases (Carefirst increasing 7 1/2% and
Kieser increasing 8%), transfer to the quasi endowment, and term faculty salary increase.
Faculty Manual Changes – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that when the University Library manual was combined with the main
campus manual, Thi Southern from Legal Counsel called attention to some areas that needed to
be revised. These changes are a result of this review;
Pg. 10 – Foreword, tabled for further review.
Pg. 16 – CFA Governance at AU – language changed for clarity
Pg. 18 – CFG Governance at American University – Clarity on DAA’s authority
Pg. 19 – General Conditions of Faculty Appointments – Clarity of “full-time faculty.”
Pg. 21 – Teaching, Scholarship and Service - Course load changes agreed to in writing. This
was deleted to reflect current practice.
Pg. 25 – Distinguished Professor/Librarian – Language added for clarity of DAA’s
responsibility and language removed because of redundancy.
Pg. 25 – Emeriti and Emeritae Faculty – Removed the word “approximately” for clarity
Pg. 26 – Affiliate Faculty – removal of the word “and” for clarity
Pg. 27 – Joint Faculty Appointments – Added “full-time faculty” for clarity and removing
duplicate paragraph currently in manual.
Pg. 29 – Template was included accidently and will not change.
Pg. 30 – Pre-tenure Credit for Prior Service – Current language redundant
Pg. 32 – Extension of Time for Tenure Consideration – Reorganization for clarity so reference
is added to language in Delay of Tenure.
Pg. 32,33, & 34 – Contractual Terms of Service…. – correction of letter sequence
Pg. 34 – Teaching and Primary Responsibilities – Language added to clarify minimum
expectations for evaluation of student work.
Pg. 39 – Dean of Academic Affairs and Provost Reviews – Corrected spelling of
“extraordinary”
Faculty Senate • January 14, 2015 Minutes
Page 3 of 4
Pg. 41 - Professional Obligations – Language changed to make section consistent with Section
10, General Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty
Pg. 41 – Professional Obligations – Language omitted to reflect existing practice
Pg. 68 – University Retirement Plan and Retirement Options – Tabled
Professor Pearson asked about the language on Pg. 34 Teaching and Primary Responsibilities
and how this language clarifies faculty responsibilities.
Provost Bass stated that this language is going to be clarified next year when the Senate works
on grade inflation. The proposed language is a minimal language fix for now.
Librarian Mintz asked if there was a current document for the university’s retirement incentive
policy. She asked if there was such a document. Her understanding is that the process is done on
an individual basis.
Dean Clark stated that in her experience it has been done on an individual basis. She is not aware
of any document.
The Senate VOTED on changes from pages 16-41 15-0-0 in favor. Changes on pages 10 and 68
were tabled; page 29 was included accidently and the Senate was told there will not be any
change to this section of the manual at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 PM
Faculty Senate • January 14, 2015 Minutes
Page 4 of 4
1 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
To: The Faculty Senate
From: Lyn Stallings, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Date: January 22, 2015
Rationale for change to 8.4 (Proposal submitted by Mark Hayes, Study Abroad):
Conforms to the policy approved by the Faculty Senate in its December 3, 2014 meeting. Allow
approved Study Abroad courses to count toward the General Education Requirements.
8.4 General Education
Students will be expected to satisfy their General Education requirements during the first 60
earned credits.
There may be cases in which courses in the General Education curriculum also meet
requirements of the major; however, students will not be able to substitute courses in their major
field for General Education requirements.
Students presenting a 4 or 5 on the Advanced Placement examination, a score of 75 on the CLEP
examination, or grades for which they have received credit from the British A Levels, CEGEP,
International Baccalaureate, German Abitur, or other international credential for which they have
been granted credit by American University may apply the credit for up to four courses to meet
the General Education Requirements in any of the five curricular areas. Credit toward General
Education may be awarded only for examinations taken prior to entering American University.
Transfer students may satisfy some or all of their General Education requirements through
transfer credit.
Because of the special nature of the General Education Program, after students have matriculated
at American University, no credit toward the General Education Requirements may be earned
through transfer credit unless the course is taken on an approved AU Abroad program. Students
can take up to 6 credit hours of General Education courses abroad.
Sample Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) Disclosure Survey (01/21/15) Dear _____________: This Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) disclosure survey is being sent to you as part of an annual COTC disclosure process approved by the American University Faculty Senate in November 2014. The completion of an annual COTC disclosure survey is required for all tenured or tenure‐earning faculty members at American University, as well as all term faculty members with multi‐year appointments. All COTC disclosures are reviewed in the appropriate academic unit’s dean’s office by a designated reviewer. Statements on conflict of commitment from the American University’s Faculty Manual are provided immediately below. Section 26a, p. 69: The university expects faculty to perform their duties without unresolved conflicts of commitment. A conflict of commitment arises when a faculty member’s outside activities interfere with the faculty member’s primary commitment to the university. The Faculty Manual provides specific guidance in areas which commonly arise in faculty members’ performance of their responsibilities. As a preliminary matter, the faculty member is responsible for disclosing actual and potential conflicts to the teaching unit chair or academic unit dean. If it is not clear whether the faculty member must disclose, the faculty member must err on the side of disclosure. It is the university’s responsibility to determine if the disclosed interests could materially affect the faculty member’s performance of university responsibilities or interfere with the faculty member’s primary commitment to the university, and, if so in either case, to require the management, reduction, or elimination of the conflict. Failure to comply with the university’s plan for managing the conflict, including corrective action, may result in disciplinary action. Section 26c, p. 70: Faculty members should avoid conflict of commitment from the intrusion of outside activities upon the academic functions of teaching/primary responsibilities, scholarship/professional contributions, and service to the institution. Section 26c.i, p. 70: A tenure‐line faculty member may not hold a tenure‐line position on the faculty of another higher education institution. Exceptions to this policy will require the written approval of the Provost, following recommendation of the teaching or academic unit and the academic unit dean. Section 26c.i, p. 70: Library faculty members may accept paid positions as part‐time teaching faculty with American University with prior approval from the University Librarian and the Dean of Academic Affairs. Section 26c.i, p. 70: Teaching courses for another college or university at any time requires advance written approval of the academic unit dean and the Dean of Academic Affairs. Section 26c.ii, p. 70: The university permits a full‐time faculty member to work on outside consulting, provided that such activity does not diminish the faculty member’s total contribution to the university. In general, for full‐time faculty, this consulting should be equivalent to not more than one day of a five‐
day work week. Section 26c.ii, p. 71. The responsibility for adhering to the limit on outside consulting lies first with the individual faculty member. Before undertaking outside consulting, faculty members should resolve any questions and ambiguities, including time commitment and compensation associated with the activity, with their teaching unit chair or academic unit dean. Faculty members must submit to the teaching unit chair and academic unit dean an annual report listing the level of their consulting activities. In addition, every faculty member has an ongoing obligation to report activities that may raise questions about conflicts as soon as such situations become known to the individual. Section 26c.ii, p. 71: So that the university may determine whether the principles set forth herein are being adhered to and to ensure that university and teaching unit workload responsibilities are met, the deans will forward all consulting reports to the Dean of Academic Affairs. The university will protect itself from losses due to excessive consulting and will require faculty members to stop any consulting activity that is inconsistent with this policy. Section 26c.iii, p. 71: Service to the profession that furthers the faculty member’s workload obligation to the university is generally not considered outside consulting. Examples of such service to the profession include participation on or in national commissions and professional associations, governmental agencies and boards, granting agency peer group review panels, visiting committees or advisory groups to other universities, and analogous bodies. Unlike consulting, service to the profession advances a broad public purpose. Service to the profession does not, however, wholly satisfy a faculty member’s responsibilities in the area of university. Although an honorarium or equivalent sometimes is forthcoming, these service activities are not undertaken for personal financial gain. Therefore, such service to the profession generally does not fall within the definition of outside consulting. The following brief survey includes three questions with dichotomous (i.e., yes/no) response formats. When you disclose an actual or potential conflict of time commitment (COTC), you will be asked to provide additional descriptive information in a pop‐up window regarding the specific situation that you have disclosed. A glossary of relevant terms is available at [insert link to glossary here]. Please do not reply to this email. Please contact Abigail Puskar at apuskar@american.edu with any questions you may have regarding this email. Do you have specific non‐university external activities, described in the following questions? 1. Are you a paid instructor for a credit‐bearing college/university course at an institution other than American University? (This applies to the entire calendar year.) If yes, a dialogue box opens with the statement: Please list each course and the college/university for which each was taught. 2. Have you worked as an employee, independent contractor or consultant (paid or unpaid) for an organization other than American University? Customarily, the reporting period for this question applies to the standard academic year (fall and spring semesters, 9 months). However, if there are uncertainties about the reporting period due to a change in full‐time teaching and service, then the faculty member should consult the dean or the dean’s designee. If yes, a dialogue box opens with the grid: Nature of Your Current Company or Activities Organization Hours Spent per Week During Current Reporting Period Estimated Hours per Week Anticipated in Next Reporting Period 3. Do you have a management role, other fiduciary role, or ownership role in an organization other than American University? This includes, but is not limited to, a role as an officer, member of a board of directors, or supervisor or manager at an organization other than American University. Customarily, the reporting period for this question applies to the standard academic year (fall and spring semesters, 9 months). However, if there are uncertainties about the reporting period due to a change in full‐time teaching and service, then the faculty member should consult the dean or the dean’s designee. If yes, a dialogue box opens with the grid: Nature of Your Current Company or Hours Spent per Week Estimated Hours per Activities Organization During Current Week to be Spent in Reporting Period Next Reporting Period Glossary for COTC Disclosure Survey (draft 02.01.2015) Board of Directors: This is the governing body of an incorporated firm or other entity. Members of this governing body are typically elected by the subscribers or stockholders of the firm. The functions of the body include the governance of the firm and the protection of the interests of the subscribers or shareholders. This body has ultimate decision‐making authority for the firm and sets it overall policies, objectives and direction. Consultant: A consultant is an individual who possesses special knowledge, expertise or skills and provides that expertise to a client for a fee. Consultants help all sorts of businesses or other organizations find and implement solutions to a wide variety of problems. Consultants are ordinarily hired on an independent contractor basis and typically receive monetary or non‐monetary compensation from a client for services rendered. Credit Bearing: For the purposes of a university, this refers to a course or other instructional format to which a credit or credits are attached which may be applied toward a degree or certificate. Current Reporting Period: The current academic year for which COTC disclosures are required. Actual time spent and activities are reported for the current academic year. Designated Reviewer: For purposes of the Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) disclosure management process, the designated reviewer is the person(s) in the academic unit (either a dean, an associate dean, or another member of the dean’s administrative staff) who has been tasked by the dean to provide initial reviews of faculty COTC disclosures, and potentially, to negotiate draft management plans when judged to be necessary. Fiduciary Role: This refers to a relationship in which one person has a responsibility of care for the assets (e.g., money, property) or rights of another person or organization. Independent Contractor: A person who contracts to do work for another person or organization according to his or her own processes and methods. The contractor is not subject to another's control except for what is specified in a mutually binding agreement for a specific piece of work. An independent contractor is not an employee but contracts with an employer to perform a specific piece of work. This working relationship is flexible and provides benefits to both parties. Management Role: One of several functions implemented by a manager in the performance of specific tasks, objectives or operations of a company or other entity, such as managing information or communications, working relations among employees or making and implementing decisions. Manager: A person who is responsible for the performance of a specific group of tasks, objectives or the operation of a specific division of a company. A manager may have a staff of people who report to him or her. Next Reporting Period: The academic year for which COTC disclosures are required that is subsequent to the current academic year. Estimated time spent and activities are reported for the future academic year. Officer: A person appointed by the board of directors of a firm or other entity to manage the day‐to‐day business of the firm and to carry out the policies designed and approved by the board. Ownership Role: This refers to the ultimate and exclusive right conferred by a lawful claim or title, and subject to certain restrictions to enjoy, occupy, possess, rent, sell, use, give away, or even destroy an item of property. Ownership may refer to corporeal or non‐corporeal entities. Ownership may refer to partial or complete ownership (e.g., a business). Paid Instructor: A person compensated for teaching an instructional course, typically for an educational institution. Supervisor: A person in a front‐line management position who monitors and regulates employees in their performance of assigned or delegated tasks. A supervisor is typically authorized to recommend and/or effect employee hires, discipline, promotions, sanctions, rewards and other activities associated with employee’s conditions of work in the departments supervised by the manager. Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Pg. 10. Foreword
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
FOREWORD
Each member of the faculty and American University accept a mutual set of obligations and
expectations at the time of initial appointment. The American University Faculty Manual presents
these obligations and expectations as a guide to university policies and practices regarding faculty.
The Faculty Senate formulated these policies, acknowledging the prior work of the Committee on
Faculty Relations and the ad hoc Faculty Manual Committee. They reflect the efforts of its
drafters to affirm principles in accord with those generally in effect in the academic world. The
university does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender,
gender identity and expression, age, disability, marital status, personal appearance, sexual
orientation, family responsibilities, political affiliation, or any other legally protected status under
federal or District of Columbia law. Seeking a diverse faculty and administration, the university
strives to conform to all applicable equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws and
all federal and state nondiscrimination laws. American University is committed to providing and
protecting all rights afforded to faculty members under federal and District of Columbia
employment and employment-related laws.
The principles set forth in the Manual evince the firm intention of the university to provide as
favorable working conditions for its faculty as resources permit and an atmosphere in which
faculty members may pursue their scholarly, creative, and professional activities and interests
freely and without restraint. In return, the university expects faculty members to devote
themselves with energy to the primary duties of teachers, scholars, and creators of knowledge and
to challenge students intellectually and encourage them to acquire knowledge, understanding, and
vision.
This Manual sets a framework for a university that continually aspires to be recognized among
other distinguished universities as a distinct college-centered research university that values
outstanding teaching and scholarship.
This Manual applies to all facultyat the university with the exceptions noted below or unless a
specific rule, regulation, or policy requires otherwise.
Any faculty member may submit to the Faculty Senate a recommendation to amend the Manual.
If approved, the Faculty Senate forwards the recommendation to the Provost, who may either
accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is accepted, the Provost forwards
the recommendation to the President who may either accept or reject it. The President forwards
accepted recommendations to the Board of Trustees for a final decision. The Board of Trustees
may make changes to the Manual in consultation with the Faculty Senate, the Provost, and the
President.
This Manual establishes a set of standard procedures. When the Manual uses the words
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
“customarily,” “generally,” “usually,” “typically,” or “normally” in the description of a procedure,
it indicates the flexibility to depart from standard procedure in individual instances. When such
departures require a written exception as indicated in this Manual, these written exceptions must
be filed in the office of the Dean of Academic Affairs. The Dean of Academic Affairs provides to
any faculty member the exception agreements upon request except for those agreements that
contain health or other highly personal information.
This Manual applies to library faculty. When the Manual refers to the “teaching” related duties of
a faculty member, these references as applied to library faculty mean the “Primary
Responsibilities” obligation of a library faculty member.
This Manual applies to the Washington College of Law faculty only when not inconsistent with
the Washington College of Law Faculty Manual. In particular, faculty appointments, promotions,
tenure, and grievance decisions in the Washington College of Law are not subject to review by
either the Committee on Faculty Actions or the Committee on Faculty Grievances. The
Washington College of Law Faculty Manual supersedes and preempts this Manual when its
practices and procedures, including but not limited to those enunciated by the American Bar
Association and the Association of American Law Schools, are inconsistent with this Manual.
This Manual also applies to the Law Library faculty of the Washington College of Law only when
not inconsistent with its approved Washington College of Law Library Faculty Manual (section II,
part V, of the Manual of Information and Procedures). The Washington College of Law Library
Faculty Manual conforms to the American University Faculty Manual except in instances when
long-standing practices, criteria, or principles specific to Law Library faculty members result in
different policies or procedures. The Washington College of Law Library Faculty Manual
supersedes this Manual where the two manuals are inconsistent.
To the extent there are statements in the Manual which conflict with the policies and bylaws of
the Board of Trustees, the Board’s bylaws, policies, and other governing documents will be
controlling.
All questions related to interpretation of this Manual shall be resolved by the Provost or the
Provost’s designee.
Proposed Language with Deletions Struck Through and Additions Highlighted
FOREWORD
Each member of the faculty and American University accept a mutual set of obligations and
expectations at the time of initial appointment. The American University Faculty Manual presents
these obligations and expectations as a guide to university policies and practices regarding faculty.
The Faculty Senate formulated these policies, acknowledging the prior work of the Committee on
Faculty Relations and the ad hoc Faculty Manual Committee. They reflect the efforts of its
drafters to affirm principles in accord with those generally in effect in the academic world. The
university does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender,
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
gender identity and expression, age, disability, marital status, personal appearance, sexual
orientation, family responsibilities, political affiliation, or any other legally protected status under
federal or District of Columbia law. Seeking a diverse faculty and administration, the university
strives to conform to all applicable equal employment opportunity and affirmative action laws and
all federal and state nondiscrimination laws. American University is committed to providing and
protecting all rights afforded to faculty members under federal and District of Columbia
employment and employment-related laws.
The principles set forth in the Manual evince the firm intention of the university to provide as
favorable working conditions for its faculty as resources permit and an atmosphere in which
faculty members may pursue their scholarly, creative, and professional activities and interests
freely and without restraint. In return, the university expects faculty members to devote
themselves with energy to the primary duties of teachers, scholars, and creators of knowledge and
to challenge students intellectually and encourage them to acquire knowledge, understanding, and
vision.
This Manual sets a framework for a university that continually aspires to be recognized among
other distinguished universities as a distinct college-centered research university that values
outstanding teaching and scholarship.
This Manual applies to all facultyat the university with the exceptions noted below or unless a
specific rule, regulation, or policy requires otherwise.
Any faculty member may submit to the Faculty Senate a recommendation to amend the Manual.
If approved, the Faculty Senate forwards the recommendation to the Provost, who may either
accept or reject the recommendation. If the recommendation is accepted, the Provost forwards
the recommendation to the President who may either accept or reject it. The President forwards
accepted recommendations to the Board of Trustees for a final decision. The Board of Trustees
may make changes to the Manual in consultation with the Faculty Senate, the Provost, and the
President.
This Manual establishes a set of standard procedures. When the Manual uses the words
“customarily,” “generally,” “usually,” “typically,” or “normally” in the description of a procedure,
it indicates the flexibility to depart from standard procedure in individual instances. When such
departures require a written exception as indicated in this Manual, these written exceptions must
be filed in the office of the Dean of Academic Affairs. The Dean of Academic Affairs provides to
any faculty member the exception agreements upon request except for those agreements that
contain health or other highly personal information.
This Manual applies to library faculty. When the Manual refers to the “teaching” related duties of
a faculty member, these references as applied to library faculty mean the “Primary
Responsibilities” obligation of a library faculty member.
This Manual applies to the Washington College of Law faculty only when not inconsistent with
the Washington College of Law Faculty Manual. In particular, faculty appointments, promotions,
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
tenure, and grievance decisions in the Washington College of Law are not subject to review by
either the Committee on Faculty Actions or the Committee on Faculty Grievances. The
Washington College of Law Faculty Manual supersedes and preempts this Manual when its
practices and procedures, including but not limited to those enunciated by the American Bar
Association and the Association of American Law Schools, are inconsistent with this Manual.
This Manual also applies to the Law Library faculty of the Washington College of Law only when
not inconsistent with its approved Washington College of Law Library Faculty Manual (section II,
part V, of the Manual of Information and Procedures). The Washington College of Law Library
Faculty Manual conforms to the American University Faculty Manual except in instances when
long-standing practices, criteria, or principles specific to Law Library faculty members result in
different policies or procedures. The Washington College of Law Library Faculty Manual
supersedes this Manual where the two manuals are inconsistent.
To the extent there are statements in the Manual which conflict with the policies and bylaws of
the Board of Trustees, the Board’s bylaws, policies, and other governing documents will be
controlling.
All questions related to interpretation of this Manual shall be resolved by the Provost or the
Provost’s designee. Questions about this Manual may be directed to the Office of the Provost.
Rationale for Change
Language changes are to reflect current practice and italicized all instances of the word “Manual”
for consistency.
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Pg. 16. section 5, iv. Committee on Faculty Grievances
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
The Committee on Faculty Grievances is composed of seven tenured faculty members who are
elected by the faculty at large, including term faculty on multi-year contracts. The Faculty Senate
Executive Committee should undertake efforts to ensure diverse representation from different
teaching units and constituency groups across campus when it solicits nominations of candidates
to stand for election for the grievance committee. Persons identified as nonvoting participants and
observers of the Faculty Senate in the Academic Regulations and Committee on Faculty Actions
members are not eligible to serve on this committee.
Proposed Language Highlighted
The committee is composed of seven tenured members of the university faculty, one from each of
the following academic units: KSB, SOC, SIS, SPA, the University Library; and two from the
College of Arts and Sciences. Tenure-line faculty and term faculty on multi-year contracts from
each academic unit elect the unit’s member(s) of this committee for staggered three-year terms,
with no more than three to be elected in any one year, except to fill vacancies in unexpired terms.
The chair is to be elected by and from the membership of the committee.
Rationale for Change
In Spring 2014, the DAA suggested that the CFG move to unit representation, and the Senate
approved that change in the Senate by-laws. This revision brings the Faculty Manual into
agreement with the by-laws.
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Pg. 39, section 11, f. Committee on Faculty Actions Review
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
The committee will review the file and the previous recommendations. In the interest of equity,
the committee will also determine if the file has been handled according to the written procedures
of the unit and the Manual. The committee may choose to request additional information from
relevant persons or committees involved in the review at earlier stages. Such requests and any
responses (or summaries thereof) must be included in the file. The CFA chair will write a
recommendation that reports the vote count for each of the criteria and reflects the deliberations
of the committee, including the majority and minority opinions, regarding the strengths and
weaknesses identified in the file. Voting must be by secret ballot.
Proposed language with deletions struck through
The committee will review the file and the previous recommendations. In the interest of equity,
the committee will also determine if the file has been handled according to the written procedures
of the unit and the Manual. The committee may choose to request additional information from
relevant persons or committees involved in the review at earlier stages. Such requests and any
responses (or summaries thereof) must be included in the file. The CFA chair will write a
recommendation that reports the vote count for each of the criteria and reflects the deliberations
of the committee, including the majority and minority opinions, regarding the strengths and
weaknesses identified in the file. Voting must be by secret ballot.
Rationale for Change
CFA membership voted to remove.
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Pg. 68. section 25. University Retirement Plan and Retirement Options
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
25.
University Faculty Retirement Plan and Retirement Options
The university provides an optional retirement program for full-time faculty. The eligibility
requirements and other information are outlined in the Faculty and Staff Benefits Manual,
available from Human Resources or online.
The university will assist individual faculty members who wish to retire. Guidelines for the
university’s retirement incentive policy are reviewed as necessary by the Faculty Senate’s
Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits and forwarded to the Provost for consideration and
action. Once approved, the guidelines are made available to all members of the full-time faculty.
The Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits is empowered to recommend minor
adjustments in the policy; substantive changes, however, require approval of the full Faculty
Senate, the Provost, and the President. Retirees who meet years-in-service requirements will also
be eligible for the Benefit Extension Plan set forth in the Faculty and Staff Benefits Manual.
The university may offer a full-time faculty member terminal leave or phased retirement, which is
an appointment with a reduced load with proportionally adjusted sabbatical leave and other
benefits for a fixed period prior to retirement. The Dean of Academic Affairs is the administrator
of the retirement incentive and phased retirement programs.
Proposed Language with Additions Highlighted and Deletions Struck Through
25.
University Faculty Retirement Plan and Retirement Options Retirement
Information
a. Defined Contribution Retirement Plan
The university provides an optional retirement program for full-time faculty a defined
contribution retirement plan for faculty and staff. The eligibility requirements and other
information are outlined in the Faculty and Staff Benefits Manual, available from Human Resources
or online.
The university will assist individual faculty members who wish to retire. Guidelines for the
university’s retirement incentive policy are reviewed as necessary by the Faculty Senate’s
Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits and forwarded to the Provost for consideration and
action. Once approved, the guidelines are made available to all members of the full-time faculty.
The Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits is empowered to recommend minor
adjustments in the policy; substantive changes, however, require approval of the full Faculty
Senate, the Provost, and the President. Retirees who meet years-in-service requirements will also
be eligible for the Benefit Extension Plan set forth in the Faculty and Staff Benefits Manual.
b. Early Retirement Incentive
The University has adopted an early retirement incentive policy for tenured faculty who meet
certain requirements. The university may offer a full-time tenured faculty member terminal leave
or phased retirement, which is an appointment with a reduced load with proportionally adjusted
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
sabbatical leave and other benefits for a fixed period prior to retirement. The Dean of Academic
Affairs is the administrator of the retirement incentive and phased retirement programs. Changes
or modifications to the guidelines for the retirement incentive and phased retirement program are
to be reviewed by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits and
forwarded to the Provost for consideration and action.
Rationale for Change
To reflect current practices.
Senate Meeting Feb 11, 2015
AcademicUnitProposalsforHonorsintheMajororField
January8,2015
Academic or teaching units may propose programs for students to earn Honors in a major or
field. The requirements for an Honors program will be set by the unit or units but must include a
minimum of two advanced courses and the successful completion of a significant scholarly
project. Advanced courses may be developed for the program by offering additional challenges
or rigorous supplements to existing courses, or may be specially created honors courses. Units
may elect to offer interdisciplinary courses and interdisciplinary scholarly projects as part of the
requirements. Admission and advising are administered by the appropriate academic or teaching
unit(s). If approved, implementation of an approved program can begin in the fall of 2016.
Proposals for Honors in a major or field must be
1. Recommended by the Academic Unit Dean or, if applicable, Deans;
2. Reviewed by the AU Honors Advisory Committee; and
3. Approved by the Provost.
The Dean(s) will determine with the Provost the maximum number of students who can be
admitted to a proposed Honors program each academic year, and the Dean(s) will confirm the
unit’s ability to provide the resources needed to support the program.
The Academic or Teaching Unit proposal for Honors in a major or field shall include:
 Admissions criteria pertinent to the major or field with review process and timeline;
 Range of the number of students served;
 Identification of the courses offered that will satisfy the requirements of the program,
class size per course, and methods for evaluating the scholarly project;
 Resources and faculty designated to support the program within the Academic or
Teaching Unit’s existing resources (resources from the Provost’s Office will not be
available to support academic and teaching unit honors programs).
The Honors Advisory Committee will prepare a standard for admissions criteria for which the
units may add additional criteria or set higher standards. All students will be required to prepare
a written proposal for admission to the program. The AU Honors Advisory Committee will
review all proposals for Honors programs to ensure commensurate standards of excellence across
the university and the committee will assess the programs on a regular basis.
Standard for Admissions Criteria for Honors in a Major or Field
To be admitted to an honors program, students must meet these minimum requirements, which may
be modified by the Academic Unit(s) that creates the specific program:
• Submit a written proposal for admission to the program that includes evidence that the student is
ready for the program’s challenges
• Have at least a 3.50 cumulative GPA
• Have at least a 3.67 cumulative GPA in their major
Academic Units may propose more stringent criteria. If a unit proposes lesser criteria, the unit must
provide a rationale for them (e.g., the proposed GPA in the major is above the average GPA for all
students in the major).
Once students are admitted to the program, they remain in it through the completion of their degree
at AU, unless they elect to withdraw from the program, or unless they fail to meet the standards
created by the unit.
Students must complete all requirements of the program to receive the honors notation on their
record.
New Honors in the Major or Field Program Proposal
Note: Before starting this proposal, the dean(s) must receive prior approval from the Provost
based on the plans for the Honors in the Major or Field, projected enrollment numbers, and
corresponding resource implications.
Identifying information
 Academic unit(s)
 Teaching unit(s)
 Name of Honors in the Major or Field program
 Proposed effective date
A. Rationale
 Provide a general description of the program. What does the program offer that goes
above and beyond current requirements for non-honors students?
 How will the program advance scholarship (research, creative, and professional activity)
for students?
 How will the program advance scholarship (research, creative, and professional activity)
for faculty?
 After the program is implemented, will it affect any other honors programs now offered
by the university? Explain.
 Please include statements from the deans of the other academic units and a statement
from the University Librarian.
 Please include statements of support from all affected teaching units (units that need to
provide courses, mentorship, or other support for this program).
B. Program Curriculum
 Will courses be created that will be offered only to students in the program? If yes,
please provide the titles of the courses below and attach the New Honors Courses
proposal template for each course.
 Will students in other Honors in the Major or Field programs be able to take any of
the courses described above? If yes, please provide the title of those courses.
 Are there existing courses at AU that will be used to satisfy the program
requirements? If yes, please list those courses.
 Describe plans for independent study courses if that is a requirement expected of all
students in the program.
 Describe plans for supplements to existing courses if that is a requirement expected of
all students in the program. Identify the existing course title and describe the general
plan for the supplement associated with that course.
 Describe the requirements for the Capstone project.
 Describe any other for-credit opportunities to meet the requirements of the program.
C. Program Assessment





What are the learning outcomes including the competencies that students are expected to
demonstrate for this program?
How do these learning outcomes differ from those for non-Honors students?
What qualitative criteria and evidence should be used to assess learning outcomes for
students who complete this program?
What quantitative criteria and evidence should be used to assess learning outcomes for
students who complete this program?
Provide some examples of methods you plan to use to assess learning outcomes for the
program.
D. Admission
 Will all students admitted to the program have at least a 3.50 cumulative GPA? If
not, please explain.
 Will all students admitted to the program have at least a 3.67 cumulative GPA in the
major or field? If not, please explain.
 All students must complete a written proposal for admission to the program that
provides evidence that they are ready for the program’s challenges. Note that
proposals should provide clear evidence that students’ engagement in the major or
field extends well beyond that of their peers. Please describe the proposal
requirements and the criteria for admitting students into the program.
 Describe the process for reviewing proposals and notifying candidates for the
program. Will this be completed by committee or by another method?
 If denied admission, will there be a process for appeal? If so, describe.
 Provide a list of steps or achievements that students can accomplish during their years
before admission into the program that will make them strong candidates for
admission.
 What is the plan for informing students of how they can best pursue their options for
study if admitted to the program?
E. Resources to Support the Program
 Which current faculty members (specify whether full-time or adjunct) will be available to
support this program? Provide a brief statement of the contributions expected from each
faculty member and his or her qualifications for providing this contribution.
 Does the academic unit anticipate that there will be a need for special facilities or
equipment beyond what is currently available to the teaching unit that will be used to
support this program? If so, explain when and what resources are anticipated.
 Are internships part of the program requirements? Explain.
F. Implementation plans
 In general, students should be able to apply in spring of their sophomore year.
 Transfer students should be able to apply for the program. How will they be
evaluated given they may not have sufficient historical evidence of performance?
 Provide a timeline of the implementation of the program from when it begins until
implementation is complete.
G. Enrollment projections
 Provide the maximum number of students accepted into the program each year.
 Estimate the total number of students who will be actively pursuing the program.
 What is the timing and sequencing for all required and elective courses. What will be
done if enrollments exceed projections?
H. Catalog copy
 Please attach a description of the proposed program as it is to appear in the University
Catalog, following the format of the current catalog.
I. If applicable, attach new Honors course forms.
FAQs Based on Questions Asked during the Ann Ferren Conference
At a 3:45 session of the 2015 Ann Ferren Conference, the Honors Advisory Committee held a
forum on the Honors in the Major or Field proposal in which we fielded questions and
provided answers. Those questions and our answers follow.
1. What size program can we have? Is there a cap?
The size of the program is the result of a conversation between the Dean and the Provost
in which the Dean verifies the unit(s) ability to offer the program without adding new
resources.
2. Does a student have to belong to the University Honors Program?
No. The Honors Curriculum Task Force that met in the fall of 2011 recommended that
Honors in the Major or Field be open to all students at AU regardless of program.
3. When does a student apply? As first-, second-, or third-year student?
All students should be able to apply at the end of their second year. The admission
process, however, should be flexible enough to admit qualified transfer students.
4. Is there support from the Provost or Dean for faculty and resources?
Resources to support faculty must come from those already allocated to academic units.
No new resources are forthcoming from the Provost’s Office.
5. Will Provost cancel a class that is small (5 or 8 students)? There’s a real tension between
creating a program and the demand that courses must fill.
The Provost does not cancel classes. Class size is negotiated between the teaching unit
and the Office of the Dean of the teaching unit.
6. Is this committee available for consultation while units are creating proposals?
Yes, emphatically. The committee would be happy to help through consultation.
7. We need consistent messaging during Preview Day. Can we say Honors in the Major or
Field is being developed? Prospectives are looking for something. A good 10% of our
questions are about Honors.
Page |2
It is not necessary to have messaging beyond the wonderful programs and opportunities
that are currently available in the unit. Keep in mind the former honors program
provided an “honors experience” for only 10 to 15 percent of the entering classes.
The other 85 to 90 percent came for the other opportunities available at AU.
8. The template calls only for two advanced courses and a capstone—is this Honors lite?
These programs should be much more than Honors lite. The template also asks that units
describe what the program offers that “goes above and beyond current requirements for
non-honors students.”
9. Some students like colloquia and want more.
The proposal provides units the option of creating colloquia. The difference will be in
that the academic unit(s) will be responsible for the design, offering, and success of the
colloquia.
10. Can units opt out and not create an Honors in the Major or Field program?
Yes.
11. What is the advisory committee looking for in proposals?
The template is pretty specific about fleshing out the criteria. Please ask the Honors
Advisory Committee for more details concerning any area that seems vague.
12. Why do the Provost and Dean see the proposal before the committee does?
The process described follows the same steps as are found for any new program or major
being offered by any unit.
13. Can our proposal have an ending GPA?
Yes, it can.
14. Students cannot self-nominate into the program. Is that correct?
The committee is leaving the details of the admissions process to the unit or units
creating the program.
15. Has this proposal been distributed to faculty?
Page |3
The proposal was distributed twice, in October and December. It will be distributed again
when it goes to the Faculty Senate for approval.
16. What is the rationale for these programs?
Since the 1989 revision of the Honors Program, Honors in the Major has been available
only to students in the University Honors Program. Now that the Honors Program is
much smaller, qualified students from across the university should have the opportunity
to enter a program in their major or field that provides greater opportunities to
distinguish themselves.
From: Richard Sha, Chair of the Department of Literature Email: sha@american.edu To: Honors Date: 12/18/2014 Message: Dear all, In literature we have 500 level graduate courses. It makes sense for our honors students to take those courses. Perhaps instead of specifying 600 level courses, the language might specify including graduate courses. Two "advanced courses" seems pretty namby pamby for an honors program. All majors have to take "advanced courses." I know there is CAS dissatisfaction around "supplements" but at least classes would need some kind of honors supplement under that view. If we are to have a real honors program, we have to do better than stipulating two advanced courses. I don't know if "commensurate standards" will be policeable. If we require a 3.8 and communications requires a 3.6, how will the case for commensurateness be made? Are we talking percentages‐‐as in maximum percentages of total majors? Rather than specifying commensurate, I'd simply ask for fairness. Regular evaluation is fine, but please not excessively so. Once every 3 years at most. Richard C. Sha Chair, Department of Literature Affiliate Professor of Philosophy and Religion Member, Center for Behavioral Neuroscience American University From: Elisabeth Myers Email: Elisabeth.r.myers@gmail.com To: Larry Engel Date: 12/18/2014 Message: Dear Pr. Engel and Honors Advisory Committee, I suggest that an honors program should have a multidisciplinary requirement and not be solely within the major or field. This fosters more well rounded analysis, thinking, creativity, and problem solving. For an example of an excellent college honors program whose foundation is multidisciplinary studies, see the Thomas Hunter Honors Program of Hunter College, CUNY, that just celebrated its 50th anniversary. Happy holidays, Elisabeth Myers Founding Principal, Myers Energy International Founding Member, Middle East & North Africa Consultants Association Adjunct Associate Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law Mobile: 703.408.2078 Email: elisabeth.r.myers@gmail.com From: Jack Swasy Email: jswasy@american.edu To: Honors Date: 12/19/2014 Message: Hi Larry, Happy holidays and best wishes! I hope you will have time for some well‐earned R&R before 1/9, and, because of that, I'm hesitant to even send this email. However, I'm concerned about this proposal and its timing so much so that I thought it might be wise to ask you for a brief clarification before I go off half cocked! The gist of this ‐‐ move the program "down" to the teaching units‐‐ is spot on. However, one could read this and wonder why there is no mention of the role and authority of the Educational Policy committee / Faculty council within each teaching unit? Yes Deans may have input BUT in the end any Honors program should reside solely with the EPC and Council of each teaching units. Finally, the timeline, if I understand this, makes it impossible for our EPC or anyone's to deliberate and form a collective response by Jan 9. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. best, Jack Jack Swasy jswasy@american.edu Ph: (202) 885‐1974 Fx: (202) 885‐2691 23 KSB American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016‐8044 From: Donna Bain Butler Email: dbainbutler@yahoo.com To: Honors Date: 12/19/2014 Message: Dear Honors Committee, This proposal seems clear and concise. Thank you for giving us the chance to consider it. My only comment is that some international students from civil law countries at WCL may be interested, especially those who enroll in the advanced research and scholarly writing courses. Donna Bain Butler From: Nanette Levinson Email: nlevins@american.edu To: Honors cc: Patrick T Jackson Date: 12/21/2014 Message: Larry Engel, Chair Lyn Stallings, Vice Provost Michael Manson, Director Dear Honors Advisory Committee and Colleagues: Thank you for your work and for the opportunity to comment on the Proposal for Honors In A Major or Field. As a faculty member who has taught in the Honors Program over the years, I especially want to thank the Committee as well as the Associate Deans and the Office of the Vice Provost for this proposal. Preserving flexibility of major/field faculty to ensure excellence at the major/field level is truly important and I support this key element in the Proposal as well as the Proposal as a whole. I believe having Honors In A Major/Field as well as our university‐wide Program serves outstanding students best and also allows all of us to recruit and retain superb undergraduate students. Sincerely, Nanette (Levinson) Nanette S. Levinson School of International Service American University Washington, DC 20016‐8071 www.american.edu/sis/levinson From: Maina Singh Email: msingh@american.edu To: Honors cc: Patrick T Jackson Date: 12/21/2014 Message: Greetings ! I am responding to the new Hons. Proposal which seeks to provide a framework for academic and teaching units to create Honors in the major or field programs that are embraced by the faculty within the supporting units. I believe an Hons. framework which will be sustained by the faculty within the supporting units, is a sound proposition. The Draft version appears to provide flexibility to various academic units while simultaneously providing safeguards to ensure that high academic standards will be maintained. I endorse this Proposal and thank all who have invested time and effort conceptualizing this. Best, Maina Singh Maina Chawla Singh Ph.D. Scholar‐in‐Residence School of International Service American University https://sites.google.com/site/mainachawlasingh/ From: Chris Jacobs Email: csjacobs79@hotmail.com To: Honors cc: Michael Manson Date: 1/05/2015 Message: I don't know if this is strictly germane to the proposal, or whether the Honors Advisory Committee has considered this issue at all in the context of the "new" Honors program, and if so when and in what context. But as both an Honors alum and an adjunct teaching an Honors colloquium, I firmly believe the university should re‐assess the requirement for students to receive at least a B grade to obtain Honors credit ‐‐ as it encourages faculty to inflate grades. I've seen this phenomenon as both a student and a professor. I remember in my freshman year Honors microeconomics class, a particularly tough test prompted students to remind Professor Husted in the middle of class that they wouldn't get Honors credit if they didn't get a B ‐‐ the implicit presumption being that the professor had the responsibility to figure out a way to bring up students' averages. And especially during the semester just concluded, my own students have been vocal in pointing out the requirement of a B grade to receive Honors credit. I've discussed this issue on several occasions over the years ‐‐ with Michael Manson a few weeks ago, and with Michael Mass when he headed the Honors program. I didn't much like the requirement when I was a student, and as an Honors faculty member, I've grown to dislike it even more. It puts an implicit pressure on me to "mark to market," as it were ‐‐ a pressure that some students make explicit. And, to the extent that faculty colleagues give in to such pressures, that only exacerbates the problem, as I've had students cite supposedly higher grades in other courses as a way to complain that my assessments are too low. I'm raising this now because of my experiences in the semester just concluded, coupled with my hope that the Honors Advisory Committee will examine this issue at some point during the restructuring of the program. I think there are better ways of ensuring high academic quality ‐‐ perhaps an overall average GPA, or an average GPA for Honors courses ‐‐ without putting individual grades, and individual faculty members, under the microscope. Requiring all Honors students in all Honors courses to perform "above average" sounds like a good idea in theory, but from where I sit, in practice it has caused more problems than it has resolved. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration ‐‐ if you have any questions, by all means feel free to contact me... Chris Jacobs SPA/CAS 2001 comments on proposed honors program in the major Anthony Ahrens to: Honors 01/08/2015 05:44 PM Cc: Michael Manson Hide Details From: Anthony Ahrens/ahrens/AmericanU To: Honors/honors/AmericanU@AmericanU, Cc: Michael Manson/mmanson/AmericanU@AmericanU Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposal for Honors in a Major or Field. I know there are no easy answers here and that a lot of work has been put into the proposal. I appreciate your efforts. I don't think I support the proposal. I will describe my concerns below. 1) I don't understand the goal. What are we trying to accomplish with this program? Students can already take these courses (at least as I understand the proposal) and they can do a capstone. I do not understand what they will experience in the new program that they can't experience already. It might help to see a concrete example of what a new Honors in the major would be that would provide a new opportunity to students. 2) The old honors program served goals that will no longer be met. I do not think the proposed program provides a framework for achieving those goals. What is it that students of the old honors program love(d) about the program? They can answer better than I can, but I would like us to take pains to maintain that thing they love. I suspect part of what they love is the experience of interacting a lot with some very sharp and motivated students and being able to build relationships with those students. (I know one type of dissatisfaction with AU is that of really smart kids who struggle to find others like themselves with whom they can form community. We can't lose these students.) This meeting of students seems to be accomplished through the honors colloquia, honors floors, and perhaps other means of which I am unaware. With the downsizing of the honors program there does not seem to be a replacement for this source of intellectual community. At least for many students I do not think the proposed honors in the major will bring about this community. If we are proposing a new program I think it should be toward the end of preserving for as many as possible that which was most loved about the old honors program. I'm going to use my own undergrad career as an example of what I'm trying to describe. My sophomore year I joined an honors program in Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences. This required a double major in a social science. There were 16 of us in the program. We took two classes together a quarter for two years. We had some space in the basement of one of the older buildings on campus. And we spent a lot of time with each other. Being with these students showed me possibilities and pushed me to seize them. Two of us went to Stanford for our doctorates. Another went to Yale Law School. Another is influential in the Chicago finance scene. We pushed each other. If we had not found each other I don't think we would have accomplished what we have. That experience is certainly much of the reason I still donate to Northwestern and my bet is that the old honors program experience is one of the reasons some of our alums give. Perhaps you intend the new program to serve this function. And I suspect that departments will promise they will do this. And I suspect that when the programs are reviewed there will be some push on programs to show how they will do this. But I don't see how it actually will happen when it is put into practice. Reality intrudes in ways that are not predictable. Some units will be too small to create the necessary community. Oversight of such a decentralized program will be a challenge. Other problems will arise. Too many students will slip between the cracks. Please find a way for those students who have been finding each other and pushing each other through the old honors program to continue to do so. I am unsure what is best way to accomplish this. Michael Manson as current director and Michael Mass as past director might have ideas given their deep involvement in the program. There is something beautiful here that deserves preservation. Thank you for your consideration.