Faculty Senate Meeting
December 3, 2014, 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
MGC 4 & 5
1) Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton
a) Approval of November 5, 2014 Minutes
2) Provost’s Report – Scott Bass (2:45)
3) DAA Search Committee – Candy Nelson (3:00)
4) Gen Ed/Study Abroad – Andrea Tschemplik (3:10)
5) Final Exam Policy – Lyn Stallings (3:30)
6) Academic Budget & Benefits Committee Budget Update – John Douglass (3:50)
7) Faculty Manual Revisions – Candy Nelson (4:00)
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
*** The complete recording of this meeting can be
November 5, 2014
found at http://www.american.edu/facultysenate/agendas-minutes.cfm
Present: Professors: Lacey Wootton, Larry Engel, Candy Nelson, Tony Ahrens, John Douglass,
Todd Eisenstadt, Maria Gomez, Sheila Bedford, Alex Hodges, Billie Jo Kaufman, Despina
Kakoudaki, Iris Krasnow, Joshua Lansky, Christine Lawrence, Jonathan Loesberg, Jun Lu, Mary
Mintz, Glenn Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Andrea Pearson, Steve Silvia, Chris
Simpson, Shalini Venturelli, and Interim DAA Mary L. Clark
Professor Wootton called the meeting to order at 2:30 PM
Minutes Approval – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton asked the Senate to vote on the October 8, 2014 Minutes. The Senate
VOTED and the minutes were approved 22-0-0.
Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton presented to the Senate a list of faculty who will represent the ad-hoc Social
Media committee for approval. She stated that Professor Simpson from the Committee on
Information Services (CIS) had contacted her and requested that a member from CIS be added to
the membership. Brian Fantie will represent CIS on the committee.
Professor Wootton stated that she wanted to respond with great pleasure at her experience at the
Faculty Retreat. She felt it was an uplifting opportunity and a great place to learn about the work
that other colleagues are engaged in.
Dean Clark stated that she also felt that the retreat was very engaging. There was a short
discussion about the senators’ experiences at the retreat.
DAA’s Report – Mary L. Clark
Dean Clark informed the Senate that the application deadline for the Voluntary Retirement Plan
had passed on October 20, 2014. She stated that 60 applications were submitted, which
represents 40% of eligible faculty. Faculty have 45 days from receipt of their draft agreements to
execute the agreement. The window closes December 16, 2014.
Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings
VP Stallings said that she was reporting back on a couple of items she brought to the Senate the
previous month. These items are;
Faculty Senate • November 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 3

Final Exam Schedules – Discussion was had by the senators and as a result the decision
was made to amend the language to include the following: 1) Let the student try to
resolve the issue informally, 2) For classes with 50 students or less, allow them to be
rescheduled first, 3) If the issue cannot be resolved, then the middle class will be
rescheduled. The issue was tabled to redraft the language with the amendments. The
Senate VOTED and it was passed unanimously in favor of tabling 24-0-0.

Academic Probation and Dismissal – The Senate discussed and approved adding
language as follows, “Students who are dismissed with a GPA lower than 1.0 will not be
considered for re-admission.” The amended language was VOTED on and passed in
favor 21-2-0.
Term Faculty Budget Proposal – Glenn Moomau & Lauren Weiss
Professor Weiss stated that she is the Chair for the Ad-Hoc Committee on Term Faculty, which
has been working since last February researching term faculty salaries at AU. The proposal
presented is asking that the university make term faculty salaries a priority. Present in support
were 64 term faculty; also, SIS as a school and the Literature Department voted in support of the
proposal. Several data points were presented and discussed and with unanimous support the
proposal was VOTED and passed 24-0-0 in favor. The Senate VOTED unanimously to approve
the following resolution:
The Faculty Senate accepts the report from the Faculty Senate Ad‐Hoc Term Faculty Committee
and strongly endorses the proposal from the committee that says: "Specifically, the committee
proposes that the university budget include base-line funding for the next two budget cycles that
raises term faculty salaries—including starting salaries, junior-faculty salaries, and senior-faculty salaries--to market level by the end of the next two budget cycles (2015‐16, 2017-18)."
Conflict of Time Commitment – Larry Engel & Jon Tubman
Professor Engel stated that the provided proposal and form are an effort to revise the previously
voted on and approved versions from May 2014. Although the form was voted on and approved,
it was not accepted by the Provost or the Deans. This was announced in the first Senate Deans
Roundtable in September. It was stated that the document did not follow the policy as stated in
the Faculty Manual. The Senate had lengthy discussion to clarify several points, which included:




Summer obligations
Professional obligations outside the university but related to one’s field
Privacy concerns
Requested language to be added to the process document from the Faculty Manual to
clarify the issue of professional obligations
Faculty Senate • November 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
The Senate asked VP Tubman and Professor Engel to bring examples of reporting forms from
other institutions that are in the form of questions back to the Senate for review and further
discussion.
Professor Simpson stated that he had two brief points and asked that the first point be included in
the minutes of the meeting. He stated that “the number one reason that is obstructing this policy
is a lack of trust or confidence in the administration that this policy will be applied fairly or
promptly or even competently. That is the problem that is on the table and that is what people are
alluding to. I think that perhaps that is very unfortunate but I think that is the bed that has been
made and now we are lying in it.”
The Senate VOTED on the proposed procedural document with friendly amendments and it was
passed in favor 14-2-7. The Senate VOTED to table the reporting form and bring it back with
examples of other forms and questions; it was passed in favor 20-0-0.
Faculty Senate • November 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
General Education/Study Abroad Policy Change
Sara Dumont came to our General Education Committee meeting on Monday, and discussed
changing the current policy for General Education Credit for Study Abroad courses. The
committee agreed on the following two policy changes below:
(1) Students will be allowed to take up to 6 credits of Gen Ed Abroad
(2) If a course taken abroad is articulated to be equivalent to an AU course that is a Gen Ed
course, the course taken abroad may be counted as Gen Ed
1 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
To: The Faculty Senate
From: Lyn Stallings, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Date: November 25, 2014
Rationale for change to 4.2 (Proposal submitted by John Hyman, Director of the College
Writing Program): A question about final exams came up at my meetings with CWP faculty
earlier this week. The policy regarding 3 exams in one day is sensible and well-intended. But in
practice it puts a burden on students. Here's how it plays out: A student goes to a professor and
explains that he has three exams. Professor X tells him that it's too hard to reschedule and that
the student should simply ask one of the other professors. But the student either gets similar
replies or he is -- for whatever reasons -- reluctant to approach the other professors. So the
student just sucks it up --as it were -- and takes the three exams in one day. We would suggest,
then, that the policy be tweaked to say that the student has the prerogative to change the schedule
for the one of the three exams and that the teacher must accede to that request. Perhaps we could
limit the possibilities to say that the re-scheduled exam must be taken within two days or
something like that.
Update for December Faculty Senate Meeting: The undergraduate academic leaders in each
of the schools and colleges have agreed to serve as the channel for students who have difficulty
resolving a conflict in exam scheduling. The change proposed below allows for a resolution to
be reached by the affected faculty members before imposing the rescheduled exam on the faculty
member who has the lowest enrolled class.
4.2. Final Exam Policy
Students are expected to take final exams at the times scheduled by the Office of the Registrar.
Accommodations are made for students with excused absences and for students with documented
disabilities. Students with two exams scheduled for the same time and students with three or
more final exams on a given day should notify their instructors who will resolve the conflict
submit a request to reschedule an exam to the undergraduate dean’s office of their home unit.
This request must be submitted via email no later than November 1 in the fall semester and April
1 in the spring semester. The administrator in the undergraduate dean’s office will contact all
faculty concerned to see if an accommodation can be reached. If that effort fails, the exam from
the class with the lowest enrollment will be rescheduled. All rescheduled exams must occur
during the final exam period. . Unexcused absences at final exams may result in a failure for the
course or other substantial penalty. Students must follow any additional policies or procedures
set by individual academic units.
Email sent to OUR:
Alice,
The Senate asked me to check with you on how difficult it would be to produce a report that gives the
number of students who have three or more final exams on the same day or who have two final exams
that are scheduled at the same time. Obviously, if the first item is straightforward, the next question
would be, "Can the specific students with these complications be identified."
Please understand that this is not a request for that data as the Senate has determined an alternative
solution for students who have this problem but have difficulty getting faculty to agree to assist them.
2 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
In the discussions, it was a point of curiosity as to how much work would be involved for OUR to produce
such a report.
Please let us know.
Lyn
Response from OUR:
Hi Lyn,
Thanks for your email. Unfortunately we do not have the ability to create a report that would even provide
an estimate of how many students who have 3 or 2 exams on the same day. There are several reasons.
First of all, this information is not stored in Colleague and we are unable to pull this information from
25Live. Secondly, we have a large number of non-standard offerings that we need to schedule in rooms
by hand and we are not able to extract that data. We already have requests from 600 students with
disabilities who are requesting accommodations at special times.
Last winter, as you will recall, we had storms during finals and a lock down. We had no way to determine
where exams were going on or if they were going on. For the one day that was cancelled we emailed
every single faculty who would have been offering an exam based on their class meeting time to see if
they needed a classroom--over 50% responded that they were giving an on-line exam or a take home
exam and so were not using their assigned room anyway. We also have learned in an ad hoc manner
that faculty sometimes combine their exams and we know that many ignore the room assignment
provided by the OUR and schedule an exam on their own in the computer labs.
Recently, as part of the Classroom Inventory Project, we surveyed faculty about classrooms but threw in
a question about exams. Of the 772 (32%) responses related to exams, 250 stated they were not giving
a final exam.
The exam system on this campus has eroded over decades. With the new, highly competent, team in
the OUR, I would like to say that we will try to regularize exams in the next few years but with their severe
challenges in finding classroom space, I don't think this will be an area of focus for a while.
Thanks very much.
Alice
Alice Poehls, PhD
University Registrar
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
1. Page 20, section 7, a. Professional Obligations of Tenure-Line Faculty
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
TEACHING FACULTY
a. Yearly Obligations
Tenure-line faculty members must meet the criteria for high-quality teaching, scholarship,
and service as described in “General Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty” in this Manual. A
faculty member’s normal yearly obligation is to provide two semesters (customarily fall
and spring semesters) or their equivalent of full-time teaching, scholarship, and service to
the university. During times when classes are not in session or faculty members are not
teaching, they nonetheless need to continue their professional relationships involving
students (e.g., being available to read, comment upon, administer, and/or grade
comprehensive examinations, MA theses or portfolios, or doctoral dissertations).
Proposed Language with Changes Highlighted
TEACHING FACULTY
b. Yearly Obligations
Tenure-line faculty members must meet the criteria for high-quality teaching, scholarship,
and service as described in “General Criteria for Evaluation of Faculty” in this Manual. A
faculty member’s normal yearly obligation is to provide scholarship, service and two
semesters or their equivalent of full-time teaching. During times when classes are not in
session or faculty members are not teaching, they nonetheless need to continue their
professional relationships involving students (e.g., being available to read, comment upon,
administer, and/or grade comprehensive examinations, MA theses or portfolios, or
doctoral dissertations).
Rationale for Change
To provide clarity.
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Page 30, section 9, i. Delay of Tenure
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
Requests for delay of tenure should be submitted to the chair and the Dean within 90 days of the
qualifying event. Within 10 business days thereafter, the decision of the chair and the Dean should
be submitted to the Dean of Academic Affairs for decision.
Proposed Language with Additions Highlighted Deletions Struck Through
Requests for delay of tenure should be submitted to the chair and the Dean within 90 days 6
months of the qualifying event. Within 10 business days thereafter, the decision recommendations
of the chair and the Dean should be submitted to the Dean of Academic Affairs for decision.
Rationale for Change
To give a faculty member more time to determine if the event is a qualifying event.
Executive Committee 11-19-14
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Page 35, section c, i. Service to the University
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
a. Service
i.
Service to the University
Engagement at American University is an essential component of faculty
responsibility. Faculty members should demonstrate engagement in the university
community, including a meaningful level of teaching unit, academic unit, or university
service, as well as participation in major campus-wide events, such as opening
convocation and commencement. Each teaching unit or academic unit must establish
guidelines for evaluating service that include evidence of a willingness to carry an
appropriate share of teaching unit or academic unit collegiate service obligations.
Proposed Language with Additions Highlighted Deletions Struck Through
a. Service
i.
Service to the University
Engagement at American University is an essential component of faculty
responsibility. Faculty members should must demonstrate engagement in the
university community, including a meaningful level of teaching unit, academic unit, or
university service, as well as participation in major campus-wide events, such as
opening convocation and commencement. Each teaching unit or academic unit must
establish guidelines for evaluating service that include evidence of a willingness to
carry an appropriate share of teaching unit or academic unit collegiate service
obligations.
Rationale for Change
To clarify responsibilities and to reflect practice.
Executive Committee 11-19-14
Proposed Faculty Manual Changes
Page 40, section g. Dean of Academic Affairs and Provost Review
Current Language as written in Faculty Manual
If the decision of the Provost differs from that of earlier recommendations in the file,
then the Provost must submit a written explanation of the decision to the Committee on
Faculty Actions, the dean of the applicable academic unit, the chair of the applicable
teaching unit, the chair(s) of the applicable designated review committee(s), and the
candidate.
Proposed Language with Changes Highlighted
The Provost’s final decision must be in writing, and, if the Provost’s decision differs from
that of earlier recommendations in the file, the Provost should explain the bases for the
faculty action. This final written decision must be transmitted to the Committee on
Faculty Actions, the dean of the applicable academic unit, the committee(s), and the
candidate.
Rationale for Change
To clarify the Provost’s responsibilities in the process.
Executive Committee 11-19-14