Faculty Senate Meeting
November 5, 2014, 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Butler Board Room
1) Chair’s Report - Lacey Wootton – (2:30)
a) Approval of October Minutes
b) Social Media Committee Membership
c) Retreat Feedback
2) DAA’s Report – Mary L. Clark – (2:40)
3) Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings – (2:50)
4) Term Faculty Budget Proposal – Glenn Moomau & Lauren Weis – (3:15)
5) Conflict of Time Commitment – Larry Engel & Jon Tubman – (3:45)
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
*** The complete Recording for this meeting can be
October 8, 2014
Found at http://www.american.edu./facultysenate/agendas-minutes.cfm
Present: Professors: Lacey Wootton, Larry Engel, Candy Nelson, Tony Ahrens, Sheila Bedford,
John Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Alex Hodges, Billie Jo Kaufman, Despina Kakoudaki, Joshua
Lansky, Christine Lawrence, Gwanhoo Lee, Jonathan Loesberg, Jun Lu, Mary Mintz, Glenn
Moomau, John Nolan, 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 2:40 PM
Minutes Approval – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton asked the senate to vote on two sets of minutes. The Senate VOTED and
approved the revised April minutes 17-0-4 and the September minutes 20-0-1
Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that there are university offices that already have Social Media
guidelines but there are none at this time for faculty. The two areas of concern are:
 How to develop policies or language that faculty can use for students to possibly include
in their syllabi to protect the faculty’s intellectual property
 Guidelines for faculty usage of social media to protect student intellectual property.
Professor Wootton asked for suggested names from senators units for an ad-hoc committee to
develop guidelines.
Professor Simpson requested that the Committee on Information Services be involved with the
ad-hoc committee in the development of this process, which Professor Wootton agreed would be
a good combination.
Professor Wootton informed the Senate that the Fraternity and Sorority Coalition Project visited
the campus. They met with a number of different campus constituencies, including faculty from
across the university. The committee was invited to visit the campus by AU to help figure out
what can be done to bring about best practices with the Greeks on campus. The faculty had
positive feedback with the sense of belonging and service work and expressed some significant
concerns:


Academic performance drop for first-year students
Gender and class issues and their effects
Faculty Senate • October 8, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
Provost Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated the following;
 The upcoming retreat is full and is certain to be a great event
 The voluntary retirement program window closes October 20, 2014
 East Campus is moving along well and is sure to be a lovely facility
 A new University Enrollment Management Task Force has been put together to look at
the university infrastructure and how we serve the students, co-chaired by Assistant VP
Fanta Aw and Vice Provost Sharon Alston
 A sophomore class event was held to provide over 200 students that attended
information about all that is available for them at the university. It was a great success
and will be held again.
Ombudsman –Stacey Marien and Lauren Weis
Librarian Stacey Marien and Professor Lauren Weis presented a proposal to establish a
committee to research the possibility of having an ombudsman at AU. The interest has come
both from Stacey Marien as well as the ad-hoc Term Faculty Committee. Senators discussed
whether there is a need for an ombudsman, and this has been an issue on the senate floor in the
past, but with the change in the faculty as a body it was VOTED in favor 19-2-2 to establish a
committee to research the need.
SET Committee Report – Tony Ahrens and Lenny Steinhorn
Professor Ahrens and Steinhorn informed the senate of the results so far of the committee’s
findings. These include the use of SETs, the importance of meaningful context for SET results,
and the problems with the "summary" questions. The senate had a lot of discussion about all of
these issues and encouraged the committee to continue its research and to continue to solicit
faculty input, as well as student input.
Senate Blog – Larry Engel
Professor Engel expressed that he hopes the senate committees will begin using the blog site now
that there is active university information to discuss. He informed the senators that new log in
information should be in everyone’s email from CRTL.
Committee on Academic Budget and Benefits: Request from Faculty – John Douglass
Professor John Douglass stated that the senate budget committee has met and is asking for
reasonable requests. It is a lean year. There are already substantial requests for a tuition increase,
increase in term faculty salaries and others that he cannot yet share as they have not been
discussed with the committee at this time. It is important to get them in now for consideration.
Faculty Senate • October 8, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Professor Simpson stated that CIS does have a wish list that they will be sending to the
committee.
Provost Bass stated that the important information will need to be discussed and prioritized
Graduate enrollment shortfall has impacted the revenue and will affect the merit increases
The meeting was adjourned at 4:35PM
Faculty Senate • October 8, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Social Media Committee Proposed Membership
This ad-hoc committee will develop social-media policies that faculty can use with students (e.g., to deal
with students recording and posting lectures) and guidelines for faculty use of social media (e.g., to
handle such issues as whether to post excerpts from student work).
Zoe Charlton (CAS, art)
Derrick Cogburn (SIS)
Barbara Emshwiller (Office of Communications)
Billie Jo Kaufman (WCL)
Ayman Omar (KSB)
Jenise Overmeier (Library)
Jane Palmer (SPA)
Scott Talan (SOC)
Student rep (Scott Talan is recruiting from social-media club)
1 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
To: The Faculty Senate
From: Lyn Stallings, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Date: October 27, 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.
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 may select one exam and notify that instructor by no later than
four weeks before the scheduled exam date to set up an alternative timeshould notify their
instructors who will resolve the that must be arranged during the final exam period for the term.
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.
Rationale for two changes to 5.8: If a student is dismissed for falling below a 1.0 is readmitted
to the university, he or she must begin the first semester with the same GPA that was posted
upon dismissal from the university. This requires extraordinary performance within two
semester to ensure continuing at the university. The current regulation does not prohibit
readmission under these circumstances.
5.8. Academic Probation and Dismissal
The Registrar will place students on academic probation when their cumulative GPA falls below
2.00 or when the Registrar is notified by the Academic Unit that a student has failed to meet
other conditions for satisfactory academic progress that may apply in some majors. Once any
part-time student has attempted 12 credits, the student will be required to follow all regulations
regarding probation and dismissal. The Registrar will notify students in writing of their
academic probation status and the academic unit will provide a description of any conditions
associated with the academic probation. Conditions that students must adhere to during the
academic probationary period may include, but are not limited to, inability to petition instructors
Commented [VS1]: Lyn has to discuss with academic advisors.
Faculty Senate members will discuss this with their colleagues.
Update to Senate: Advisors have no sway with faculty in
presenting a student’s case to change the scheduled exam. In fact,
this puts advisors in an awkward situation.
Trying to compile data on the degree of frequency is too complex
without requiring reporting from all faculty on such occurrences.
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
2 Proposed Amendments to the Undergraduate Academic Regulations
for incompletes, successful completion of specific courses, minimum grades in courses, or the
overall GPA to be achieved in the academic probation period.
Once placed on academic probation, students must maintain a minimum semester GPA of 2.33
and show satisfactory academic progress towards raising their cumulative GPA to the required
level and meeting any other requirements unrelated to GPA, as stated in their notification letter
from their academic unit. Students are to check with the Office of Financial Aid to determine if
any additional criteria are required in order to retain their financial aid. Students can be placed on
academic probation for no more than two semesters in total, or three semesters in total if a
summer term is included. After that threshold is reached, students will be dismissed from the
University.
A student on academic probation may be subject to restrictions as to the load for which he or she
may register. Such a student is ineligible to hold office in student organizations or to participate
in intercollegiate competitions. Also, a student may with permission of the student’s academic
unit complete the season of any collegiate sport in which he or she is participating at the time he
or she falls below a 2.00 cumulative average GPA.
The university will dismiss immediately students whose cumulative GPA, after attempting or
completing 24 credits (excluding courses in which the recorded grade is W, I, or IP), falls below
1.0 (D). Students who are dismissed with a GPA lower than 1.0 will not be considered for readmission.
When dismissing students from the university, the university may give students the option of
reapplying for admission after one calendar year has passed from the final day of the session
during which the dismissal was implemented. The dismissal will be included in the letter from
the academic unit, and recorded by the Office of the Registrar on the transcript. Readmission
applications are evaluated based on the total record of the student and consistent with the
admission practices in effect at the time of application. A readmitted student is governed by the
academic requirements in effect at the time of readmission.
Academic probation and dismissal are permanently recorded on the transcript. An academic
warning is not recorded on the transcript.
Commented [VS2]: Lyn is charged with discusiing with General
Counsel.
In General Counsel’s opinion, if the Senate wishes to block students
who are dismissed with a GPA lower than 1.0. them the change in
the regulation should read: Students who are dismissed with a
GPA lower than 1.0 will not be considered for re-admission.
General Counsel advises that a student could still appeal this
regulation according to the portion of the Preamble that currently
says: Based on a compelling rationale, an appeal may be made with
respect to a specific undergraduate academic regulation by an
undergraduate student or faculty member. Such an appeal should be
directed in writing to the student's academic advisor.
Or the Senate may decide to retain the original text without any
change.
To: Faculty Senate Executive Committee From: Faculty Senate Ad-­‐Hoc Term Faculty Committee Lauren Weis, CAS, Chair; Jeff Bachman, SIS; Kimberly Cowell-­‐Meyers, SPA; John Hyman, CAS; Robert Kelley, SIS; Michael Matos, UL; Glenn Moomau, CAS; Dan Schneider, SIS; Robert Sicina, KOGOD; Jeff Sosland, SPEX; Margot Susca, SOC Re: Proposal for Term Faculty Salaries as Strategic Plan and Budget Priority for 2015-­‐18 Date: October 28, 2014 PROPOSAL The Faculty Senate Ad-­‐Hoc Term Faculty Committee propose that term faculty salaries become a strategic plan and university budget priority for the next two budget cycles (2015-­‐16, 2017-­‐18) because, according to the 2014 American University Self-­‐Study, "[t]he AU Board of Trustees has a long-­‐standing policy that the university should pay faculty commensurate with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) 1 rate for private nonunionized universities." The self-­‐study further mentions that low term-­‐faculty salaries are a recognized problem. The evidence of a distinct salary disparity can be seen in the following data:  Many term faculty salaries, unlike tenure-­‐line, remain clearly uncompetitive both against the local market and peer institutions.  Many term faculty salaries, unlike tenure-­‐line and staff salaries, have lost ground to inflation in the past decade.  Some long-­‐serving term faculty have lost further ground due to salary compression. 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). CONTEXT Until recently, term faculty represented the newest and smallest group of full-­‐time faculty. However, since 2008 hires of term faculty have increased markedly, the term faculty section of the Faculty Manual has been significantly revised, and the role of term faculty has been transformed. A reasonable explanation for why term faculty salaries have not kept up with market pressures is that budget priorities have not kept pace with the strategic goals and administrative policies that brought about the large increase in term faculty.  Term faculty represent approximately 42% of the current full-­‐time faculty, with their ranks having grown 48% since AY 2007-­‐08, mainly as a result of three administrative polices: tenure-­‐line teaching load reduction, tenure-­‐line administrative load reduction, and adjunct teaching load reduction. During the past decade, the university's budget has more than doubled, and the university reports in its self-­‐study that tenure-­‐line faculty and staff have enjoyed competitive salaries and benefits, adjusted as needed in response to market pressures.  For the current budget cycle, the administration did increase term faculty starting salaries to 45,000 (non-­‐terminal degree) and 48,000 (terminal degree) and increased term multi-­‐year contracts by 10%, which are positive but still insufficient developments in the larger discussion.  While the 10-­‐year Strategic Plan implemented in 2009 specifically mentions the goal of bringing tenure-­‐line and staff salaries to market level, it does not explicitly include term faculty salaries as a budget priority. While ongoing hiring practices underscore the value of term faculty to the university’s strategic priorities, investments in market-­‐
competitive salary increases for term faculty have been insufficient. MARKET SALARIES FOR FULL-­‐TIME FACULTY AND STAFF The 2014 American University Self-­‐Study highlights that the university budget has more than doubled in the past decade. That budget increase allowed some full-­‐time faculty (as well as staff) to get market-­‐based salary adjustments as the report states: Since FY1997, the university has pursued a multiyear funding commitment to bring faculty and staff salaries and benefits to a level that is competitive with market rates. Average faculty salaries are benchmarked against level 1 standards set by the Association of American University Professors (AAUP) for full-­‐time tenure and tenure-­‐track faculty. Staff salaries have been brought up to market median. In addition, the benefits plan for faculty and staff was enhanced to remain market-­‐competitive. Staff market position was 3.3 percent above median in 2012. The self-­‐study does acknowledge that assistant professor and term salaries have not met AAUP-­‐1 standards, though all tenure-­‐line ranks have seen much higher percentage increases than term faculty. Furthermore, the chart below shows that term-­‐faculty salaries, unlike the other ranks, have lost value when adjusted for inflation. Salary Statistics from the AAUP Annual Report on the Economic State of the Profession 2002-­‐3, 2012-­‐13 American University Full Associate Assistant Instructor 2002-­‐03 Salary in Thousands 108.3 74.3 58.8 43.3 2012-­‐13 Salary in Thousands 159.4 102.3 76.6 51.2 Percentage Increase in Salary 47% 38% 30% 18% 2002-­‐03 Salary Adjusted for i
Inflation over 10 years 141.3 96.9 76.4 56.5 For the purposes of the AAUP salary survey, AU reports salary data for term faculty of the rank instructor, reflected above in the mean instructor salary of $51,200. The salaries of term faculty who hold the rank of assistant, associate, or full professor are also included in the average salaries reported for these ranks. AAUP does not have a category to represent lecturers or other categories of term faculty, for example term faculty on in-­‐residence appointments. For a more complete account of term faculty salary, consideration of all term faculty salaries together without a breakdown by ranks is informative. For fiscal year 2013, the most recent data available, mean salary for all term faculty at AU was $68,665. This average includes all term faculty, including library term faculty and in-­‐residence term faculty. In comparison, ii
median term faculty salary for 2013 was $56,775. In 2013 there were 186 term faculty (57 percent) earning below iii
$60,000. The disparity between mean and median salary here indicates that the distribution is skewed. That is, there are a limited number of higher salaries raising the value of the mean. This suggests that the median is a more reliable representation of term faculty salaries. PEER INSTITUTION COMPARISONS Despite the complexity in accounting for term faculty salaries in light of a diversity of ranks and titles, salary comparisons based on AAUP salary data are of some value. When tenure-­‐line and term-­‐faculty salaries are compared to regional-­‐peer and local institutions, the divergence between tenure-­‐line and term salaries is stark. Tenure-­‐line and term salaries locally, as well as for our regional peers, stand above or far above the national median for each academic rank and AAUP level, while AU instructor salary is the only reported salary in any rank falling below the national median. The Middle States Self-­‐Study considers the institutions below to be AU's peers because they "have no medical school or engineering college, but they do have either a business school or both a business and a law school. They are all located in the northeastern United States." Full Associate AAUP Level Avg. Salary % Rank of % Avg. Salary Fordham I 149.8 84th FA Boston I 159.2 88th FA Syracuse I 122.8 54th Brandeis I 131.4 I IIA School American Clark Assistant % Rank of % 106.6 87th FA 103.4 83rd FA A 87.7 52nd 64th A 93.4 159.4 88th FA 105.0 85th FA Avg. Salary Instructor % Rank of % 93.9 89th FA 88.3 82nd FA A 75.5 52nd 70th A 83.4 74th 102.3 82nd FA 76.6 81.7 86th FA 70.0 Avg. Salary % Rank of % 83.0 96th FA 73.2 92nd FA A 68.0 89th FA A 59.0 70th A 57th A 51.2 43rd B 85th FA n/a n/a n/a Salary averages = thousands. Rank of Percentile: FA= Far Above Median; A= Above Median; B= Below Median; FB = Far Below Median for all 4-­‐year institutions of the same AAUP rank LOCAL INSTITUTIONS Not only does AU have lower instructor salaries than any other AAUP-­‐1 school in the immediate area, two of the three four-­‐
year, non-­‐level-­‐1 institutions in the District also exceed AU's instructor salary. iv
Local Institutions Full AAUP Level Avg. Salary % Georgetown I 173.6 GW I UMCP Associate Assistant Rank of % Avg. Salary % Rank of % 93rd FA 109.4 92nd FA 156.0 86th FA 106.1 86 I 138.1 73rd FA 96.8 76th Catholic I 116.5 40th B 81.9 Howard I 105.8 22nd FB 76.4 IIA 116.4 93rd FA GMU I 130.4 62nd Trinity IIB 81.7 56th I 159.4 IIB 101.6 School Gallaudet American UDC Avg. Salary Instructor % Rank of % 96.0 91st FA FA 86.9 80th FA 85.2 37th B 17th FB 82.9 88th A 84.9 A 66.5 88nd FA 79th FA Avg. Salary % Rank of % n/a n/a n/a FA 73.3 92nd FA 77th FA 60.7 75th A 69.2 31st B 55.0 52nd A 69.5 32nd B 58.4 67th A FA 67.9 81st FA 57.9 84th FA 45th B 71.0 37th B 57.6 63rd A 59th A 57.3 60th A 52.2 77th FA 102.3 82nd FA 76.6 57th A 43rd B 76.3 73rd A 62.4 59th A 48th B 51.2 48.3 Salary averages = thousands. Rank of Percentile: FA= Far Above Median; A= Above Median; B= Below Median; FB = Far Below Median for all 4-­‐year institutions of the same AAUP rank COST OF LIVING The Washington, DC region is among the costliest metropolitan areas in the country, as “Table 757 Cost of Living Index for Select Urban Areas—2012” in the Statistical Abstract of the United States below demonstrates. This high cost of living is reflected in increased locality pay for the Washington, DC region relative to other areas. For example, the Federal GS scale includes a 24.22% locality bump for the region. Furthermore, a September 2014 Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows v
that the District of Columbia has the nation's highest housing costs. These data underscore the anomaly of term faculty vi
salaries that lag behind regional peer institutions in comparatively less costly geographic areas. Composite Index Grocery Housing Utilities Transportation Health Care Goods and Services New, York, (Manhattan), NY 225.4 149.7 454.5 128.9 128.9 129.6 148.5 New, York, (Brooklyn), NY 178.6 127.8 342.6 124.7 106.1 111.4 116.9 San, Francisco, CA 163.4 121.5 295.0 95.5 110.3 114.7 119.5 New, York, (Queens), NY 148.3 124.8 226.8 128.2 113.5 111.0 117.5 Washington-­‐Arlington-­‐Alexandria 144.7 113.4 256.6 105.5 106.5 101.1 97.3 Boston, MA 139.9 118.9 173.6 147.3 107.3 126.4 132.7 Nassau County, NY 132.4 119.4 181 121.9 106.9 110.1 113.5 Los, Angeles-­‐Long, Beach, CA 130.8 107.7 197.1 104.6 112.0 107.8 103.8 Bethesda-­‐Gaithersburg-­‐Frederick, MD 129.7 114.6 196.0 115.1 105.7 100.0 98.6 Newark-­‐Elizabeth NJ 129.7 112.6 170.7 137.2 106 103.1 113 Philadelphia, PA 122.9 122.2 140.6 131.6 105.6 102.6 114.9 Chicago, IL 117.2 112.6 137.3 108.0 121.8 101.9 105.5 Urban Area 100 = US average cost CONCLUSION This proposal comes from a committee that represents the specific interests of 353 full-­‐time term faculty at this university, interests supported by many tenure-­‐line colleagues. While the committee applauds the administration for recognizing term faculty as an essential faculty cohort, this recognition has involved relatively minimal financial cost when considering the marked increase in the university’s budget over the past decade. American University term-­‐faculty salaries are clearly anomalous no matter what lens-­‐-­‐campus budget, regional competitors, local competitors-­‐-­‐is applied. In all other aspects except salary, AU is ahead of the national trend in meaningfully integrating term faculty now that tenure-­‐lines across the nation have precipitously declined. However, many other institutions are revamping their term faculty policies. Those polices have often included equitable salaries for their non-­‐tenure-­‐line full-­‐time faculty who represent a professional rank of teachers, administrators, and scholars. We applaud the fact that the AU administration has openly recognized the problem of term faculty salary. We hope that this recognition signals a meaningful intention to rectify the problem. The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Term Faculty seeks for this proposal to receive full and serious consideration as the Faculty Senate discusses the next two-­‐year budget cycle. i Inflation calculation made using Bureau of Labor Statistics data. ii Calculated based on data provided by the Office of Human Resources iii Additional salary data provided by the AU Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. iv Data for both salary tables from The Chronicle of Higher Education "2013 AAUP Faculty Survey" 8 April 2013 http://chronicle.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/article/aaup-­‐survey-­‐data-­‐2013/138309#id=131159 v Demetrio M. Scopelliti. Housing: before, during, and after the Great Recession. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Sept. 2014. Web. October 2014. vi “Salary Table 2014-­‐DCB.” www.opm.gov. United States Office of Personnel Management. January 2014. Web. August 2014 American University
Conflict of Time Commitment Disclosure Form
SECTION 1 – DESCRIPTION OF EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES:
Commitment of Time
Type of Activity
Name of Entity
Within one day per
week (in hours)
Beyond one day per
week (in hours)
SECTION 2 - DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATION:
Type of Disclosure
Annual Disclosure
Revised Annual Disclosure
Ad Hoc Disclosure
By submitting this form, I acknowledge that I have reviewed the American University Faculty Manual’s
statement on Conflict of Commitment. I certify that the information is complete and accurate to the best of
my knowledge. I acknowledge my continuing obligation to inform American University of any change in
my outside activities by completing and submitting a new form, or amending this form, should the
circumstances described above change.
/
Signature of Individual
Date
/
Proposed Process for Implementing the Faculty Senate Policy Statement on Conflict
of Time Commitment
Introduction
This document describes a proposed procedure for implementing the American University
Faculty Manual’s section on Professional Standards (Section 26, pp. 68-73) and conflict of
time commitment. To begin, scholarly work as defined by the Faculty Manual is usually
considered not to be a conflict of time commitment. However, some unapproved outside
activities, such as excessive consulting or permanent employment outside the university,
may constitute a conflict of time commitment.
Policy Statements from the Faculty Manual:
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.
Examples
Outside activities that may constitute conflicts of time commitment include:
 Teaching courses for another college or university;
 Consulting for financial or nonfinancial compensation that interferes with a faculty
member’s performance of annual assignments;
 Volunteer or pro-bono activities that interfere with a faculty member’s performance of
annual assignments;
 Ownership, management or other involvement in commercial or non-profit enterprises;
 Holding a job or management position outside American University
Scholarly activities generally considered to be expected components of faculty assignments
at American University in the areas of teaching, scholarship and university or professional
service do not typically constitute conflicts of time commitment.
Disclosure
Each faculty member at American University who is tenured, tenure-earning or who holds
a multi-year term appointment is required to submit an annual disclosure of all current or
anticipated outside activities. Disclosures of planned outside activities require review, and
potentially, guidance and management for faculty to pursue the disclosed activities. For
conflicts that arise between required annual disclosures, the faculty member should submit
an amended disclosure form to the appropriate academic unit dean.
Evaluation of the Disclosure
The appropriate academic unit dean or a designee will review annual disclosures and
assess their magnitude, the extent to which they interfere with faculty members’ annual
assignments and whether they are permissible. The dean may design management plans to
reduce or eliminate disclosed conflicts of time commitment.
Conflict of Time Commitment Management Plans
COTC management plans may involve multiple elements, including:
 Selection of an appropriate form of oversight relevant to the outside activities.
 Modification of the scope or content of the proposed outside activity, based on the
faculty member’s university-related annual assignments.
 Modification of the content of the full-time faculty member’s university-related annual
assignments.
 Modification of the terms of the faculty member’s appointment to a faculty position at
the university.
Modification of a COTC Management Plan
A faculty member may request an appeal of the appropriate academic unit dean’s decision
by submitting a written appeal to the Dean of Academic Affairs (DAA) within ten (10) days
following receipt of the appropriate academic unit dean’s decision. The appeal must
include the rationale for the request. The decision of the DAA represents an informal
grievance resolution process. The formal grievance process is described in the Faculty
Manual (pp. 52-53).