Faculty Senate Meeting
Wed, October 8, 2014, 2:30 PM to 5:00 PM
Butler Board Room
1) Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton (2:30)
a) Approval of Revised March & April minutes and of September Minutes
2) Provost’s Report – Scott Bass (2:45)
3) Ombudsman Proposal – Stacey Marien & Lauren Weis (3:00)
4) SET Committee Report – Tony Ahrens & Lenny Steinhorn (3:30)
5) Senate blog—Larry Engel (4:00)
6) Academic Budget and Benefits Committee: Requests from Faculty – John Douglass (4:15)
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 1
Report to Senate
Table of Contents
Introductory Statement
2
Term Faculty Data
3
Benefits
3
Contracts
4
Reappointment and Promotion Procedures
4
Action Items for Teaching Units or Academic Units
5
Term Faculty Ranks and Promotions
6
Governance
8
Professional Development Policies and Support
9
Other Recommendations
10
Summary of Recommendations
11
Template 1: Term Initial Offer Letter from Academic Unit
14
Template 2: Term Reappointment from Dean of Academic Affairs
15
Template 3: Multi-Year Reappointment from Dean of Academic Affairs
15
Professorial Lecturer Evaluation Criteria
16
Professorial Lecturer Ranks
17
Term Professor Evaluation Criteria
18
Term Professor Ranks
Pathways to Promotions Diagrams for Grandfathered Faculty
For Term Faculty Hired after September 2010
20
21
22
Chart: Fall 2010 Course Levels by Faculty Type
23
Tables: Faculty Status Summary AY 2009-2010 and AY 2010-2011
24
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 2
Report to Senate
Introductory Statement
The University recognizes the important role of term faculty both in teaching and in the broader
intellectual life of the University. Term faculty teach classes in every academic and teaching
unit, with primary roles in some programs, such as the Washington Semester and Mentorship
Programs. They teach at all levels but play the largest role in educating undergraduates,
especially freshmen and sophomores. Faculty success with these students may be seen by the
improving freshman retention rate and the recent National Study Engagement Survey, which
indicated that AU freshmen are largely satisfied with what they are learning.
Recognizing term faculty as an essential cohort within the AU faculty, the Faculty Senate
outlined specific policies for term faculty as part of its recent revision of the Faculty Manual.
The Faculty Senate found that across the University, policies and procedures for term faculty
were implemented inconsistently. Additionally, there was substantial confusion about promotion
criteria and pathways for term faculty, benefits available to term faculty, opportunities for
professional development for term faculty, and the role of term faculty in University and unit
governance.
Therefore, the Faculty Senate formed an ad-hoc Committee on Term Faculty University Policies
in Spring 2011. This committee researched the role of term faculty in the University and current
policies pertaining to term faculty, with the goal of clarifying and revising existing policies and
recommending new policies if they are warranted.
The ad hoc committee’s report that follows includes findings regarding existing policies, newly
revised policies (based on Faculty Senate actions), and some recommendations for additional
policies, procedures, and practices pertaining to term faculty.
The members of the 2011 Committee on Term Faculty University Policies are:
 Diane Lowenthal, Assistant Professor (term), Department of Government, Washington
Semester Program
 Sarah Menke-Fish, Assistant Professor (term), School of Communication
 Lacey Wootton, College Writing Instructor (term), Department of Literature
 Patrick Jackson, Associate Professor (tenure-line), School of International Service, and
Director of General Education
 Virginia “Lyn” Stallings, Associate Professor (tenure-line), Department of Mathematics
and Statistics
 Ann Joiner, Senior Director of Employee Benefits, Office of Human Resources
 Carol Edwards, Senior Director of Human Resource Delivery, Office of Human
Resources
 Phyllis Peres, Interim Dean of Academic Affairs
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 3
Report to Senate
Please note that throughout this report, the passages that are highlighted in yellow are the
committee’s recommendations for changes in policies or procedures.
Term Faculty Data
This committee gathered data regarding term faculty and the role term faculty play in the
University. For this report, we present summary data in two tables and one chart (attached). The
tables labeled “Faculty Status Summary” were prepared by Human Resources staff. The tables
show full-time faculty type by unit for the current and previous academic years. For the 20102011 academic year, out of 747 total full-time faculty, 277 are term faculty.
The committee created the chart “Fall 2010 Course Levels by Faculty Type” to illustrate
differences in courses taught by different faculty types. Data from the Provost’s Office show that
term faculty play an important role in teaching 100-200 and 300-400-level courses (teaching
42.77% and 35.46% respectively). Term faculty teach a smaller proportion of the courses as the
course level increases. By contrast, tenure-line faculty teach a larger proportion of courses as
course level increases. Adjunct faculty teach a substantial proportion of courses at all levels
(varying from 30.20%-41.98%).
Benefits
The options for benefits are the same for term faculty as for tenure-line faculty. All full-time
faculty are eligible for the following benefits:
 Medical Coverage – CareFirst/Express Scripts and Kaiser
 Dental Insurance – Delta Dental
 Life Insurance/Accidental Death & Dismemberment (Basic, Supplemental) – MetLife
 Short Term Disability Benefits – Administered by MetLife
 Long Term Disability Insurance (after 1 year of service) – MetLife
 Flexible Spending Accounts (Health care and Dependent Care) – Administered by
Payflex
 Retirement Plan (eligible for match after 1 year of service or immediately if previously
employed by 501(c)(3) or 170(b) organization) – TIAA-CREF and Fidelity Investments
 Educational benefits for faculty and spouse or same-sex domestic partner (employed by
AU for at least 4 months)
 Educational benefits for dependents (after two years of continuous employment at AU)
 Long-term Care – Todd Benefits Group
 Group Legal – Hyatt/MetLaw
 Group Home and Auto – MetLife
 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) - All term faculty who meet the FMLA eligibility
criteria can apply for FMLA leave. FMLA leave is unpaid. AU’s FMLA policy can be
found at https://my.american.edu/hr/pdf/Staff%20Personnel%20Policies.pdf
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 4
Report to Senate



Faculty Policy for Modified Work Arrangement Due to Qualifying Family or Medical
Leave Events - Multi-year term faculty with a modified work arrangement approved
under the Faculty Policy for Modified Work Arrangements Due to Qualifying Family or
Medical Leave Events are eligible to receive pay during an approved FMLA leave. This
policy can be found at http://www.american.edu/policies/upload/Faculty-Policy-forModified-FMLA.pdf. Note that term faculty on one-year contracts are not eligible for the
Faculty Policy for Modified Work Arrangement Due to Qualifying Family or Medical
Leave Events.
Current Modified Work Arrangement refers to 2/2 teaching loads. This language will
need to be updated for the multi-year faculty.
Full-time multi-year faculty are eligible for Leave Without Pay according to the policies
in the Faculty Manual.
Contracts
From the Faculty Manual, sections 14a, b, and c.
In recommending term faculty appointments or reappointments, the teaching unit
must specify in writing the duties of the term faculty member and the means for
evaluating the faculty member’s performance.
The university customarily makes initial term faculty appointments for one or two
years.
The university may reappoint term faculty for periods on one-year contracts or multiyear contracts of two to five years.
Reappointment and Promotion Procedures
All appointments or reappointments that are for two to five years are considered “multi-year”
faculty positions. All proposed multi-year appointments and reappointments must be approved
by the academic unit dean and the Dean of Academic Affairs. It is the responsibility of the
teaching unit and the academic unit to make a case for changing a faculty line from one year to
multi-year.
The CFA no longer reviews term faculty appointments and reappointments. This change allows
the DAA to notify one-year term faculty of their reappointments by mid-April (unless the
position is dependent on enrollments).
The CFA reviews the file if there is a disagreement between the dean and the teaching unit on
whether to reappoint term faculty members. The CFA makes a recommendation to the DAA,
who will make the final decision about reappointment.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 5
Report to Senate
The DAA resolves any disagreement between the teaching unit and the academic unit about the
length of a reappointment contract.
Term faculty cannot grieve non-reappointment of a contract.
The committee recommends that the Senate investigate a procedure for allowing long-term
multi-year faculty to grieve a non-renewal of their contract.
Term faculty seeking reappointment without promotion should present a file for action that
contains
 evidence of teaching per the university and unit criteria
 evidence of service per the expectations of the university and unit criteria
 evidence of scholarship per the university and unit criteria, if applicable
Term faculty seeking promotion should present a file for action that contains
 all appointment and reappointment letters
 all recommendations from internal reviewers
 evidence of teaching per the university and unit criteria
 evidence of service per the university and unit criteria
 evidence of scholarship per the university and unit criteria, if applicable
Noting a perceived over-reliance on SETs to evaluate term faculty teaching, the committee
recommends that the Center for Teaching, Research & Learning offer training in developing and
using multiple criteria for evaluating teaching.
Action Items for Teaching Units or Academic Units
1. Units need to meet with each “grandfathered” term faculty member to determine whether
he or she wants to be assigned a new rank (if eligible).
2. The unit needs to have substantive discussions about the need for hiring term faculty at
the Professor ranks.
a. What will be the role of the person’s scholarship in fulfilling the needs of the
unit?
b. What will be the implications of renewing and promoting term faculty in the
Professor ranks?
3. Each teaching/academic unit will establish a process for appointing and reappointing
term faculty. The unit may not need to substantively change the way it processes files for
temporary faculty, but the timeline of teaching unit and academic unit reviews should
accommodate the DAA’s deadlines.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 6
Report to Senate
4. Academic units should post procedures and timelines for:
 submitting reappointment files for one-year contracts
 submitting reappointment files for multi-year contracts
 review of reappointment files by the teaching unit
 review of reappointment files by the academic unit dean
 review of reappointment files by the Dean of Academic Affairs
 comparable submission and review of promotion files.
See the description of internal-review timelines in the section on Term Faculty Ranks and
Promotion in this document.
5. Academic units should keep faculty apprised of the status of their reappointment
application throughout the process.
6. When recommending reappointments, all parties should be aware that, even with multiple
renewals, one-year term faculty members’ salaries cannot be portioned out over a 12
month period.
7. Reviewers must review the whole file for reappointment.
8. The unit will need to produce letters of appointment and reappointment that:
 identify the length of the term of appointment or reappointment (one to five
years);
 clearly define the workload, including number of courses, campus presence, and
service, as well as how each component will be evaluated and by whom;
 clearly define the work (curriculum development, running a center, grant writing,
etc.) that replaces a portion of the teaching workload and how that work will be
evaluated and by whom; and
 state, if applicable, how the faculty member’s scholarship will be evaluated
See sample appointment and reappointment templates attached to this report.
Term Faculty Ranks and Promotions
Revision of the Faculty Manual in 2010 led to the following position statement on term faculty:
The university should use term appointments primarily:




to retain a cadre of effective and committed teachers who can provide instructional
continuity, particularly in multi-section courses
to maintain flexibility in allocating its resources for faculty positions
to bring in outstanding individuals who will enrich the learning experience through their
professional qualifications and experiences from careers outside academia
to provide additional time for scholarly pursuits of the tenure-line faculty
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 7
Report to Senate

to deal with exigent circumstances, such as replacing faculty on leave, filling vacancies
that occur too late to conduct an appropriate search for a tenure-track faculty
appointment, filling a vacancy resulting from an unsuccessful search for a tenure-track
faculty member, or staffing an experimental program.
In the former manual’s policies, the designations for the ranks were not consistent with peer
universities and did not consistently reflect the duties associated with the ranks, particularly the
Professor ranks. Therefore, the revised Faculty Manual established ranks for term faculty
whose primary work obligations as defined by the academic unit are teaching and a separate set
of ranks for term faculty whose work obligations as defined by the academic unit include
teaching and some scholarship; these ranks were arrived at after extensive discussion and
revision in Spring 2010 and were approved by a vote of the faculty and by the Board of Trustees
on the revised Faculty Manual.
The new Manual policies (approved in May 2010) for incoming term faculty members include:
 categorizing temporary full-time faculty as “term faculty”
 establishing the Professorial Lecturer title with the opportunity to be promoted to Senior
Professorial Lecturer and Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer
 creating the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor for
term faculty in the rare event that an academic unit decides to commit its resources for
teaching and scholarship activity for a term position
 allowing continuing term faculty who were hired as Assistant Professors to retain their
title.
Implications for all incoming new term faculty:
 Customarily, all new hires will either be appointed as instructors (no terminal degree) or
as Professorial Lecturers (terminal degree).
 A terminal degree is defined as a terminal degree in the field.
 Only in rare circumstances will term faculty members be hired to the Professor ranks.
 Promotion in the instructor/Professorial Lecturer ranks is not awarded based on length of
service.
 Faculty in Professorial Lecturer ranks cannot pursue promotion to the Professor ranks
without the advance support of the academic unit and DAA.
 In-Residence full-time faculty members follow the teaching unit and academic unit
procedures for review. Academic units make recommendations to the DAA for
reappointment and contractual changes.
 There will be an increase in base salary with a promotion.
Implications for grandfathered term faculty:
 Assistant Professors can keep their titles as long as they are continuously employed at
AU.
 Assistant Professors cannot pursue promotion to the Associate Professor rank without the
advance support of the academic unit and DAA.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 8
Report to Senate

Assistant Professors can elect to switch to the Professorial Lecturer track (which allows
for promotion based on teaching performance).
 Assistant Professors who are appointed to Senior Professorial Lecturer will be treated as
achieving a promotion in rank.
 Instructors and other term faculty can apply for promotion to a higher Professorial
Lecturer rank.
 Faculty in Professorial Lecturer ranks cannot pursue promotion to the Professor ranks
without the advance support of the academic unit and DAA.
 There will be an increase in base salary with a promotion.
Pathways for promotion and description of ranks and criteria for promotion attached at the end
of this report.
Internal review of appointments, reappointments, and promotions to the Professorial Lecturer
ranks:
 Follow teaching unit procedures for reviewing file.
 File is submitted to academic unit dean for review.
 If there is no disagreement about whether to appoint or reappoint, file is sent to DAA for
decision.
Internal review of promotions to the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Full
Professor:
 Follow teaching unit procedures for reviewing file (must have a vote of support of the
tenured faculty).
 File is submitted to academic unit dean for review.
 File is submitted to CFA for review.
 File is submitted to DAA and Provost for decision.
Governance
If a full-time faculty member’s contract satisfies the term requirements for Faculty Senate
membership, he or she can serve
 as an academic unit representative on the Faculty Senate
 on Faculty Senate committees
 as a chair of a Faculty Senate committee
 on three of the five available at-large Senate seats, one of which is a dedicated term
faculty seat.
Teaching units and academic units should formulate procedures and by-laws that give multi-year
term faculty the opportunity to have a voice in areas of governance such as (but not limited to)

searching and hiring other term faculty
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 9
Report to Senate








policies on buy-out of courses via external grant funding that comes through the
university
promotion of term faculty to the Professorial Lecturer ranks
decisions involving curriculum
workload assignments
professional development
program review
council governance
other participation as defined by the unit by-laws
The committee recommends that term faculty have a vote in issues that are not directly related to
tenure-line faculty appointments, reappointments, promotion, and tenure.
Professional Development Policies and Support
In a survey of the academic units, the committee found the following:
KSB: KSB generally supports travel to present one paper each year. Other support may include
funding for trips to professional conferences, subscriptions to professional journals, etc.
Decisions on faculty support are typically made at the teaching-unit level, as each chair is
allocated a budget for this and other purposes. When teaching-unit funds are insufficient, the
dean’s office may contribute.
CAS: Since travel funds are allocated to the College (and then to the teaching units) based on
tenure-line faculty needs, the College does not provide support to term faculty for
conference/professional workshop travel. If a teaching unit is not "over budget" and wants to
support term faculty travel, it may do so.
SPA: SPA provides $1,000 to each term faculty member for travel to academic conferences.
They also provide 10 hours of graduate-assistant time (and hope to be able to continue to do so).
SOC: SOC provides up to $600 per term faculty member for travel to conferences or
professional development. SOC bases its decisions on the conference or workshop; often the
professional nature of these events is best suited to its term faculty so SOC tries to support them
as much as possible. SOC also provides graduate assistants to all its term faculty.
SIS: SIS provides the same type of support for term as it does for tenured and tenure-track
faculty, which is $750, in addition to the Provost’s funding for specific conferences. SIS also
provides graduate assistants to each of its term faculty.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 10
Report to Senate
WSP: WSP provides conference travel when presenting a paper, and may provide summer
support through small summer research grants from the dean through a competitive process, and
support for technology and other materials for research.
University Library: The University Library provides the same support for term librarians as for
tenure-line librarians: an academic stipend for travel and professional activities. Additional
activities may be supported pending supervisor approval and funding availability.
The committee recommends that the University foster term faculty professional development,
recognizing that being current in one’s field is essential to excellent teaching. Currently, there is
support for term-faculty professional development, although in some cases it is inconsistently
offered or insufficient; the committee recommends continued and consistent support for
professional development across the University, including (but not limited to)





professional conference attendance and presentations
summer research support
technology training
curriculum development (note that multi-year faculty members can apply for curriculum
development grants)
GEFAPs
The committee also recommends discussion of an overload stipend for term faculty who teach
additional credits above the normal workload of his or her teaching unit at the request of the
university.
Other Recommendations
The committee recommends the continuance of the ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies
Committee or the formation of a similar committee to
 investigate other sources of professional development
 investigate the need for and role of an ombudsperson for faculty issues
 review the category of In-Residence faculty (titles, duration of stay at AU, etc.)
 create a “term-faculty manual” containing the policies and procedures described here, to
be posted on the DAA’s website.
The committee recommends the formation of an ad hoc Committee on Adjunct Faculty Policies.
The committee discussed the need for and the advantages of having a Faculty Ombudsperson.
The committee suggests that the Faculty Senate investigate this option.
The committee recommends investigating the reinstatement of small grants for teaching
resources (formerly offered by the Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning).
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 11
Report to Senate
Summary of Recommendations
The committee recommends updates to the Modified Work Arrangement, which currently refers
to 2/2 teaching loads to accommodate multi-year faculty teaching loads.
Noting a perceived over-reliance on SETs to evaluate term faculty teaching, the committee
recommends that the Center for Teaching, Research & Learning offer training in developing and
using multiple criteria for evaluating teaching.
The committee recommends accepting the modified templates for appointments and
reappointments following these recommendations.
The committee recommends that the Senate investigate a procedure for allowing long-term
multi-year faculty to grieve a non-renewal of their contract.
The committee recommends accepting the description of ranks and criteria for promotion
attached at the end of this report.
The committee recommends that the University foster term faculty professional development,
recognizing that being current in one’s field is essential to excellent teaching.
The committee also recommends discussion of an overload stipend for term faculty who teach
additional credits above the normal workload of his or her teaching unit at the request of the
university.
The committee recommends the continuance of the ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies
Committee or the formation of a similar committee.
The committee recommends the formation of an ad hoc Committee on Adjunct Faculty Policies.
The committee suggests that the Faculty Senate investigate the option of having a Faculty
Ombudsperson.
The committee recommends investigating the reinstatement of small grants for teaching
resources (formerly offered by the Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning).
The committee recommends that teaching units and academic units apply the following
procedures or policies:
1. Units need to meet with each “grandfathered” term faculty member to determine whether
he or she wants to be assigned a new rank (if eligible).
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 12
Report to Senate
2. The unit needs to have substantive discussions about the need for hiring term faculty at
the Professor ranks.
a. What will be the role of the person’s scholarship in fulfilling the needs of the
unit?
b. What will be the implications of renewing and promoting term faculty in the
Professor ranks?
3. Each teaching/academic unit will establish a process for appointing and reappointing
term faculty. The unit may not need to substantively change the way it processes files for
temporary faculty, but the timeline of teaching unit and academic unit reviews should
accommodate the DAA’s deadlines.
4. Academic units should post procedures and timelines for:
 submitting reappointment files for one-year contracts
 submitting reappointment files for multi-year contracts
 review of reappointment files by the teaching unit
 review of reappointment files by the academic unit dean
 review of reappointment files by the Dean of Academic Affairs
 comparable submission and review of promotion files.
5. Academic units should keep faculty apprised of the status of their reappointment
application throughout the process.
6. When recommending reappointments, all parties should be aware that, even with multiple
renewals, one-year term faculty members’ salaries cannot be portioned out over a 12
month period.
7. Term faculty seeking reappointment without promotion should present a file for action
that contains
a. evidence of teaching per the university and unit criteria
b. evidence of service per the expectations of the university and unit criteria
c. evidence of scholarship per the university and unit criteria, if applicable.
8. Term faculty seeking promotion should present a file for action that contains
a. all appointment and reappointment letters
b. all recommendations from internal reviewers
c. evidence of teaching per the university and unit criteria
d. evidence of service per the university and unit criteria
e. evidence of scholarship per the university and unit criteria, if applicable.
9. Reviewers must review the whole file for reappointment of a term faculty member.
10. The unit will need to produce letters of appointment and reappointment that:
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 13
Report to Senate




identify the length of the term of appointment or reappointment (one to five
years);
clearly define the workload, including number of courses, campus presence, and
service, as well as how each component will be evaluated and by whom;
clearly define the work (curriculum development, running a center, grant writing,
etc.) that replaces a portion of the teaching workload and how that work will be
evaluated and by whom; and
state, if applicable, how the faculty member’s scholarship will be evaluated.
11. Teaching units and academic units should formulate procedures and by-laws that give
multi-year term faculty the opportunity to have a voice in areas of governance.
12. The committee recommends that term faculty have a vote in issues that are not directly
related to tenure-line faculty appointments, reappointments, promotion, and tenure.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 14
Report to Senate
TEMPLATE 1: TERM INITIAL OFFER LETTER FROM ACADEMIC UNIT
Dear <Name>:
[with terminal degree at time of offer] I am very pleased to have recommended your
appointment as <rank> in the <teaching unit> of the <academic unit> for <AY> with a base
salary of <amount>.
[with terminal degree pending at time of offer] I am very pleased to have recommended your
appointment at the rank of Instructor in the <teaching unit> of the <academic unit> for <AY>
with a base salary of <amount>. If you complete all requirements for your <name of terminal
degree> prior to <start date>, you will be appointed at the rank of Professorial Lecturer.
[with no terminal degree] I am very pleased to have recommended your appointment at the
rank of Instructor in the <teaching unit> of the <academic unit> for <AY> with a base salary of
<amount>.
Your academic responsibilities for <AY> will be [responsibilities]. The evaluation criteria for
these responsibilities are [criteria].
The University offers an attractive program of health care benefits, all of which provide options
for spouse, domestic partner, and dependent coverage. Among other employee benefits offered
by the university are life insurance, long-term disability coverage, and a generous retirement plan
with investments managed by TIAA/CREF or Fidelity Investments. There are also options for
dental insurance, long-term care insurance, and pre-paid legal assistance. In addition, the
university provides educational benefits for faculty members, their spouses or same-sex domestic
partners, and their college-age dependent children under certain conditions.
This offer of employment is contingent upon proof of highest degree received in Human
Resources prior to the commencement of your employment. This offer is also contingent upon
your providing proof of U.S. citizenship, permanent resident alien status, or legal authorization
to work in the United States, as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Please be prepared to present the necessary documents on or before your first day of work.
[Add closing remarks from dean or dept chairteaching unit chair]
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 15
Report to Senate
TEMPLATE 2: TERM REAPPOINTMENT FROM DEAN OF ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS
I am pleased to inform you that you have been reappointed as <rank> in the <department> in the
<school> for AY <year>. This is a term contract that expires on <date>. Please refer to the
offer letter from your academic unit for specific responsibilities and evaluation criteria.
Two copies of the Full-Time Faculty Contract reflecting this action are enclosed. The salary on
the contract is fixed at your current salary level. Merit salary increases are determined during the
summer and, should you be eligible, you will be notified of an increase at that time. Please sign
and return one copy of the contract to Dean <dean>’s office within thirty days of the date of this
letter, retaining one copy for your records.
If you have questions or concerns my office is here to assist you.
TEMPLATE 3: MULTI-YEAR REAPPOINTMENT FROM DEAN OF
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
I am pleased to inform you that you have been reappointed as <rank> in the <department> for
Academic Years <years>. This appointment is made in accordance with section 14 of the
Faculty Manual. Consequently, there is no implication for tenure. Please refer to the offer letter
from your academic unit for specific responsibilities and evaluation criteria.
Two copies of the Full-time Faculty Contract reflecting this action are enclosed. The salary on
the contract is fixed at the same amount for all contract years. If salary increases are authorized
by the Board of Trustees and if you are eligible to receive a merit salary increase, you will be
notified of that increase during the summer. Please sign and return one copy of the contract to
Dean <dean>’s office within thirty days of the date of this letter, retaining one copy for your
records.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 16
Report to Senate
University-wide Criteria and Specific Descriptors for Promotion to Ranks
Part I: Proposed University Criteria for Evaluation of Term Faculty in Professorial
Lecturer Ranks
Every faculty action should serve to enhance the quality of the university. Faculty members must
demonstrate effective teaching and a willingness to assume a fair share of service, as well as a
commitment to continued advancement in teaching and service. As members of the learned
profession responsible for educating the future citizenry, the university expects faculty members
to exhibit civility, collegiality, and respect for different points of view in the academic
community.
To achieve these objectives, constituent faculty in each teaching unit or academic unit must
establish guidelines that define the expectations for the overall contributions of each faculty
member; these guidelines will contain substantive criteria beyond the Student Evaluations of
Teaching and will be used for personnel actions, including reappointment and promotion.
Faculty members’ action files will be the basis for judging whether they have met the criteria.
The Committee on Faculty Actions shall review these guidelines as specified in the section
“Governance at American University” in the Faculty Manual. Upon approval by the appropriate
dean and the Provost, the academic unit will make these guidelines available to faculty.
a. Teaching
Effective teaching enables students to acquire knowledge, develop critical
thinking skills, and become active participants in the learning process. Each
teaching unit or academic unit establishes guidelines for evaluating teaching by
members of that unit. In each case, these evaluation metrics must extend beyond
Student Evaluation of Teaching scores. Faculty may demonstrate effective
teaching in a variety of ways, including course design, development of new
curricular initiatives, up-to-date course content, assignments that challenge and
engage students, initiatives with students outside the classroom (i.e., independent
studies, internships, capstones, and research), and adherence to evaluation
procedures that accurately reflect student accomplishments. Teaching units or
academic units may also view publication and presentation of teaching materials
and methodologies as a contribution to teaching. Additional ways of evaluating
teaching may include, but are not limited to, the items made available to faculty
by academic units and the Office of the Dean of Academic Affairs.
b. Service
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
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 17
Report to Senate
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. As appropriate, teaching units or academic units
may include service to the profession and service beyond the university. In
certain cases, a term faculty member may perform extraordinary service (such as
directing a program or chairing a search committee) in lieu of one of their course
obligations. Such arrangements must be approved in advance by the relevant
teaching unit and academic unit.
Proposed Rank-specific Promotion Criteria for Term Faculty, Lecturer Track
i.
Instructor The Faculty Manual states that “[f]or term faculty members who do not hold
a terminal degree in their field, the rank of instructor is a temporary one-semester or oneyear appointment....Reappointments are subject to annual review. Teaching and academic
units evaluate instructors primarily on their teaching and, if applicable, service to the
teaching unit or academic unit.”
ii.
Professorial Lecturer According to the Faculty Manual, “[t]erm faculty members are
awarded the rank of Professorial Lecturer if they (1) have demonstrated successful
teaching in the rank of instructor for a period of three years, or (2) hold the terminal
degree in the field, or (3) have professional experience and achievement equivalent to a
terminal degree.” New hires may be appointed to this rank if they meet criteria (2) or
(3). Candidates who were hired as Instructors may apply for promotion to Professorial
Lecturer after a period of three years. They will be successful teachers who have built
well-thought-out courses that foster student learning and achievement and that reflect the
current state of their academic field. Their course materials will state clear objectives that
are informed by the goals of their academic unit or program. Their professionalism will
be displayed through their syllabi, text selections, assignments, evaluation of student
work, and Student Evaluation of Teaching scores that are generally in line with their
teaching and academic units. Candidates for Professorial Lecturer will also provide
service to the teaching unit, academic unit, and university.
iii.
Senior Professorial Lecturer After five years of service, Professorial Lecturers are
eligible for promotion to Senior Professorial Lecturer. The Faculty Manual describes the
rank of Senior Professorial Lecturer as a promotion that “recognizes the contributions of
faculty members who have served in the rank of Professorial Lecturer and have
demonstrated superior performance as a teacher. An academic unit may also appoint to
this rank those who have equivalent professional experience.” Candidates for Senior
Professorial Lecturer will be expert teachers whose courses foster, in challenging and
complicated ways, student learning and achievement. Their course materials will promote
the goals of their academic unit or program and demonstrate currency in their academic
field. Their professionalism and expertise will be displayed through their syllabi, text
selections, assignments, evaluation of student work, and Student Evaluation of Teaching
assessments. They will provide significant service and contribute to professional
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 18
Report to Senate
development, which might include leadership activities such as faculty mentoring and
research in their field, to their academic unit or program, and to the university.
iv.
Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer The Faculty Manual describes this rank as “a term
appointment an academic unit awards to a senior professorial lecturer who has provided
particularly meritorious performance to the university over a period of years or to a new
faculty member whose previous career and experience are notably prestigious.” Senior
Professorial Lecturers who are candidates for HSPL will demonstrate a consistent record
of marked teaching excellence. Their application portfolios will show that they have
continually refined their teaching, adapted to new student populations, and attended to
innovations in the field. These candidates will also have demonstrated leadership in their
academic unit or program, have contributed to professional development initiatives in
their academic unit or program and in their field, and have engaged in notable service to
their academic unit or program and the university.
Part II: Proposed University Criteria for Teaching, Scholarship, and Service for Term
Faculty in the Professor Ranks
The academic unit must provide a written commitment to appoint or reappoint term faculty to
Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Full Professor by including in the contract the
expectations for scholarship and a flexible timeline for assessing scholarly productivity.
Every term faculty appointment or promotion to the ranks of assistant professor, associate
professor, and full professor must be initiated by the teaching unit or academic unit and approved
by the Dean of Academic Affairs and the Provost, and should serve to enhance the quality of the
university. Term faculty members must demonstrate effective teaching and significant
scholarship, as well as a willingness to assume a fair share of service. There must also be
evidence of the ability and commitment to continued advancement in all areas. As members of
the learned profession responsible for educating the future citizenry, the university expects term
faculty members to exhibit civility, collegiality, and respect for different points of view in the
academic community.
To achieve these objectives, constituent faculty in each teaching unit or academic unit must
establish guidelines that define the expectations for the overall contributions of each term faculty
member; these guidelines will contain substantive criteria beyond the Student Evaluations of
Teaching and will be used for personnel actions, including reappointment and promotion.
Faculty members’ action files will be the basis for judging whether they have met the criteria.
The Committee on Faculty Actions shall review these guidelines as specified in the section
“Governance at American University” in the Faculty Manual. Upon approval by the appropriate
dean and the Dean of Academic Affairs, the academic unit will make these guidelines available
to faculty.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 19
Report to Senate
a. Teaching
Effective teaching enables students to acquire knowledge, develop critical thinking skills,
and become active participants in the learning process. Each teaching unit or academic
unit establishes guidelines for evaluating teaching by term faculty members of that unit.
In each case, these evaluation metrics must extend beyond Student Evaluation of
Teaching scores. Faculty may demonstrate effective teaching in a variety of ways,
including course design, development of new curricular initiatives, up-to-date course
content, student engagement and achievement outside the classroom, and adherence to
evaluation procedures that accurately reflect student accomplishments. Teaching units or
academic units may also view publication and presentation of teaching materials and
methodologies as a contribution to teaching.
Additional ways of evaluating teaching may include, but are not limited to, the items
made available to faculty by academic units, Dean of Academic Affairs, and the Center
for Teaching, Research, and Learning
b. Scholarship
Term faculty members’ thorough understanding of and significant contribution to their
field are essential to the mission of the academic unit and to the advancement of
knowledge. All teaching units or academic units must have criteria that require creative,
scholarly, and professional achievements of the highest quality and with national or
international impact. The university shall base its assessment of a term faculty member’s
achievements on the aggregate productivity over a period of time that corresponds to the
expectations for tenure-line productivity with an adjustment based on the required
teaching load of the term faculty member. For example, a term faculty member in the
assistant professor rank may be expected to produce one publication as compared with
the expectation that a tenure-line faculty member produce two publications. The
expectations for promotion of term faculty will be specifically defined by the teaching
unit or academic unit and must be approved by the dean and the Dean of Academic
Affairs. The work should relate directly to the criteria established by the academic unit’s
contract with the term faculty member. An additional required assessment addresses the
likelihood of continued successful achievements.
c. Service to the Teaching Unit, Academic Unit, or University
Engagement at American University is an essential component of faculty responsibility.
Term faculty members should demonstrate a meaningful level of engagement in the
teaching unit, academic unit, or university service, as well as participation in major
campus-wide events, such as opening convocation and commencement. As appropriate,
teaching units or academic units may include service to the profession and service
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 20
Report to Senate
beyond the university. Each teaching unit or academic unit must establish guidelines for
evaluating service that include expectations for a willingness to carry an appropriate
share of teaching unit or academic unit collegiate service obligations. In certain cases, a
term faculty member may perform extraordinary service (such as directing a program or
chairing a search committee) in lieu of one of their course obligations. Such arrangements
must be approved in advance by the relevant teaching unit and academic unit.
Proposed General University Description of Term Faculty Professor Ranks
i.
Assistant Professor In most circumstances, an appointee to this rank holds an
earned doctorate or the highest degree customary in the field. In extraordinary
circumstances, an appointee may have professional experience equivalent to the
highest degree in the field. In all cases, the appointee demonstrates the potential to
achieve excellence in teaching and scholarly activities and demonstrates the
promise of future professional growth in the field. When applicable, an appointee
also has the potential to participate in internal service or to mentor and advise
students.
ii. Associate Professor In addition to meeting the criteria for the rank of assistant
professor, the faculty member demonstrates high quality as a teacher, engagement
with students in and outside the classroom, significant scholarly accomplishments
appropriate to the field, professional recognition and growth, and potential for a
career of sustained scholarly distinction and/or prominent accomplishments.
Customarily, the faculty member has a significant proven record of teaching.
iii. Professor In addition to meeting the criteria for the rank of associate professor,
the faculty member demonstrates continuing excellent scholarship and/or
prominent accomplishments in the field, high-quality teaching, continuing active
engagement with students in and outside the classroom, and when applicable,
continuing relevant and effective internal service, as well as evidence of the
potential to sustain excellence in all of these areas.
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 21
Report to Senate
PATHWAYS TO PROMOTIONS (Grandfathered faculty who are currently
instructors)
Term Faculty Hired
Before September 2010
Currently
Instructor
or
Professorial
Lecturer
Senior Professorial
Lecturer
Hurst Senior
Professorial
Lecturer
Assistant
Professor
Associate
Professor
Full
Professor
PATHWAYS TO PROMOTIONS (Grandfathered faculty who are currently assistant
professors)
Term Faculty Hired
Before September 2010
Professorial
Lecturer
Senior Professorial
Lecturer
Associate
Professor
Full
Professor
Currently
Assistant
Professor
Hurst Senior
Professorial
Lecturer
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 22
Report to Senate
PATHWAYS TO PROMOTIONS (New term faculty)
Term Faculty Hired After
September 2010
Appointed
Instructor
Professorial
Lecturer
Senior Professorial
Lecturer
Appointed
Professorial
Lecturer
Appointed
Assistant
Professor
Assistant
Professor
Associate
Professor
Hurst Senior
Professorial
Lecturer
Full
Professor
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 23
Report to Senate
Fall 2010 Course Levels by Faculty Type
50
45
40
35
Tenure Line
percent
Term percent
30
25
Adjunct percent
20
15
10
5
0
Tenure Line percent
Term percent
Adjunct percent
100-299
300-499
500-599
600-699
24.4
33.86
38.68
44.7
42.7672956 35.45816733 16.04938272 14.45086705
32.5
30.2
41.98
Course Levels
36.99
Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee 24
Report to Senate
To: Senate Executive Committee
From: Stacey Marien, University Library
Date: September 26, 2014
Re: Form a group to investigate establishing an organizational ombudsperson position at
American University
Proposed: I propose that the Senate Executive Committee create a small group that will
investigate establishing an organizational ombudsperson position at American University. I
believe there would be many times that informal consultation with a confidential and neutral
party would be able help a faculty member resolve a conflict or concern before needing to
escalate that problem to the chair, dean or DAA.
Rationale: American University’s faculty would benefit from the establishment of an
organizational ombudsperson’s position. An organization ombudsperson is defined as “a
designated neutral who is appointed or employed by an organization to facilitate the informal
resolution of concerns of employees, managers, students and, sometimes, external clients of the
organization.”1 This position could potentially reduce the workload of the Dean of Academic
Affairs and would be a supplement to the university’s existing resources for conflict resolution.
Standards of practice for organizational ombudspersons, established by the International
Ombusman Association, require strict confidentiality. Thus an organizational ombudsperson
would provide a resource for the University by insuring that complaints, concerns, or questions
are heard and discussed, especially when faculty feel vulnerable and might otherwise allow a
situation to worsen unnecessarily. If appropriate, the ombudsperson could encourage a faculty
member to address particular concerns with a Chair or Dean or whomever and possibly effect
change. The ombudsperson could also simply talk through an issue with an impartial ear.
Some examples of situations in which an ombudsperson might be approached are:
A faculty member wants to explore or discuss a complaint anonymously because she isn’t
certain she wants to pursue it further.
A non-tenured faculty member is uncomfortable discussing a problem, question, or
complaint with a chair, dean, or other senior faculty because those persons have power over the
faculty member’s employment status.
A faculty member has a question or concern that doesn’t demand action, and he wants to
discuss it with an informed but impartial party.
1
Wesley, Margo, The Compleat Ombuds A Spectrum of Resolution Services, CPER Journal No. 166 (June 2004).
As cited by the International Ombudsman Association, http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/FrequentlyAsked-Questions/What-is-an-Organizational-Ombudsman.aspx, accessed September 28, 2014.
The Work/Life Balance Survey highlights additional reasons that it would be a positive step for
American University to establish this position. Under the section for Professional Life, there are
several comments that express concern about workplace climate (eg. bullying by Deans,
problems that female faculty members have experienced and the feeling that the climate for work
and collaboration is punitive and competitive). Under the section on Coverage and Familiarity,
there are many comments about how difficult it is to find out about programs, benefits and
services that HR offers. An ombudsperson would be someone who could discuss and/or
facilitate formal or informal processes for resolution of concerns, as well as identify accurate
information for faculty members about campus resources and benefits.
Another role the ombudsperson would play is to help new leaders adapt to the cultural change of
being at this academic institution. There may be value conflicts and stress with current faculty
when a new leader who is unfamiliar with the culture at American University comes on board.
The ombudsperson may be able to help manage the transition.
The Ad hoc Term Faculty University Policies Committee submitted a report to the University
Senate on May 2, 2011. On page 10 of that report, the committee recommends that the
University Senate investigate the establishment of a Faculty Ombudsperson position. Please see
the attached report. The current committee on Term Faculty has also suggested that establishing
a Faculty Ombudsperson be on their agenda for this year. The University is dedicated to fair and
equitable treatment of all; the Term Faculty Committee believes it would benefit all faculty to
have access to an ombudsman in order to facilitate this commitment to fairness and equity.
In addition, The Chronicle of Higher Education has come out with their survey of Great Colleges
to Work For 2013. American University was not among the 97 schools on the list. Some of the
categories that survey rated include Respect and Appreciation, Supervisor and/or DepartmentChair Relationship and Work/Life Balance. Some of the schools that are represented on this list
do have ombudsperson positions, such as Baylor, Cal Tech, Duke, Eastern Michigan, George
Mason, Kent State, Stanford and USC. While there’s no indication that the presence of an
ombudsperson made these institutions “great places to work,” it does seem worth considering as
AU moves to establish itself as a “great place to work,” too.
Position Description: Many peer institutions have ombudsperson positions; the positions vary
in scope and nature, with some paid, some volunteer, and some elected. The Senate group
should examine these models to determine the most appropriate type of position for AU. Here
are links to several of them:
Harvard
http://ombudsman.harvard.edu/
Binghamton University
http://www2.binghamton.edu/ombudsman/
Boston University
http://www.bu.edu/ombuds/about/frequently-asked-questions/
Stanford
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/ombuds/how_we_help.html
IUPUC
https://www.iupuc.edu/campus-life/
Berkeley
http://staffombuds.berkeley.edu/
UNC-Chapel Hill
http://www.ombuds.unc.edu/
Appalachian State
http://ombuds.appstate.edu/
More information about the role and function of an Organizational Ombudsperson, as articulated
by the International Ombudsman Association, is included as an appendix to this proposal. If the
Senate Executive Committee agrees to establish a small group to investigate this issue, I would
like to be named to serve on such committee.
Thank you for your consideration.
Stacey
Stacey Marien
Acquisitions Librarian
American University Library
smarien@american.edu
202-885-3842
APPENDIX 1
From http://www.ombudsassociation.org/Resources/Frequently-Asked-Questions/What-is-anOrganizational-Ombudsman.aspx
What’s in a Name: Ombudsperson, Ombudsman, and Ombuds?
The name “ombudsman” (om budz man) comes from Swedish and literally means
“representative.” At the most fundamental level, an ombudsman is one who assists individuals
and groups in the resolution of conflicts or concerns. There are a number of different titles or
names for this position: “ombudsman,” “ombudsperson” or “ombuds” among others. (For the
purpose of this document, the term “ombudsman” will be used.) Ombudsmen work in all types
of organizations, including government agencies, colleges and universities, corporations,
hospitals and other medical facilities, and news organizations.
There are different types of ombudsmen with different roles, functional responsibilities and
standards of practice including: organizational ombudsman, classical ombudsman, and advocate
ombudsman. While the focus of this document is to describe what an organizational ombudsman
does—and does not do—it is important to distinguish between different types of ombudsmen.
The standards of practice and functional responsibilities can be very different for different types
of ombudsmen.
The organizational ombudsman is defined as: “a designated neutral who is appointed or
employed by an organization to facilitate the informal resolution of concerns of employees,
managers, students and, sometimes, external clients of the organization.”1 The classical
ombudsman … “typically is appointed by a legislative body to represent the public with concerns
of the public with regards to the conduct of governmental agencies; they conduct formal
investigations.”2 An advocate ombudsman is defined as one who “advocates on behalf of a
designated population, such as patients in long-term care facilities.”
The Organizational Ombudsman—Role and Function
The primary duties of an organizational ombudsman are (1) to work with individuals and groups
in an organization to explore and assist them in determining options to help resolve conflicts,
problematic issues or concerns, and (2) to bring systemic concerns to the attention of the
organization for resolution.
An organizational ombudsman operates in a manner to preserve the confidentiality of those
seeking services, maintains a neutral/impartial position with respect to the concerns raised, works
at an informal level of the organizational system, and is independent of formal organizational
structures. Successfully fulfilling that primary function in a manner consistent with the IOA
Standards of Practice3 requires a number of activities on the part of the ombudsman while
precluding others.
Activities and functions most frequently undertaken by an ombudsman include, but are not
limited to:







Listens and understands issues while remaining neutral with respect to the facts. The
ombudsman doesn’t listen to judge or to decide who is right or wrong. The ombudsman
listens to understand the issue from the perspective of the individual. This is a critical
step in developing options for resolution.
Assists in reframing issues and developing and helping individuals evaluate options. This
helps individuals identify the interests of various parties to the issues and helps focus
efforts on potential options to meet those interests.
Guides or coaches individuals to deal directly with other parties, including the use of
formal resolution resources of the organization. An ombudsman often seeks to help
individuals improve their skill and their confidence in giving voice to their concerns
directly.
Refers individuals to appropriate resolution resources. An ombudsman may refer
individuals to one or more formal organizational resources that can potentially resolve the
issue.
Assists in surfacing issues to formal resolution channels. When an individual is unable or
unwilling to surface a concern directly, the ombudsman can assist by helping give voice
to the concern and /or creating an awareness of the issue among appropriate decisionmakers in the organization.
Facilitates informal resolution processes. An ombudsman may help to resolve issues
between parties through various types of informal mediation.
Identifies new issues and opportunities for systemic change for the organization. The
unique positioning of the ombudsman serves to provide unfiltered information that can
produce insight to issues and resolutions. The ombudsman is a source of detection and
early warning of new issues and a source of suggestions of systemic change to improve
existing processes.
What an ombudsman does not do:
Because of the informal, neutral, confidential and independent positioning of an ombudsman in
an organization, they typically do not undertake the following roles or activities:





Participate in formal investigations or play any role in a formal issue resolution process
Serve in any other organizational role that would compromise the neutrality of the
ombudsman role
Receive notice for the organization
Make binding decisions or mandate policies
Create or maintain records or reports for the organization
Formatted: Line spacing: At least 4.5 pt, Pattern: Clear
(Custom Color(RGB(241,241,241)))
Subcommittee 1: “Beyond SETs”
Report and Recommendations
Mark Clark (KSB), chairperson, Naomi Baron (CTRL),
Amanda Frost (WCL), and Rachel Robinson (SIS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. As a result, we must both (a)
evaluate faculty on the effectiveness of their teaching, and (b) mentor and nurture good teaching.
Effective teaching has many dimensions, so our evaluation system must incorporate multiple means of
capturing evidence of teaching effectiveness. In fact, our Faculty Manual mandates that we do so.
However, a 2013 survey by CTRL found widespread lack of clarity among academic units regarding the
role of SETs in evaluating the teaching of tenure-line faculty. Specifically, there seem to be few unit
guidelines regarding the weight given to SETs (whose importance predominated) relative to other
potential measures of teaching effectiveness. While we believe that SETs play an important role in
evaluation, we also believe that units should develop a transparent, multifaceted assessment of
teaching effectiveness.
Based on this multifaceted understanding of teaching effectiveness, the “Beyond SETs” subcommittee
offers a set of recommendations for creating an evaluation system:
1. In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply.
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and a related set of
recommendations in support of those above
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations.
BACKGROUND
The Faculty Manual mandates that evaluation of teaching at American University should involve
measures beyond the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) forms. In carrying out its work in Spring
2014, the “Beyond SETs” subcommittee of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on SETs and Beyond reviewed
options beyond SETs for demonstrating teaching effectiveness that are currently contained in unit-level
tenure and promotion (T&P) guidelines on the web site of the Dean of Academic Affairs. 1 In addition,
we reviewed an example of a peer teaching evaluation system used in the Washington College of Law’s
rank and tenure process. We also solicited informal feedback from colleagues in our respective
academic teaching units regarding how best to go beyond SETs in both evaluating and mentoring
teaching.
1
http://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/unit-guidelines.cfm#ten, accessed March 2014
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply
The Faculty Manual calls for the use of indicators of teaching effectiveness beyond SETs in evaluating
faculty teaching. Yet a recent study conducted by CTRL indicates both that some academic units have no
clear policies on how much to weight either SETs or other factors (which their unit previously identified)
when it comes to merit or promotion reviews.2
To ensure that both merit and promotion/tenure reviews of teaching incorporate such indicators and to
comply with the Faculty Manual, we propose that units should determine the proportions of the
evaluation of teaching that will be determined by SETs and by other measures; these proportions should
be developed by and communicated with faculty. Given that not all faculty members have the same
level of teaching responsibilities, these proportions will likely vary for different types of faculty
appointments; for example:
o For tenure-line faculty:
 For merit pay: units may want to balance approximately 50% SETs and 50% other
measures
 For promotion and tenure: units may want to balance approximately 30% SETs and
70% other measures
o For term faculty:
 For merit, promotion, and reappointment: units may want to balance approximately
50% SETs and 50% other measures. The actual proportion used by the unit can vary,
reflecting the nature of the appointment and teaching responsibilities.
o For adjunct faculty:
 For reappointment: units may want to balance approximately 75% SETs and 25%
other measures
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
FARS should be modified to include space at the beginning of the document where faculty members can
summarize their most important accomplishments (in teaching, research, and service) for the year. Note
that at present, the only open-ended space in FARS (found under “Teaching”) limits faculty to talking
about pedagogical innovations or student outreach activities “that are not connected with a specific
course.”
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
Individual academic units should retain their rights and responsibilities to identify and utilize “beyond
SETs” options that best fit their unit, to determine the proportion of SETs and other measures, and to
support policies and practices for development of teaching excellence.
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness
In accordance with the Faculty Manual (section 10a), units should develop a range of measures of
teaching effectiveness beyond SETs, recognizing that the choice of measures and weight they are given
may well vary with type of review (e.g., tenure-line versus term faculty, merit review versus promotion
or tenure). All faculty within each unit should be given the opportunity to participate in this process, and
the results of the process should be widely disseminated, particularly to those faculty who are up for
review.
2
This study is included in the CTRL report to the Faculty Senate, Fall 2013, and is available upon request.
2
Presently, all academic units have narratives (listed on the DAA website3) identifying the variety of ways
in which their own unit looks beyond SETs in evaluating (and hopefully mentoring) good teaching,
primarily for promotion and tenure. However, in reviewing these criteria in their present form, as well as
drawing upon CTRL’s survey of academic unit practices, it was difficult to discern how such multiple
criteria are actually applied; in addition, particularly for term faculty, there are few evaluation criteria
for reappointment and none for merit.
Examples of “beyond SET” criteria identified across units as well as proposed by our Committee include:
o Peer review of teaching
o Teaching portfolio
o Publications in/presentations at pedagogical journals/conferences
o Letters from former students and advisees
o Publications by students whose research faculty have supervised (faculty may or may not be coauthors)
o Self-evaluation of achievement of course learning objectives
o Examples of feedback provided on student work
o Fulfillment of course and program learning outcomes
o Preparation for advanced courses in the program
o Stakeholder feedback (alumni, employers, peers, etc.)
o Relative level of course (e.g., introductory v. advanced, general education v. majors and
graduates)
To help develop and use these measures, units can consult with CTRL and other resources. In addition,
units may coordinate this process with the Committee on Faculty Relations during each review cycle of
unit guidelines.
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
Teaching units should develop materials and training opportunities to support “beyond SETs” options,
working with CTRL or other resources as appropriate. The primary function of this support should be to
develop and mentor good teaching, rather than to serve as an evaluation metric. For example, we offer
the following list of support systems that should be continued or augmented.
CTRL and Unit Programs, Conferences, and Workshops
Both CTRL and several of the academic units have events and personnel in place to help support good
teaching. We strongly suggest that academic units work to shift their emphasis from asking faculty up
for reappointment to “raise their SET scores” and instead nurture an environment of helping them
improve their teaching.
Peer Observation of Teaching
Individual units should continue to have the option of whether or not to conduct peer observations.
Similarly, units should continue to decide for themselves whether feedback will be used strictly for
mentoring purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. However, we urge that the emphasis be put on
mentoring, not evaluation. In Spring 2013, CTRL offered a training session on effective ways of doing
peer observations of teaching. CTRL will prepare a handbook on peer observation during Summer 2014
and offer additional workshops for faculty in AY 2014-2015.
3
http://www.american.edu/provost/academicaffairs/unit-guidelines.cfm#ten, accessed March 2014.
3
Explore Creation of University-Wide Teaching Mentoring Program
While some academic units have in place programs to mentor faculty teaching, others do not. We
propose that the university explore the usefulness and feasibility of establishing a university-wide cadre
of faculty mentors available to faculty (and academic units) that choose to work with them.
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations
Information about the purpose, components, and uses of American University’s system of evaluating
teaching effectiveness should be shared with students, faculty, and administrators in an organized and
continued fashion. This process should ensure that:
o students understand the role SETs play in faculty evaluation
o faculty evaluation committees are aware of unit policies regarding the balance between SETs
and other criteria in evaluating teaching, along with the vital role of mentoring
o new faculty are introduced to the FARS system, including how it is used administratively
o administrators and/or university-wide committees making final decisions on merit pay,
promotion, and tenure remain cognizant of differential academic unit policies
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. Therefore, we offer these
recommendations to include multiple aspects of teaching effectiveness in our evaluation and support
systems for the continued development and practice of high-quality teaching.
4
Subcommittee II: Revision of the Existing SETs
Report and Recommendations
Elizabeth Worden (CAS), chairperson, Borden Flanagan (SPA), David Kaib (OIR),
Phyllis Peres (DAA), Lenny Steinhorn (SOC), and Chris Tudge (CAS)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Subcommittee for Revision of the SETs distributed a faculty survey to establish: 1) what faculty
consider to be the purposes of the SETs and what should be the purposes of the SETs; and 2) what type
of SET questions (regarding both the instructor and the course) are the most helpful. The latter will
guide the drafting of the new SET instrument while the former provides the basis for these
recommendations. The survey was distributed to all full time faculty and the response rate was 46%.
Overall, faculty are concerned that the SET as currently constructed may not reflect teaching and course
quality, and thus it is far more limited than what faculty want in terms of helping to improve and
evaluate faculty classroom work. Therefore we recommend creating an SET that serves as a better
measure of teaching quality and classroom learning, which will then provide valuable information for a
variety of purposes, including ways to improve, strengths and weaknesses, success in meeting learning
objectives, and metrics for evaluating teaching and classroom performance, among others. We also
recommend that faculty have an informed discussion about online and paper-based SETs at the faculty
retreat.
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Based on the results, we highlight a few of the findings below. The full survey results are attached to this
memo. First, the SETs should be revised and developed in such a way to better serve as a tool for the
improvement of teaching, student learning, course content, and learning objectives. Related, we
recommended that the unit and individual “choice options” be reconsidered. In the process of the SET
revision, we recommend that faculty be given ample opportunity to provide feedback.
1. The current SETS should be revised and rewritten to address the following:

Improvement of teaching, learning, and course content
Over 60% of faculty would like the SETs to help improve teaching but only 27.7% think the
current SETs actually helps improve teaching. Related, 44.9% think the SETs should aid in
improving student learning but only 15% think it actually does. Last, 58.1% think the SETs
should help the instructor improve elements of the course, such as content and structure, yet
only 27.9% think the current SETs actually does.
5


Assess course learning objectives
Faculty (43.3%) thought that the SETs should assess whether or not the course learning
objectives were met while only 18% of faculty think the current SET addresses this issue.
Reconsider and possibly eliminate the optional questions
Only 20.5% of faculty found the optional unit chosen questions to be helpful and only 36.7%
found the individual instructor chosen questions to be helpful. If optional questions like these
are to remain in the SETs, we recommend that they be re-designed so they are actually helpful.
2. Solicit further faculty feedback both in person and online venues
Our short but important survey provoked discussion across units. From informal feedback through
emails to in-person discussions at faculty meetings, it is clear that the SETs are an important and highly
sensitive issue. We recommend strongly that faculty be given the opportunity to provide both in-person
feedback (at the faculty retreat, for example) and online, which could also provide the opportunity for
anonymous comments.
6
To:
Lacey Wootton, Chair AU Faculty Senate
From: AU Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation and SETs
Co-Chairs Tony Ahrens (CAS), Chris Tudge (CAS)
Date:
August 27, 2014
Re:
Summary of Committee Work
______________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation and SETs worked in two subcommittees
and developed two sets of recommendations for review by the Faculty Senate: 1) why and how units
should move “beyond the SETs” in the evaluation of teaching; and 2) revisions for the existing SETs. The
executive summaries are listed in turn and the full recommendations are attached. Several key tasks
remain in order to develop a revised SET in line with the second set of recommendations. In the below
table, we suggest a timeline for accomplishing these tasks in a timely manner. Both the
recommendations for “beyond the SETs” and revising the current SET should generate a robust
discussion in the Senate.
Indeed, there was robust discussion within the committee. For instance, there were disagreements
within subcommittees. We note especially disagreements about the first item in the report from
Subcommittee I. There is general agreement that SETs cannot be the only metric of teaching
effectiveness. There is also general agreement that it is often difficult to know how different aspects of
teaching evaluation are used by the teaching units in their evaluations. This lack of clarity causes a
variety of problems, including increased anxiety on the part of those being evaluated. Presenting welldefined proportions, as is suggested by the subcommittee report, is one solution to providing clarity
about emphasis on different measures and a guarantee that factors other than the SETs are considered.
However, well-defined proportions also carry problems, and there are alternative procedures for going
beyond the SET. For instance, might the precision of proportions render more difficult the sort of
thorough, holistic, and idiographic analysis of teaching done by some units? If proportions are
encouraged to what degree should the use of proportions be determined locally versus centrally? And
would less burdensome procedures be possible for some actions (e.g., merit evaluation) than others
(e.g., tenure and reappointment)?
We leave it to the Senate Executive Committee to decide whether the recommendations are presented
together or separately, and ultimately when these recommendations are reviewed by the Senate.
We also thank Elizabeth Worden for her excellent work as Chair of this Committee and wish her well on
the sabbatical that recently led us to take over as co-chairs.
Executive Summaries

Subcommittee I: “Beyond the SETs”
High-quality teaching is critical to the mission of American University. As a result, we must both (a)
evaluate faculty on the effectiveness of their teaching, and (b) mentor and nurture good teaching.
Effective teaching has many dimensions, and so, as stated in the Faculty Manual, our evaluation
system must incorporate multiple means of capturing evidence of teaching effectiveness.
Based on this multifaceted understanding of teaching effectiveness, the “Beyond SETs”
subcommittee offers a set of recommendations based on the evaluation system:
1. In accordance with the Faculty Manual instruction to go beyond the SET, develop the
proportions of merit/review towards which SETs can apply.
2. Modify FARS to better record and represent teaching effectiveness
3. Balance teaching unit and university purview for teaching evaluation metrics
4. Clarify the mechanisms used to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and a related set of
recommendations in support of those above
5. Identify best practice mechanisms for supporting good teaching
6. Educate all members of the university about the functions of teaching evaluations.

Subcommittee II : Revision of the Existing SETs
The Subcommittee for Revision of the SETs distributed a faculty survey to establish: 1) what faculty
consider to be the purposes of the SETs and what should be the purposes of the SETs; and 2) what
type of SET questions (regarding both the instructor and the course) are the most helpful. The latter
will guide the drafting of the new SET instrument while the former provides the basis for these
recommendations. The survey was distributed to all full time faculty and the response rate was
46%.1 Overall, faculty are concerned that the SET as currently constructed may not reflect teaching
and course quality, and thus it is far more limited than what faculty want in terms of helping to
improve and evaluate faculty classroom work. Therefore we recommend creating an SET that serves
as a better measure of teaching quality and classroom learning, which will then provide valuable
information for a variety of purposes, including ways to improve, strengths and weaknesses, success
in meeting learning objectives, and metrics for evaluating teaching and classroom performance,
among others. We also recommend that faculty have an informed discussion about online and
paper-based SETs at the faculty retreat.
1
The survey was sent to all full time faculty (total of 960) on behalf of Dr. Phyllis Peres, Dean of Academic Affairs,
through email in April 2014. The results were broadly representative across academic units, professional status
(tenure, tenure track and term) and the student population that the faculty primarily teach (undergraduates,
graduates or both).
Remaining Tasks for Subcommittee II: Revision of the Existing SETs
& Suggested Timeline for Presentation of all Recommendations to the Senate
Time Frame
Activity & Details
September October 2014
The Committee, under its new leadership and with as many
continuing members as possible, will solicit faculty
feedback on the revised SET and recommendations for
“beyond the SETs” through multiple venues, such as:
Outcome
Faculty and student
input
1. Face to face discussion at the AU Faculty Retreat
2. Online forum, such as a blog similar to Middle
States
3. Focus and discussion groups of different campus
constituencies.
This feedback will also include a discussion of online SETs
versus hybrid (combination of online and paper). We
recommend that faculty have access to recent research
regarding online SETs to help inform the conversation (the
Committee has compiled numerous publications that can
be shared). We recommend that the Committee enlists the
support of a graduate student(s) to help consolidate and
analyze the feedback.
The Committee will ask the Office of Campus Life to solicit
student feedback through focus groups or other means as
determined by Office of Campus Life.
October November 2014
The Committee will incorporate faculty and student
feedback and make necessary revisions.
Revised SET
instrument and
recommendations
December 2014
The Committee will finalize and present the SET and
recommendations for “Beyond the SETs” to the Senate
Executive Committee and Faculty Senate.
Final SET instrument
and recommendations
for “Beyond the SETs”
August 4, 2014
TO: Professor Lacey Wootton, Chair, Faculty Senate
Professor Candice Nelson, Past Chair, Faculty Senate
Professor Larry Engel, Vice Chair, Faculty Senate
FR: Professor Lenny Steinhorn, SOC
RE: Draft SET
On behalf of the SET working group that joined me this summer – Maria De Jesus of SIS, Bette
Dickerson of Sociology, and Nate Harshman of Physics – I am sending you our draft of a revised
SET. Under separate cover I have sent the draft to the Provost and to the Senate Ad Hoc Committee
on Teaching Evaluation and SETs that met this past Spring.
In developing this new draft, our working group adhered to the following:
1. Its twin goals are to help faculty improve their teaching and to provide meaningful information
that can help faculty evaluate the teaching of their colleagues.
2. It was written in a style and tone designed to engage students – with the hope that they see it
less as a formal survey and more as an opportunity to have a conversation about the course and the
professor. Note, too, the survey response wording, which is designed to articulate the answer in a
way that students might immediately understand – and which tries to eliminate any cultural
ambiguity for some international students who may interpret the difference between “strongly
agree” and “agree” differently from students who grew up in the U.S.
3. It is designed to reflect the various areas where student feedback can be most helpful. Each
question offers an angle on our teaching – from how well organized and approachable we are to
how demanding the course is to whether students feel more knowledgeable after taking the course
– with the hope that the cumulative portrait will reflect our teaching effectiveness in the course.
4. It tried to avoid topics that students are not best qualified to judge. For example, students might
not be the best judge of whether exams or assignments effectively test their knowledge, but they
can provide feedback as to whether the faculty member specified what was required to do well on
these exams or assignments. We applied this type of strict scrutiny to all of the questions.
(continued)
SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016-8017 202-885-2058
www.american.edu/soc
SET Memo, Page 2 of 2
Note that we did not include the "overall" questions used in previous SETs; these, we believe,
distract us from looking at the particular areas of our teaching and have for too long been misused
as the sole determinants of faculty effectiveness. Not having these "overall" questions will force
faculty who evaluate colleagues to create a portrait of teaching based on a broader range of data
and information.
Also note that we avoided jargon that students may not fully appreciate. So you won't find words
like "assess" or phrases such as "course objectives" in this survey. But we worded questions in a
way to obtain relevant information on these topics.
Further note that this SET draft drew from a number of sources, including the faculty survey that
the Spring semester Ad Hoc Senate Committee conducted as well as a thorough analysis of SETs
from about fifteen colleges and universities.
Finally note that our working group discussions yielded a number of issues worth considering. For
example, the draft SET uses the word "professor" throughout -- the logic being that this is the title
most commonly and comfortably used by students on campus regardless of the faculty member's
rank. To some of us, it is a warmer word than "instructor." But others thought "instructor" was
more appropriate. We also talked about whether to include a standard deviation when these
numbers are reported -- as a way to ensure that particular numbers are not taken out of context.
And assuming that the SET is done electronically, we saw any number of opportunities, among
them the ability to cross-tabulate findings and even to personalize the questions so that they don't
just say "the professor" but actually say "Professor Kerwin," in other words the actual name of the
faculty member.
We sincerely hope that this draft results in real reform and revitalizes at least one measurement in
our common pursuit of quality teaching.
SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
4400 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016-8017 202-885-2058
www.american.edu/soc
SET Draft
Scale:
5 – Yes, definitely
4 – Yes, for the most part
3 – Somewhat
2 – No, not really
1 – Definitely not
I. What did you think of the course?
1. This course is what I expected it to be.
2. I feel more knowledgeable after taking this course.
3. This was a demanding and challenging course.
4. The readings and other course materials enriched my learning.
5. The syllabus told me what I needed to know about the class, the assignments, and the topics
we were supposed to master.
II. What did you think of the learning environment?
6. The professor was well-organized and planned the class meetings well.
7. The professor presented and explained the material clearly in class.
8. The professor welcomed questions, comments, and observations in class.
9. The professor created a positive learning environment in class.
10. The classroom experience (such as lectures, discussions, activities, labs, etc.) enriched my
learning.
III. What did you think of the professor?
11. The professor was knowledgeable about the subject.
12. The professor provided me with the concepts, insights, and/or skills to engage successfully
with difficult and complex ideas.
13. The professor was approachable.
14. The professor encouraged us to stop by during office hours.
15. I would recommend this professor to other students.
IV. What did you think of the course requirements?
16. The graded assignments (such as papers, projects or other required work) enriched my
learning.
17. The professor clearly specified what was required to do well on the exams and other
assignments.
18. The professor gave useful comments and feedback on papers, tests, or other assignments.
Different scale for question 19:
19. The grades I received on the course assignments and/or exams fairly reflected the quality of
my work.
Yes, my grades fairly reflected the quality of my work.
No, my grades were too high given the quality of my work.
No, my grades were too low given the quality of my work.
Not certain.
V. Tell us about yourself
20. My class level is:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Master’s
Ph.D.
21. On average, excluding class time, I spent this amount of time on the course per week:
0-2 hours
3-5 hours
6-8 hours
9-11 hours
12 or more hours
22. In terms of my attendance, I would say the following:
I never missed a class session
I missed only one class session
I missed 2 or at most 3 class sessions
I missed more than 3 class sessions
23. The primary reason I took this class was:
It was required for my major or minor.
It was a General Education requirement.
I was interested in the subject matter.
It was required for my MA, PhD or certificate program.
None of the above.
24. My previous academic experiences prepared me well for this course.
Yes, definitely
Yes, for the most part
Somewhat
No, not really
Definitely not
Free responses:
Here’s a chance to give the professor some feedback.
1. What was the best part of this class?
2. In terms of the professor’s teaching style or methods, would you suggest any changes?
3. In terms of the course itself, would you suggest any changes?
4. Would you say this course furthered your interest in the subject? If so, why? If not, why not?
5. Are there topics, issues, or skills you wish this course had covered or emphasized more? Did
any topic get too much emphasis?
6. Are you satisfied with your own work in the class? If not, what would you have done
differently?
7. Do you have any other comments, suggestions, or ideas?
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
*** The complete recording of this meeting can be
September 17, 2014
found at http://www.american.edu/facultysenate/agendas-minutes.cfm
Professor Wootton called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
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, Gwanhoo Lee, Jonathan
Loesberg, Jun Lu, Mary Mintz, Glenn Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Andrea
Pearson, Steve Silvia, Chris Simpson, Shalini Venturelli, Provost Scott Bass and Interim DAA
Mary L. Clark
Chair’s Report – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton welcomed everyone to the meeting and paid special attention to the new
members or new returning members: Joshua Lansky, Tony Ahrens, Despina Kakoudaki, Chris
Lawrence, Alex Hodges, Billie Jo Kaufman, Mary Mintz, Steve Silvia, Maria Gomez and
Jonathan Loesberg. She stated several points of business as follows:







As a reminder, anyone can speak in senate discussion but try to limit it to three minutes.
Any business can be brought to the Senate Executive Committee.
Communicate the senate business with your units and bring responses back to the senate
so we can engage with the faculty at large more.
If not already done, read the senate by-laws and the faculty manual since there have been
many changes since 4 years ago when revised.
Change in senate minutes: No longer will they be as detailed, similar to transcripts. We
will transition to an outline format with less detail. Recordings of the minutes will be
posted to the senate web site.
The Executive Committee has nominated two at-large senators to be representatives on the
Executive Committee, and they are Glenn Moomau and Gwanhoo Lee. The senate VOTED and
the motion was passed 23-0-0 in favor.
Faculty Manual was integrated with the University Library manual as per the approval of the
senate and the BOT last spring. There was an agreement to bring the language changes back to
the senate to review and so this has been received from legal counsel with recommendations.
Senate leadership would like to form a committee to go over the changes and recommendations,
and discuss how to bring them to the senate and how to proceed. Along with Mary Clark, Lacey
Wootton, Larry Engel, and Candy Nelson, we need two other members of the senate. Please let
Lacey Wootton know if you’re interested via email within the next few days.
Approval of Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr and May 2014 Minutes
Faculty Senate • September 17, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 4
Jan approved 20-0-5, Feb approved 20-0-5, Mar approved with changes in the COI & COTC
section, 20-0-5, Apr tabled, May approved 18-0-7.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
 Phyllis Peres had another surgery and is home recovering. Her recovery will be long but
she is home recovering. Mary Clark came from WCL and has taken the position of
Interim Vice Provost and DAA. She is doing a phenomenal job.




Enrollment for the current freshman class was a challenge but was a great success. The class yield
was 20%. Housing is the difficulty for now. Convocation was an amazing success. Graduate
enrollment was low. The budget will balance but there is work to be done. Although there are
challenges, we are off to a good year.
The fall Faculty Retreat is October 11-12 and registration is filling up. Provost Bass asked to
please register for this great event.
He also stated that there was a change of the dean in Kogod. Erran Carmel has taken over and is
doing a great job.
A new retirement proposal has opened for a window of time and is a great opportunity for
qualifying faculty.
Faculty Retreat—Nancy Davenport & Jim Goldgeier
Retreat theme: Challenges of Higher Education - Dean Jim Goldgeier stated that the request of
the faculty from the previous retreat was to have more opportunity to interact with their
colleagues in small groups. He went over the program and stated that there will be plenty of
options that will appeal to all. There are optional events after the retreat on Saturday that all can
participate in but some will include additional charges.
Middle States Evaluation—Karen Froslid-Jones
Director of Institutional Research and Assessment Karen Froslid Jones presented the following
statement from the Middle States final report of June 26th, 2014: the committee met and their
decision was “to affirm the accreditation and to commend the institution for the quality of its
self-study report and process, and the periodic report is due in June of 2019.” Director Froslid
Jones stated that this was a very short way of saying there would be no follow-up interim reports
necessary between now and the next regular report. The university should be very proud. There
are three recommendations that will be reported on in 2019.
New Senate Blog – Larry Engel
Professor Engel stated that in the attempt to make the senate a more transparent committee, a
blog site has been created to assist in this process. The site will provide updates on senate
activates and the senate committees with the exception of the CFA and the CFG. This is due to
the confidentiality of their work. The site will launch soon, so please feel free to contact
Professor Engel.
Professor Mintz asked if comments on the blog be anonymous.
Faculty Senate • September 17, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 4
Professor Engel stated that they can be.
Senate By-Law Revisions – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton presented the following changes to be made in the Senate by – laws. The
senate VOTED and the changes were approved unanimously in favor.

Article IX. Committees and Functions, A. Executive Committee - Language was
inserted to constitute an Executive Committee at the first meeting in September. This
reflects practice.

Article IX. Committees and Functions, B. Standing Committees – 3. Committee on
Faculty Actions - Faculty Manual Language changed last spring. This revision will match
the revisions made in the current language that were approved by the BOT in the spring.

Article XII. Amendments – Language is added to allow changes that have been
approved in the Faculty Manual to be automatically changed if they are also in the senate
by-laws, but if changes are made in the senate by-laws that affect Faculty Manual
language, they must undergo Senate and Board of Trustees approval.
Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings & Sharon Alston
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Enrollment Sharon Alston stated that she was present to update
the senate on a few policy changes that have been made for transfer students seeking admission
to AU:



Admission Requirement – Students with fewer than 24 transfer credits will no longer
have to provide standardized test scores. This aligns with current practice by putting
greater emphasis on high school transcripts and accommodates transfers who have been
out of high school and whose scores are no longer valid.
Maximum Credit – Increased the number of transfer credits to 65 to allow for the
change in community colleges that are now able to confer a four-year degree.
Mathematics Requirement – Transfer students are required to meet AU’s mathematics
requirement with a transfer course equivalent to Math – 221 or higher.
Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies Lyn Stallings stated that the retention of transfer students
has gone up and is great for the university. She also brought forward several changes to the
undergraduate academic regulations:

4.2 Proposed change was brought forward by Professor John Hyman: students need to
have the right to choose an exam to take on a different day when three exams are offered
Faculty Senate • September 17, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 4





on the same day (with four-week notice). The concern here is in the interest of the
students to help them not to have to struggle with any professor as to which exam to
change. Language was suggested to allow the student to choose the exam that would be
best to be reschedule.
Several concerns were expressed that a professor might have to consider: class size,
technicality of the exam, 72 hour time limit for grading. A lengthy discussion was had,
and Professor Stallings stated that this proposal needs to go back to the faculty for their
opinions and suggestions; she will also consult with the registrar’s office, and the
proposal will be brought back to the senate.
5.3 Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) language needs to be changed so the language
will read Academic Progress towards Degree Completion (APDC). This will allow SAP
language to only be used in reference to financial aid and will no longer apply towards
the progression within the academic units. VOTED and APPROVED 21-1-0
5.8 – Part-time students who fall below a 2.0 GPA are expected to follow all regulations
regarding probation and dismissal after earning 12 credits. VOTED AND APPROVED
20-1-0
7.2 & 13.2 – Permit to Study students placed on temporary leave preserves active status.
Students may not take more than two semesters. VOTED AND APPROVED 18-0-2
12.6 – Reduction of Course Load Due to Medical Reasons – This is a topic that needs to
be resolved to prevent issues that are currently a problem since students are abusing the
process; a written procedure needs to be put in place. This will be brought back to the
senate, but VP Stallings stated that this is a workload problem and they will be looking at
best practices at other universities.
SETs/Beyond SETs – Chris Tudge, Tony Ahrens & Lenny Steinhorn (4:30)
Professor Tudge stated that this is the first step in a long process. We will be accessing all
constituents for their input. We have two sub-committees and will be gathering information with
many areas of this issue.
Professor Ahrens stated that they are seeking as much input as they can get. There is an online
blog and survey link to post suggestions.
Professor Steinhorn stated that best practices from other institutions have been reviewed and are
provided in the report that the committee presented. The committee started with two goals, 1)
how can we provide meaningful feedback for faculty to improve their teaching and 2) how can
we provide an instrument that allows people to better evaluate their colleagues and peers. The
discussion also included what value can students have in helping improve their teaching and
what issues are students not best qualified to judge.
Professor Wootton stated that this presentation will be brought back to the October meeting due
to lack of time.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM
Faculty Senate • September 17, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 4
Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 2, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Present: Professor Candice Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abramson, John
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, Joe Graf, John Heywood,
Clement Ho, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marian, Glenn Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski,
Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor, Elizabeth Worden, Provost
Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that the at-large Grievance and Hearing Committee elections will be
closing at the end of the week and asked Senators to encourage their colleagues to vote. The unit
elections for the remaining committees and senate seats are in process and should be complete by
next week.
Professor Nelson stated that she had spoken with Assistant Vice President of Human Resources
Beth Muha who said the emergency care program that went into place in January has been a
tremendous success. There are more people signed up than expected and the service is being
used.
Presidents Report – Neil Kerwin
President Kerwin thanked the senate for having him come to speak. He stated he usually comes
annually to give an overall report of the condition of the university almost always drawing
exclusively on our own data and assessments, but this year he has the benefit of a once in ten
year opportunity that comes our way to use the data from the Middle States Accreditation. This
happens every ten years and at this time the university is in the final stage. The process began
with a self-study which started 18 months ago. The committee was chaired by Robert Blecker
from the Department of Economics and Karen Froslid-Jones, Director of the Office of
Institutional Research and Assessment. The person selected to head the site visit team comes to
campus for a preliminary visit to meet with the President and other members of the campus to
help organize the visit and make recommendations as to the type of individuals who should be on
the team. Vice Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina from Syracuse University was selected as the
site visit chair. President Kerwin stated that the exit interview went very well. The draft report
should be received shortly and along with himself and Provost Bass they will have the
opportunity to review the report for factual errors only. There will be a very substantial list of
suggestions and three recommendations. If the commission accepts the recommendations those
will be the only items that will need to be acted on between now and the periodic update which
happens in five years.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 7
President Kerwin stated that the three recommendations were:
1. Being self-conscious of what it will take to sustain the progress the institution has made
over the past decade.
2. They were very impressed with the faculty and what the faculty and the administration
have done over the past few years. They complimented the work of the Senate on the
Faculty Manual and the Academic Regulations.
3. Changes to the undergraduate student body. They indicated that this student body will
need a higher level of support than past student bodies in AU’s recent history. They asked
AU to spend more time on retention and whatever it takes to help these students succeed.
President Kerwin said that overall he hopes that when he is allowed to share the draft report with
the community, everyone will be pleased with what they read and proud of what everyone has
accomplished.
President Kerwin stated that the general condition of the university is sound. The fiscal year
2014 will end in balance. Fiscal year 2015 will begin on May 1 and there are a couple of areas of
revenue uncertainty. Some have been triggered from events this year and some are still
developing. He stated that there had been a very aggressive number set in regards to retention of
our students from fall to spring which was not achieved. This caused an embedded problem not
only for this year but for next year as well. Provost Bass and Associate Vice President Doug
Kudravetz are working on correcting the modeling and this will help to know what revenue
challenge this represents. We do know it is in the low millions. Additionally, there was a lower
applicant pool for both freshman and transfer students. This does affect about 65% of the
operating revenue so we will be watched to see how it develops.
President Kerwin stated that the number of applications is not good news. He said that he has
heard out in the industry that there are a series of events that are held around the country at this
time of year. Compared to last year the prospective student attendance at these events is up 43%
and deposits are up 16.7%. There were some changes to the application process which should
have helped weed out the less than serious applicants at the freshman level. The transfer level
numbers might have changes thanks to the matriculation work done which pretty much lets the
transfer students know exactly what credits will transfer over. At this time we do not have any
numbers on summer or graduate students.
President Kerwin said that there is a lot of building happening on campus. The weather has not
been kind so the construction is running about 5 weeks behind at the Tenleytown Law School
site. SOC has gone a little slower than hoped but faculty have moved in. East campus is
scheduled to begin work this summer. He said he, along with Provost Bass, have reviewed plans
for the buildings that will go on East Campus, which include the three residence halls and one
academic building. There is still an outstanding law suit against the zoning commission. The
District of Columbia is challenging elements of the order which allows AU to build on that site.
This does not affect the capacity to move forward but it does require the zoning commission to
provide the court of appeals answers to a series of questions which the court has posed as a result
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
of the challenge of the neighbors. The expected move in date to East Campus is the summer of
2016. At that point we will then begin renovations on 4801 Massachusetts Ave, the building
vacated by the Washington College of Law. The remaining effort will be to see if the university
can get a science facility funded and ready to go. With all the changes the university will meet
the requirement to house 67% of the undergraduates on campus which is a fixed requirement of
the District of Columbia. This is a tough requirement to meet but the lowest of any university in
town.
President Kerwin said that he wanted to commend the student athletes this year. Not only the
basketball team. There were a lot of major accomplishments amongst many of the teams. He
also stated that looking ahead the university will begin the process of setting new objectives
under the strategic plan for year seven and eight sometime this spring. This will run in parallel to
an impanelling of a new university budget committee sometime in August or early September.
The committee will be co-chaired by the Provost and Associate Vice Provost Doug Kudravetz.
The budget will be for fiscal year 2016-2017 and will take us through most if not all of the
financing for all of the facilities that are on line now. The university will also begin taking the
first steps to implementing what the Middle States commission requires.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that he was present at the meeting with the faculty and Middle States
and wanted to make clear the three crystal clear points made by the faculty group:
1. A need for more resources for faculty transitioning from Associate Professors to Full
Professors.
2. Sponsored programs and post award coordination.
3. Collaboration between schools. Being able to cross list courses and encourage
collaboration.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that he would like to start with a response to the comments from Professor
Eisenstadt. He stated that in regards to mobility in position, it is something that is taken very
seriously in the Provost’s office. The DAA has instituted a variety of programs that would work
with junior faculty or senior faculty. Related to administrative expenses post award costs money
to manage. He stated he agreed that this is a matter that needs attention. As a result, the
university brought in a three person review team right before Middle States review who were
from NCURA and he stated he should have their report soon. As for the cross unit collaboration
this is an important issue for this administration and he stated that he has worked with the Deans
on this issue. He also stated he has support of the BOT and the Senate and was highly
complemented by the Middle States team.
Provost Bass stated that the Middle States review team expressed that AU is “a transformed”
institution. It is not the same institution that was reviewed six years ago. He said that he will
provide a summary of the report at his annual address to the community. He will speak on 1)
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
recognition and the understanding of who AU is, 2) identity and the accomplishments that AU is
recognized for, 3) international and domestic recognition.
Provost Bass said that on April 27, 2014 the Faculty Recognition Dinner will take place. He
hopes that all senators will be there to recognize their colleague’s accomplishments.
Professor Simpson asked for an explanation from the Provost of the role of the CFA and his
interpretation of the committee’s duties.
Provost Bass stated that the interpretation is from the faculty manual where the duties of the CFA
are charged. He stated that the CFA makes an overview of the material after reading it and they
do read the material. They also will insure the independence of the file which is part of their
duties. This is not a content or subject review but they are reviewing the file to make sure the
letters are independent, all the required items are in order and the file has gone through all the
proper stages. This is very important before it arrives to the DAA/Provost’s desk. They are
making substantive and intellectual votes on the materials they receive. This is what the manual
calls for.
Professor Simpson stated that he has heard that the basis for the votes by the CFA is to determine
if the candidate has fulfilled the terms of the guidance created at the unit level. He asked does the
committee make its own interpretation of what quality in a given field might be?
Provost Bass stated that the CFA is not a “rubber stamp.” They make their own judgments. He
stated he cannot speak for the individuals on the committee as he or the DAA does not know
what they say, but he can assure that what they are providing is their own review of the material,
and they make judgments and they either agree or disagree with the prior reviews. As you know
well not all levels agree with each other. The CFA provides additional input before it arrives at
the DAA/Provost level for review. Their reviews are distinct and important and are read on their
own merits in terms of a complete file.
Professor Simpson asked what role do the unit guidelines play in the process.
Provost Bass stated that every stage of the process makes it own judgement based on the
guidelines of the unit. It is not an aggregated process that comes up because one unit says this
and the next unit agrees. Every unit makes its own judgement based on the guidelines and based
on their assessment of the file. They make judgements based on a file and the record that is in the
file and not everybody agrees with the reading of the material. I would assume the CFA as a
group of 8 or 9 individuals make those judgements as thoughtfully as they can as a body. There
are dissents in that review and they provide the vote and what the dissentingnding position is.
Professor Fantie stated that he thinks it would be helpful to have classes listed to explain the
portion of online time and classroom time a class has. He said that he gets this question from
students when they are registering and this might help them when planning their schedules.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Provost Bass stated that he had a meeting with the OUR and the details of online, face to face
and hybrid classes will be made clear. This will also help with assigning classrooms.
Professor Puglisi stated that she is concerned about the late night classes that AU offers. She
asked has there been any discussion of not having classes start so late.
Provost Bass stated that this is actually quite the opposite of the direction of our students. They
are pretty much just getting going and there are other institutions that have implemented
midnight classes or later. Students really do not get started until after what we call lunch time.
There is a concern that there is not enough offered in the time frame they work in. He has
received complaints that the computer labs are being locked at 11:00 PM which is just when they
want to get in and use them. This is just a different group of students that live on a different time
schedule.
Professor Eisenstadt asked since there is a slippage in applicants selecting AU what can be done
to prevent this in the future?
Provost Bass stated that selectivity in applicants may be an advantage because we want a
stronger match to the students that apply. Of the 15,000 students that applied over 6,000 filled
out 8 essays to get here and of that 6,000, 1600 applied to two programs requiring 16 essays. The
SAT scores are about the same, the GPAs are the same if not better, the diversity is more and the
early decision is more than previous years. Maybe being a little tougher up front but maybe not
as much as this time, and being a little clearer on who we are and what is expected will provide
us with a better pool of students. We are monitoring this new outreach to see what is working the
best.
Athletics Report – Billy Walker
Director of Athletics Billy Walker thanked the senate for having him. He stated that annually the
senate invites the Director to come and give an overview of the athletes at AU. He stated that the
AU athlete is also an outstanding student. When recruiting prospective students it is made clear
that their main focus is academics but at the same time they can get a Division 1 experience. The
average GPA this past fall for approximately 264 athletes was a 3.34. 16% of the athletes were
on the dean’s list, 45% had a GPA of 3.5 or higher and 88% were above a 3.0. Director Walker
stated that they have had three “scholar athletes of year.” This is a very impressive number and a
big deal in the Patriot league. These awards were given to Jessie Reed, a sophomore on the
men’s basketball team, Alexis Dobbs, a senior on the woman’s basketball team who has won the
award her sophomore, junior and now senior years, and the third winner is Monika Smidova, a
junior. AU is a Division 1-AAA school which means that we have basketball only, no football.
Two of our women’s basketball players have been selected to be on the Scholar-Athlete team,
Jen Dumiak and Arron Zimmerman. Ten players are picked for this team and AU has two.
Director Walker stated for the team academic awards the AU field hockey team has the highest
GPA at 3.6 for all hockey teams in the country. The men’s swimming team has the third highest
GPA at 3.39. The women’s swimming team had the 19th highest GPA at 3.46.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
Director Walker stated that the athletes are using many of the services offered at AU. They have
603 hours of tutoring for AY 2013-2014 as of 3-31-14 and 1340 meetings with the academic
counselors. Additionally the students use many of the Life Skills Programs including the
Freshman Transition Workshops, the Financial Literacy Program, the Leadership Development
Program and Career & Graduate School Preparation. This is the objective of the athletic
department to give the best experience and academic support possible to our athletes.
Professor Puglisi and Professor Fantie stated that the student athletes they teach are extraordinary
and a pleasure to teach.
Changes to the Undergraduate Regulations – Lyn Stallings
Vice Provost Lyn Stallings stated that the Undergraduate Regulations needed some editorial
changes made. The terminology needed to be updated and special thanks to University Registrar
Alice Poehls who had taken the time to go through the document to make sure that everything
matches. The following changes were made:











Transfer policies for transfer credits. This change reflects what is currently on the
admissions page for transfer students.
Good academic standing policy was changed to be more consistent to what good
academic standing means. This means that there is nothing standing in their way to
register the next semester.
General Education requirements will only apply with a grade of a C or better.
Non-degree students may only apply no more than 30 non-degree American University
credits.
Individualized majors and minors will reflect the proposal that the senate Undergraduate
Curriculum committee revised.
Dual Degree language was added to reflect that students need to meet with financial aid
to make sure they understand how the change in credits will affect their financial aid
packages.
New language was added to the Honors Program section to reflect the new American
University Honors Program approved by the senate last April. Individual teaching units
will be able to offer an honors in the major as the current process will end after the final
graduating class completes their current degree.
Three Year Bachelors has changed the name to be Degree-Completion Scholars
Programs.
Combined bachelor’s and master’s credit hours with an updated table to clarify the hours
required for the master’s degree.
Withdrawal from a course or from all courses included specific dates to be recorded and
filing a petition for withdraw after eight weeks of class.
Reduction of Course Load Due to Medical Reasons - requires student to meet with
medical documentation, appropriate meetings with specific administrators and the filing
of a petition approved by the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies.
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 6 of 7

Language clarification of temporary leave and medical temporary leave which can be
ordered by the Dean of Academic Affairs with documentation to leave and return.

Separation from the university when a student’s grades led them to dismissal may not
voluntarily separate and students who separate from the university will not be readmitted
again if they separate a second time.
The senate requested the proposed Academic Regulation changes presented for Internships be
revised and brought back to the senate at the May 2014 meeting.
The senate VOTED on all other Academic regulation changes and they were passed
unanimously in favor.
Provost Bass stated that he hopes this process of review of the regulations is something that
happens periodically. This is a living document and as things change they will need to be
updated.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM
Faculty Senate • April 2, 2014 Minutes
Page 7 of 7