Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 5, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
Present: Professors Candy Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, John Douglass, Artur Elezi,
Larry Engel, Joe Graf, John Heywood, Clement Ho, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marien, Glenn
Moomau, John Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor,
Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She stated that the Board of Trustees
approved all the Faculty Manual changes that were approved by the senate at the February
meeting.
Professor Nelson asked the senate for the approval of the November 6, 2013 and December 4,
2013 minutes. The minutes were VOTED on and approved.
Provost Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that in February he reported on the undergraduate applications and what
remains a top priority is how a pool of applicants that have applied for specific programs such as
the Fredrick Douglass Distinguished Scholars and the Honors Programs are converted into
accepted applicants in a challenging program. He stated that there have been many working on
this issue to include the deans, associate deans, the admissions team and all those involved with
program creation to expand University College by 75 students, create a new AU scholars
program which will respond to 300 students who will all be in the living learning experience.
Also, with the million dollar gift from Jeff Sine who is the chair of the Board of Trustees, this
will offer a community based research scholars program which will accommodate another 60
students. This is the current focus to insure enough students to meet the housing limits and
enough to meet the projected budget.
SETs Committee Update – Elizabeth Worden
Professor Worden stated that she will be chairing the Senate Student Evaluation and Teaching
Committee. During the current semester and into the summer the committee will be drafting two
sets of recommendations to present to the senate in the fall of 2014. The first set of
recommendations will be about the SETs and possible revisions to also include how they should
be delivered either online or by paper. A short survey to faculty will be sent out within the next
two weeks to get things started and to compile faculty feedback. This will continue throughout
the fall with various forums such as some town halls and possibly presenting this during the
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 1 of 5
faculty retreat. The second set of recommendations will be building off the CTRL report that
Executive Director of CTRL Naomi Baron and her assistant Marilyn Goldhammer presented last
semester which will be moving beyond the SETs. The committee will be drafting other ideas of
how units can use other forms of teaching evaluations to compliment the SETs.
Professor Worden also stated that the committee has representation from all schools and
colleges, the Registrar, CTRL, Office of Institutional Research and Dean Peres as an ex officio
member. There will be student representation. The committee is also discussing how to get more
student feedback.
University Learning Outcomes – Joe Graf
Professor Graf stated that after review at the last senate meeting the document was sent back to
the committee to incorporate senate suggestions into the draft. COLA met and had a long
meeting to go over the feedback and put it into the outcomes. After the committee meeting the
Provost’s Council also weighed in with feedback. There is now an introductory paragraph that
has been added to state what the outcomes are about. Additionally, student affairs has reviewed
the document and is very excited about the draft.
Professor Wootton stated that a concern raised by her unit was hesitancy in approving outcomes
until there is a clear explanation of how the assessment application will be implemented. They
are behind the idea but feel it is just too soon.
Professor Graf stated that there have been a lot of the same concerns expressed.
Kathy McAdams, the assessment advisor in the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment,
stated that they have been looking at how the very broad outcomes are being assessed at the
program level. Whatever process is adopted will have a connection with the way the outcomes
are being assessed at the program level. She stated that they will be assessing them by faculty
teams which any faculty member can volunteer to be a part of and also by a cycle of reviewing
one or two per year.
Professor Graf stated that it would be a suggestion to have this document brought back to the
senate annually for review and input making this a living document.
The Senate VOTED and the document was passed in favor 15-1-1.
CFA/DAA 2014-2015 Guidelines – Pat Aufderheide
Professor Aufderheide stated that there have not been a lot of changes made this year. The
document has attempted to clear up the issue of requesting clarifying information and the process
thereafter. The guidelines have been changed to make clear that if along the review process that a
reviewing body requests more information, earlier reviewers must be given the opportunity to
review and comment on the added material. If relevant the vote may be taken again to reflect the
new material.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 2 of 5
Professor Simpson expressed the concern that when the unit guidelines are followed by
candidates applying for tenure and their materials assembled as directed by those guidelines and
then either by the CFA or by higher officers at the university the files are not accepted.
Professor Aufderheide stated that this is a process and by and large has worked well. The units
have all gone through the process of looking at their guidelines to make sure they are actually
answering the questions that both external and internal reviewers have. The CFA/DAA
establishes the logistics of how the process is managed; the Faculty Senate established the
general regulations for the process of tenure and promotion.
Dean Peres stated that the unit guidelines are reviewed on a regular basis.
The senate VOTED on the CFA/DAA guidelines for 2014-2015 and they were approved 16-0-1.
Conflict of Interest (COI) and Conflict of Time Commitment (COTC) – Jon Tubman
Professor Nelson stated that there is already a Conflict of Time Commitment policy in the
Faculty Manual and that at this time the senate is not creating a policy but the process to
implement the policy. She stated that the senators who were on the senate last year did the same
thing for the Conflict of Interest policy.
Vice Provost Tubman stated that he has been working with Osprey software to come up with
nine or ten questions for the Conflict of Interest process. The questions are taken from the
procedure statement. VP Tubman stated that he expected there to be less Conflict of Time
Commitment questions. He stated that most other peer institutions have their disclosures process
behind a password protected portal so it has been very difficult to get examples of many
questions. He stated he was able to get 9 or 10 examples.
Professor Nelson stated that the questions are not meant to have a wrong or right answer but are
meant to open a discussion with the dean or the appropriate person.
VP Tubman stated that the procedure statement for COTC consists mostly of language taken
from the AAUP policy statement. In terms of transparency of what faculty are doing with their
time as full time employees at AU, the questions should ask you to disclose something that can
be discussed by the leader of an academic unit. It is not saying you can or cannot do something,
it is just asking for this to be disclosed for discussion. VP Tubman stated that this is not about
creating the policy but implementation of the policy that already exists. The document that the
senate has been reviewing is a result of the work of a sub-committee of Faculty Senators and
other faculty members. The procedure statement was drafted over a two year period by faculty at
this university. He stated that he facilitated the discussion but he cannot claim that this is his
document. This is a document created by the faculty of this institution. These very faculty
wanted as narrow a scope as possible of what would be disclosed.
Professor Porzecanski asked if the issue of summer work should be made clearer at this time as
there is confusion about it.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 3 of 5
VP Tubman stated that there is a clear statement in the faculty manual about outside teaching.
Professor Nelson asked Professor Burke if he wanted to make any comments since he was also a
member of the committee reviewing COI and COTC.
Professor Burke stated that the committee reviewed the Conflict of Interest but did not review
the Conflict of Time Commitment. The committee has not met at all this year. He also stated that
as far as he knew this was VP Tubman’s work.
VP Tubman stated that that was not accurate information. The Committee began its work as a
large group and decided to separate the two issues and began working on them one at a time.
Professor Burke stated that he could agree that the committee has not met this year at all and that
they have not reviewed the last two versions that have been presented.
VP Tubman stated that was correct that the committee last met last April and that the current
document has not had any substantial revisions since last February or March.
Professor Burke stated that he did not come to the same conclusion.
Professor Engel stated that he was a member of the committee and to his recollection the current
document was not written by the committee but brought before them.
Provost Bass stated that he is concerned about the nature of the conversation. It is very clear in
the Board approved Faculty Manual that there is a policy and it is his responsibility to implement
the policy. This has been going on for three years. The manual is clear and outlines the policy.
The Board of Trustees has approved the policy and it is my obligation to implement the policy so
I ask that you please work together to resolve and implement this process.
Professor Simpson underscored the importance of trust in the disclosure process and expressed
his concerns about the “disjunctures” between different elements of the process.
VP Tubman explained to the senate how the new software by Osprey will work for Conflict of
Interest. He stated that there is an option to use the program for Conflict of Time Commitment.
Professor Nelson suggested that the document be sent back to the committee to review and to
make any changes necessary in April for a final vote.
Provost Bass stated that he would like the committee to make sure the look at the Faculty
Manual and make sure that the questions that are of concern are being addressed. The issue of
balance is absolutely right and he wants to make sure that what the senate and the BOT has
approved is implemented. This must be done by next fall and if it is not done through the senate
Provost Bass stated he will implement it himself.
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 4 of 5
Professor Moomau stated that it would help to clear things up for faculty to provide the questions
so they can see what is being asked.
Professor Burke stated that he would speak to the committee and they would reconvene to
review the document.
Professor Nelson stated that with spring break coming it would be more realistic to bring the
findings of the committee back to the senate in May.
Emeriti Faculty Manual Changes – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that at the last discussion of the Emeriti language changes, many faculty
expressed their concern that the language was not giving the Emeriti faculty an appropriate
voice. The Executive Committee proposed to strike the Emeriti voting privileges except on the
Academic Budget and Benefits Committee where it applied to benefits that affect them. The
additional statement that they will add is to have a voice on all issues in their unit.
The senate VOTED and the changes were passed in favor 16-0-1.
For the Good of the Order
Professor Wootton asked the senators to encourage their colleagues to self-nominate to be on the
Faculty Senate for the upcoming elections. It would be nice to have more diversity of different
types. The work load for one Wednesday a month is minimal and it is a great way to participate
in important decisions for the future of the university. Senate leadership has been discussing how
to reach more faculty and let them know what exactly the senate does and answer any questions
so any suggestions would be welcomed.
The Meeting Adjourned at 4:03 PM
Faculty Senate • March 5, 2014 Minutes
Page 5 of 5