Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
December 4, 2014
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:34 PM
Present: Professors Candy Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abraham, John
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Bryan Fantie, Joe Graf, John Heywood,
Alex Hodges, Iris Krasnow, Stacey Marien, Glenn Moomau, Mohamed Nimer, John Nolan,
Arturo Porzecanski, Gemma Puglisi, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor, Elizabeth Worden,
Provost Scott Bass and Dean of Academic Affairs Phyllis Peres
Welcome and Approval of Minutes– Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She stated that there was a very full agenda
and to please respect the 3-minute rule when speaking.
Professor Nelson asked the senators if there were any questions or concerns with the October 9,
2013 minutes. There were no questions or concerns so Professor Nelson proposed a motion to
approve the minutes. The minutes were VOTED on and approved unanimously in favor.
Chair’s Report – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson stated that the university HR department signed a contract with Bright
Horizons to provide emergency care. HR will be working on the details and sharing them with
the university community soon. The benefit will be available starting January 1st, 2014.
Professor Nelson said that the Executive Committee met last week with Librarian Nancy
Davenport to review the revisions to the Library Manual. It was determined that the manual
needed more work so it has been taken off the agenda for today. Professor Barlow Burke and
Professor Lacey Wootton have volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to look at the manual.
Dean Phyllis Peres has agreed to be the ex-officio member on the subcommittee and Professor
Nelson asked if anyone else would like to be on the committee to let her know. She also said that
the manual the senators where given last week to review was sent back to council and has now
come back to the library from council. There were more changes that came back from council
and the library faculty will be looking at these changes and voting on them in early January.
They will consult with the senate subcommittee and the expectation is that the subcommittee will
make recommendations to the senate at the February meeting.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that since the agenda was very heavy he would be giving his time to the
senate for the Middle States review . He also stated that the Middle States report is a very
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 1 of 9
important document and he wanted the senators to have enough time to review the document at
the meeting and any subsequent meetings if needed.
Faculty Manual Changes – Candy Nelson & Bill LeoGrande
Professor Nelson stated that a lot of the manual changes are pretty easy to review. She stated that
she would like to go through them all and then vote on them at the end of the review process.
•
Pg. 7, Glossary: Academic Units – Proposed language change is to add the School of
Professional and Extended Studies (SPExS) to the current language. VOTED in favor
unanimously
•
Pg. 10, Section 1. A Brief History of American University Paragraph 5 – adding a
description of SPExS to the paragraph since it is a new school at the university and not in
the current manual. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 13, Section 5, a. ii Membership – this language was added to the manual language
to implement the changes that were made to the Senate By-Laws and voted on in
September. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 14, section 5. a. iii Committee on Faculty Actions – this language is a reflection of
changes of duties that were made when it the CFR was changed to the CFA to more
accurately reflect what the CFA role is. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. section 5, d. Deans of Academic Units – adding language to add SPExS VOTED in
favor unanimously
•
Pg.23 section 8, e. Joint Faculty Appointments – adding the language for Joint Faculty
Appointments that does not exist in the current manual. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 24 section 9, b. Delay of Tenure – This is the language that the senate approved at
the May meeting but it is now placed in the template to present to the BOT. VOTED in
favor unanimously
•
Pg.33, section 11, e. Dean of the Academic Unit Review & Pg. 34, section 11. G. Dean
of Academic Affairs and Provost Review- This language is the same in both sections. It
is making explicit was already implicit in terms of both the Deans Review and the
Provost and Dean of Academic Affairs Review for tenure. Both sections were VOTED
ON, 14-3-4 and passed in favor
•
Professor Taylor stated that there was some concern when he shared this change with his
faculty that as they understood this language this would allow the process to include
additional information at the top that would not be reviewed at the lower levels in the
tenure process.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 2 of 9
Provost Bass stated that as the file goes forward whatever is placed in the file is made
available to all previous units for review; however the only way they would be able to rereview this material was if the file was sent back and the review process was started over
again. He also said that he did not think that this was feasible in this process. If the senate
wanted to do this that would mean the file would not be reviewed in that academic year.
It would not be able to be completed in time. So what has happened at every level for
example, if the candidate adds information to the file at any stage or responds this
material goes to everybody and so as each layer goes through the tradition is that
everybody in earlier reviews receives that material and the candidate can respond. In this
case if it’s the Dean the candidate can respond or if it’s the Provost the candidate can
respond. It says in the manual the response time is seven days.
Professor Taylor stated that the concern of his faculty is that there is not opportunity to
evaluate the new information and use it in making their final decision. For example, they
would be making their decision on the 5 external letters that were originally brought in
but not on the additional letters brought in by the Dean or the Provost’s office. So the
concern is what does this mean for the autonomy of the faculty as well as the decision
making process. He stated that he would like to take back the Provost’s response to both
changes, Pg. 33 & Pg. 34, to his faculty.
Provost Bass stated that he already has this authority and this is just clarifying for the
manual. This is not new, he has the authority to request additional information and so
does the Dean and that this is just to clarify for a legal point of view for when the
university might go to court.
Professor Taylor stated that several members of his faculty expressed their concern and if
you tell me you already have this authority, so from what I am understanding is that you
are changing the Faculty Manual to clarify a regulation that was already there.
Provost Bass stated that this change was a request from legal for clarification and it says,
in the language prior to the change that, “may request clarifying information from
relevant persons or committees involved in the review at earlier stages.” So he stated that
he has authority to send things back and get further information so in some cases it might
mean that the file might not be finished in that year. Whatever level that did not provide
what is necessary he stated he can send the file back. The question of authority is what is
really at stake here and that the power and authority rests with the Provost. The Provost
has to have the information complete and in a satisfactory form to make a difficult
decision. If that means additional information then I need that information before I make
a judgment. Provost Bass stated that it is actually to the advantage of the candidate for
any level to have the ability to request additional information. He stated that he
understands the concern but there has to be a question of expediency and the issue of
fairness in terms of review. That authority rests at every level, not just at the Deans or
Provost’s level but also the CFA level. What happened this year is that the CFA sent
things back requesting more information from the units.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 3 of 9
Professor Abraham stated that as a past chair and the current R&T chair, he is concerned
about new information. I am confused with the wording. It says that, request additional
information including external letters as appropriate. Does this mean additional
information from those who wrote external letters, or is that the ability to ask for new
external letters?
Provost Bass stared that it would be either.
Provost Abraham stated that candidates deal with many opinions in terms of the faculty
that are chosen to be reviewers and some who are erudite and do a fine job reviewing and
some that do less. He stated that this might be an example of when you might need to
request more information to help a candidate’s case, but I am more concerned about the
potluck nature of sending out files for a large scale review and suddenly having a whole
new set of letters at the Provost’s review that the original layers never saw.
Provost Bass stated that there are files that come forward that are totally divided and the
Provost has to make a decision. I can make a decision solely on the file. I do ask people
or call people I just review the file. He stated that he can think of one case where he
asked for additional letters and they made the file favorable for tenure. It just depends.
When working with just the file sometimes you need more information. He said that he
could send it back and start all over again but that means the person would not be
reviewed in that year. These are the choices. It is an imperfect world and the ultimate
responsibility is the Provost’s responsibility to take it to the Board of Trustees (BOT) and
he needs as much information as possible. The deans are in a similar position. These are
not the days of all files coming forward and everyone is wonderful. This is not what the
university has anymore. The files are complicated and each of the levels needs as much
information as needed to make a difficult decision. Provost Bass stated that this is his
responsibility and the BOT and this document is approved by the BOT. He said he
understands these tensions and he does not have an answer, but he needs as much
information as possible to make these decisions.
Professor Taylor asked if the process by which new information is added into the file, is
this process written into the faculty manual so that in every case it returns for everyone to
see.
Provost Bass stated that when any information is added to a file it is copied to all earlier
levels including the candidate. The candidate is then awarded seven days to review that
material that then comes forward for review. So in each case for this language for the
Dean or the Provost, they are still obligated to share the information and the candidate
then has the ability to respond before the letter is written.
Professor Taylor stated that his question is slightly different. Once a higher level has
added in new letters, how is it decided whether that file should be delayed for another
year to go back to the initiating unit or simply decided.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 4 of 9
Provost Bass replied that he does not have an example to site, it’s simply we have the
authority to do that. Things that the Provost or Deans have sent back in the past were in
their view incomplete and insufficient so we have the ability to do the letters ourselves. In
one case he said he simply said to send the file back and asked for new names or new
letters. We had files that came forward, and these concerns are a lot less in recent years,
but the letters are too close to the candidate. They may have published with the candidate
or went to graduate school together or have the same mentor so this is not an independent
review. Sometimes we just discount the letter or the CFA has been much more responsive
in sending it back. It does delay things and we are trying to get the file complete before it
gets to the Provost and DAA’s office.
Professor Sapieyevski stated as a general statement that he does not feel that anyone
suspects any ill will, but he noticed a pattern with all the discussion related to the manual
that there are things creeping in that are really not very protective of faculty sometimes
but as Provost Bass stated it covers some form of legal issues protecting the
administrator. He said that he does not feel that the tone of the changes impact the
manual or are very clear or transparent. He hopes that the chair of the senate will realize
these things are important to the moral of the university. He stated that a lot of important
things were provided the last week before exams and was concerned that not many
senators had the chance to read all the attachments. It seems that every year there seems
to be a similar situation and this needs to be changed because it’s not good for the moral
of the university.
Professor Nelson stated that the senate has made it a point this year that everyone gets the
material one week before the meetings not the Monday before.
Professor Engel stated that he respectfully disagrees with Professor Sapieyevski. He said
he believes that all the changes that are presented improve transparency and make things
far clearer in terms of how faculty work as a body.
Professor Heywood asked who gets to decide who the letters the Provost requests are
requested from.
Provost Bass replied that the past practice has been to send it back to the unit. Each unit
does it differently as some ask the candidate for names they do not want letters requested
from for various reasons, some units say of the 5 letters two particularly come from the
candidate’s list. There is not a university wide rule of how letters are solicited at each
unit. The language just has to be independent and an objective review of the faculty
member’s work. That is all that is given as guidance.
Professor Heywood stated that he was specifically referencing the letters that the Provost
requests. Will the Provost make this choice on his or her own or will he or she ask for
people who know the field?
Provost Bass stated that this is the authority that he has. He has only done this once and
he requested the letters from the candidate and the unit.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 5 of 9
Professor Heywood asked would this language change that process.
Provost Bass stated that he does not know if this would change anything because he does
not know what the situations will be. Generally if there are guidelines of which the
candidate said not to send the letter to, this would be honored. In terms of specialization
there is a long list of names and we would draw from that.
Professor Nelson stated that she felt that the conversation was getting pulled away
because people might feel that this is a new policy. She said that it is her understanding
that this is not a new policy but something University Council recommended to be put in
the Faculty Manual to make explicit what has already been the practice. She stated that
she would put these two aside and they would be voted on separately from the others.
•
Pg. 38, Section 13, b. iii – Faculty Fellows – Taking out language about adjunct
appointments and faculty fellows. This linked them together but is being removed due to
the new collective bargaining agreement with adjuncts. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 41 section 16, a. Adjunct Faculty Ranks – Language was edited from the current
Faculty Manual to comply with the collective bargaining agreement for adjunct faculty.
VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 41section 16 b. Faculty Action Procedures for Adjunct Faculty – Language was
edited from the current Faculty Manual to comply with the collective bargaining
agreement for adjunct faculty. VOTED in favor unanimously
•
Pg. 42 section 18. Tenure-Line Faculty Appeal Process for Denial of Reappointment,
Promotion, or Tenure – Revisions of the existing language adding in the process for
term faculty who might appeal. VOTED 14-3-4
•
Pg. 44 section 19 a. Scope of Faculty Grievances - Revisions of the existing language
adding in the process for term faculty who might appeal. Also, this section was
reorganized only to make each section clearer by General Council. VOTED 14-3-4
Professor Simpson stated that he feels that the current language in regards to
confidentiality and the ability to not discuss one’s case with others was a concern in both
sections 18 &19.
Professor Wootton stated to Professor Simpson that his concern was not what this manual
change was addressing and that she did not want to combine the two.
•
Pg. 45 Section 19 d. iii. Paragraph 2 Handling of Formal Grievances by the
Committee on Faculty Grievances-Committee’s Review – Language was edited for
clarity by General council. VOTED in favor unanimously.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 6 of 9
Professor Nelson thanked Lura Graham, the senate Staff Assistant, for her hard work on
preparing the manual changes.
Senate By-Law Changes – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that the By-Law change to the current language for Article XI.
Additional Authority of the Senate was discussed at the last Executive Committee Meeting and
it was decided to bring back the option that most senators were in favor of which was revising
the current language to call a full meeting of the senate and with specific terms requirements
clarified. If a quorum is not available, the decisions will be made by the Executive Committee
and those senators that are available and these decisions will be reported at the next senate
meeting. The senate VOTED 20-0-1 in favor.
Undergraduate Curriculum (UCC), Committee on General Education (CGE) and the
Honors Committee (HC) language was edited for clarification. Professor Nelson stated that an
additional sentence was added to the UCC that is also included in the Graduate Curriculum
Committee (GCC) language which is the responsibility to work over the summer if proposals are
presented for review. This was something that did happen over the past summer for the
Graduate Curriculum Committee and it is felt that this language needs to be in both curriculum
committee procedures for clarification. The Senate VOTED unanimously in favor.
Professor Nelson stated that she would like to thank Professor Wootton for all her hard work on
the revisions which included extensive time over the summer.
Academic Budget and Benefits Committee (AB&BC) Proposal – John Nolan
Professor Nolan stated that the AB&B Committee wanted to clarify some issues that he had in
the last budget year. 1) There were problems with making recommendations in the budget
process. The recommendation presented is to bring recommendations to the Executive
Committee and then to the senate floor for a vote. 2) The resolution is to be able to obtain
information on the university budget upon request. This would include such things as trend
information on numbers and aggregate budget for different categories of employees: tenure line
faculty, term faculty, administrators and staff. This information needs to be made available to the
committee.
Professor Simpson stated that he supports the proposals for the AB&B Committee. He asked if it
would be the intention of Professor Nolan that this process would be the only way for faculty to
make recommendations?
Professor Nolan stated that you can also go through the Dean. The committee wanted to make
sure that the senate had the authority to implement this process. We are not trying to preclude
any other processes.
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 7 of 9
Professor Simpson stated that the Committee on Information Services (CIS) has had problems
submitting budget requests in the past.
Professor Nelson stated that these recommendations are to help make sure that all
recommendations are presented to the Provost.
The Senate Voted on the proposed AB&B Committee amendment, 15-0-2 in favor.
SPExS Proposal for Certificate Program Fast Track – Carola Weil
Dean Weil thanked the senate for the continued attention to the review of the proposal for the
“fast track” review for Graduate Certificates.
Dean Weil stated that there is a requirement for a signature from the Dean and that has not
changed. Recently the Provost changed the signature process to be specifically the dean and not
the associate dean. This will remain the same.
Dean Peres stated that she would suggest that an electronic signature process be implemented.
She also asked for the “silence will be taken as approval” sentence to be removed. Dean Weil
agreed to this friendly amendment. The senate VOTED 15-2-4 in favor.
Middle States – Karen Froslid-Jones and Robert Blecker
Karen Froslid-Jones, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, stated that since the last
visit with the senate in November there has been an open comment period where the committee
has met with the Provost’s Operational Council, the President’s Council, the Graduate
Leadership Council, two town hall meetings, and meetings with students and enrollment services
staff.
Professor Blecker stated that they were at the meeting more in the listening mode to take
questions and comments after the senators have had more time to review the draft document.
They were looking for feedback.
Director Froslid-Jones stated to the senators that they do not have to quote a specific page
number of the document to make comments and that they are looking for as much input as they
can get on the strengths of the institution in terms of faculty and what some of the challenges are.
They want to make sure that your voice is adequately heard in the report. Are the
recommendations represented correctly, can we do more to emphasize the importance of the
culture on campus in terms of scholarship? She stated to keep in mind that Middle States is not
as focused on specific benefits as much as they are focused on making sure that the institution
has faculty that are qualified to advance the mission of the institution.
The Senators began discussion of the Middle States report and made comments and suggestions
for the Middle States report on the following points of interest:
•
Low term faculty salaries
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 8 of 9
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improving interdisciplinary cooperation
Finding the academic “niche” at AU
Defining an accurate measurement for the non - academic fields
Mentoring and supporting students to meet their needs
How to implement high impact research
Major challenges in higher education
How does AU use their specialty and resources across the world
Grade inflation
Internships
Online education and development at AU
Professor Blecker asked to continue to provide any comments or concerns by the various
electronic methods that have been set up for this purpose. The timeline for completion is almost
over to meet the deadline for the Middle States visit.
Professor Nelson thanked everyone for their contributions, stated that there will not be a meeting
next week and wished everyone a happy holiday.
The meetings was adjourned at 4:50 PM
Faculty Senate • December 4, 2013 Minutes
Page 9 of 9