Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
November 6, 2013
Professor Nelson called the meeting to order at 2:36 PM
Present: Professor Candice Nelson, Lacey Wootton, Barlow Burke, Daniel Abraham, John
Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Larry Engel, Joe Graf, John Heywood, Alex Hodges, Iris
Kransnow, Jun Lu, Gwanhoo Lee, Stacey Marien, Glenn Moomau, Mohamed Nimer, John
Nolan, Arturo Porzecanski, Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, Chris Simpson, Matthew Taylor,
Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Welcome and Approval of Minutes – Candy Nelson
Professor Nelson welcomed everyone to the meeting. She stated that the minutes from the
September 18, 2013 meeting were ready for approval and opened the floor for discussion. There
was no discussion and no changes were made. The senate VOTED and passed the minutes
unanimously in favor.
Professor Nelson stated that she and Professors Burke and Wootton met with Professor Naomi
Baron and Professor Marilyn Goldhammer the week after the last meeting. Provost Bass has
asked Karen Froslid-Jones to collect examples of SETs from other peer institutions and once that
information is available we will bring this back to the senate to form a committee to look at SETs
and other efforts to evaluate teaching. The issue is on hold now but will be coming back soon.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that the initial visit for the Middle States review from the chair of the
committee went well. There has been a lot of work from many faculty and the committee to
create the document but he stated that he feels that the document is a good reflection of the
growth of the institution. The document does not just tell what has been done at the institution
but sets the stage for the growth of the institution in the future.
Provost Bass also stated that the growth of the new Honors Program is underway. There is a
team of faculty who are meeting to implement new ways of teaching these talented honors
students and the leadership of deans have supported this process.
Provost Bass stated that the common application that AU uses has had some problems this year.
The problems have caused some of our applicants a delay in being able to get their information
into the university. We are using another vendor and alternate ways to submit the requirements
for admission.
Provost Bass stated that the University has a donor who is interested in intensifying some of the
community based activities both domestically and internationally. He stated that he has written a
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 1 of 7
proposal to the donor that takes all the experiences that the students are involved in in the
community and builds in a serious research component. As part of a team effort with a study of a
non-profit, government agency and a variety of organizations learning the various aspects of how
one enters a community setting, how you understand a question and how you provide meaningful
feedback to the local entity. This is another core component to intensifying undergraduate
research. This will be linked to the instructional oppurtunities.
Committee on Information Services, (CIS) Proposal for Student Photos – Chris Simpson
Professor Simpson presented to the senate a proposal to have students photos included with the
rosters given to professors. The advantage would be for the professors to be able to learn names,
know who is enrolled in their classes and to assist other students in knowing who their
classmates are. The photos are used from those taken for the student ID cards. CIS has been in
contact with OIT and this seems to be a fairly simple request.
Professor Sapieyevski asked if there will be an option available for someone to opt-out of having
their photo included.
Professor Simpson stated that there will be an opt-out option available.
The senate VOTED on the proposal and it was passed unanimously in favor.
Middle States Report – Robert Blecker and Karen Froslid-Jones
Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, Karen Froslid-Jones, introduced herself and
Professor Robert Blecker from the Economics department as the co-chairs of the Middle States
self study. She stated that every ten years all institutions of higher learning in the mid-atlantic
area who are members of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education must do a
comprehensive self study as part of a reaccreditation process. The study focuses on 14 standards
of accreditation. Some are how to make an institution effective such as governance,
administration, having a mission, planning incentives and faculty to name a few examples. Other
examples are about the ways in which we act and present our services. Examples such as
educational offerings and student services. Two of the 14 standards are about assessment Institutional assessment and student learning. In 2011 a steering committee was created with
over 25 people from across the institution, with representation from every school, college and
division. Additionally, there were many sub-committees that worked on specific areas. The
steering committee decided that they wanted to make this self study as useful as possible to the
institution. Even though it is an accreditation document that will be reviewed by a team of 10
professionals who will come to AU in March, the real purpose of this self study is for the
institution to use this as a planning document to look at all aspects of the institution. Director
Froslid-Jones stated that she has come to this meeting today to solicite the advice, suggestions
and opinions from the senators for the report and to answer any questions. The time line for this
process is as follows. From now through December is the comment period. Along with talking
with the senate we will be talking with the staff council, student organizations, the BOT, the
President’s Council and the Provost’s Operational Council. There will also be two townhall
meetings. There is a middlestates email address, middlestates@american.edu, which is a great
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
place for corrections. There is a blog site and a twitter address. We are trying to make this
process easy to access and follow.
Professor Robert Blecker stated that when he and Karen met with the Executive Committee it
was agreed that at today’s meeting there would be discussion and then the various committees of
the senate would look at specific chapters that applied to their area. There are two undergraduate
chapters, a graduate and professional education chapter, a faculty chapter, a leadership
governance and administration chapter and a strategic planning budgeting and resource
allocation chapter. With this wide variety Professor Blecker stated that he was certain that the
senate committees would be able to choose a chapter that best corrolates with the senate
commitees and review and provide comments and suggestions.
Professor Nelson stated that the presentation today was just an introduction and that this would
come back to the senate at the December meeting after everyone has had time to review the
report and the individual areas that might apply to the committees that they serve on.
Professor Blecker stated that the the report is still in draft form and all the comments that are
received will be taken into account in the final formulations of the draft. He also stated that at the
end of each chapter there will need to be at least two or three recommendations. Currently in
some cases there are four or five and these will need to be cut down and edited based on input
from all. This would be a very good area to review and provide your comments. Additionally,
Professor Blecker stated that they want the recommendations to be bold and forward but not
unobtainable within the next several years because there is also a “mid-term” in five years where
the university has to provide a report that shows progress on the recommendations that are
reported.
Director Froslid-Jones stated that the committee is willing to meet with any group that has the
desire to meet. She also informed the senators that the report will be available to the AU
community tomorrow accessable from an email. We encourage all faculty to review the draft.
Eventually when the report is finalized it will be available to the general public. Professor
Blecker also stated that the search feature on the website works very well.
Provost Bass stated that the Faculty Senate has played such a key role in the development of so
many policies in the past five years and asked if the prior leadership would be called on by
middlestates?
Director Froslid-Jones stated that in the past the senate has not specifically been called on to
meet with the visiting team, but they will be meeting with many aspects of the faculty
community.
Professor Nelson stated that the senate will be discussing the report more at the December 4,
2013 meeting.
SPExS Proposal for Expedited Approval for Certificates – Carola Weil
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Dean Carola Weil from the School of Extended Studies (SPExS) thanked the senate for their
time. She stated that she is presenting a proposal to “fast track” the review process of certificates
not only for SPExS but also for the the AU community as a whole. This process is intended to
work with the current review process that is already in place but would allow the ability to take
advantage of new opportunities in the educational market place. This includes announcing,
marketing and offering the certificate. With the time frame that is in place now, the university
could loose the opportunity to other competitors like George Washington and Georgetown
universities.
Dean Weil stated that this proposal would allow graduate proposals the ability to be offered as a
pilot for at least one semester and no more than two. This would also allow SPExS for example
to gather market data and fine tune the program. The proposal does require approval from the
Provost and the Vice Provost of Graduate Studies in order to move forward to this pilot stage.
Professor Worden stated that after having discussed this with her colleagues in the School of
Education, Teaching and Health, they are sympathetic to the need for a “fast track” process but
are concerned and uncomfortable with students being enrolled in a pilot program that might not
be approved. She asked if Dean Weil would expand on what would happen to the students
enrolled in the program if the certificate was not approved.
Dean Weil stated that these are going to be certificates for credit and are different from the noncredit certificates. The university would honor any courses that a student has taken and be able to
apply them to other certificates, and if they were almost finished with the certificate when it got
pulled, they would be allowed to complete it.
Provost Bass stated that students will be offered the full set of classes in order to complete the
certificate even if the certificate was not approved by the senate or was terminated.
Professor Engel stated that he was concerned if there might be an impact on the review process
done by the senate committees of a certificate that is already being offered and how this would
affect the relationship of a cohort as well what the implications to the university would be.
Dean Peres asked how these certificates would appear on a student’s trancript.
Dean Weil stated that they would show as individual classes and at the completion of all the
classes needed to earn a certificate the student would then receive an actual paper certificate.
Dean Peres replied and stated that these are academic awards even if they are not degrees and
they must be approved. She requested that how they appear on transcripts is necessary.
Professor Abrahamson asked what paper work would be submitted at the outset for the “fast
Track” approval. Would this be an abstract of the certificate or the complete proposal?
Professor Simpson stated that there must be some way that the registrar can confirm that an
individual has completed the requirements or credentials for the certificate. He also stated that
there needs to be some form of quality control on the naming convention for these certificates or
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
some form of continuing education that is being earned and the various amount of work that is
done to earn these awards.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that there needs to be oversight and regular oversight after the fact
from the departments to have ownership. Provisions for this need to be made.
Professor Wootton asked how would the faculty resources be handled.
Dean Weil stated that adjuncts with specific expertise would be hired if the university does not
already have these professors available and current tenure and term faculty will be also be asked
to teach. These are Graduate Certificates that will require 12 to 18 credits to be earned. Dean
Weil stated that a complete package of the certificate will be required for the “fast track”
process. Everything required for the Senate committee will be submitted for review for “fast
track” also. In response to the oversight after the fact is a good point. Any certificate earned from
the university will fall under the already established structure currently in place.
Librarian Marien stated that if it is taking too long to get a certificate approved by the current
process, is there a plan to review the formal process and revise it instead of running a parallel
process?
Dean Weil stated that this is just an interim fix. The hope is that over time there will be a more
streamlined process.
Librarian Marien asked how long will this temporary process be in place?
Dean Weil said that she hopes not for long but it is up to other colleagues and members of the
administration.
Provost Bass stated that the Senate committees have done a great job with turning the review
process over within two weeks, however the thorough review process takes time to insure that
the proposal is carefully looked at for a quality proposal. He stated that this will be something
that will only work for certificates not degree programs. Sometimes it takes a lot of work so the
time line is uncertain.
Professor Hodges asked how the registrar has responded to this process.
Dean Weil stated that there was no issue but she is waiting for faculty responses before engaging
more with the registrar.
Provost Bass stated that there is a product that the university is considering called Parchment. It
is still in the early stages, but it will allow transcripts to be electronic and would help to attach
other kinds of activities like certificates to them.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that the university needs certificates to be competitive in the market
place but we need to be careful not to be a Phoenix or Strayer type of school. He stated that he
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
agrees with the Provost that we adjust to the market place offering streamlined programs that are
attractive and are good quality.
Dean Weil stated that courses that have been approved for a graduate certificate have been
approved from courses from a graduate degree or Ph.D program so the quality of the certificates
has not been touched. The certificates are to offer part of a masters degree or Ph.D in a reduced
time frame.
Professor Abraham stated that he is in favor of the proposal with some clarifications on what is
needed to present the “fast track” proposal but he expressed concern that there is no calendar of
dates to meet the BOT for approval and the catalog.
Professor Nelson stated that there is a calendar that has gone out this year to let everyone know
the dates to make it to the BOT.
Professor Engel stated that there are various dates that are already established for various areas
of the process but that there is a bottle neck at other areas. Those dates need to be established in
the schools to meet the BOT and catalog dates.
Professor Douglass moved the proposal to be approved.
Provost Bass requested that the clarifications that have been raised be corrected since it will be
going to the Deans for review tomorrow.
Professor Burke stated that he would like table this discussion and see the proposal return to the
senate with the changes made. The proposal was tabled.
Senate By-Law Revisons – Lacey Wootton
•
Enforcement of 3-minute policy – after discussion with the Executive Committee it was
recommeneded to leave the language as it currently is and the chair will enforce the 3minute as needed to insure that issues are handled in a timely manner.
•
CFA election of new members if a member has to recuse himself or herself and
explicit language about members returning and serving their term – New language
was dafted and is as follows, “in the event that a member of the CFA must recuse himself
or herself, the unit that he or she represents will elect a one-year replacement prior to the
next meeting of the CFA. The original member may resume his or her position on the
committee the following year.
•
Revisions to the section Article XI. “Additional Authority of the Senate” and
placement of athlete oversight Section – Put the student-athlete oversight language in
the “Duties of the Senate”, Article I.B. Delete Article XI and replace with language for
the Executive Committee’s authority. Proposed language was presented as: Handling
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Senate tasks when the full Senate is not meeting regularly; a report of actions taken shall
be presented to the next full meeting of the Senate.
There was extensive conversation and edits by the senators making revisions to this
paragraph and it was proposed to bring this language back after the suggested edits were
drafted into clear paragraphs for the senators to review.
Professor Nelson said that there was another issue brought up at the last meeting in
regard to the relationship of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the Honors
committee and the General Education Committee. She stated that she met with professors
Larry Engel, Lacey Wootton, Andrea Tschemplik,Vice Provost of Undergraduate
Studies Lyn Stallings, and the Interim Director of the Honors program Michael Manson
to discuss the language and there was more discussion than expected. There were
extensive changes and these are almost done and ready to bring back to the senate.
Professor Nelson stated that she would like to suggest that the language for the Senate
Executive Committee duties and the Undergraduate, Honors and General Education
language be brought back to the December meeting.
The Senators voted on the language changes for the Enforcement of the 3-minute policy
and the Election of New Members to the CFA in the Event a Member must recuse
himself or herself. The senate VOTED unanimously in favor of the two revisons.
For the Good of the Order – Candy Nelson
There was no discussion for the good of the order
The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 PM
Faculty Senate • November 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 7 of 7