Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
February 6, 2013
Professor Burke called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Present: Professor Barlow Burke, Candice Nelson, Jim Girard, Daniel Abraham, Sheila Bedford,
John Douglass, Todd Eisenstadt, Artur Elezi, Mary Hansen, John Heywood, Bob Jernigan,
Gwanhoo Lee, Nanette Levinson, Stacey Marien, John Nolan, Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy
Sapieyevski, John Smith, Shalini Venturelli, Lacey Wootton, Elizabeth Worden. Provost Scott
Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Welcome and Minutes Approval – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke welcomed everyone to the meeting. He stated that the minutes for December 12,
2012 were ready for senate approval. The senate VOTED and the minutes were approved
unanimously in favor.
Chair’s Report – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke stated that a review of the senate by-laws is needed because after some of the
changes that occurred over the course of managing the senate committees and their functions,
corrections need to made to implement these changes. The changes are as follows;
•
Article II, A -The membership was dropped from 24 to 23 with the removal of SLAE
back in November. However, because of the new development of SPExS as their own
school, Dean Carola Weil has asked to have a seat on the senate for SPExS. This will
return the membership to 24.
•
Article III, D - Add the following: "The Vice Chair and the Past Chair shall receive on
one course release and the Chair shall receive two course releases."
•
Article VI, F – There is no provision for a tie vote in the Senate's procedures, so the
following sentence was added: "Senate actions are taken by majority vote, with the chair
breaking any tie."
•
Article IX, B-3 – Clarifying language added as follows: "The CFA elects its own chair
from among its membership."
•
Article X, B-D – Clarifying language was added as follows: "In the event the chair
becomes vacant that term and cannot be filled by the committee, the Executive
Committee after consultation with committee members, shall appoint an interim chair to
serve until the next election."
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 1 of 18
Professor Abraham said that chairing and membership on Senate committees is seldom given
priority within the schools and colleges, nor seen as an opportunity.
Provost Bass stated that he is concerned about this matter because he wants everyone to
understand the importance of these committees and the representative role of the faculty who
serve on them. As to course releases, he said that there is a cost associated with them, but that is
something that the administration is willing to work on to make sure that these committees are
filled and chairs are able to take the time to do this important work.
The senate VOTED on the changes to the by-laws and the vote was unanimous for their
approval.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that in the previous meeting he had mentioned the formation of a graduate
enrollment management task force with particular attention on professional masters programs
critical to the up-coming two year University budget cycle. The group completed its assignment.
Better management of graduate admissions is expected to provide a tracking program from
recruitment to conversion, admission, and beyond. This spring term the graduate enrollments
ended up doing quite well, coming in over budget established. Even though graduate enrollments
were strong in the end, it was difficult to be able to know how to measure the numbers as they
come in. This is so because most of the schools and colleges now have their own admissions
systems. Provost Bass stated that the University is now in the process of purchasing a new
system recommended by the task force to regulate these system uniformly for all of the schools
and colleges; this will allow then to run reports, establish guidelines and standards, and create
schedules for graduate enrollments. This will, he hoped, have a positive influence on the
graduate enrollment in coming years.
Provost Bass stated that there were 17,500 undergraduate applications for next year; this is the
second highest application number in the history of the University. There was a two tier early
decision process this year that was up about 20%. International student’s applications were up
about 15% which met a target set of the Board of Trustees. Underrepresented minorities
applications are up around 30%, and first generation college applicant about 10%. Applications
for financial aid also look strong, including a strong pool for the Fredrick Douglass
Distinguished Scholarships providing five full ride students. This will be our 4th year that twenty
students will be in that program. This year there were over 800 applications for the five full ride
slots.
Provost Bass stated that the master’s level has been clearly the focus of the past two years and
this budget cycle, that PH’D level student applications are strong, that there is financial aid
support for them, and that overall, he has been totally preoccupied with very difficult budget
issues. He stated that there is a very large gap between the goals that were set for the next two
year cycle in terms of financial aid, modest tuition increases and technology demands.
Guidelines for the Review and Approval of MOOC’s
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 2 of 18
Provost Bass stated that he had put a moratorium on the Massive Open Online Classes,
(MOOC’S) until the senate is able to act and decide how the University wants to deal with them.
He stated that he put together from some informal conversations a memo with his notes for the
Senate to review. He also stated that since he will be the one to implement any policy that Senate
settles on, he will let further discussion come from Professor Burke.
Professor Burke stated that these notes came from a meeting with the deans and that the notes
that Provost Bass presented are the same as his notes. They suggest areas are open for discussion.
One of the deans suggested that there be a template that has five major questions to be answered
for anyone that proposes teaching a MOOC. Professor Burke also stated that in the memorandum
that Provost Bass sent out to the University community, the last sentence stated that the
“moratorium lasts until the Senate acts.” Both that sentence and the deans suggest that sooner
rather than latter guidelines be created for authorizing MOOCs, realizing that they will be
preliminary and subject for further discussion. This implies that swift action is needed.
Professor Venturelli asked if faculty cannot still put lectures on video. Provost Bass replied that
faculty can continue to post their lectures and Utube videos as they have been. Professor
Venturelli also asked about compensation for preparing a MOOC. Provost Bass stated that the
administration will need flexibility when discussing such compensation.
Professor Hansen stated that she thought that any guidelines should protect the AU brand, stating
that thought she might use her own time to create and instruct a MOOC’s class, she should not
be able to use the AU brand to do so. Provost Bass replied that as stated in the Faculty Manual
states that your intellectual property is centered on the University and that the manual requires
approval for it to be used outside of the University.
Professor Douglass asked if a committee had been formed to deal with this issue. Professor
Burke replied not yet, so Professor Douglass made recommendation to the senate that such a
committee be created.
Professor Levinson stated that she shared this information with her SIS colleagues and they see
that this as a very important trend in higher education, that, on a first look, these notes do not
appear to put many barriers in the way of preparing a MOOC. They allow innovation, especially
since innovation is one of the thrusts of the University's Strategic Plan, and so hopefully there is
tremendous opportunity for those and only those individuals who might wish to propose such
courses. She stated that her colleagues seemed very comfortable with these notes and they are
excited to have a draft policy on the matter.
Professor Venturelli stated that there are a number of very rational and strategic reasons other
universities are participating in MOOCs. One is that, even if a MOOC does not bring in revenue
up-front, it can give the University a global brand; this can be an intangible but valuable asset
that has long term benefits for the University. A MOOC also allows the University to innovate
and collect data on how to do higher education in a networked world beyond the blackboard.
Professor Marien asked if this opportunity will be denied those that have never taught online
classes previously. Professor Burke replied no. Professor Marien stated that the proposal implies
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 3 of 18
that you must have taught online in order to be able to apply. Professor Nelson stated that she
interprets the implication to be if you have taught online before, you must have done it well.
Provost Bass stated that there are plenty of opportunities for faculty to teach online classes and
that the hope would be that a faculty member would start with a summer class first before
moving to such a larger MOOC audience. Professor Marien agreed and said that the current
notes should be edited to reflect that.
Provost Bass stated that the language in the notes is just a draft; further edits will be taking place
as a policy is created.
Professor Douglass asked again for a friendly amendment to form the committee to work on the
MOOC’s proposal.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that he would recommend that we find out what our other peers are
doing with MOOC’s, as it is apparent that others are proactive in this area and that their efforts
should be investigated to determine what incentive structures are in use elsewhere.
Professor Lee suggested that any guidelines should be for a first offering of MOOCs on a one
year pilot basis. In the second year, once a course has proven successful, he asked whether there
will there be any compensation or incentives involved.
Professor Eisenstadt stated that some claim that money is being made on the back end by
certifying people completing a MOOC and the question is how revenue will be made to at least
make the overall effort involved revenue-neutral.
Provost Bass stated for clarification there are several institutions evaluating these courses for
awarding credit hours. Another similar discussion going on in SPECX’s involves competency
based education. A student who can demonstrate the skills should be given the credit hours.
Professor Venturelli stated that a common University policy with respect to recognition and
completion of MOOCs is needed. Provost Bass agreed that it would need to be held common by
all units within the University.
Professor Douglass stated that a report back to the senate on the committee for MOOC’s in April
would be reasonable time.
Professor and Executive Director of CTRL Naomi Barron stated that she had spent the last two
days at a conference in Denver Colorado that focused a lot of time on MOOCs and included
presentations from the people that were in charge of the MOOC initiatives at Cal Tech and
Stanford. There are resources that are involved if someone wants to do a MOOC’s class right.
Other universities provide an instructional designer to work with faculty preparing a MOOC;
these are persons that are the equivalent of CTRL or OIT personnel. Stanford has its own
platform for MOOCs and it also provides some Coursera curriculum, but its platform is available
to any institution in the country. Inventorying the costs are is important. If the University wants
to do this right, it will need to be done strategically and in the light of what lots of universities
have thought about the issues involved. Guidelines are important, but more serious is the issue of
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 4 of 18
what the University's goals should be. Professor Baron stated that she would make a friendly
amendment she would ask the Senate to proceed by asking first, what are we trying to
accomplish? Are we trying to get our brand out? Are we trying to do analysis of what are
students are learning and why people are taking these courses in the first place. Do we have an
infrastructure to support this effort. She stated that she would love to say that CTRL has this but
it doesn’t. So if we want to do this right, it is important that we answer these questions before we
worry about who has permission to do what.
Professor Baron stated that she would like to answer a few of the questions that have been asked.
Should you give faculty money or a course release? Stanford does not, but it does give you a
little money to hire a graduate student to help find good videos, etc. Are course releases given?
No: you don’t get extra money or a course release, but what they often do is to say, build a
MOOC and you can have your regular class use it. As to where the intellectual property lies,
some faculty go from the classroom to doing a MOOC without doing an online course. As to
branding, Stanford says that the faculty’s name goes on the class, with his or her university
affiliation, but that Stanford is not offering the course, its faculty is.
Professor Brian Yates stated that a MOOC can be offered accidentally. Faculty now use
blackboard to post lectures, exams and information for students. Itunesu is another program that
faculty have been encouraged to use. He stated that he has used this site for two courses during
the past academic year and that over 83,000 have subscribed as of today. This however is not a
MOOC class, even though the American Psychology Association says it is. He said if he offered
all his classes on this site, he feels his courses have already achieved MOOC status. He stated
that he does not want another level of review because his academic freedom would then be
infringed.
Theo Plothm a first year SOC PHD student stated that the discussion of MOOCs frightens him as
a future educator. He stated that not many think about whether MOOCs are a good idea; they just
want to do it because everyone else is. Coursera's website crashed yesterday because of the
40,000 people on the site, and he is concerned that eventually the job that he is working hard to
qualify for will be in jeopardy. There are no metrics to determine if students are learning
anything or if it is adding any value to the university whose name is on the course.
Provost Bass stated that the notes are summarized. He wants to make sure that Brian is able to
continue what he has been doing because he is good at it and feels that he is at the frontier of a
great process. He stated that he went to Brian’s session at the Anne Ferren Conference and he
knows that there are a number of things that he is doing that we will need to spend more time on
-- maybe at the coming October retreat for the chairs and leadership. He stated that, in his eyes,
Brian is not conducting a MOOC at this point and that Brian needs to proceed in just the way he
is. The rest of the University needs a lot more discussion and the Deans do not want to bottle this
discussion up. He stated that he believes that the press has generated a MOOC mania, that we
need to calm down and assess the kind of quality and resources that go into the experience we
want to offer our students, and that this University is just at the cusp of offering online courses
and programs. He said that while he does not want to stifle creativity, we need to know what the
educational benefits are. Before we say to go and do your own thing, the Senate should
deliberate, hear from its constituencies, and weigh what it hears; he will respect its decisions. We
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 5 of 18
want to be sure not to place people out in the MOOC world that are not prepared for it, do a bad
job, and harm the institutional reputation of the University. He said that his hope is to find a way
to enhance the reputation instead.
Interim Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies Lyn Stallings then presented a report to the task
force on a new Honors Program, giving first an outline of the current state of the University’s
present honors program. She said that the present model seems to work well. Historically the
current program has been used as a conversion tool. It has served the university very well over
the past 20 to 25 years, enrolling high academically achieving students. It did, however, bring in
more students for whom AU was a second choice school when compared to the overall student
body. It has provided a learning community, but it has not contributed significantly to our overall
retention and "persistence to graduation" rates. The present persistence to graduation rate,
cumulative after 6 years, is 77%. This compares with GW's 81.2 %, Syracuse's 80%, NYU's 86%
and Georgetown's 94%. The University's losses are in the junior and senior years, losses
involving a lot of talented students who have stated that they leave because of the lack of
community. In the beginning of the document she presented, there was a discussion about
learning communities and it is this that got us thinking about the things to do differently -- to
form a community for all the students here, not just the honors students. This has been happening
through University College cohort programs. Discussion has started to develop a freshman
seminar experience. Associate Deans and Deans are thinking about this too. The Office of
Campus life is working with faculty in developing residential theme based learning communities.
Hopefully through departments that are willing to have honors in a major, departmental honors,
or interdisciplinary honors we may have a vehicle for retaining those talented juniors and seniors
who are leaving the University because they have not felt connected.
Vice Provost for Enrollment Services (VPES) Sharon Alston stated that the new honors program
is very important to the college application process. Putting the matter in that broader context,
she said that the Office of Enrollment is struggling to identify those students that really want to
be a part of the University, and that identification can only be very helpful with retention and
conversion when we admit students who really want to be at the university. The Fredrick
Douglass Distinguished Scholars Program introduced a couple of essays into their application
process. Historically, with the current Honors Program that is in place now, students do not apply
but are invited to join the program, often having no idea why they are selected. They are told
they are talented, but there is no pre-existing connection to the program. With the FDDS
program as currently structured, students have to apply for admission and that process has
produced over the years a steady increase in the interest in and applications to the program.
When the program started in 2010, about 530 students applied. For the fall 2013, we have
received 900 FDDS applications. The program is attracting very talented students who want to
be at the University: the average SAT scores for this program are about 50 to 60 points higher
than the overall average SAT scores of all applicants. Additionally, what we have seen through
this application process is that giving students some hoops to jump through to enter the FDDS
program produces a higher conversion rate than among the University's general applicant pool.
FDDS applicants convert at a rate of 28%; the overall university conversion rate is 22%. Even
among those students that did not receive anything, just going through the process produced a
conversion rate of 45%; for students who were semi-finalists in the process and also received a
little something, the rate was 50%. What we believe is happening is that fact that we have asked
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 6 of 18
them to take the extra step to talk about why they are interested, why they want the program,
why they want to be here, we are helping to identify those students who are genuinely interested
in being at the University. We saw a similar thing happen with our Global Scholars. These
students also have to apply to be a part of that program. Again, even for those students who were
not chosen as Global Scholars, they converted at an rate of 24% compared to 22% overall, The
application process itself is helping us to attract more students who are talented. The process
itself has engaged them and required that they learn about the University. By interacting with
them multiple times, the Office of Enrollment learns more about them so ultimately can better
identify students who want to be here. VPES Alston said that she sees the honors proposal as
offering students a similar way to engage with the University and to identify themselves as
wanting to be here.
IVP Stallings stated that this proposal if accepted would phase out the University Honors
Program. Its last freshman class would enroll in the fall of 2013. Starting in the fall of 2014, we
would still have the sophomore university honors class for continuing students, and transfer
students would continue to self-nominate for the program. All of this will continue but we will
no longer have a freshman class using this program. In the fall of 2014 the newly proposed the
American University Honors Program would begin, with the Office of the Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Studies and an office for new honors program. This office would parallel the
office that manages the General Education program. This program will have a very small cohort
of 40 students, plus the 5 FDDS students, for a total of 45 students. This program would
authorize 4 courses that would be similar to the General Education Program. If those courses are
anchored in a discipline, they would go through full University review. Team-taught,
interdisciplinary courses would have a three year life cycle. After three years, they would be
phased out and then replaced as new teams are formed and come into the program. These courses
would go through an internal process of review unless the academic unit or combination of units
decides to anchor those courses in a discipline; then they would go through a full review. This
will be the only program that this new office will manage and administer. There will be an
honors faculty chair and an honors faculty.
IVP Stallings stated that this program is new to the University. It allows academic units to
propose an honors program that will be managed by their own unit with the courses coming out
of that unit. First, there will be a freshman entry cohort program (there is already some
discussion of the global scholars becoming an honors global scholars three year cohort program)
and a four year cohort program. Second, there will be an upper division honors program -- that
is, honors in a major, interdisciplinary honors, and departmental honors. These programs can
begin in the second semester of sophomore year or the first semester, junior year; when it begins
will be up to the academic unit that designs the program. This would also have the support from
the honors office, that office providing advice on how to put together the proposal and how to
construct the courses using the office's proposal and course templates, but allowing each unit to
decide whether they want to offer these departmental honors. This support should allow smaller
units to be able to offer these programs. Overall, the programs will provide an avenue for those
talented juniors and seniors now transferring to other institutions. They will also provide an
opportunity to form a community for students that have identified themselves as particularly
talented in a discipline.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 7 of 18
IVP Stallings used, as an example, the possibility of an interdisciplinary honor in sustainability.
It could be a combination of disciplines from Kogod, SPA and CAS. It would form a community
that would have these students staying here, belonging to a network with a particular interest and
a demanding curriculum. It will be the Office of Honors Programs that will manage these
cohorts; over the course of the next two years, meet with departments and talk about the ways
that they can create cohort programs or departmental honors, and offer workshops and examine
how these can be used as a foundation for marketing the University.
Speaking again about marketing and its importance to the University, VP Alston stated that
under the current structure of the honors program there is nothing that distinguishes it from the
rest of the AU experience and that her office needs to showcase something more distinctive.
Currently the office talks about the classes being smaller, internships, and study abroad
opportunities -- but these are things that are offered to any AU student; so the question is, what
distinguishes AU for its most talented applicants?
IVP Stallings emphasized that the University will not need major, departmental and
interdisciplinary honors until fall of 2015. Thus her office has until then to plan these programs:
all continuing students will get their needs met and the academic units have a long window of
time to think about what their unit's programs might look like.
Professor Mary Hansen stated that the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee had two business
days to review the honors proposal prior to its presentation to the Executive Committee. She said
that the committee did support many of the elements of this proposal, but that the UCC did have
several concerns. It submitted those concerns to IVP Stallings who did respond very quickly. She
stated that she recognized that this proposal has been a long time coming but the committee does
continues to be concerned with two curricular issues and two resource issues, some of which the
IVP's presentation was meant to assuage. As to the two curricular s issues, the first is that under
this proposal, interdisciplinary courses might be offered to freshman who will have neither any
prerequisites nor any grounding in any discipline. Professor Hanson stated that the UCC was
concerned that interdisciplinary courses to brand new students might be a little much,
particularly if they are Gen. Ed. Classes. Second, the proposal has no obvious mechanism, other
than Gen Ed. Review, for matching a course with the particular students that enter into that
cohort. There is also no mechanism to insure that the courses that are offered to any cohort fit
together in any particular way. These were the two curricular issues the committee had.
Professor Hansen reported that the two resource issues concern the honors programs to be
developed in the departments and other units. The resources for the honors programs will require
input from the deans. Usually when proposals come to the curriculum committee, they come
with supporting documents, but this proposal includes no supporting documents from the deans
and department chairs. This, Professor Hansen stated, led her to believe that most people have
not seen this proposal. Professor Hansen stated that her department chair had not seen it until she
showed it to him. Thus she worried about the level of interest in teaching in this program. She
stated that there were a lot of faculty members involved in the early stages of this process, but
that it was clear to her that only a few are really invested in this program. The UCC recognized,
she said, that the development process for this proposal can follow the same path as the General
Education program changes that were made last year but that did not did not constitute the
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 8 of 18
complete reinvention of a program, whereas this proposal is a really radical change, potentially
very exciting, potentially very fabulous, but with a potential to be a big disaster if not well
planned.
Professor Hansen made a motion that the Senate request that more time be taken with this
proposal by the community at large and that the Vice Provost convene bodies who will be
responsible for reviewing courses in order to think about the UCC's curricular concerns, and
more specifically about criteria for evaluation of courses to be offered. She stated that she thinks
that more time should be allowed for a wider community conversation and to obtain statements
of support from the department chairs and the deans. That would assuage the UCC's concerns
about the resources and teaching involved in this proposal.
Professor Hanson stated that an argument against this motion that if we do not move now as a
Senate to approve it, it will be impossible to put together the marketing materials for launching
this in the fall of 2014. She said that she would like the senate to reject that argument: Marketing
should not take precedence over our control over the curriculum.
IVP Stallings then addressed the concerns that Professor Hanson has, as they are both valid and
important. First, there is an existing honors advisory committee of a dozen faculty that would
meet to review these proposed core courses. This review is intended to bring together the faculty
that will teach these courses to discuss about the connections and the coherency of what will be
taught; this is to prevent these faculty members from going off into isolated teams to develop
these courses. They will have to come back and talk about the inner connectivity. Moreover, the
chair of the UCC was on the ad-hoc committee and involved in the last stages of the proposal.
This occurred after the deans and the associate deans had reviewed it and signed off on it. (IVP
Stallings said that she did still have these sign-offs, with signature pages and signatures.) Thus
the deans were included in the process, this in order for departments to talk about it and for the
Provost's office to have some assurance from the deans and associate deans had looked at the
teaching resources involved at the earliest stage. And to develop an early appreciation of how the
units approach the resources involved; this ensured that the academic units would be an informed
position when thinking about whether or not they want to take this on, rather than guessing
whether the resources would be available. It was important that they know and hear from their
academic leaders that they were behind this and have some ideas about this.
IVP Stallings stated that the General Education Program revisions were substantially different.
There, all the academic units were consulted because of the changes in the course structures of
the Program. There self-study was possible, so that pre-requisites and clusters of courses could
be examined.
IVP Stallings stated that when she worked with the Senate Executive Committee and other
faculty bodies, including the group that Professor Hansen was part of in December, no one raised
the issue of meeting with the department chairs; IVP Stallings said that while such a meeting
makes sense, she said that the question arises, to what end, because this proposal takes nothing
away from the departments. Honors Education courses will be phased out starting in fall 2014.
Teaching units can adjust their Gen Ed courses to account for the regular enrollment trends in
Gen Ed. Also there is no mandate for the units to do honors programs. There is a lot of time to
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 9 of 18
prepare, to be creative and to discuss this. We feel that the units would have plenty of time to
decide if they want to do this and talk to their deans about resources.
IVP Stallings stated that postponement of this program (if that seems to be a good idea,) would
mean that it would start in the fall of 2015. The marketing is involved only because applicants
will be asked fill out a different application and to go through a different, more rigorous, essay
process. While that should not drive the outcome, she thought that bringing this back to the
departments to discuss would make any huge difference, other than giving the departments extra
time to think about honors programs. As it is, now they can think about it having their deans and
associate deans' awareness and support. The proposal does not get into a discussion of resources
because that is going to be a discussion between the academic units and the departments with
their deans.
Professor Puglisi thanked IVP Stallings for the clarification because she did have a faculty
member who was concerned about our department or our school not being involved. Professor
Puglisi asked who would be the twelve faculty members for the first group on the committee.
IVP Stallings replied that there would have to be a call for this, though. She suspected that it
would be faculty that had taught honors previously..
Professor Puglisi stated for clarification that it would be up to the schools individually to come
up with their proposal of how they would like to do their honors program. She also asked, if the
University is losing a lot of juniors and seniors, if any survey asked for the reasons that they left
the University?
IVP Stallings stated that they do not know why they left and hoping that if this proposal is not
accepted, that the faculty are showing their students how important they are; when a student is in
their junior or senior year and transfers to another school, this is a big deal. She said that she was
very concerned about this, not to say that this proposal is the answer, but that it is a tool that units
can have that will provide a lot of excitement, raise academic quality, and create an atmosphere
the FDDS has created.
Professor Wootton asked about the college writing department offers courses in the honors
program. They fulfill their college writing requirement with an honors designation and count
toward honors credit, but that so there is no mention of how those fit into this proposal, so one
question is, will there still be college writing courses designated only for honors students and
who will those students be? Will they only be the university honors students or will those
students potentially come from these other cohorts as they develop.
IVP Stallings stated that this is “to be determined.” She said that it is possible that the program
could include such a requirement, but that the University did not want to mandate that because
participating students will still be expected to meet their college writing requirement. With
regard to the cohort of 45 students, it is conceivable that the program could include a couple of
honors writing sections but we did not want to mandate that at this point.
Professor Abraham stated that, having read the proposal in November when we first received it,
and having read the materials now, he is really perplexed at a couple of points. Now there are
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 10 of 18
honors capstones, department capstones, degree capstones, etc. He worried that this proposal is
going to create that for honors. He found that the current honors students are very
interconnected, identifying each other in classes and often coming to him in a group to discuss
supplementing his 300 level course and to work on additional projects. They know each other as
honors students. This proposal only recognizes only 3% of any incoming class, rather than
looking to influence a significant number of the incoming body.
IVP Stallings said in reply that yes, our number was not that large.
Interim Director of the University Honors Program,(IDUHP) Michael Manson stated that North
Eastern is the only program that comes close in numbers to what AU has. They have 1700
students in their honors program whilewe have 1200. This made our honors program bigger than
the Kogod school.
Professor Abraham said that if we are looking to challenge the admissions cycle in order to
excite in-coming students and in order to attract the students that feel that the program is
selective to the point that excites them to come to AU, then he thought by all means we should
be setting up the process with a defined application but to do this kind of program for 45 students
and set up a functional office that is going to oversee it, seems a lot of work for a tiny cohort.
Rather, he thought that the University should be looking to something a little larger, more robust
and interdisciplinary that does not have to call on departments for a response. His department in
performing arts has four very discrete disciplines that could create interdisciplinary performing
arts honors system only in music, or only in audio technology, but he said he had no idea how
they would manage to respond to this proposal as a department since his department does not
have the personnel to oversee or put together a proposal. He stated that this proposal is moving
so far away from a traditional models that it was in danger of throwing out the bathwaters as well
as the baby, instead of moving forward.
IVP Stallings stated that Professor Abraham’s academic unit is a good case of this working well
with the supplemental credits, but this is not the case across the university unfortunately. The
supplemental credits are a good example of an area that needs more structure for an improved
honors experience. Right now, the supplemental credits are quite frequently neither organized
and systematic. Individual students hustle a faculty member for a supplemental in an individual
course, and that is not the model really wanted. We would like for smaller units to have a model
like Professor Abraham’s department. This would be a very systematic group supplemental that
would make it possible for these smaller programs to be created. The administrative structure is
going to be scaled back. For example, advisement is going to moved back to the academic unit,
so there will no longer be honors advisors. The office will become smaller because of the 45
student cohort, but it will assess the honors programs: If the University is going to offer honors
in different units, there ought to be a guiding office that ensures quality across all units. This will
be the function of the honors advisory committee. IVP Stallings stated that if Professor Abraham
wonders how a unit like yours would be able to put a proposal together, he should know that that
is exactly the kind of discussion that will be happening over the next two years -- departments
talking about a particular model and then the honors advisory committee providing guidance to
make it possible. There are already some proposal templates, containing some guidance as to
what will be useful. These are working models and can evolve as the program grows. This is not
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 11 of 18
like an academic regulation -- once it’s past it is set in stone. We are going to try to create robust
honors programs. This is the purpose of the two year period to work with the academic units,
departments, deans and associate deans, all discussing how to make this proposal work. As far as
the numbers, it will include not just the 45 because entering freshman cohort programs already in
the works will be in honors programs. The cap will be 175 -- right now the freshman entry cap is
175 and the current freshman entry cap is 220, so the proposed program will not be much
different from what we are doing.
Professor Abraham asked, if you are trying to build cohorts, why is decentralization the way to
do that. He stated that instead of reducing the honors office, he would like to see that office
become more robust so that it is actually administering, managing and creating continuity
between all the department versions of honors -- not just recommending and assessing but
actually being the hub for all of them. He said that to approach this program at the departmental
level “scare[d] the daylights out of” him.
IVP Stallings stated that the office will help with the assessment as described that in the
assessment of the honors program.
Professor Abraham stated that his concern was not just assessment but with a department having
to track each student and advising as well. He reported that his department did not have an
advisor. His advisors are centralized in CAS and they manage 7- 8 other departments; juniors
and seniors are leaving this University because we have so many freshman and sophomore
requirements -- writing, mathematics, general education -- all mandated at the department level
so by the time they get to their junior year they have very little in their own majors they need to
take so they don’t know what they will do in their last semester, so they graduate early and avoid
paying for one more semester, or they leave because they can do one more semester at another
institution and still have their degree; he said that this has been the situation in his department for
the last 12 years -- all the requirements in the first two years means they do not have much to do
in their senior year.
Professor Douglass stated that the Senate has not addressed budget issues and even though this is
a very important subject the Senate needs to discuss the budget. He asked the chair if he would
ask the senators if they would stay after 5 pm to complete all that needs to be completed.
Professor Burke asked if the senators if they could stay until 5:30 pm. It was agreed to stay.
Professor Hanson stated that she does have a motion on the floor.
Professor Burke stated that he did not have a second for the motion.
Professor Nolan asked if this had to be voted on today or could this wait till next month.
IVP Stallings stated that that would cause the program to be postponed to 2015.
IDUHP Michael Manson stated that he begins talking with new perspective students for 2014 on
February 18.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 12 of 18
Professor Hansen stated that this should have come before the curriculum committee earlier.
IVP Stallings stated that the chair of the UCC was involved with the process.
Professor Hansen stated that as she has already explained, several times, no one else on the UCC
was involved: Most members, except for her, did not even know it was under consideration.
IVP Stallings asked the Senators if they received this proposal in November; several professors
stated yes.
Professor Hansen stated that it was in the packet distributed in November but that it was not
regularly distributed to her unit. She stated that she would like to see if anyone would second to
her motion. She said that she feels that Professor Abraham has argued that department chairs
should have some say in this because departmental programs are going to be key to holding those
students that you want to hold in their junior and senior years and that if this program is not in
place for this cohort, they are going to leave too.
Professor Burke asked if there is a second for the motion.
Professor Heywood seconded the motion.
Provost Bass stated that he found the conversation confusing. First, this process began over two
years ago over the campus. What the administration has learned with the FDDS program is that
the investment of time and energy of applying in itself is a way of determining investment in the
institution, and even those who do not get in the program are likely to convert. This is the issue
that is on the table now. The admissions office needs to have a core structure of 45 students that
would be entering a distinctive program. All the curriculum issues will be figured out over the
next year and a half. He stated that the process that IVP Stallings has overseen has included two
meetings six months to a year ago with the all deans. This proposal has been considered in a
separate meeting with the deans and IVP Stallings, and a meeting with the deans and myself
where I asked for a vote of approval from every dean. He assured the Senate that this has been
vetted and approved by every dean and stated that he took it a step further and asked IVP
Stallings to come to the Provosts operational council. This has its support.
Provost Bass stated that he wanted to share governance and as well the details of the curriculum
for the new honors program. The question here today is the structure, and we do not need to put
off for another year changing a program that is not serving the university well, committing
millions of dollars to a program in terms of scholarships and not getting the bang out of it. He
said that there is a need to change through selectivity in admissions, with high standards, on the
model of SIS’s Global Scholars Program. The decision now is that this proposal cannot go
forward without the faculty Senate’s speaking; this structure has been fully vetted with the
leadership on campus. The issue of consulting the departmental chairs is a question of order:
Does the deliberation over details take place now or later, over the next year and a half. He stated
that he has watched this proposal mature over two years and understood that it takes time as a lot
of people have had input up to this time for a decision to have a real honors program.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 13 of 18
Professor Burke stated that Provost Bass makes an essential point that this proposal concerns a
structure for a curriculum, not the curriculum itself, and is preliminary to most of the concerns of
Professor Hansen.
Professor Douglass asked for a vote on the motion on the table. His motion was defeated.
Professor Abraham agreed with Provost Bass the current system is broken. He understood that
this proposal might have been in the works for two years, but it was new to this body and is a
daunting change. He stated that there has not been a full debate of the details of this proposal.
The General Education changes were modifications, but this proposal is completely changes the
face of how we do honors; it might be the right approach, he might completely agree with it, but
at 4:29 the Senate has not fully discussed its details; so voting on it is premature.
Provost Bass stated that there are two issues. He agreed that the details of this proposal need a
level of discussion that has not taken place and will take time, but that what is now needed is a
decision on the structure, not the details.
IVP Stallings stated that it would help to go to the departments and talk about the possible
programs that they might develop.
Professor Abraham stated this is why he is concerned. He does not suddenly want to see this
major decentralization of the program without having more discussion.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that the Senate might conditionally pass on the structure with the
understanding that there will be a committee that will have jurisdiction to implement the details.
This idea might accommodate the hard work done so far even if the details need more work. He
proposes that the Senate conditionally accept the structure, with the details to be worked out.
Professor Burke asked if this would be acceptable. IVP Stallings agreed. Professor Burke asked
if there was a second for the motion. Professor Douglass seconded the motion.
IVP Stallings stated that if the senate wants to form a committee to help us oversee this process
that would be wonderful.
Professor Hansen stated that she is not clear what is being proposed and is not sure how you can
create such a condition: Suppose the departments find none of this workable, then there will be a
structure with no classes; she stated one can’t have one without the other.
IDUHP Manson stated that there are two pieces to this proposal. The first part is for the honors
freshman that are coming in 2014. This is what is on the table right now and what we really need
to know about. Is this a good curriculum structure to put into place? If so, we then need to gather
the faculty and talk about what kind of courses would be offered them and what kind of
distinctive education we can offer them. The second part is, what do we want to do for Juniors
and seniors? Are there honors programs we want to develop within majors or schools that will
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 14 of 18
give them exciting curricular opportunities? This can be discussed over the course of the next
couple of years.
Professor Abraham stated that setting the number at 45 makes it mandatory that we discover how
the schools will operate this program. Perhaps, he said, admissions can go forward with a new
application process, but not define the number in the program now and set it only when the
details are worked out more fully.
IVP Stallings stated that the 45 is a cohort for 4 core courses, plus a challenge course, for their
freshman and sophomore years. They then may go off to individual majors. No management of
these students is needed at the departmental level.
Professor Bass stated that he would like to call the question for the two motions on the table, one
being what has been presented and the other being Professor Sapieyevski’s amendment.
VP Alston stated that her office has already begun recruiting the class of 2014, that her office
will be seeing students in February and needs to know what to tell them about the structure of the
honors program.
Professor Hansen stated that when those prospective students come to talk to departments, they
are going to ask what happens to them after their first two years if they want to be an econ major;
she said that she now has no answer. This issue needs to be the subject of a wider conversation
before being brought before the Senate.
Professor Burke stated that there were two motions on the floor, to adopt the proposal for the
structure as presented, or the proposed structure with conditions.
On the document as presented, the Senate VOTED and the vote was 4 in favor, 12 opposed, no
abstentions.
Professor Burke asked for the VOTE on the document with the conditions.
IVP Stallings stated that the condition is that the Senate will appoint a committee to work with
her and the departments to discuss guidelines for the new honors program.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that this committee will be able to discuss and recommend changes
-- that is, changes working out the details of the proposal.
IVP Stallings stated that the committee can recommend changes to be brought back to the
Senate.
The Senate VOTED and the votes was 15 in favor, 1 opposed, no abstentions
Provost Bass thanked the Senate for its approval, recognizing, he said, that now is the time to
work out the program’s details and that the admissions office now can meet with prospective
students about this revised structure for the honors program.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 15 of 18
Budget Issues – John Nolan
Professor Nolan thanked all who worked so hard on preparing for the new budget cycle,
including Vice President Don Myers who phoned in for the meeting, and Assistant Vice
President of Budget and Finance Nana An who was also in attendance.
The process started in September and is long and complicated. The Vice President’s office
prepares the preliminary information which then comes to the University Budget Committee
which has four representatives from the Senate, one undergraduate student representative, and
one graduate student representative. This committee reviews the budget, makes
recommendations and then goes through a multiple step process. This committee has its last
meeting on Monday, February 4, 2013. Its recommendations have now been forwarded to the
President. Shortly after the President reviews them, the budget will be put before the Board of
Trustees.
The two year budget will be approximately $1.2 billion. Projected student enrollment and tuition
revenue for undergraduates appear to be very reliable, but those for graduate student enrollment
have been less predictable. The committee then factors in a range of tuition increases; it was
authorized by the Board of Trustees consider a range of 2.5 to 4.5%; projections also are made
for rents in the buildings that AU owns, and for auxiliary services. On the expense side of the
budget ledger, there are fixed costs over which the university has little control, including salaries
and benefits, particularly health insurance. The construction of buildings and building
maintenance are factored in as well. Other campus offices on campus that get a part of the budget
to include Special Events, Athletics, General Council, Communications and Marketing and
Finance and Treasury, Development and University Relations, Campus Life and Academic
Affairs.
Professor Nolan then summarized the recommendations made by Academic Affairs for increases
to the budget. These are arranged according to the strategic goals listed in the University's ten
year plan. With regard to goal number one, maintaining the Scholar Teacher ideal for the faculty,
the request was for three new faculty for 2014 and four for 2015. These are in base and constitute
a total $448,000 commitment that the University is being asked to make; because it is in base, it
will become a permanent part of the budget. Salary adjustments would add $600,000 each year
to base. For term faculty promotions, there is $50,000 each year and term faculty salary
adjustments are requested in the amount of $224, 000 each year. This represents a deliberate
attempt by the administration to move such things to base and out of cash lines: the proposal here
is to turn term faculty from cash to base and to makes four such conversions each year. Also
included is an estimate of what it might cost in AY 2015 to meet the unionized requests for
adjunct faculty stipends.
Professor Nolan briefly described the designated funds for external academic program review,
support staff for the three year BA programs, funds for a three year BA operating expenses, a
community college transfer initiative, general education programs, and cash for learning
assessments.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 16 of 18
One very large additional item is the request for $1.3 million dollars asked for financial aid.
Strategic Goal 4 include money for Latin American Studies, Strategic Goal 5 includes money for
the FDDS program in order to increase the scholarships for the program by 5. Enabling Goals are
seek funds to diversify the University's revenue sources, including $280,000 cash to each year.
To improve the library and resource infrastructure there is $518,000 in base so that is permanent,
and $400,000 the next year again in base. Last is the Academic Technology requests had $427,
000 in base, $100,000 in cash, and then $45,000 the next year.
When these numbers are totaled you see that this is a huge request. The totals are over
$5.7million in base for the next fiscal year and $2.5 million in cash with similar numbers for
following year. Professor Nolan said that the good news is that all of this was requested, but the
bad news in the resulting significant gap in the budget. There is a several million dollar gap in
money each year between requests and projected revenue, so the outcome of the request is
uncertain. There will be several million dollars of cuts in an unspecified area of the budget.
Additionally there are two benefits changes, discussed previously in the Senate; they are in the
request for some form of family emergency care and the proposed cut off for healthcare discount
for lower paid employees receiving a discount on healthcare. This number has not changed in 20
years, and the request this year was to raise the cut off point.
Professor Nolan stated that one controversial place to look to fill the budget gap is the quasi
endowment. The total endowment is approximately $455 million dollars. About $80 million of
that is pure endowment and about $100 million of that comes from what is called the operating
budget quasi endowment and $275 million comes from “other” quasi endowments. The target,
which has been a fifteen year plan of the Board of Trustees, is to transfer 2% of the operating
budget each year to the quasi endowment; in some years, that transfer has been 1%. What makes
this complicated is that changes in the amount we contribute to this quasi endowment could
affect the University's credit rating and therefore its ability to borrow.
VP Myers stated that this fifteen year ago policy was established in order to build the overall
financial health of the University and in order to also build safeguards in its operating budgets.
Since the budget is so student fee dependent, the University must look for the credit markets to
accomplish many of our capital projects; it is important to show financial institutions that
provide the University with capital a capacity that we in fact are able to meet our debt service
requirements. Over the course of the last twenty years or so, the University has borrowed in
excess of $200 million in capital markets, first for the building of the sports center and then for a
series of construction projects. Currently we have long term debt either in the form of taxable or
tax exempt bond financing in excess of $200 million dollars for a capital expansion plan that has
been under development for a number of years, growing out of the Strategic Plan. The capital
expansion has been reviewed a number of times and both approved and reaffirmed by the Board
of Trustee, the last as recently as its May, 2012, meeting. Thus the University will continue to go
into the capital markets over the course of the next two year budget cycle.
VP Myers stated that it is important that we be able to demonstrate our credit worthiness and the
ability of the institution in order to show that we have safe guards built into our budget
management process and that we will be able to provide the assurance that lenders need before
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 17 of 18
they provide the amount of money that we have targeted for the capital construction projects now
planned. The next major borrowing would be for the new law school scheduled to begin
construction this coming summer; sometime after that project is under construction, the
University will be borrowing approximately a $90 million to finance it. So it is important that we
are able to continue to demonstrate that we have built into the budget structure this discipline and
that we have the overall assets in order to meet lenders' underwriting standards. A second part of
that credit worthiness analysis is performed by rating agencies.
Professor Nolan stated that 1% of the operating budget is about $4 million dollars. We are
recommending that the next budget reduce the quasi endowment transfer from 2% to 1% for
each of the next two years and that would give $4 million more to the university budget each
year. This decision on this request will be made by the President and the BOT, so what we are
asking for is a faculty endorsement of this policy.
Professor Burke stated that he would read a resolution that, with the Senate's approval, will be
forwarded to President Kerwin from the Senate. The resolutions read:
After careful consideration of the University's budgetary situation for FY2014 and FY2015, the
Faculty Senate urges that (1) tuition be increased as little as fiscally possible, (2) median student
financial aid be increased by at least one percent of tuition, (3) the transfer from the quasiendowment of the University be reduced from 2% to 1% in FY2014 and FY2015, (4) wherever
possible term faculty be moved from one year to multi-year contracts, (5) there be merit based
salary increases and benefits that encourage a healthy work life balance. Moreover, recognizing
that there will likely be unspecified cuts in funding requests with regard to academic affairs, we
urge that the President and the administration report back to the Senate as to what those cuts
will be.
Professor Nolan stated that this resolution will add the faculty’s voice to the last stages of the
budget process.
Professor Burke called for a VOTE and the vote was unanimously in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.
Faculty Senate • February 6, 2013 Minutes
Page 18 of 18