Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
December 12, 2012
Professor Burke called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM
Present: Barlow Burke, Candice Nelson, Jim Girard, Daniel Abraham, John Douglass, Larry
Engel, Artur Elezi, Bryan Fantie, John Heywood, Bob Jernigan, Gwanhoo Lee, Nanette
Levinson, Stacey Marien, John Nolan, Gemma Puglisi, Jerzy Sapieyevski, John Smith, Patricia
West, Lacey Wootton, Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Welcome, Introduction and Minutes Approval – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone. He stated that the minutes
for October 17 and November 14 are ready for approval. He opened the floor for amendments.
No amendments were voiced so the senate VOTED and the minutes were approved unanimously
in favor.
Chairs Report – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke stated that the included handout is a proposal to amend the senate by-laws, by
deleting article IX (B) (6) where the definition and jurisdiction of the SLAE committee appears.
He stated that replacing the athletics oversight function of this committee has been put on hold
by the December 4th resignation of the Director of Athletics, as the university would like to have
the new Director of Athletics available to be a part of formulating the new oversight procedures,
possibly overseen by a new committee to replace the responsibilities that SLAE provided in
meeting NCAA guidelines for the university athletics program. He also stated that he felt the
most controversial issue might be the number of committee members. He said he was in favor of
less, suggesting 3, but that in consulting with Vice Provost Gail Hanson, she was in favor of
more, suggesting five. Most Senate committees now have between 7 to 10 members. The other
item to be determined is whether the chair of any new committee should also be the
representative of the university to the Patriot League.
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that he has been involved in appointing four different task forces this term.
The first is a group attempting to pull together the many relationships of faculty with different
institutions in different countries in a more strategic way that could lead to international
collaborations, partnerships or enrollments. The second group is a committee working on looking
at the quantitative course offerings at the undergraduate, masters and doctoral level and
benchmarking them to standards in their perspective fields. At the masters and graduate level this
is probably easily handled by the associate deans, but the undergraduate level will require some
campus wide discussion as to what is the level of competency we expect of an AU graduate, not
in terms of course requirements, but in terms of the proficiency levels and learning outcome
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 1 of 10
assessments. This work was triggered by the exit survey of the recent graduates in which many
felt being under prepared in the area of quantitative work.
Provost Bass stated that the third group is the Faculty Family Work Life Balance committee
chaired by Candice Nelson, and that the fourth and last group will be working on professional
graduate education. This fourth group has recognized that the graduate programs have no
uniform data systems on recruitment, admission, and conversion procedures. He stated that it
turns out that the infrastructure for such systems have evolved independently in the different
schools and colleges, so that today three schools have no electronic system, three have purchased
one particular computer platform, and that overall as many as six systems are in use across the
campus, each using AU's brand name differently. This means that this group's work will be to
acquire a university wide computer program for such systems. This will help define who is a
prospect, an applicant, or a provisional admit for all graduate levels.
Provost Bass then announced the first completely online program in International Relations. For
this purpose, he university has a partner provider (2U, Inc.) assisting with both technology and
course ware development. The program can be accessed worldwide and the university has
already received three applications. As a result AU has had good press coverage as a result of
this partnership. 2U only takes on one program per substantive area in the United States to
partner with. 2U is a multi-million dollar investment providing state of the art design and
configuration for its programs. 2U has worked with the University of Southern California in
Education and Social Work, Georgetown University on Nursing, George Washington University
on Public Health, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in Public Affairs. AU was
competing for this partnership and made a very compelling case as to what would be offered.
Provost Bass stated that the program is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2013.
Provost Bass also stated that some faculty had visited Deltech, another online provider based in
Chicago. This company works with many universities in the same field of study, does not
provide the same level of capital investment that 2U provides, but provides the infrastructure,
marketing assistance, and designers to work with the faculty to create the course ware. They
invest millions of dollars and bring a lot of expertise to the task, but the intellectual work product
remains entirely AU's. There are two certificate programs under discussion. The first is what is
called the second generation online programs which might be a hybrid program. About half a
dozen programs been proposed by the units thus far. Deltech has looked at them and Provost
Bass stated that he guesses in about a year or so from now there might be a handful of on line
programs, not courses, but programs using Deltech's technical support. There is no agreement yet
with Deltech, but Provost Bass stated that he is prepared to issue a MOU stating that the
university is prepared to begin a negotiation for the firm to provide support. Our competitors,
George Washington University uses at least three different providers for on line support, and
Georgetown is using two. Negotiations will begin shortly.
The Provost stated that at the undergraduate level, faculty members are free to offer online
courses, but the university is not headed towards an online program for undergraduates at this
time. Its focus is on the highly competitive market place for Master's Degree courses. In
addition, MOOC’s, (Massive Open Online Courses) are today not a priority of the institution.
They are not for credit and they are open without the payment of fees or tuition.
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 2 of 10
Provost Bass stated that on line programs are taught differently than a professor would
going into the classroom and teaching a course. Experts in an area develop course ware which
needs to be updated periodically but can be taught at scale in terms of small groups by adjuncts
or graduate students overseen by the instructor of record. Only those faculty who are interested
will be provided time to develop the course ware under a license agreement or with some
additional compensation paid in a lump sum, with additional funds if there is a need for updating
the course over time. He stated that the university is still committed to a co-curricular intensive
undergraduate experience, but for adults worldwide interested in the quality of education AU can
offer in selected areas at the Master's level, there will be some programs delivered either face to
face and online or exclusively online. This plan has been presented to the Board of Trustees, who
have had a healthy discussion of the matter and gave full support to it.
Professor Abraham asked if there has been any consideration for those in pursuit of tenure to
become involved in the startup of these types of programs and how it will affect all expectations
of meeting tenure. Dean Peres stated that each case will be looked at individually and the
possibility of delay of tenure might be given for such involvement. She stated that we will be
discussing delay of tenure next and this might be part of completing the creation of that
procedure.
Provost Bass asked Professor Levinson from SIS if this issue has been addressed in the course of
SIS's rolling out their first online program. Professor Levinson stated in response that
involvement in the program is strictly voluntary and that there is a lot of excitement about this
new opportunity. Most of the persons that volunteered are senior faculty with tenure.
Professor Burke asked Professor Nelson to let the senate know the status of the Work Life
Balance Committee. Professor Nelson stated that there is a subcommittee of the Benefits and
Budget Committee that has been looking at emergency care facilities and procedures. They met
with some of the providers’ after Thanksgiving to discuss the various services. She stated that the
committee that she is chairing will also be meeting with the Benefit’s sub-committee in a week
to discuss their recommendations. The committee will also be looking at best practices at other
universities and inventorying resources for faculty on campus not in one central location.
Delay of Tenure – Phyllis Peres
Dean Peres stated that last year the senate passed a resolution in regards to early tenure that was
passed by the Board of Trustees to allow tenure line faculty to come up for early tenure if they
wanted to and had support from their chair and dean. Now we are looking more at what the
university currently has as a policy on delay of tenure which is nothing. There has been a policy
established for a modified work arrangement signed by the provost and CFO and VP and
Treasurer Don Myers. Embedded in that policy is a paragraph that reads, “For tenure-track
faculty, requests for modified duties may be combined with requests for parental delay of
consideration for tenure as specified in the Faculty Manual. A faculty member who is the
primary care-giver for a newly born or newly adopted child may postpone tenure consideration
for up to one year per event up to a maximum number of two years of delay, including all other
types of leave. All such delays must be requested and approved before the sixth, or final, year of
pre-tenure service.”
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 3 of 10
Dean Peres stated that this paragraph refers you to the Faculty Manual, and the faculty manual
very nicely refers you back to the modified work arrangement. This is why it is very important
that we come up with policy for the Faculty Manual and for the faculty. This not only provides
the university with the opportunity to come up with a robust delay of tenure policy, but it also
admits the possibility of examining other circumstances beyond those attending the newly born
or newly adopted child. The Dean and the Senate has put together a small committee, consisting
of Dean Peres, Bob Jernigan, and Candice Nelson. This committee is charged with bringing a
new policy to the table no later than the last Senate meeting in May. The committee would like
to have some focus groups to assist with this process. Currently Dean Peres stated that she has
been looking at each request and approving or disapproving them on a case by case basis. She
stated that she feels that this much discretion should not be in the hands of one person. The
university is very much in need of a renewed policy in this area.
Professor Dan Abramson asked if there is a current policy in place for requesting leave for the
birth of a new child. Dean Peres replied that there is a modified work arrangement policy that has
been put in place for that, and she has been approving other situations such as care for a spouse
or partner.
Professor Abramson asked whether there was a policy applicable across the campus, because
CAS faculty members have been able to make their own arrangements.
Professor Jernigan asked for some input from the Senate of examples of situations deserving
special leave or consideration no matter the school or unit involved. He requested that they be
sent to Professor Nelson, Dean Peres or Professor Jernigan.
Professor Burke stated that he would read the proposed resolution up for vote;
Whereas the Senate finds that the University’s present policies for modifying faculty work
arrangements due to a family and medical event, with particular regard to the delay if tenure
decisions, requires ad hoc treatment of faculty,
The Senate resolves to create a study committee consisting of three members, consisting
of the Dean of Academic Affairs, one at large senator selected by the Senate’s Executive
Committee, and the Chair of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Work/Life Balance Issues, to
review best practices, investigate University needs in this regard, and devise a new policy on
modified faculty work arrangements in order to amend the Faculty Manual, such new policy to
be reported to the Senate no later than its May, 2013, meeting.
Professor Burke called for the VOTE, and the amendment was passed unanimously in favor.
Prior Service – Phyllis Peres
Dean Peres stated that one question that has come up when files for action are being reviewed is
how to count prior service, particularly for those that might receive credit for two to four years of
prior service at another university. She stated that persons are awarded pre-tenure prior service if
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 4 of 10
they have been producing what we at this university would consider being the type of
scholarship, teaching and service that would move them forward to tenure if they had been the
whole time at AU. The question is then, how then do we compare that prior work with what is
produced at AU. There needs clarification in the language now in the manual.
In this regard, Professor Burke cited the following paragraph from the manual:
“Qualified candidates may elect to take up to two years of prior service towards tenure at
American University. The typical service credit is for one to two years, but Academic
units may also consider recommending appointments with up to four years of prior
service under special circumstances. Extensions of credit for prior service beyond two
years must be approved by the Dean of Academic Affairs in consultation with the
academic unit, teaching unit or other appropriate administrative unit, and the appropriate
dean. This service credit may be based on experience at another institution, generally one
of higher learning, but may include service at other types of appropriate institutions.
Faculty whom the university converts from non-tenure to tenure-line positions are also
eligible for service credits.”
Dean Peres then asked if the Senate would add the following sentence at the end of this
paragraph.
“Candidates given credit for prior service shall be required while at American University to
maintain at least the level of scholarly work for which credit was awarded.”
Professor Jernigan asked if the “level of scholarly work” was quantity or quality. Dean Peres
replied that it would be the quality.
Professor Abraham stated that he felt that his school has its own set of policies used as
guidelines. He gave an example of a faculty member that they hired that came in with a large
amount of prior service, but his previous work was managerial. He stated that he would hate to
have their future work at AU judged on what they did in the past. Dean Peres replied that this
addition to the manual applies only to scholarly work.
Professor Smith stated that earlier sections of the manual mention teaching, scholarship and
service, and that the definition of scholarly work might incorporate those three pieces.
Provost Bass stated that the problem is that someone here comes up for review and the question
is how much weight we give to the prior work. We do consider the prior work but we weigh
more heavily the current work that they are doing at AU. In the manual it is that trajectory and an
expectation of sustained and continuous work that counts, not as a bar to jump over, but a
pathway to a full professorship. The manual should be clear that this trajectory, expected upon
appointment here, is continued while here.
Dean Peres stated that is the heart of the question. We would not award four years to someone
that did not have a strong record of scholarship. An additional question is if this faculty member
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 5 of 10
does not continue to produce anything and does not have a research project that they are
following up on how their work weighed.
Professor Jernigan asked if the CFA has had input on this subject. Professor Burke stated that
this is not changing anything expected of the CFA.
Professor Levinson stated that she felt there was another section of the Faculty Manual that
stated and clarified this expectation of continued work. She pointed out the current Manual's
section 10b.
Dean Peres stated that possible changes to the language could be made as follows:
“Candidates given credit for prior service shall be required while at American University to
maintain and sustain a trajectory of continued scholarly work consistent with the unit’s
guidelines.”
After several edits to the wording of the paragraph, the final changes were read by Professor
Burke as follows:
“Candidates given credit for prior service shall be required while at American University to
maintain and sustain continuous scholarly work consistent with the unit’s guidelines and with
section 10b of the Faculty Manual.”
Professor Burke called for the senate to vote. The senate VOTED and the amendment to the
Faculty Manual was passed in favor of unanimously.
Budget Issues – John Nolan
Professor Nolan stated that the Executive Committee took some of the issues that have already
been discussed in the Senate and condensed them into five items. He stated that he would like to
review each item and answer any questions about them.
1. That as to salaries, the academic budget maintain efforts to add new, fully supported
tenure lines, to fill empty lines, and to afford faculty merit increases in order to raise tenure-line,
Assistant Professor salaries to market or AAUP level 1 competitive with comparable
universities; that the University’s term faculty be moved to multi-year base lines wherever
appropriate across the University; and that that term faculty further receive market salary
increases when promoted in rank.
Professor Abraham stated that the assistant professor salary levels are at a good level but the
associate level is low. He asked if there is a problem with the associate level salaries.
Provost Bass stated that campus wide the university is proud to say that even during the
economic downturn in the last four years, the university, having started the downturn with
AAUP level one average salaries for full professors and associate professors, has continued
during the downturn with an average three percent increase. The assistant professors have
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 6 of 10
historically combined those who are tenure track with term assistant professors at well below the
AAUP level one guideline. Having now broken that information out to show what is the true
assistant professor salaries are, as a result the university is still below the AAUP level one
guidelines. "We have closed the gap but we are below," he said.
Professor Nolan moved the discussion on to budget item number two:
2. That, as to benefits, the budget provide support, with co-payments, for emergency
family care and other work/life balance issues, and replace the jump in healthcare costs for
employees with a ramp or series of smaller steps taken during 2013-2014.
He stated that in 1992 an established cut off for lower paid employees whose paid portion of
insurance is a lower percentage if they earn less than $50,000 per year. Some university
employees have turned down pay raises because if they went over the $50,000 mark they would
pay more for their health insurance. This number has not been changed in twenty years and the
hope is to change the ramp to accommodate the rise in health care costs.
Provost Bass asked if this has been discussed with HR. Professor Nolan replied that it has and
they are working on new proposals to resolve this.
Item 3 is as follows:
3. That, as to instructional support, the budget encourage expansion of computer
classrooms as well as continued improvements in technology across the campus and software for
on-line teaching and learning for individual courses.
Professor Nolan stated that John Smith as the chair of the Information Technology Service
Committee should speak to this item. Professor Smith stated that the committee has submitted
two proposals seeking dedicated funding for both the Pen Opto and the Adobe Acrobat Pro for
all faculty. He stated that this might be overlapping what has already been presented from by
ATSC, but the hope is to be sure that we get dedicated support.
The overall concern is that more computerized classrooms be developed, with technology
available to support online education and provide funding for those students that cannot afford
their own computers.
Professor Nolan then ntroduced item 4 for discussion:
4. That the University decrease its annual contribution to the quasi-endowment and begin
to expend the income generated by it to enhance student financial aid, need-based scholarships,
and academic programs.
Professor Nolan stated that item 4 is both a new and old issue. He stated that 16 years ago AU
started putting a substantial amount of money into two places. The first is the enrollment
contingency fund and the other is the quasi-endowment. The enrollment contingency fund is now
fully charged. The fund is supposed to be fully funded at 5% of tuition and now there is over 20
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 7 of 10
million dollars in the enrollment contingency fund. In addition, there has been about $10 million
put in the quasi-endowment fund each year and that this fund has now accumulated to over $300
million. This is earning about $15 million per year in interest every year which is being
deposited back into the endowment. The committee would like the contributions or the income
generated from the quasi-endowment made available for academic use. He also stated that many
feel that even though this endowment is important and has helped the university’s financial
standing a lot, it has grown large enough that now some of it should support the operating
budget.
Professor Smith asked what a quasi-endowment is.
Professor Nolan replied that it is a reserve fund. It can be used for a specific purpose, such as to
fund a building. In AU’s case it was established as a tuition reserve because the university has
such a small endowment, it was feared that if enrollments dropped the university would be in
financial trouble and unable to balance its budget. The fund can be spent for such purposes as the
Board of Trustees designates.
Professor John Hayward stated that he was on the Budget and Benefits Committee when this
fund was established and was interested to know how this will affect the interest rates for bonds.
He stated that he knows the university is about to borrow a lot of money to build several
buildings and lenders underwriting this borrowing will be looking at the quasi-endowment. Is
this going to affect the interest rates the university pays for this borrowing?
Professor Burke stated that we already have a credit line that we are gradually drawing down. It
is like a construction loan so the rates are already set for the construction period.
Professor Nolan stated that his committee is not calling for a reduction in the endowment but
only to slow or stop the growth by using the interest that the fund is earning.
Professor Burke stated that this call should be seen in context, along with the revenue shortfalls
during the university's last two year budget cycle.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that agrees with the idea of using some of the interest for the issues
presented.
Professor Douglass stated that the fiscal discipline that the university has demonstrated by
putting money into the quasi-endowment is good for its credit rating, but that he agrees that it is
time to use some of the fund's earnings.
Professor Burke moved the conversation onto number 5:
5. That the University maintains its efforts to enhance the Bender Library’s eacquisitions and other scholarly data bases as well as software for teaching and administrative
tasks supportive of faculty.
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 8 of 10
Provost Bass stated that the cost of books and e-acquisitions has increased to the point of price
gouging. Faculty is thrilled to have the acquisitions, and their cost is becoming painful, but is
necessary.
Professor Sapieyevski stated that he is very happy with these issues being presented because it
shows that the Senate really cares about the future of the university and the value of AU’s
education.
Provost Bass stated that over the last four years and two budget cycles, the university has added
roughly 10 net new faculty lines every year. He stated that as a new budget is formulated this
year, faculty needs to understand that budget austerity is required; this will not be the same
budget as in the last two budget cycles; different and lower amounts may result.
Professor Nolan stated that this was one reason for item four.
Continued editorial conversations were had to edit and finalize language in the document.
Professor Burke stated that he would like a vote on the five reviewed items so that the Senate's
representatives to the University Budget Committee could present them there. The Senate
VOTED unanimously in favor.
For the Good of the Order – Barlow Burke
Professor Nolan stated that the Budget and Benefits Committee had a town hall that was peaceful
and with no demonstrations.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 9 of 10
Faculty Senate • December 12, 2012 Minutes
Page 10 of 10