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, Larry Engel, Larry Engel, Artur Elezi, Bryan Fantie, John Heywood, Bob
Jernigan, Gwanhoo Lee, Jie Lu, Nanette Levinson, Stacey Marien, John Nolan, Gemma Puglisi,
Jerzy Sapieyevski, John Smith, Shalini Venturelli, Patricia West, Lacey Wootton, Elizabeth
Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Phyllis Peres
Welcome and Introduction – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone.
Chairs Report – Barlow Burke
New Athletics Reporting Process to the Senate
Professor Burke stated that after dissolving the Committee on Student Learning and Academic
Engagement, Keith Gill, the Director of Athletics, proposed a system to meet the NCAA’s expectation that the Faculty oversee the needs and academic standing of all athletes at AU. He stated that he met with Dean Peres, Vice President if Campus Life Gail Hanson, and Keith Gill to come up with a reporting system or process that would meet this expectation. It was decided that until the new Athletics Director was hired to replace Keith, this discussion will continue and the Executive Committee is open to suggestions on how to fulfill this requirement.
Fast Track Curriculum Process
Professor Burke stated that two weeks ago the Senate was asked to fast track some curriculum proposals from Kogod for a new Masters in Marketing. Due to the decline in MBA applications
AU’s business school, business schools in general are trying to redo the curricula to break up what would have been the MBA into a series of masters and certificate programs. Kogod’s plan was to have this program reviewed by the senate curriculum committee and to the Board of
Trustees for the meeting in November. This was to insure that enough time for marketing and registration for classes for the fall of 2013. If the review did not take place early and was held back for the February or May board meeting, the chances of getting students into this new program would be impossible. So the Senate’s officers were asked to fast track these proposals; this meant that the officers of the senate, along with the chair of the graduate curriculum committee, read and evaluated the proposals. Professor Burke stated that this made him very uncomfortable. He also said that he would like to establish a timeline of dates going back from the board of trustees meeting so that there is enough time for the curriculum committee to complete a normal review for most cases and make this information available to all those persons
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 1 of 7

who are responsible for the process of formulating new curriculum proposals in the units, schools and colleges.
Professor Burke stated in regards to budget matters, Professor John Nolan and Academic Budget and Benefits Committee have been working very hard discussing many areas. These include;
•
Family Care/Emergency Medical Care
•
Health Care costs in 2014 due to Obama Care
•
Term Faculty Budget issues to include Multi-Year contracts after a certain length of time to be determined and to include pay increases
•
Cost of Living increases for all
•
Instructional support for faculty mainly in the IT area to include classroom and lab support
Professor Burke stated that the crunch time for the budget presentation by the provost to the president is most likely going be in December. He said that he will most likely have to call another meeting in December in order to address any additional budget issues and to finalize the ones just presented.
Professor Burke stated that tomorrow is the November Board of Trustees meeting and with the concern of possible representation from students on campus who might come to discuss their dislike for the probable tuition increases, he presented to the senate a resolution from the senate to the board. The resolution read:
WHEREAS the Faculty Senate recognizes that tuition costs impose financial burdens on students while enrolled at the University and after graduation,
AND WHEREAS the Senate recognizes that the University is tuition dependent,
AND WHEREAS the senate recognizes that the University’s tuition increases must be proportional to the University’s educational and operating costs,
AND WHEREAS the Senate further recognizes that a tuition-freeze does not permit the
University’s faculty to meet the students’ continuing, expanding educational needs and experiences,
THE SENATE resolves that the Board of Trustees support a rise in tuition consistent with increases in the University’s operating and educational costs.
Resolved by vote the Senate at its meeting of November 14, 2012, and prepared for insertion in the minutes of the Senate and for respectful presentation to the University’s Board of Trustees.
Professor Burke asked the committee for their input. Professor Girard stated that he would second the resolution.
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 2 of 7

Professor Sapieyevski stated that he disagreed. He said that he believes that the budget process is unconscionable, regardless of the opinion whether we are for or against tuition increase. He believed that the Senate was being asked to support moving about $10-$20 million dollars from students, without any clear statement as to why this was necessary, aside from veiled threats that otherwise there will be cuts to academic support; that, despite constant raises of tuition, in real terms the budget for academic support has grown more slowly than non-academic expenditures.
He expressed shock that the senators lack a transparent financial report on the budget, and thought that to vote for a tuition raise without an inclusive discussion of the merits of such decision, and consultations with your respective constituencies, would be negligent and unconscionable. He suggested that there might be an argument that maybe no raise would be the best marketing tool and a show of leadership for the University, leading to national exposure and a better or more selective enrollment pool.
Professor Nolan stated that he felt that the tuition increase was a modest proposal. All four faculty members on the University Budget committee supported a modest increase just to pay for the increased costs of running the University. There is a national problem with rising tuition costs and this is not something that can be solved right now.
Professor Sapieyevski reiterated his view that perhaps the University would consider a tuition freeze setting a standard for others to follow. This might bring better enrollments and show that
AU is a progressive university.
Professor Venturelli stated that is very important that the university be resourced at a rate that is commensurate for the kind of strategic objectives that the University wishes to achieve and the market in which find ourselves.
The Senate VOTED , 16-2, in favor of the Resolution
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated that over the past four years there has been $150 million dollars added to the budget to strengthen academic programs. He further stated that he is going to share some of the milestones that have been accomplished and that all should be very proud of. AU is a university that provides support to students, not just in the classroom but when they go out into the community, when they travel abroad and internships. All of these require institutional resources that may not be in the academic affairs budget but is vital to the University. When discussion is had about the proportion that goes to the academic functions of the institution, there is not much that isn’t part of the academic functions of the institution. Even the residential housing budget has developed academic programs in these facilities designed to make them living and learning communities. There have been so many changes to the academic programs in the past few years that it is staggering, but something to be very proud of.
Provost Bass stated that, published in the Chronicle yearly, is a list of the top producers of
Fulbright students by type of institution; on this list, last year AU had four students so the university did not make the list of top producers. This past year, Dean Peres talked with the
Office of Merit Awards and they produced 14 awards and 48 applications, putting AU ahead of
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 3 of 7

larger research institutions and among the nation’s top producing institutions. He thanked everyone for this accomplishment and Phyllis Peres for her hard work in this regard. He also said that every year Open Doors published the percentage of students enrolling in a study abroad program; that last year the University placed 10 th
in the country for a percentage of students that have gone on a study abroad during their undergraduate years; and that this year AU came in 5 th
.
All of these milestones require extensive resources.
Finally, the Provost reported on the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). This is a study AU participates in every other year which compares peer research universities with regard to the academic engagement of the undergraduates. It measures freshman and seniors in terms of the level of rigor, intensity of the programs, the challenge of the courses, the kinds of assignments etc. This is an extensive survey that students fill out to determine the health of the university and the quality of teaching. He stated that one of the things that was important when he came to AU was to balance research and teaching equally. AU is a college centered research university. There are institutions that are very heavily research and less teaching and vice versa.
The concern was what would happen to the teaching quality if more focus was placed in research. Compared to the University’s competitors, its freshman and senior students have ranked us very well.
Provost Bass stated that these are three milestones that AU has never before met and is the result of everyone’s hard work. The University has been able to maintain merit increases throughout the recession which many other institutions have been unable to do so. Nonetheless, this
University is dependent on tuition and enrollment. This year the University will balance its budget but this task is a lot harder because this summer we did not meet the enrollment projections and revenue projections, falling below the enrollment numbers projected at the graduate and other levels. This affects the next budget cycle, making it more difficult to invest in new programs, faculty, and new emerging fields of study. The University needs, however, to keep moving into these new areas in order to attract students, keep morale high, and compete with other institutions. This means a greater need to increase tuition.
Provost Bass stated that he has formed the Faculty Work Life Balance Committee in collaboration with the Senate and Professor Candice Nelson has agreed to chair the committee.
The Board will be meeting Nov 17 & 18 and there will be three new programs being reviewed to include a Master of Science in Management, Masters of Science in Marketing and the first
University full scale online program, a Master of Arts in International Relations, which is partnered with 2U. Provost Bass stated that the President has issued his memorandum to the Vice
Presidents and Provosts calling for strategic objectives and the budget proposals for 2014 and
2015. As he has done in the past, he will continue to post on the University’s website the objectives for the last two years and the measures taken to achieve those objectives. This information makes plain that, if there is no tuition increase, the Senate will have to decide on cuts -- not be something that he wants to do without Senate input.
Professor Venterelli asked the Provost whether, with the University needing new revenue, it might need to raise the caps on the number of students, both at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 4 of 7

Provost Bass stated that the goal has been at the undergraduate level to maintain stability and not grow to improve in selectivity and what’s called the yield rate (the percentage of those offered admission who accept the offer) among the 17 thousand applications the University received last year. The goal is quality at the undergraduate level. Retention is also very important. The university retained from the freshman to sophomore year 89.7%. If this number can be increased by a couple percentage points and carry that forward for four years this would amount to a serious revenue increase. The problem is that the university trend is to loose students at each stage. The Masters is the growth area. While we are not growing the number of undergraduates there is the issue of balance. Unfortunately the Masters area has not grown in the last two years, a matter of concern. Additionally when negotiating with the zoning authorities, they insisted on requiring AU by 2014 to house 67% of its undergraduate population. With all of the housing expansion under construction, AU will just meet the 67% requirement.
Professor Sapieyevski asked about the median salary of graduates and the endowment.
Provost Bass stated that a survey of graduates is conducted annually 6 months after graduation: roughly 80% are either employed or are graduate students. The graduate level is higher in regards to employment and varies by school. The salary levels we do have for the Kogod school are not among the highest, somewhere around $60,000 which is below some other schools in the region. Institutional Research does have a survey with the median salary. He also replied that the endowment is about $450 million, ranking the University among the top one hundred comparable institutions, but not where we would like it to be. This area is one ripe for development and the University has a team working hard to make improvements.
Professor Burke agreed that student retention is the cheap way to meet budget. He feels that more information about the costs of education and the financial payoffs of continuing to a degree needs to be communicated, in his case to law students.
Provost Bass stated that the law school is financially strong. They are the 6 th
largest in the US, and in international law, it is ranked number one, and in clinical law number eight. It is the only
AU unit that is ranked in the top 50 in U.S. News & World Report law school rankings.
Professor Venturelli asked what the top two reasons are for students leaving in their first years.
Professor Lyn Stallings stated that it’s not money. Stress and mental illness are the top reasons, along with wanting to be closer to home. AU has a very large collection area for students, so this puts us a higher risk of losing students who get homesick.
Provost Bass stated that another issue lies with students that are away from home and not taking the medications that are prescribed for them, so that as a result, their struggle with their illnesses increases while on campus.
The Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies, Lyn Stallings, stated that a student’s sense of community is also important. Some students report that the academic challenge they find at AU for honors students is insufficient. They study 15-20 hours per week and this is not much time.
Some feel under challenged, are not impressed with their peers, and so they feel they do not fit
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 5 of 7

in. As a result, she is proposing changing the honors program so that a more rigorous curriculum will challenge them.
Undergraduate Regulations Changes – VP for Undergraduate Studies, Lyn Stallings
VP Stallings stated that, 1) there are editorial changes to Section 5 to make it clearer that students are going to be held accountable for reporting errors in grading or course grades in a timely manner. 2) Section 5.8, Academic Probation and Dismissal, suggested editorial changes are; a) When placed on academic probation students are responsible on checking with financial aid to determine if any additional criteria are required to retain financial aid. b) Classes taken during the summer, if taken while a student is on probation, will be counted as one term out of the three allowed. After three semesters students will be dismissed from the University if they have not achieved good academic standing. c) Students will be dismissed immediately if their GPA falls below a 2.0 after completing 24 credits (excluding courses in which the recorded grade is a W, I or IP), falls below 1.0 (D).
The Senate VOTED and approved all changes unanimously in favor.
Joint Appointment and Junior Faculty Teaching Release – Phyllis Peres
Dean Peres stated that joint appointment will be discussed at the December 5 th
meeting but that she would ask that the senators take a look at the current Faculty Manual and at its description of a joint appointment. For an affiliate appointment the Manual is more detailed. She also stated that joint appointments are the more important appointments because they involve the splitting of a tenure line between two units. She promised new language for the Manual for the Senate’s
December meeting, focusing on (1) achieving a joint appointment when one is an existing faculty member and for the creation of a new line for the appointment, as well as (2) a sample memorandum of agreement provided by Dean Peter Starr, used at the University of Southern
California and stating the conditions applicable to that institution’s joint appointments.
For informational purposes, Dean Peres stated that, with regard to the Junior Faculty Teaching
Release, the University has a program for tenure line faculty that, in their third year of appointment, gives them a semester’s release from teaching, to enable them to do research. With the Faculty Manual having a third year review, it is awkward is to give a junior faculty release in year three when the third review results in a decision not to reappoint. Dean Peres said that she would suggest amending the Manual to make the release contingent on reappointment and given in the fourth year; this will mean that the review and the release would most likely extends over three semesters, with adjustments for departmental needs and for junior faculty applying for outside funds that might extend this time period involved. These are what the changes will be so this is just informational for you. These new guidelines are now posted on the Dean of Academic
Affairs’ web site.
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 6 of 7

Term Faculty Manual Changes – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton stated that the term faculty committee has reviewed the Faculty Manual looking for inconsistencies in regards to term faculty. These changes include; a) That the Faculty Manual be amended so that ALL faculty (including term faculty have the protections afforded by the Manual’s language on academic freedom.
The Senate VOTED and it was passed unanimously in favor. b) That CFA duties be amended to include the evaluation and review of term faculty files in the event that disagreement between a teaching unit and its dean.
Provost Bass was asked what his view was and he stated the issues arising in the event of such disagreements are already handled by the Dean of Academic Affairs.
Professor Burke stated that this review would most likely be relatively little used and so would not add substantially to the CFA’s workload.
Dean Peres stated that the CFA does not review term faculty files unless there is a promotion involved or in the event of a disagreement. The CFA does not review the renewals and reappointments of term faculty.
Librarian Stacey Marien stated that the CFA had discussed this issue and voted on it: 6-2, the committee voted in favor of this revision to the CFA’s charge. The CFA did want to accommodate term faculty, wanting to treat them like other faculty. Overall she stated that the
CFA felt it was appropriate to include this revision in the CFA’s charge.
The Senate VOTED and the revision to the CFA Duties was passed unanimously in favor. c) That term faculty vote in elections for the CFA, Grievance, and Hearing Committees
The senators agree that this revision was necessary.
The Senate VOTED and it was passed unanimously in favor.
For the Good of the Order – Barlow Burke
Professor burke asked if there was any issues for the good of the order. None were raised. He wished all a Happy Thanksgiving.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 PM
Faculty Senate • November 14, 2012 Minutes Page 7 of 7