Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
October 17, 2012
Professor Burke called the meeting to order at 2:33 PM
Present: Professor Barlow Burke, Candice Nelson, Jim Girard, Daniel Abraham, Sheila Bedford,
John Douglass, Larry Engel, Artur Elezi, Bryan Fantie, John Heywood, Bob Jernigan, Gwanhoo
Lee, Jie Lu, Nanette Levinson, Stacey Marien, John Nolan, Gemma Puglisi, John Smith, Shalini
Venturelli, Lacey Wootton, Elizabeth Worden, Provost Scott Bass and Dean of Academic
Affairs Phyllis Peres.
Approval of Minutes – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke asked the senators for comments, changes or questions to the minutes for the
September, 2012, meeting. The floor was opened for discussion. No changes were voiced so the
senate VOTED and the minutes were passed unanimously.
Welcome and Introduction – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke called the meeting to order and welcomed all senators. He requested all present
to announce their names prior to speaking to assist with the transcription of the minutes.
Chairs Report – Barlow Burke
Resolution to Abolish the Committee on Student Learning and Academic Engagement
Professor Burke stated that he was bringing forward a resolution to dissolve the Committee on
Student Learning and Academic Engagement, (SLAE). This committee was established by now
retired Professor Ira Klein and no one has taken the chair -- nor has it met – since the Professor’s
retirement. Most of the committee’s functions have been picked up by Vice President of Campus
Life Gail Hanson. He further stated (1) that one purpose of SLAE was to supervise the
department of athletics, NCAA rules requiring that there be faculty involvement in the life of
student athletes and (2) that Keith Gill, Director of Athletics, became concerned that the lack of
the committee functioning might soon cause the University to not be incompliance with NCAA
rules. Due to this concern, Professor Burke stated that he and Keith will be working on finding a
way to fulfill this component of SLAE’s mandate, in order to be sure the University continues to
meet the NCAA’s requirements in this regard.
Professor Burke further stated that Keith Gill is researching the NCAA requirements and that
Keith suggested that having the Director of Athletes report directly to the Senate would be one
means of compliance. This matter will be brought back to the Senate for further review and
approval.
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 1 of 10
Dean Peres stated that the University needs to be assured (1) that the supervisory capacity of
faculty over athletics really has to do the academic aspects of an athlete’s campus life, and (2)
that the Director will provide the Senate with the GPA’s of all athletes on all teams. This report
has to be that specific to be in compliance with the NCAA. Professor Burke agreed and stated
that between the Executive Committee and the Athletic Director an accurate report will be
created to meet the standards.
Professor Burke called for someone to move for the proposal to abolish the Committee on
Student Learning and Academic Engagement.
The proposal was moved, seconded, and the senate VOTED and the resolution passed
unanimously in favor.
Curriculum Review Timeline
Professor Burke stated that the Executive Committee has discussed the new curriculum review
policy for both the University’s units and for the Senate’s Undergraduate and Graduate
Curriculum Committees and stated that since recent revisions to this policy, the long used thirty
day review policy has been removed – with nothing replacing it. He reported that the Executive
Committee has further discussed the need for a timeline in the new policy that will take into
consideration the new growth and use of digital files and the creation of a customized Sharepoint
site. Because of these changes, a ten day review process has been suggested; it might be more
efficient and in line with current needs for timely decisions. Further discussion was needed, he
said, to clarify the review process in each of the schools and colleges and to ascertain how a
shortened review affects the Graduate and Undergraduate Curriculum Committees of the Senate.
Professor Engel stated that he agrees that a process with a timeline needs to be established
allowing for enough time for review in the Curriculum Committees, avoiding as much as
possible the rush that occurs at the end of the review period. This problem is caused often by the
rush in trying to meet deadlines set for preparation of materials for meetings of the University’s
Board of Trustees. Making sure that the schools and colleges understand this process and know
these deadlines is a prerequisite for an accurate, comprehensive review of major curriculum
changes by the Senate’s Curriculum Committees.
Provost Bass stated that any timeline needs to be phrased in such a way that “up too” ten days or
whatever timeframe is decided, is given, because there are many curriculum proposals can be
reviewed with less time, sometimes in as little as 48 hours. This “up to” phrasing makes it clear
that a Curriculum Committee review does not have to take the maximum time given by the
policy.
As to unit review, Professor Girard stated that currently the review process starts with a thirty
day review by the units, schools, and colleges; and that that review is launched in Today@AU.
This is the official notification. For clarification, he further stated that the Senate Committee’s
work is a review trying to ensure that there are no duplication of courses.
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 2 of 10
Provost Bass stated that the proposals often use courses within units other than the proponent’s,
and often state that no other resources are required for them. In this instance, confirmation must
be obtained that the other units have enough resources to take on the additional workload or
volume of classes. He stated that he was not sure if it was commonly understood that a unit’s
commenting on these proposals involved more than just approving and supporting a new
program; that the necessary resources may have to be mustered by the approving units, schools,
and colleges.
Professor Burke proposed that the Senators endorse a “up to 14 day” review. The motion was
VOTED on and the senate approved it unanimously in favor.
Ad-Hoc Joint Task Committee for Family Work Life Balance
Professor Burke stated that recent events produced a letter to Provost Bass and Dean Peres in
regard to issues concerning emergency child care, breast feeding on campus, and various and
more general family work/ life balance issues. He stated that he and Dean Peres met with some
of the signatories to the letter and that they proposed the creation of a task force to report this
year on such matters.
Professor Burke proposed a resolution that a task force be organized, composed of not more
than six members appointed by the Provost or the Provost and the Senate, and that the task force
be authorized to review and investigate the issues of services and practices involving family
work/ life balance.
Professor Marien stated that the resolution’s language with regard to child care might need to be
changed to “infant care” because there is already childcare provided on campus at the Child
Development Center.
Provost Bass stated that those with expertise should be on this committee and that perhaps
someone from Human Resources, the Dean of Academic Affairs, the chair of the Academic
Budget and Benefits Committee, the Office of Legal Counsel, and possibly a member from the
Executive Committee, should be appointed to the Task Force ex officio. This makes the group
larger so maybe the number six needs to be changed or adding in these members as ex-officio. He
also stated that representation from the effected parties is important as well.
Professor Burke stated the signatories with whom he and Dean Peres had met, were senior
faculty and that they said that there was a fear among junior faculty about coming to the meeting.
He stated that it would be nice to have seniors with expertise as well as persons who are
immediately affected by the additional services that might be offered. He thought that there were
various ways this matter might be handled, and Provost Bass might be correct that six members
might not be enough.
Professor Elizabeth Warden, as a member of the junior faculty, stated (1) that there has been a lot
of discussion in her unit (SETH) as to who the six members would be and how they would be
chosen. She said that a lot of her faculty colleagues did not sign the letter because they felt it did
not support their issues. She also reported (2) that her colleagues had other issues that they saw
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 3 of 10
as related to infant care on campus and support for nursing mothers, but (3) that because they did
not feel that the letter was expressly representative of their issues, (4) that now her colleagues
were worried that related issues were going to be side lined because her colleagues were not as
vocal as the faculty signing the letter. She urged that task force be authorized to take an
expansive look at the issues involved.
Provost Bass stated that this committee is on “work/ life balance,” a much broader topic than
those raised in the letter he had received, and he does not except that faculty members are afraid
to serve or be involved in this issue. This dialog is part of the University’s culture and he
expected a wide range of representation on the task force. He added that the reason he asked that
a Budget and Benefits Committee member be included on the task force is because of the
resource implications of the task force’s work. Besides infant care, elder care (called for in the
faculty manual) and spousal care might be investigated as well.
Professor Venturelli stated that there is also issues with school aged children. If we are to include
any issue on children we need to include all age groups.
Professor Levinson stated that since the letter, other issues that do not seem to all under the
“family work life balance” have been raised and she asked how and where these concerns can be
addressed.
Professor Burke replied that he senses that Professor John Nolan has been working on these
items because October is the month that the budget formulations are being created for the next
several years, so we need to address as much as we can as quickly as possible.
Professor Nolan stated that no mention of staff has been made in the Senate’s discussion so far,
and so he asked, will there be staff representation on this task force?
Professor Burke agreed staff should be represented, but stated that, because this was a faculty
Senate matter, the Senate should be clear on what its concerns are first.
Dean Peres stated that maybe the chair of the Staff Council (who also serves on the benefits
committee) should be included in the task force ex-officio. She also stated that maybe the task
force’s policy proposals can be presented in two versions (both stemming from a master policy)
in order to address the differences in faculty and staff policies.
Professor Warden also stated that one such difference might be that faculty often work at night
whereas most staff work more nine to five.
Provost Bass made another friendly amendment: to create this task force in consultation with the
Senate in terms of putting the suggested names forward to insure diversity and a robust and wide
range of opinions.
Dean Peres stated that the specifics of the letter received by herself and the Provost really
focused on family work life balance and that another issue raised in the letter, but not addressed
in this resolution involved lactation rooms for nursing mothers. There was an insinuation in the
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 4 of 10
letter that the University was not in compliance with D.C. law in this regard. She said that she
felt the task force should be looking at best practices at other universities in D.C. and work with
the Office of Legal Counsel to insure that the University does comply with D.C. law. She further
stated that if we want to get something accomplished this academic year, we need to focus on
family work life and address broader and related issues next year.
Further discussion was had to complete the final language of the resolution to be agreed on and
approved by the senate.
Professor Nolan stated that the Senate B&B Committee has already looked at best practices at
the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California. Also the benefits team has
looked at five potential companies that could provide emergency family care. The Senate B&B
Committee has already voted unanimously to push for this in the upcoming budget which would
be effective in May 2013. No promises, he said, but it is something the Committee is advocating.
Professor Puglisi suggested that maybe there could be implemented in each school or college a
core group of people that could assist other professors in teaching classes if there is an
emergency causing them not to be to teach their classes.
Professor Burke stated that this might be difficult to arrange in a lot of units as a result of size
and other issues.
The final resolution shall read as follows:
“Resolved, that the senate’s Executive Committee and the Office of the Provost
established an Ad Hoc Joint Task Force in Family Work Life Balance, composed of not more the
eleven faculty members (not including any advisory members appointed ex officio) of the
University appointed by the Provost and tasked to report in writing to the Senate; that this report
shall be given to the Senate no later than its May 2013 meeting; and the Task Force is
authorized to review, investigate and make recommendations as to University services and
practices for family work life balance, including but not limited to issues of child care, spousal,
family, or elder care.”
The senate VOTED unanimously in favor.
New Members to the Ad-Hoc Term Faculty Committee – Lacey Wootton
Professor Wootton reported that three new members are joining this committee as there are three
current members no longer able to serve on it: Anne Elguindi has left the University, Diane
Lowenthal is now an Assistant Dean, and Kimberly Calmyers no longer feels she can undertake
the committee’s work load. Their replacements are persons from the same units, so the make-up
of the committee is the same: the replacements are Michael Matos from the Library, Jeff Sosland
from SPExS, and Chris Edelson from SPA.
The senate VOTED unanimously in favor for the replacement faculty members.
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 5 of 10
Provost’s Report – Scott Bass
Provost Bass stated (1) that he was very happy with the turnout for the recent Faculty Retreat in
Cambridge, Maryland, and with the quality of the guest speakers; (2) that he wanted to thank the
Senate for its participation and for sponsoring activities; and (3) that the AU review on Saturday
evening was wonderful. He thanked everyone for a very successful retreat.
Provost Bass also stated that the faculty lost the faculty student basketball game. He stated it was
a close game, and that much improvement on the faculty’s part was made since the first year this
game was played. It was neck and neck throughout the entire game, and he said that the faculty
only lost 34-30 -- all faculty, he said, should please consider playing next year to win back the
title.
Academic Budget and Benefits Committee – John Nolan
Professor Nolan stated that the Senate Academic Budget Benefits committee feeds into the
University Budget Committee during this process. He stated that the big issues for submission to
the president are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tuition rate increase
Faculty and Staff salaries
Financial Aide
IT
Enrollment contingency
Quasi-endowment
New Revenue
These are the big issues that the Senate’s Budget and Benefits Committee is working on and will
be presented next week. He stated that an area of concern is the uncertainty in the national
economy. The University could have to make cuts in financial aid that might affect enrollment
and that it is hoping to have a contingency plan in place to prepare for all possibilities. Massive
capital projects totaling $429 million, undertaken over the next five years, give rise to a
Committee concern about parking logistics and the relationship of the facilities budget relative to
the academic budget of the University. As to salaries, the Committee considers that maintaining
competitive faculty salaries, staff salaries, and term faculty salaries (spread over an increasing
number of multiyear contracts awarded after a certain minimum number of years of service and
term faculty salary increases accompanying promotions in rank), should a priority for the
academic budget.
Professor Venturelli stated that well-endowed universities are experimenting with technology
and maybe AU needs to investigate this area to improve our financial standing by globalizing
some of our courses. This could bring more revenue to the University. She wanted to know if
this is something that the university is considering.
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 6 of 10
Provost Bass stated that the University’s revenue is tied to its enrollments. At the undergraduate
level, the University is not planning to grow enrollment because we want to increase the quality
of each class. So there will be little revenue change at the undergraduate level. We are trying to
improve the undergraduate retention rate, and if successful this will stabilize revenue. The
University’s six year graduation rate is below where it should be based on the quality of the
students admitted. So something is eroding our base. The other area is in innovation of courses,
certificates, and programs delivered to the adult market within the region. Our sister institutions
have done extremely well in this market, and the law school has done its own extended education
programs that have brought in truly millions of dollars of revenue to its bottom line. We are
talking to other outside vendors to assist us in this market -- so the answer is yes, the University
has to be more creative because the competition is doing more and we need to keep up with
course expansion to stay competitive.
Professor Puglisi asked where the University stands with student aid. She knows of students
leaving AU because of finances and that the university is using new marketing techniques, so she
asked, is this working?
Provost Bass stated that 29% of all tuition revenue for both undergraduate and graduate go to
financial aid that is separate from gifts. This provides the University with a healthy pool of
resources. He stated that what is being done differently since he arrived in 2008 is that some aid
money that was being use for merit aid to attract students with high achievement to the campus,
only to have some of them unhappy here, preferring to be at better known institution and leaving
after using some of this aid money. This made the University recalibrate its mix of merit and
need money, so that now fifty percent goes to merit and fifty percent goes to need. The goal is to
meet a 100% of a student’s needs. The Provost said that he is very close to meeting this goal and
these needs. Last year about one quarter of the student population was Pell eligible. This year the
percentage is 19% but only because of a change in federal regulations. According to new
numbers provided at the recent Faculty Retreat, a third of our students are low income. This
gives the campus a very different tone, In the past the University has had a very affluent student
population. There still are affluent students here, but the University has definitely expanded the
income, racial, diversity, geographical and political range of its students. The emerging issues
will not involve getting the students here, but in giving them an educational experience involving
study abroad and internships; even taking the metro can be a financial strain for these students;
these are the consequences of choices that the University has made and now the University needs
to make every effort to encourage these students to be successful here.
Provost Bass stated that he did believe that given the social mission of the University, being able
to provide these very talented students with great opportunities will have a very profound effect
on their lives. He also stated that he is very proud of AU’s achievements and compared to the
sister institutions it has done this well, but attracting students is only part of the story: the next
goal is to retain these students until graduation or until they launch their careers or go to graduate
school. This is why the 29% is fixed in the budget; if tuition rises, there is more money to be
devoted to financial aid. On the other hand, if the University raises tuition too much, the issue
becomes affordability. AU’s price is not the highest in the region. It is about the same as the out
of state prices at the University of Michigan. There are students on campus that will be fighting
for not zero but negative increases, and the implication of that would be drastic for the
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 7 of 10
maintenance of the University budget. The Provost said that these are difficult issues and the that
the University is attempting to push the institution forward while looking at ways to generate
additional revenue.
Professor Engel asked about the student tuition and fees percent change of 4.2% from fiscal year
2012-2013, is that same change anticipated based on tuition increase alone or enrollment
increases, or a combination of both?
Provost Bass replied that the tuition increase was lower last year and this cycle he stated that he
does not feel they can pull that off again. The University Budget Committee establishes a range
and then tries to stay within it,
Professor Abraham asked if the unionization issues for adjunct faculty is so small that it does not
appear on the charts presented
Provost Bass replied that negotiations between the union and the University are going well and
that so far it has been a harmonious, collaborative, and congenial process, and that this is very
important in terms of establishing a long term working relationship. The financial components
have yet to be worked out and they undoubtedly will have some effect on the budget in the next
cycle. This negotiation will probably not be completed this year, he said, but it is anticipated that
there will be changes in the way adjunct faculty are hired. The union is looking for some form of
job security after a member has taught here for a while so they can continue to teach a course
after they have taught it a number of times. This appears to be the majority of the Union’s
concerns. This negotiation will probably not be completed until January.
Professor Lee asked if the budgeting for the construction of new facilities has included the
possibilities of cost overruns. He asked, has this been considered?
Provost Bass stated that a number of the new facilities are revenue generating. The first year the
University will have to carry the debt but as to the new residence halls, they are designed to be
revenue neutral in terms of the debt and the revenue associated with it. In the negotiations
however, in terms of North Hall, the debt has to be paid for upfront but the dorm is scheduled to
open in August of 2013, so the debt is just while it is under construction. The Provost said that
the East Campus plan, as negotiated with the surrounding community, requires the University to
build two non-residential, buffer buildings there. This does affect the bottom line. There are costs
associated with those two buildings that would have been enough to build the underground
parking in that space. That results in a tighter financial arrangement there than for the other
construction now in process. Nonetheless, he stated that he believed that it was a good time to
undertake this construction, as companies were eager to work, and that the University has
benefitted from this environment, and also from the low interest rates on financing now
available.
The Provost said that the big construction issue today involves the law school. The law school
construction is of 312,000 square feet; it is scheduled to be open in 2016. This will require
University borrowing. The difference between the law school’s and, for example, the School of
Communications’ construction, is the law school is based on a RCM model, meaning that it is a
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 8 of 10
tub on its own bottom. The law school will also be responsible for paying for the building. They
have a number of models for doing this, including a fundraising portion, tuition, and their
institutional savings. The WCL Dean has stated that the school will be able to support a world
class building on the Tenley site.
Professor Burke stated that he has heard from the Vice Presidents for Finance that they have
hired independent cost estimators as they have gone along so they are using various consulting
services. They are taking precautions but know that there will be overruns. He stated that he
agreed with the provost that getting the resident halls up and running is important in generating
revenue.
Provost Bass said that another deal with the city that is less demanding then the other privates is
the university must have by 2016 67% of the freshman in residence halls on campus. We are not
to this number right now but if all goes as planned we will meet the 2016 deadline.
Professor Nolan stated that in the benefits area of the budget, health care costs are going up next
year. Kaiser Permanente is scheduled to go up 3.4%, but CareFirst has a 0% increase for the
current plan, with an option to switch to a PPO plan that would increase by 3.7%. However, that
option was rejected in a Committee vote for this year. The dental plan will increase by 7.4%.
These are all below the national averages. One of the reasons that CareFirst has a 0% increase is
because of various programs that have been working. Express Scripts mail in prescriptions has
really helped. They are also trying to cut back on emergency room visits and implementation of
the wellness programs.
Professor Engel asked if the emergency room visits include urgent care facilities.
Professor Nolan stated that Kaiser has built in urgent care facilities, but CareFirst does not.
Professor Venturelli asked if the co-pays would be going up.
Professor Nolan stated that he was not certain, but he did not think they would not increase.
Professor Nolan stated that another issue involves the recent healthcare reform. In January 2013,
the University will be required to insure all its employees. At this time 25% of employees are not
insured; it is not certain if this is because they are insured by their spouses or partners. This may
create a significant change in plan enrollment in 2014.
Lastly there is the emerging issue of work/life balance. One possible model is the emergency
family care model used by the University of Pennsylvania. It involves a contract with an outside
provider. The University pays an upfront fee for this service, which entitles faculty and staff to a
certain number of emergency family care days with a provider coming to the home. There would
be a co-pay, which for one company was $6.00/hr with a minimum of 4 hours.
Dean Peres stated that there are five options on the table for emergency child and elder care.
Anne Joiner, Director of Benefits, called her and asked for Faculty names to form a committee to
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 9 of 10
review this. She stated that she gave some of the names from the signature letter that was sent to
the Provost and herself.
Professor Nolan stated that one item that was not discussed involved IT budget needs requested
by the Senate’s IT Committee.
For the Good of the Order – Barlow Burke
Professor Burke asked if there was anything for the good of the order. There were no issues
raised.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM
Faculty Senate •October 17, 2012 Minutes
Page 10 of 10