Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
September 1, 2010
Professor Riddick called the meeting to order at 2:20
Present: Professors Leigh Riddick, Lyn Stallings, Jim Girard, Naomi Baron, Barlow Burke, Al
Cheh, Dan Mullins, Brian Forst, Clement Ho, Larry Engel, Phil Jacoby, Sarah Menke-Fish, Mary
Mintz, Jonathan Loesberg, Kathryn Montgomery, Lenny Steinhorn, Jie Lu, Phil Brenner,
Michael Wilkerson, Provost Scott Bass and Dean Peres.
Welcome and Introduction, Leigh Riddick
Professor Riddick began by welcoming everyone to the first Senate meeting of 2010.
Faculty Retreat
University Librarian Bill Mayer and Dean Peter Starr presented the latest information on the
faculty retreat. They said the retreat was scheduled for Oct 15 and 16 in Cambridge Maryland
and that the topic of the retreat was, “How to Build a More Vibrant Academic Community.”
University Library Mayer said the keynote speakers would be: (1) Professor Britt Kirwan who is
the Chancellor for the University of Maryland; and (2) Mr. Jeff Kallay who is an expert on
admissions procedures, and has been working with the AU admission’s office. At that time there
were 164 faculty registered for the retreat.
Report of the Provost, Scott Bass
Provost Bass welcomed everyone back to a new year and gave his report.
Enrollment
Provost Bass highlighted information about trends in the enrollment from the Office of
Institutional Research:
• Quality of applicants continued to increase
• SAT Pilot Program was extended for next year’s class till November 1, 2010
• Due to greater enrollment numbers the University had already exceeded budget
projections
• The University’s first class of Fredrick Douglas Distinguished Scholars includes six very
elite students that will strengthen the academic profile within the honors program.
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 1 of 7
• AU’s social economic status measure (SES), involving lower income, and higher
achieving minority students expanded. Funds were shifted to 100% need and met 80% of
eligible students needs.
General Announcements from the Provost
•
The NSSE, (National Service of Student Engagement) report is in. The community
should be very proud because all ten metrics have improved for freshman and seniors.
Results are a direct result of good teaching and outstanding scholarship.
•
AU Central has opened offering a combination of student services (financial aid,
registration and student accounts) in a one stop location to better serve the students. AU
Central is running very smoothly.
•
Dean Richard Durand is retiring from the Kogod School of Business after six years of
service. The University wishes him well in his future endeavors.
•
The General Education Task force provided their report that includes revisions and
updates to the General Education Program. This report will be a future Senate agenda
item.
•
The Research and Grants infrastructure task force has provided budget recommendations
for ways to strengthen our research and grant-writing capabilities.
•
Provost Bass reported that, over the summer, a group of faculty lead by Mary Hanson
applied to the National Science Foundation for a major grant to fund the purchase of a
high end computational machine. Results are still not finalized but the group has received
a very high score in their first round of review. This is a great achievement. He also
reported that that a junior faculty member Jeremiah Dittmar in Economics received an
NSF grant of $165,000 to fund his research on the printing press and its effect on the
European economy. Also, Daniel Sayers received $200,000 from the National
Endowment for the Humanities.
Dean of Academic Affairs Report
Dean Peres presented a copy of the omnibus ad that is currently with the Chronicle for the tenure
line searches that are underway now for the 2011-2012 year. She asks that all Senators
participate as much as possible with the hiring phase for the coming year. The university brought
in 32 new tenure line faculty for this year. They are the most diverse group of faculty that the
university has brought in for many years. Already they have a number of linkages in their
research areas particularly in health, environment and human rights, and some are coming in
with a significant amount of funding.
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 2 of 7
Dean Peres said that one of her duties as DAA is to serve as AU’s affirmative action officer.
She will be looking at search procedures carefully to make sure that the university has a very
diverse and highly qualified pool. She plans to meet with as many of the candidates as possible.
Dean Peres added that she wants to take a look at the academic unit review process that has been
undertaken in the past few years. The university has been reviewing three academic units per
year. The units under review for this year will be Computer Science, Anthropology and Justice
Law and Society. She said that the academic review process is set up to be as transparent as
possible and drafts will be posted either on the DAA website or the Provost website. Please
review and provide feedback. The objective of this procedure is to help raise the unit’s academic
excellence and to collectively move all units forward.
Dean Peres also asked Senators and faculty in units to review the draft of the self study outline.
This outline should answer some very specific questions and should allow faculty in the unit to
determine: (1) where they are located in the field, (2) future direction in their field, (3)
characteristics that make them distinct, and (4) help them identify the areas to focus on in the
future.
General Senate Announcements
Professor Stallings said that due to the absence of the administrative support staff for the Senate
and problems with recordings of the Senate meetings last year, the minutes and reports are not
yet completed for review. After a review of agendas, the Executive Committee approved the
following measures to handle the minutes. Only complete minutes from the January 20, 2010,
January 27, 2010 and May 5, 2010 meetings will be posted. All other dates were meetings that
focused on the revisions to the Faculty Manual. Records of these remaining meetings are
captured in the summaries that Professor Stallings drafted and issued to the entire AU faculty
after each meeting. When the minutes are ready, the former Senate members will review the
minutes and the summaries for accuracy.
Professor Riddick informed the Senators that at the first meeting of each year it is tradition to
elect two Senators from the Senate membership to serve on the Executive Committee: one
Senator is elected from the At-Large Senators and one Senator is elected from the General
Senate membership. Two volunteers (Professor Brian Forst and Professor Mary Mintz)
volunteered to serve. The floor was opened for additional nominations and none were made.
The Senate VOTED in favor of Brian Forst continuing to fill the At-Large position: (19 in
favor, 1 abstention and 0 apposed).
The Faculty Senate VOTED in favor of Mary Mintz serving as the General Senator on the
Executive Committee: (19 in favor, 1 abstention and 0 apposed).
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 3 of 7
Professor Riddick said that the Senate needs to consider the slate of candidates to serve as
representatives for the faculty membership on the Board of Trustees.’ Senate approval of the
individuals serving in these positions is required.
These members are:
• Academic Affairs – Pat Aufderheide
• Alumni Affairs and Development – Nanette Levinson
• Athletics – Bob Karsh
• Audit – Phil Jacoby
• Campus Life – Larry Engel
• Communication – Lenny Steinhorn
• Finance and Investment – Ron Anderson
• Trusteeship – Jim Girard
• Trusteeship and Finance and Investment – Leigh Riddick
• Academic Affairs and Alumni Affairs and Development – Lyn Stallings
Professor Riddick opened the motion for discussion.
The Faculty Senate VOTED to unanimously approve the slate.
Professor Riddick informed the Senators that the Senate Committees have been populated except
for two committees which are waiting for their final elections. She also asked the Senators that
have not already done so take a look at the new Faculty Senate website which has been
extensively re-designed and is more professional and user friendly.
Professor Riddick concluded that the primary focus of the Senate this year will be to finish the
revisions of the Faculty Manual and revise the Academic Rules and Regulations. A lot of work
was done over the summer by the Executive Committee Summer Working Group to prepare for
these reviews. It included as many members as were available from the 2009-2010 Executive
Committee and new members elected to the current Executive Committee. The participants on
this committee were Mary Mintz, Tony Riley, Dan Mullins, John Douglass, Kay Mussell, Phyllis
Peres, Rosemary Wander, Leigh Riddick, Lyn Stalling, Jim Girard, and Scott Bass. Professor
Riddick thanked this group of people for the outstanding preliminary work done over the
summer that allows the Senate to begin the review immediately.
Executive Committee Summer Working Group Faculty Manual Update
Professor Stallings introduced the procedures for review of the Revised Faculty Manual Part II.
Last year the Senate finished their review of the first two-thirds of the manual, leaving the
remaining sections for the current Senate’s review. The second draft was reviewed by the Ad
Hoc Faculty Manual Committee and was sent out to all members of the faculty for comments
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 4 of 7
during the winter break of 2009 and 2010. The Senate Executive Committee, the Deans, the
Provost and the Office of General Council provided additional comments Summer Working
Group on the remainder of the draft during the past summer. This draft was also reviewed by
external council, Elizabeth Meers from the Law Offices of Hogan Lovells. Ms. Meers was
selected for her expertise in how well policies in faculty manuals stand up in court.
The Faculty Senate will begin a line by line review of the Summer Working Group’s Revised
Faculty Manual Part II. After the document is amended, it will be sent out for faculty and
faculty administrator input. That input will be compiled and the Faculty Senate will do a second
and final review of the Manual. When revisions are completed by the Senate the document will
be given to Anne Frankie for review. Ms. Frankie served as external council to the Senate and
has a background in AAUP policies and ensuring the protection of faculty rights.
Professor Stallings also said that after each review meeting, an email will be sent to the faculty
apprising them of the changes to the draft Manual. All resources and changes will be available
on blackboard. A summary will also be provided that includes an overview of the changes.
Professor Riddick said in order to help new Senators understand the process, the past Faculty
Senate members realized they would not be able to complete the revision to the Faculty Manual..
The Senate decided to divide the manual into two parts. This second part of the manual is the
draft revised by the Summer Working Committee and while doing the revisions, the committee
sought legal feed back in advance to protect the university and the faculty.
Professor Stallings then discussed the final version of the front part of the manual which was
approved by the Board of Trustees. Some faculty has already submitted proposed amendments to
the Manual. The Senate passed two friendly amendments that were editorial changes in sections
7b and 9c, The Senate passed the friendly amendments. Professor Stallings said that these will
be included with the summary to be sent out to the faculty.
Two additional amendments were discussed:
•
Amendment 11f, Committee on Faculty Actions (proposed changed in italics
below), was briefly discussed by the Senators. Professor Stallings asked Senators
to discuss this proposal with their colleagues so that the Senate could take action
in the next Senate meeting.
Committee on Faculty Actions Review
The committee will review the file and the previous recommendations. In the interest
of equity, the committee will also determine if the file has been handled according to
the written procedures of the unit and the Manual. The committee may choose to
request additional information from relevant persons or committees involved in the
review at earlier stages. Such requests and any responses (or summaries thereof) must
be included in the file. The CFA chair will write a recommendation that reports the
vote count for each of the criteria and reflects the deliberations of the committee,
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 5 of 7
including the majority and minority opinions, regarding the strengths and weaknesses
identified in the file. If a member of the CFA is eligible to vote on a faculty action at
the unit level of review, the CFA member will vote at the unit level of review and will
not vote at the CFA level of review. In that case, the CFA member will serve as an
informational resource for the CFA.
Professor Stallings also included a brief discussion of a proposed amendment from
the School of Public Affairs memorandum on the, “Participation of the Department
Chairs in the Faculty Action Decision”. Senators were asked to please review this
memo as well and the full Senate will take action on September 29.
Executive Committee Summer Working Group Report on Academic Rules and
Regulations
Professor Riddick informed the Senate of the suggested recommendations from the Summer
Working Group regarding a possible process to revise the Rules and Regulations: (1) form an ad
hoc committee to manage the review, (2) extract policy and procedures from the regulations.
Provost Bass said that there is a lot of information in this document. We need to make sure that
the policies fall in the appropriate areas to be sure that the institution complies with any
mandated requirements. He also said that, historically, the AU registrar’s office is the keeper of
the academic regulations. The regulations actually fall under the Office of the Provost and it is
the Provost who decides how they are delegated. The Registrar should be the keeper of records.
Professor Montgomery commented that she felt that there is a crossover of information that both
the faculty and students need to be clear about and she is concerned that by separating the rules
from the policies it will take away the coherent guidelines for these groups.
Provost Bass added that he and his staff have met with a number of consultants, most recently
with the former registrar from Princeton University. One item that he pointed out was a lot of
these items can be linked together with modern technology to create a more proficient outcome.
This review process is exactly what is needed to do to make sure that everything connects
properly.
Dean Peres added that some of the academic regulations issues are substantive and outdated.
Professor Riddick said that this document is only the starting point for the Senate to begin
review. This is not a final document. Professor Stallings opened the motion for discussion of
forming an ad-hoc committee. All Senators agreed to vote to form an ad-hoc committee.
The Faculty Senate VOTED for the formation of an ad hoc committee and the vote was
unanimous.
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Senate Rules and Faculty Senate By-Laws Revisions
Professor Stallings referred to a marked up copy of the current Senate By-Laws.and highlighted
changes that are proposed amendments:
•
Changed language to be consistent with the University by laws. Added language from the
Faculty Manual to cover the powers and jurisdiction of the Faculty Senate
•
Consider membership for a dedicated seat for Multi Year Faculty
•
Language was added to clarify that a Senator could not serve a dual membership role
•
Dean of Academic Affairs is should be designated as an Ex Officio of the Senate
•
The order of the listing of committees was changed. Language was added to ensure that
the Senate was informed of any changes in committee structure or duties. Duties were
added to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
•
Recommended that JCCAP be separated into two committees, undergraduate and
graduate. The role of JCAAP was clarified. Language was added that the faculty is
responsible for the academic curriculum, and the final approval rests with JCCAP.
Provost Bass said that in the past when a final JCCAP proposal has arrived on his desk
faculty did not know what the outcome would be. He just checks for the logistics related
to the general academic strategy and budget. While he has input in the early stages, the
faculty are responsible for all changes to the curriculum.
•
Committee on Faculty Actions language from the Faculty Manual was added.
•
Committee on Faculty Development might be replaced with another committee.
•
Committee on Faculty Equity and Grievances might be separated to individual
committees.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 PM
Faculty Senate • Sept 1 Minutes
Page 7 of 7