Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 5, 2008
Stephen Silvia (in Gary Weaver's absence) called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.
Present: Professors Silvia, Loesberg, Belson, Douglass, Forst, Girard, Hall, Kim, Klein,
Langbein, Mintz, Pike, Reece, Riddick, Sha, Stallings, Steinhorn, Wanis-St.John, Willoughby,
Yates, Dean Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.
Welcome and Introduction, Stephen Silvia
Professor Silvia welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Senators approved the February
minutes.
Report of the Chair, Stephen Silvia
• The Faculty Senate sent a note of condolence to the President of the Faculty Council at the
University of Northern Illinois in the wake of the tragic campus-shooting there.
• The advisory body that Prof. Weaver created as a provisional executive committee met for the
first time in February. The provisional committee consists of the chair, vice-chair, and past-chair
of the Faculty Senate, one chair from the Joint Committee on Curriculum and Academic
Programs, and one chair from the Instructional Budget and Benefits Committee. Dean
Mardirosian and Provost Broder serve on the executive committee as ex-officio non-voting
members. The committee will meet on the third Wednesday of every month. Work has begun on
draft legislation for making the executive committee permanent.
• It is election season for the Faculty Senate and its committees. Professor Weaver has asked for
nominations to be submitted by the close of business on March 14. The ballots will be sent out
shortly thereafter and counted some time before the April meeting of the Senate. Committee
chairs should check the Faculty Senate website to make sure that the information there regarding
the membership of their committees is up-to-date.
• Professor Weaver is taking nominations for the vice-chair of the Faculty Senate. The election
of next academic year’s senate vice-chair will take place at the May meeting.
• Bill DeLone, SPA faculty member and newly named chair to the University’s Strategic Plan
Steering Committee, will come to the Faculty Senate at the April meeting to give a brief
presentation about the work of the Steering committee.
• At the May meeting, there will be a presentation on the budget by Instructional Budget and
Benefits Committee Chair, John Douglass. Vice-president for Finance Don Myers has been
invited to attend this meeting as well.
• The Emeriti Luncheon will take place on Monday, April 14th, from noon to 2:00 in the Butler
Board Room. The guest speakers will be School of Communication Dean Larry Kirkman and
School of International Service Dean Louis Goodman. They will give presentations about their
building projects.
Report of the Provost, Dr. Broder
Three students from SPA were finalists for the Truman Competition: Carrie Johnson, Molly
Kenney, and James Valvo. The Admissions Office is in the final stages of the admissions process
The first round of admit letters will go out starting March 11. This year, the Washington
Semester Program is experiencing a large increase in applications because it is an election year
and that generally sparks the interest of many students to come to Washington, D.C. Conversely,
the Study Abroad Office received fewer applications because students prefer to remain in the
area during an election year. The Kogod School of Business has added a new minor in
International Business. A new collaboration between the School of Public Affairs and the
Washington College of Law has also created a few new dual degree programs: JD/MPA,
JD/MPP, LLM/MPA, and LLM/MPP. A new proposal for a BS degree in Business and Music
has been given to Dr. Broder for consideration.
Report of the Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees, Stephen Silvia
The Board of Trustees met last week and among the topics of conversation were the Strategic
Plan and governance at WAMU.
Strategic Planning Committee, Leigh Riddick
Professor Leigh Riddick made a presentation about the Strategic Planning Committee. Professor
Riddick stressed that the two key objectives are teaching and research, which will strengthen the
university. Professor Riddick outlined the eight main goals:
1. Implement a four-course load, thus enabling AU to remain competitive with other universities
and to raise qualitatively the reputation of the University.
2. Increase transparency and accountability at all levels.
3. Decentralize decision-making to the lowest effective levels. This will promote innovation and
creativity and enhance the quality of outcomes.
4. Improve faculty and student recruitment and retention.
5. Foster diversity.
6. Encourage interdisciplinary curricula and programs.
7. Improve accessibility for lower income students.
8. Develop an appropriate mix of undergraduate and graduate programs.
Professor Riddick stressed that one very important point of this discussion is to get the message
out about how good AU is, but also continually to find ways to improve. Mary Mintz suggested
there be a draft document to the Faculty Senate by the April meeting.
Joint Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs - Directory Information
The Joint Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs (JCCAP) reviewed a proposal to
revise a section of the Academic Regulations regarding disclosure of student directory
information. This proposal is intended to give the university some additional flexibility regarding
the disclosure of directory information, while remaining within the parameters of the Family
Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). JCCAP recommended the approval of the changes
by a vote of 6 to 0, with 1 abstention.
University Registrar Linda Bolden-Pitcher discussed the issue. She explained that the proposal
under consideration details reasons to revise further the directory information section of the
confidentiality policy in Academic Regulation 90.10.07. Registrar Pitcher explained that FERPA
considers directory information as information contained in the education records of a student
that would not generally be considered as harmful or invasive of privacy if disclosed. FERPA
allows institutions to specify what it considers to be directory information. It also permits
institutions to disclose directory information, so long as a student has not requested nondisclosure. FERPA guidelines specify that directory information may include the student’s name,
addresses ( local and permanent), e-mail address, local and permanent telephone numbers,
attendance at institution, major, degrees, and awards received, participation at official events,
date of birth, place of birth. It has been the University’s position not to disclose directory
information to third parties without the student’s written consent. The University currently only
verifies directory information if a third party requests information. If the information provided
were incorrect, the university would only say as much; the University would not provide
corrected information. Students have always had the option to request non-disclosure or to optout by completing a form and filing it with the Office of the Registrar. Why is this change
important to the University now? First among several reasons listed in the proposal, which Ms.
Bolden-Pitcher outlined, is that after surveying other similar universities, administrators found
that University policy on directory information is much more restrictive than FERPA guidelines
and the policies of other universities.
Joe Vidulich, president of the American University Student Government and a senior in SPA,
said that the Student Council has been reviewing this proposal over the past few weeks and they
have concluded that they support it with a few caveats. They feel that it is necessary in order to
enhance the technological services available to the students. The students want to ensure that the
non-disclosure or opt-out policy is publicized more so that those who may wish to use this option
are aware of it. Students also would like to make sure that the staff who will be implementing
this new policy will be properly trained. Finally, they would like to emphasize that the
University should be very discrete and only provide directory information that is pertinent and
necessary. Prof. Chris Simpson (SOC) stated that what he feels is the real underlying issue is the
policy concerning third-party vendors of information that is supplied or sold by American
University concerning its students. Prof. Simpson wished to know the terms and conditions of
contracts of this sort. Professor Simpson also is concerned that there is no procedure for review
of decisions that are made, there is no procedure for appeal of decisions, and the non-disclosure
or opt-out policy has the effect the minimizing the understanding of either students or professors
concerning what sorts of information may be provided by the University to third parties.
Professor Simpson feels that working with vendors such as Google may have some advantages,
but there may be many more disadvantages that deserve serious consideration, if the University
is to protect the privacy of students. Professor Riddick suggested that there may be two separate
issues, namely, the revision of the guidelines governing the release of student-directory
information, and the University’s policy regarding information privacy when dealing with thirdparty vendors. For instance, if the student-directory proposal is approved does that mean that the
contract with Google is also automatically approved? Professor Steinhorn supported Prof.
Riddick’s point regarding two separate issues at hand and said that we must be careful to think
through the potential consequences of the proposal before the senate.
Specifically, a concern among the Senators is the issue of personal safety of the students and the
type of information that would be released by the vendors. Prof. Wanis-St. Anthony also
underscored this concern. Professor Willoughby proposed that it may be best to establish a joint
faculty-staff committee to review the Google contract and future contracts with similar privacy
implications. There was some discussion as to which committee would be best suited to take on
this task.
Professor Loesberg suggested that the Executive Committee should develop a proposal regarding
the best body to review third-party information-technology contracts with information-privacy
implications. Professor Stallings called the question regarding Prof. Willoughby’s proposal as
framed by Prof. Loesberg, and the Faculty Senate passed this with a vote of 10 to 4, with 1
abstention. The Senate then voted on the proposed revision to Academic Regulation 90.10.07,
which initially passed 5 in favor, 3 against, and 7 abstentions. Professor Loesberg suggested that
this vote should be reconsidered because the vote was not a clear mandate. Since Prof. Loesberg
had voted in the affirmative, the motion to reconsider was put to a vote. The reconsideration
motion passed 7 in favor and 6 against. The proposed revisions to Academic Regulation 90.10.07
was put to a second vote. The outcome was 6 in favor and 8 against. The proposed revisions did
not pass.
For the Good of the Order
Dr. Broder announced the first playoff game for the Men’s Basketball game is this evening.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45.