Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 7, 2007
Jonathan Loesberg called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.
Present: Professors Loesberg, Weaver, Ahrens, Becher, Belson, Cochran, Flug, Forst, Girard,
Jacoby, Kim, Klein, Langbein, Mintz, Richardson, Sampson, Sha, Silvia, Willoughby, Yates,
Weaver, Dean Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.
Welcome and Introduction, Jonathan Loesberg
Professor Loesberg welcomed everyone to the meeting. The minutes for the January and
February meetings were approved.
Professor Loesberg nominated Professors Forst and Sha to start the Senator next school year.
Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder
Dr. Broder mentioned that the Board of Trustees passed the budget that was submitted, and also
it approved the changes to the faculty manual about temporary faculty.
Regarding the temporary faculty, the individual units have been asked to vote on whether they
want to participate. The units are also to develop guidelines about the criteria for appointing
faculty for these positions. Additionally, the Deans have been asked to give their requests for
how many positions they are looking for in their units. This process is still in the beginning
phase.
Admissions
The first round of acceptances at the undergraduate level went out yesterday. There were
approximately 2,200 of them. The second round of approximately 5,500 letters will go out this
Friday. One additional round of letters will go out on March 15th, and after that any remaining
letters will trickle out.
The admit rate last year was 53.06% and this year it looks as if it will be approximately 51%.
Last year the GPA/SAT average was 3.55 and 1,282. This year it is approximately 3.55 and
1,285. The quality is as high as last year, with a slightly lower admit rate, and applications are up
by 4% this year as well.
Dr. Broder mentioned that there is supplemental information showing the level of interest in AU,
done by the Noel-Levitz firm. This information is useful for admissions decisions.
In terms of graduate applications, MA’s are up over 5% from last year, with the largest increase
in KSB. Almost every unit has seen a large increase in applications.
Searches
The search for the Athletics Director is down to three finalists who have come to campus and
one of those is expected to be given the job.
Regarding the Search for University Librarian, last week the committee conducted off-site
interviews for selecting three candidates to come to campus
This morning, Dr. Broder, along with President Kerwin, Professor Irvine-Belson, and Dean
Mussell, met with the Accreditation Team for an exit interview for the NCATE accreditation
(National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)..
Report of the Chair, Jonathan Loesberg
Professor Weaver spoke about some of the highlights from the Board of Trustees meeting.
• The first student representative was approved to be on the Board, which is a significant step
forward.
• New Board members will be voted on in May and are expected to start after the May meeting.
• The new SOC and SIS buildings were approved.
• In 2008 there will be seven new tenure-track positions approved, and eight more for 2009.
• The four-course load was discussed briefly.
Proposal from John Willoughby
Office Hours
Professor Willoughby’s proposed amendment to the current regulations of Section .03 Office
Hours of Faculty would consist of replacing the word six with four, and would appear as:
Throughout the academic year, full-time teaching faculty who are teaching in the current session
must maintain scheduled office hours during which they are available for consultations with
students. The faculty member must maintain at least six (6) four (4) office hours a week on a
regular basis and be available for appointments at other times. The time and place of scheduled
office hours will be mutually convenient.
Professor Willoughby would like to change the mandated office hours from six to four. One
reason for this is that he feels the relationship with students has changed over the last decade
with the explosion of electronic communication devices, thus creating an atmosphere of more
intensive contact with students. Professor Willoughby feels that the occupation of teaching has
become more labor-intensive. Another reason that he supports this proposal is that he feels that
AU is above the norm for mandated office hours.
Open Discussion
Professor Jacoby asked about the other universities he contacted to obtain this information about
mandated office hours. Professor Willoughby said that he only spoke with one friend at George
Washington and another friend at Howard University.
An overwhelming number of Senators voiced concern about the proposal. Some of the reasons
include: it would not send a good message in terms of public relations, having mandated office
hours actually allows faculty more time to work on their research because otherwise students
would just come in at any time, and in person contact with students provides them with a far
higher quality of help than email do.
There was some discussion about how to handle this proposal. Ms. Mintz suggested that this get
remanded to the Curriculum Committee, and if the Senate passes it, it could go to the CFR for
further review.
Dr. Broder mentioned that she and the President are not in favor of reducing office hours. She
further emphasized that a particular strength of AU is the way in which AU faculty interact with
students, which helps to make students more successful. AU students are spending a tremendous
amount of time with faculty, and this strongly benefits the students.
Final Exams
Professor Willoughby also proposes a change to the current regulations of .06 Examinations in
Courses, in which he would like to delete the whole of paragraph D:
During the final examination period, all classes will meet to either conduct a final examination,
or if no final examination is planned, to conduct the normal classroom activities. No class
meetings will be cancelled during the final week except in unusual circumstances in which case
the prior approval of the dean or department chair is required.
Professor Willoughby does not agree with the regulation that faculty are required to conduct
some sort of classroom activity during the final exam week if they are not giving a final
classroom exam. He specifically does not see the purpose if students are given take-home exams
or graduate seminars with final papers.
Open Discussion
Many Senators expressed their opinions about the mandatory final exam. There was a feeling
that as long as there are the sufficient number of weeks in the AU calendar set in the semester,
faculty can decide on their own what to do with their class during the final exam week.
Professor Loesberg suggested that this issue should be sent to a committee that addresses
academic calendars so that they could compare the AU calendar with some other universities.
Proposal on Evaluating Scholarship, from Scott Parker, Chair Committee on Faculty Equity and
Grievances This proposal relates to how scholarship should be evaluated. The committee would
like the Faculty Senate to encourage the CFR to put this topic on their docket for the fall, in an
effort to improve the process overall.
Dean Mussell mentioned that the College of Arts and Sciences is currently dealing with this
issue. She added that the Faculty Manual has a requirement that each year every department must
have an open discussion with faculty about expectations. It is very difficult to have a blanket
policy for everyone.
Professor Loesberg summarized the three suggestions: Steve Silvia’s suggestion of starting at the
unit level, to charge the CFR with this discussion, to create an ad hoc committee to be charged
with this. He asked the Senators if they want to start a university-wide discussion, through some
outlet or another. The results of this vote were 13 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. After
some discussion, it was decided that Professor Ahrens will lead this effort.
Dr. Broder stated that if the Faculty Senate wishes to have a dialogue about criteria for research,
creative and professional activities, as they relate to promotion and tenure reappointment
decisions, merit decisions, and variable course load decisions, then that is a good thing to be
discussed. Such discussions across campus can only be worthwhile and positive. She noted that
many of these concerns have arisen from the Grievance Committee, which only sees files of
people who have been turned down and not files of people who have been successful where
many of these issues are addressed. There is information to the faculty about the assembly of a
file and criteria. Dr. Broder said that she would be happy to lead a discussion or be involved in
some way to discuss the process and criteria and changes that have occurred over the past 15
years.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45.