Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
February 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, Sampson, Silvia, Willoughby, Wisman, Yates, Dean
Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.
Welcome and Introduction, Jonathan Loesberg
Professor Loesberg welcomed everyone to the meeting. The minutes for the January meeting
required revisions, and will be submitted for approval at the next meeting.
Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder
Announcements
• There is a visiting team here from ABTI-American University of Nigeria. This is an American
style university that has been established in Nigeria with the help of AU. The founder of the
university, who is also the Vice President of Nigeria, has been working closely with teams from
AU to establish this first ever American style university in West Africa. It is in its second year of
operation. This week the deans of all the schools and the provost are meeting with counterparts
here at AU to review syllabi and program development. This sister institution will create the
opportunity for numerous student and faculty exchanges.
• The Board of Trustees will meet next week.
• Dr. Broder has accepted the changes to the Faculty Manual and the Academic Regulations
approved recently by the Senate.
• Candidates for the position of Athletic Director will be brought in for off-site interviews at the
end of February.
• Similarly, the Search Committee for the University Librarian has narrowed down the list of
candidates to about eight and will be bringing these candidates for off-site interviews in March.
Report of the Chair, Jonathan Loesberg
Announcements
• The Grievance Committee has lost another member. Mike Sampson has agreed to replace
Lesley Gill. The Faculty Senate voted and approved this replacement.
• At the end of the prior discussion for multi-year contracts, there was some language that the
Senate intended for Manual Language. Upon further reflection, Professor Wisman, the Chair of
the CFR, Professor Loesberg and Dean Mardirosian found the language inappropriate for the
Manual. They have come up with a few ideas of what to do with that language. One idea is that
the memo that Professor Loesberg wrote to Dr. Broder would function as a memo of
understanding. Similarly, Professor Loesberg could write a memo of understanding to Dean
Mardirosian. Another idea is that every year in August the CFR send a letter articulating the
requirements for putting people up for promotion, and that language could be a part of that. The
Faculty Senate approved this final idea.
College Writing, Sarah Irvine Belson
The college writing administrator, John Hyman, and Dean Kay Mussell have come up with a
proposal to change slightly the college writing requirements. This proposal does three things: it
changes the requirement to eliminate some of the courses that are no longer available. Secondly,
it changes the requirement for students that have IB or AP test scores of five or above, so that
they are required either to take the test or to take an intensive course. Lastly, it changes the name
of the test from the English Competency Test to the Writing Proficiency Examination.
Dr. Broder asked if there was a discussion anywhere in the Academic Regulations about the
writing proficiency test. She added that the wording of this proposal was a bit unclear and
inconsistent. And further, she wondered if the intent of this is to have every student take the
course because then this would have resource implications, such as extra instructors and
classrooms. Professor Belson will clarify this, but believes that even students with a high AP/IB
scores would have to take the course.
Professor Cochran agrees that the wording seems unclear, and he also prefers that students are
required to take the English course. Professor Forst stressed that it would be beneficial if writing
could be more a part of students’ grades in other courses, so that when they graduate their ability
to write reflects better on the university. Professor Loesberg said that the university has put the
first line of responsibility for writing with the actual writing courses. The proposal was remanded
to committee for further consideration.
Presidential Search Committee, Mary Mintz & Alan Kraut
The presidential search is still relatively early in the process. The committee is receiving
resumes, nominations, and credentials.
The most pressing issue for the Search Committee and for the faculty was that of confidentiality.
The Search Committee intends to offer candidates who demand it a fully confidential search and
such confidentiality would have as a consequence that finalists for the position might not meet
with the University community. The Committee believes that only such an offer of
confidentiality will assure that we have a full range of the best possible candidates from which to
choose. Of the several Senators and faculty visiting the meeting who spoke, on the other hand,
almost all supported a search in which finalists met the University community, whose input the
committee would afterwards seek.. Only such a process, they argued, would accord with the
increasing stress, in the light of last year's events, on transparency in University decision making.
Discussion of the Budget Process, Janice Flug
Ms. Flug briefly went over the handout that she circulated to the Senators. She then discussed the
relationship of the Faculty Senate and the budget committee with regard to the budget process.
She explained in more detail how budgets are arrived at. Various Senators expressed concern
with their inability, as the process works now, either to make choices or to see alternatives to the
options offered to them when they are asked to approve budget proposals. There was some sense
that the process of consultation could be improved in the future.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45.