Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
November 8, 2006
Jonathan Loesberg called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.
Present: Professors Loesberg, Weaver, Ahrens, Becher, Belson, Cochran, Fantie, Flug, Forst,
Gill, Girard, Jacoby, Klein, Langbein, Mintz, Pike, Richardson, Sampson, Sha, 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 October meeting
were approved.
Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder
National Survey of Student Engagement
Dr. Broder discussed the results of the National Survey of Student Engagement, which surveys
every other year freshmen and seniors at participating universities. This survey was developed by
higher education administrators at UCLA to measure what actually goes on in the classroom and
in the institution.
AU has participated since the survey’s inception. AU has a very good student response rate,
46%, and generally looks good in the results.
Some areas in which AU performs better than other universities are:
• AU students are more likely to ask questions in class and contribute to class discussions
• They worked on projects that require integrating ideas or information from various sources
• Their courses include diverse perspectives in class discussions or written assignments
• They received prompt written and oral feedback from faculty on their academic performance
• They have had serious conversations with students who are very different than themselves in
terms of race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values
• They are less likely to have to memorize facts for their courses
• They are more likely to analyze the basic elements of an idea
• They are more likely to synthesize and organize ideas into more complex interpretations
• They are more likely to engage in an internship or other experiential assignments
Dr. Broder said that this is a result of the good work of the AU faculty.
There were, however, some areas in which AU performed less well:
• AU students are less likely to work with faculty on activities other than course work, such as
committees and clubs
• They have lower quality relationships with other students and administrative personnel
• They report less use of computer and information technology in the classroom
The Study Abroad Program
The transfer of the Study Abroad Program from the Office of International Affairs to the Office
of the Provost has gone extremely well. A lot of progress has been made in the area of
integration of the Study Abroad Program with the Office of the Provost. Two committees have
been established that are working closely with Sara Dumont and her staff. The first is the Faculty
Advisory Committee for AU Abroad. This committee will advise Sara Dumont’s office on
priorities and ideas for new program development, establish linkages between AU Abroad and
academic units, and advise on matters of policies and procedures for study abroad. A second
committee is the Curriculum Integration Committee, which deals with ways to consider how to
best coordinate study abroad with pre and post study abroad coursework and helps advise
students who are studying abroad to look at issues such as language immersion and other
academic programs.
In addition, the Abroad at AU Program will work with the Washington Semester Program to do
joint recruiting and programming, since they recruit from the same student base. One way in
which this might work would be to allow students to come for an entire year, take an intensive
English course in the summer, and then go directly into Abroad at AU in the fall and Washington
Semester Program in the spring.
The Advising Council Committee
This committee will coordinate the advising work across the academic units, establish some
strategies to try to enhance the quality of the advising services, and enhance student satisfaction
with advising.
The Mathematics Requirements Task Force
Last year, Kay Mussell, Dean of CAS, put together a Mathematics Requirements Task Force,
which included representatives from all of the undergraduate schools and colleges to reevaluate
the university math requirements and to assess other issues related to mathematics instruction.
They made recommendations on course development and pedagogy. As a result of the work of
this committee, there is a new version of finite math and CAS has appointed a new math
requirement coordinator.
Faculty & Student Accomplishments
Robert Beisner’s book on Dean Acheson was reviewed on the front page of the book section of
the New York Times by Henry Kissinger.
Robert Jernigan’s son, Nick, who graduated two years ago from SOC, has won an Emmy Award
for his work at the National Geographic Television Show.
Recently, the SIS India Forum sponsored a major address by the Indian Ambassador to the
United States. It was very well attended.
Robert Durant, former Faculty Senator and current member of the School of Public Affairs, was
elected to the National Academy of Public Administration. This is considered one of the highest
honors a SPA professor can receive.
In the Kogod Business School, an MBA student, Amber Cox, was presented with a $10,000
scholarship from the National Black MBA Association.
The Librarian Search Committee has put together an advertisement for the University Librarian
position which will appear in the Chronicle and other relevant publications soon.
The Washington College of Law has already generated $1.4 million in grant awards for fiscal
year 06-07, including $1.1 million from USAID to train junior law professors in China.
Open Discussion
Professor Weaver asked if there is an effort to revive the former English Language Institute. Dr.
Broder stated that there is not a revival of the Institute and that the English Language Program is
still being designed. It is very likely that an outside organization will run this program.
Apparently, the lack of having an English Language Program at AU is one reason that many very
qualified international students may not come to AU.
Professor Girard requested an update of the Dean of Academic Affairs Search. Dr. Broder
mentioned that just two days earlier she had received a report from the committee and will be
meeting with them to debrief on the report.
Proposal for Multi-Year Contracts
Professor Bennett emphasized that this proposal does not change the number of temporaries that
are on campus; it only changes how they are treated.
Open Discussion
Professor Silvia presented a series of eight amendments to this proposal.
Amendment #1: It is proposed to add to the faculty manual starting at the end of the sentence
above that is bolded and italicized the following language: “ ,except for full-time temporary
faculty serving with a multi-year contract as described below.”
Professor Bennett accepted this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Amendment #2: A multi-year contract may only be offered to an individual who will have
completed five years of service on annual contracts as a full-time temporary employee of the
American University at the time that the multi-year contract begins.
It was suggested that the word “only” be moved to before “an individual,” thus making it mean
what it intended.
Professor Bennett accepted this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Amendment #3: The length of any single multi-year contract is not to exceed three years.
Professor Bennett accepted this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Professor Pike voiced some concern about the three year time frame since in his department the
five year contracts would work better. Professor Silvia revised the language of his amendment by
adding a clause saying “the length of any single multi-year contract is not to exceed three years,
unless accreditation rules require a longer minimum contract length for the position being filled.”
Professor Cochran stressed that the Professor Silvia’s revised language was too cumbersome and
that keeping the three to five years was simpler. Professor Pike agreed.
Ms. Mintz asked how would performance issues be addressed during these five years? Dr.
Broder mentioned that every faculty member is evaluated every year.
Professor Jacoby recommended that the Faculty Senators vote on the original proposal, and that
he would like to make an amendment to say two to five years.
Professor Loesberg called for a vote and Professor Silvia’s amendment failed by a vote of 11 to
9. Professor Jacoby’s amendment changing the number of years to two to five years passed by a
17 to 0 vote.
Amendment #4: The procedure to appoint an individual to a multi-year contract must follow that
used for reappointment to a fifth and sixth year of pre-tenured service. The evaluation must also
state explicitly the exceptional qualities and experience sought that tenured and tenure-track
faculty cannot provide, and show evidence that the individual under consideration possesses
these exceptional qualities and experience that tenured and tenure-track faculty cannot provide.
The counter-amendment to Professor Silvia’s amendment states: The procedure to appoint an
individual to a multi-year contract must follow that used for reappointment to a fifth and sixth
year of pre-tenured service. The evaluation must also state explicitly and document the
exceptional qualities and experience of the candidate, as detailed below. The renewal of the
multi-year contract must also follow the procedure used for reappointment to a fifth and sixth
year of pre-tenured service. The renewal process must also assess whether the individual
continues to possess exceptional qualities of teaching, creative, scholarly, or professional
contributions, and service.
Professor Richardson asked for clarification about the type of person to be hired. Professor Silvia
brought up the difference between a person with a PhD and research versus a person with great
work experience.
Professor Pike said that the language about the person having to have experience that tenured
faculty cannot provide may create problems for the Law School since what is required of anyone
hired at the Law School is a law degree.
Professor Willoughby said that Professor Silvia’s wording is too vague and prefers the counter
amendment. Similarly, Professor Weaver supports the counter amendment because keeping the
wording open allows for flexibility in hiring.
Ms. Mintz asked the meaning of the word “or” in the last sentence. Professor Loesberg refined
the language of the last sentence to say: “The renewal process must also assess whether the
individual continues to possess exceptional qualities of teaching, as well as creative, scholarly, or
professional contributions, and service.”
Ms. Mintz suggested that this language should be sent back to the CFR to create the language.
Professor Ahrens mentioned that although the contributions of someone who is simply an
excellent teacher are recognized, he would be inclined to support someone who has additional
qualities such as work accomplishments. Professor Weaver countered that it may be better to
have a broader interpretation so as to include teachers without much publishing but who have
such invaluable work and life experience.
Professor Silvia accepted the changes to his proposal as a friendly amendment.
Amendment #5: The maximum number of multi-year contracts available shall be set individually
at the level of the college, the University Library and school using the following formula.
Number of tenured/tenure-track faculty Maximum number of
At the college, Univ. Library or school multi-year contracts
1 to 20 1
21 to 40 2
41 to 60 3
61 to 80 4
81 to 100 5
101 to 120 6
121 to 140 7
141 to 160 8
161 to 180 9
Professor Bennett did not accept this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Professor Silvia explained that part of the rationale behind this amendment was that there should
be higher numbers of tenured and tenure-track faculty in order to have the prominent role in
governance. Additionally, he said that by having larger numbers of contracts that may not limit
the contracts to exceptional people. This is why he chose a 10% cap.
Professor Bennett said that the committee does not support this amendment because they support
the individual teaching units deciding for themselves how many contracts to accept.
Professor Jacoby mentioned that he supports the 10% cap and added that it is indeed intended to
be flexible.
Ms. Mintz asked whether the committee looked at other data during this process. Professor
Jacoby said no, but they based their efforts on intuitive knowledge. For instance, AU has been
deliberately moving in the direction of hiring fewer adjuncts and more full-time faculty, who are
research oriented. One way to do this is by hiring more full-time temporaries, which seems to be
a trend among many higher education institutions.
Professor Cochran stressed that each teaching unit has different needs. In the School of
Communication there is a need for temporary faculty, and in particular, people who may have
more direct work experience and perhaps not have a PhD.
Professor Willoughby proposed new language stating: “the maximum number of faculty on
multi-year contracts should be no more than 10% of the tenure lines in that college.” He also
crossed out the table. He added that this raises the numbers a bit but still provides restrictions.
Professor Loesberg called for a vote and Professor Willoughby’s amendment failed 5 to 12.
Professor Loesberg called for another vote and Professor Silvia’s amendment failed 5 to 13.
Professor Jacoby added that he would like to add the following language to the original proposal:
“multi-year faculty should not exceed 10% of the total of tenured and tenure-track faculty
university wide.”
Professor Bennett accepted this language as a friendly amendment.
Amendment #6: If the number of tenured and tenure-track lines in a college, the University
Library, or school falls to an amount at which the number of multi-year contracts in use at the
time exceeds the amount specified in the formula above, the individuals on existing multi-year
contracts may continue as University employees and their multi-year contracts may be renewed.
If one or more of the individuals with existing multi-year contracts leaves the employ of the
University, the maximum number of the multi-year contracts available to the college, University
Library, or school exceeding the maximum number of individuals holding multi-year contracts
will decrease until the total number conforms to the amount specified in the formula above.
Professor Bennett did not accept this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Professor Ahrens responded by saying that it may be better to be prepared for this hypothetical
situation, although unlikely.
Ms. Flug suggested that the language of amendment #6 should be revised. Professor Cochran
agreed and said that the language is no longer appropriate nor is it wise policy. Professor Pike
proposed new wording which states: “If the number of tenure and tenure-track lines in the
university falls to an amount at which the number of multi-year contracts in use at the time
exceeds the amount specified in the formula above, the individuals on existing multi-year
contracts may continue as University employees and their multi-year contracts may be renewed.”
Professor Loesberg called for a vote and Professor Pike’s new language passed by 15 to 4.
Amendment #7: The tenured and tenure-track faculty of each college, the University Library, or
school shall decide by the majority vote of their total number whether to use multi-year contracts
in the major unit.
Professor Bennett accepted this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Professor Willoughby suggested new language stating: “With the exception of CAS, the tenured
and tenure-track faculty of each college, the University Library or school shall decide by a
majority vote of their total number whether to use multi-year contracts. In CAS, the tenured and
tenure-track faculty of each department or school shall make this decision. Professor Silvia
accepts this change.
Amendment #8: The Dean of Academic Affairs shall undertake an annual review of the multiyear contract program and report to the Faculty Senate at the start of each academic year on: (1)
the number of eligible individuals, eligible slots, and actual multi-year contracts used in the
previous year: (2) the plans for using multi-year contracts during the current academic year: (3)
the extraordinary contributions of the individuals on multi-year contracts; and (4) problems or
issues that have arisen involving multi-year contracts. The Dean of each college and school and
the University Librarian shall also undertake a comparable annual review of the multi-year
contract program for the unit and report to their respective faculties at the start of each academic
year.
Professor Bennett accepted this amendment as a friendly amendment.
Professor Loesberg called for a vote and the proposal passed 16 to 5.
Proposal for Faculty Athletic Advisory Council
The NCAA strongly suggested that AU have faculty oversight of athletics programs; hence a
Faculty Athletics Advisory Committee was set up.
Professor Jacoby suggested an amendment stating: “the Faculty Senate should elect faculty to
serve on this committee, and the Provost should nominate administrators and students for the
President’s consideration and approval.”
Professor Loesberg took a vote for the amendment, which passed unanimously 16 to 0.
Choosing the Faculty Senate Vice Chair
Professor Loesberg gave an overview of how this topic became an agenda item. Last spring it
was discussed that since outgoing members were not allowed to vote at the May meeting and
only new members could, a change was made to the date of service of Faculty Senators from
May 15th to May 15th to June 15th to June 15th. It was then noted that the outgoing Faculty
Senators would elect the new Faculty Senate’s Vice Chair. If the voting was left to the fall, then
there would not be a Vice Chair during the summer months. The issue is when and who should
vote for the Vice Chair.
Professor Loesberg proposed that the Vice Chair be elected by the outgoing Faculty Senate at the
May meeting.
Professor Loesberg took a vote and all were in favor unanimously.
Proposal to Announce Vote Counts
Professor Langbein made a proposal to announce vote counts in Faculty Senate elections. In
particular, she feels that people would like to know how many people voted and how many votes
did each candidate get? She added that it is very important for reasons of transparency and
accountability.
Ms. Becher added that if one candidate got far less votes that may skew their effectiveness.
Professor Klein also mentioned that it may not be fair for the person who lost to have that
information published.
Ms. Mintz suggested an amendment stating: “In the interest of transparency and accountability,
the results of all Senate sponsored elections will be available in the Senate Office with the
number of votes cast for each candidate of each ballot.” She strongly suggested that it may not be
a good idea to make this information available publicly. Although, she does believe that it is
okay to announce how many people voted.
Professor Cochran said that more information is better. Professor Fantie disagreed and
mentioned that if we want to increase participation by faculty it may not be better to announce
the information.
Professor Loesberg took a vote for Ms. Mintz’s amendment, which passed by a vote of 14 to 5.
For Good of the Order
Professor Cochran sent a note to the Faculty Senators recently about looking for another faculty
Senate Representative for the Faculty Staff Campaign. Volunteers are needed.
Ms. Mintz announced the meeting with the Presidential Search Committee following this
meeting.
Ms. Flug mentioned that budget guidelines were just passed by the Board of Trustees and the
committee will work to assign resources necessary for those. She will present a report at the
January Faculty Senate meeting. She also reminded everyone that November is open enrollment
for Benefits.
Professor Weaver would like to congratulate Dr. Abdul Said, a former President of the
University Senate, for his fifty years of outstanding service to the American University.
Professor Ahrens mentioned that there are now faculty members on the Board of Trustees, the
first time in American University history.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45.