Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 5, 2006
Tony Ahrens called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.
Present: Professors Ahrens, Becher, Bennett, Burke, Cochran, Durant, Flug, Gill, Girard, Belson,
Isaac, Jacoby, Loesberg, Mardirosian, Petit, Richardson, Riley, Sampson, Schaeff, Dean
Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.
Welcome and Introduction, Tony Ahrens
Approval of the January and February minutes has been deferred until the May meeting.
Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder
Provost Broder has just returned from a successful Conversion Reception in Los Angeles. This
was a meeting of admitted students and their parents. She spoke about faculty, programs, and
accomplishments. There was a very high level of enthusiasm and attention on the part of the
students.
Currently, there is a review of the international strategy that Dr. Kerwin has initiated. It has been
several years since the task force report of 2003 review that Vice President Pastor headed. There
is a feeling that it is time now to look at strategy, make sure goals are still appropriate, and
evaluate how programs are assessed and organized. Dr. Kerwin has organized this review by
setting out a number of questions that he is asking and will collect information to prepare a
report for the Board of Trustees. Some of the questions are:
(1) What are the appropriate number and characteristics of the undergraduate international
students such that AU can create a global character to the institution?
(2) What about organization of recruitment and retention efforts for those students?
(3) Are the goals of the 2003 report appropriate in terms of the study abroad mix?
(4) Have these programs been subject to the same standards of assessment as the regular
academic programs?
(5) What is the appropriate level of support for the faculty in these efforts?
(6) Are AU’s curricula sufficiently focused on global issues?
(7) Should AU’s management of American-style universities be expanded and where in the
world should they be focused?
(8) How can AU best maintain effective relations with alums who are living and working outside
the US?
(9) How should efforts to be a premier global university be organized and managed?
Provost Broder announced that Dr. Kerwin will be hosting a forum on April 11 at 4:15 pm at the
Kay Spiritual Life Center to discuss the goals of AU. This is will be a question and answer forum
as an attempt to get feedback from the campus community.
Additionally, Provost Broder announced some recent academic news. There was another Truman
Winner, Stacey Almanger. This represents the third winner in four years. Additionally, AU has
set a record for the second year in a row, by receiving the most Presidential Management
Fellows of any other university in the country, with thirty-four. Also, U.S. News and World
Report came out with their Law School rankings. The Washington College of Law has remained
in the top tier and has moved forward from number 47 to 43. Additionally, WCL was the 20th
most diverse law school and there were only five other law schools that had higher rankings than
AU in the overall rankings and that had higher diversity rankings. This combination should make
the AU community very proud. Finally, twenty-one Kogod Students participated in the
Washington Initiative to volunteer to help taxpayers with limited English.
Report on Governance Reform, Tony Ahrens and Steve Silvia
Professor Ahrens reminded the Senators that the governance committee was created last
November and was charged with bringing forward a proposal to the Board of Trustees. The
initial meeting was held in December, weekly meetings were held since January, an open-house
was held with the faculty, and the committee met with the Board’s governance committee on
multiple occasions. The committee was formed as a result of the events of last fall surrounding
the resignation and buy-out of former president Ladner. Upon studying governance at AU, it has
become clear that those events of last fall were symptomatic of problems that have been present
for some time. The proposal reflects that perspective.
Professor Silvia mentioned that the committee worked very well together in a constructive and
positive way, under the hard-working efforts of Professor Ahrens. The purpose of the
committee’s proposal is to enhance the quality of governance at AU. There are four main things
that are stressed in the proposal:
(1) oversight – improving the capacity of the Board of Trustees to conduct rigorous oversight of
the university executive
(2) accountability – the construction of mechanisms of accountability to improve the quality of
the Board of Trustees
(3) transparency – to bring greater transparency to the university
(4) participation – expanding community participation, with the committee’s report focusing on
faculty participation.
Professor Silvia stressed that governance at AU can be improved by having the faculty present to
be engaged in the various discussions about what happens on campus, to have a set of
institutions that maximize the likelihood that the Board of Trustees will listen to the faculty, and
to enhance the quality of the Board of Trustees. The faculty can maximize its representation,
impact, and voice. It can also maximize the Board of Trustees’ listening to what faculty is
saying, and thereby improving the quality of governance at the university by following the
recommendations that the committee has outlined.
Professor Ahrens added that the Senators have several options: to endorse the proposal, to
receive it, to reject it, or to pass no resolution at this time.
Open Discussion
Professor Richardson noted that at the SIS faculty meeting this came up with three comments:
(1) faculty deeply appreciate the work done by the committee
(2) the majority of faculty feel they should have full voting rights on Board
(3) the majority of faculty have expressed their unease with certain members of the Board of
Trustees who served during the Ladner presidency.
Eileen Findlay, member of the committee, said that the CAS/EPC endorses the spirit and
direction of this report as a first step toward more effective governance at AU. They urge
continued active communication with the Board of Trustees and stakeholders.
Additionally, the CAS/EPC urges the Senate to extend the mandate of ad hoc committee to
continue overseeing the Board Reform process until the process is completed to the satisfaction
of the faculty.
Professor Ahrens explained that at their May meeting, the Board of Trustees will likely take up a
proposal for reform and in the process, they might want to talk to the faculty. Given that, it
makes sense the there be some mechanism whereby the faculty could engage in some
conversation. Thus it might be helpful for the Senate to extend the mandate.
Professor Riley asked whether there was any information collected from universities pertaining
to faculty representation. Professor Silvia outlined that of the top 150 universities, roughly 18%
have some faculty representation on the Board of Trustees, but there is variance as to whether
they have voting rights or not. A consistent opinion, however, was that the mere presence of the
faculty was what was pivotal.
Professor Burke said that regarding voting rights, the committee came to an agreement for giving
the report internal consistency in that faculty should not have a vote since at the same time they
were arguing for the president’s vote to be taken away.
Professor Loesberg said that he is in favor of the faculty voting because there are not enough
compelling reasons to take the vote away from faculty.
Professor Richardson suggested that since it is so important why not allow the faculty the vote.
He also wondered how the Board of Trustee deals with conflict of interest. Professor Silvia said
that the Board of Trustees is discussing strengthening its conflict of interest provisions. With
faculty participating on the Board, the faculty would then have a voice in this issue.
Professor Petit asked if anyone knows how the Board of Trustees feels about these voting issues.
Professor Ahrens answered by saying that when the Board makes its final recommendation then
many of the questions will be answered.
Ms. Flug mentioned that the presence and voice of the faculty is powerful, perhaps more so than
the vote itself. Similarly Professor Cochran said that what is more important and not negotiable
is faculty participation in all executive sessions. Further, Professor Jacoby agreed as well that
faculty participation is crucial and more important than the vote.
Professor Ahrens explained the reasons he favors faculty not voting. It feels odd to have the
faculty vote but not the president. Voting can create either a real or apparent conflict of interest,
undermining the perception of legitimacy of the process. Professor Silvia shares the idea of the
parallel between the president and the faculty vote. He added that having three faculty members
present is quite important.
Professor Belson said that oversight is even more important than voting, and having a clear
structure for oversight is vital to preserving the balance of power.
Professor Burke stressed that faculty voice is more important than the vote. However, if the
Board of Trustees decides to leave the president as a voting member, then perhaps voting as a
whole should be again on the table for discussion.
Professor Gill asked whether the committee considered representation of other university
constituencies, such as staff and students. Professor Burke responded by saying that the
committee decided that it could only speak for the faculty. Additionally, Professor Silvia stressed
that they did tell the Board to listen to the other constituencies.
Professor Loesberg mentioned that if the faculty is given the vote then there should be a different
forum for choosing the faculty. Further, Professor Burke said that the Senators are elected by the
schools and colleges, and then the Senators elect its own officers.
Professor Sapieyevski asked about the timeline on this proposal, and suggested that the final
decisions should be made possibly when the full Board is in place.
Professor Ahrens said that there are twenty members on the Board currently, five members have
resigned. According to the guidelines, there should be at least twenty-five members.
Furthermore, at the May meeting there will be elections for a number of new members to the
Board. Those newly elected members would start subsequent to the May meeting. Professor
Jacoby stressed that the Faculty Senate should schedule a tentative meeting after the Board’s
May meeting, so as to discuss the outcome.
Professor Cochran suggested that perhaps the faculty could actually vote on who the Board of
Trustees are. Professor Ahrens noted that they are proposing that there is faculty representation
on the Board.
Professor Burke mentioned that no one knows actually what the Board will discuss pertaining to
this, but the faculty hopes that they take up the issue at their May meeting.
Professor Silvia said that adding the President as an ex officio member of the executive
committee would certainly make oversight by the Board more difficult. Professor Cochran
mentioned three points: it makes sense that the President should be a member of the executive
committee since he is the chief executive of the university, it does not make sense that the Board
chair would not be the chair of the executive committee, and the language which refers to actions
taken by the executive committee should be reported immediately to the whole Board and
ratified should be reworded to say that any action not ratified would not have any effect.
Professor Silvia responded by saying that these are very valid points which the committee
supports. However, in an effort to preserve oversight, it is important to keep separate the
University President and the executive committee. Further, whether the chair of the Board should
also be the chair of the executive committee is a valid point. Regarding point three, the intent of
the language is that if the Board does not ratify something then that action is null.
The executive committee is not listed in the bylaws as a standing committee. Professor Loesberg
suggested that the language be changed to say that the chair of the Board cannot chair any
committee other than the executive committee. He also agreed that if the Board is to do
oversight, then the President should not be on the executive committee, but he could attend
meetings as a resource. This was accepted as a friendly amendment. Professor Ahrens stressed
the broad principle that the Board needs to act cohesively in ways that it did not in recent actions.
Steps could be taken such as more Board meetings and having regular retreats that are extensive
that try to promote cohesion. Ms. Flug mentioned that while many of the Board members have
the financial ability to attend extra meetings and pay the high cost of hotels in DC, many of the
people of higher education who would like to attend meetings and conferences may not have the
financial basis of attending such activities.
Professor Loesberg proposed that item 9 be rewritten to say: any decision of the executive
committee in order to take effect must be ratified at the next Board meeting. Professor Ahrens
mentioned that he is concerned that this language would not allow the Board to act quickly in the
event of an emergency. Professor Burke said that the language saying that executive committee
actions must be ratified does not preclude them from being effective in the interim and from the
Board acting if an emergency arises. Professor Loesberg said that perhaps no change to language
is necessary since anyway, if the full Board does not like an action of the executive committee,
they will not ratify it. By leaving the language as it is, the executive committee may have more
interim power.
Professor Burke stressed that the core concept is that the actions of the executive committee be
communicated to the full Board. Professor Cochran noted that with the recent events, there
appeared to be schism within the Board such that the executive committee appeared to be acting
unilaterally and directly acting with the President. And he wondered how to deal with an action
that has already been taken but many feel should not have. Professor Silvia said that this is all a
trade off, in the sense that having the provision in place and knowing that an action will have to
get ratified, will give the executive committee the incentive to get the full Board‘s input.
Professor Loesberg reminded everyone that it was the executive committee acting alone that
actually moved the Board forward last fall, and that if their hands are tied by such a proposal, the
events of last fall may have played out differently. Most of the Board seemed happy about the
‘97 contract’, even after the action had been taken.
Professor Jacoby proposed a motion to endorse the spirit, general logic, and action items of the
proposal. After discussion about this, Professor Cochran suggested that the Senate ratifies the
fifteen action items for consideration, and with specific recommendations of the committee.
Professor Loesberg seconded the proposal.
Professor Ahrens discussed the pros and cons of convening the Senate for another meeting next
week. Professor Loesberg does not feel that the nature of the debate today would actually change
next week and that perhaps should settle it today. Professor Cochran agreed and said that the
Senators should vote on each particular action item. Further, he motioned to change the wording
in action item 3 to say voting instead of non-voting. There was a second. But after the vote, the
amendment failed.
Professor Burke said that all of the Senators seem to agree with all of the action items. Professor
Jacoby summarized by saying: the Senate commends the ad hoc governance committee for their
work in preparing a very thoughtful report and endorses the spirit, general logic, and fifteen
action items specified in the report. Professor Loesberg added that it could be reworded to say:
the Senate commends the ad hoc governance committee for their work in preparing a very
thoughtful report and endorses the spirit and general logic, and ratifies the fifteen action items
specified in the report. This latter wording was seconded. Professor Ahrens counted 16:1 in
favor.
Professor of the Practice, Richard Bennett
Professor Bennett thanked all of his colleagues who helped with this proposal. He added that the
proposal is in the final stages and there should be draft circulated soon.
Report of the Chair, Tony Ahrens
Professor Ahrens and Stephen Silvia attended the U.S. Senate meeting on March 3rd. The main
point of note is that the four outside experts who were brought in were consistent in urging the
U.S. Senate not to intervene at this time.
Professor Ahrens thanked Jonathan Loesberg for directing the counting of the ballots in the
recent elections, and also Melissa Becher for helping to count the ballots. He offered
congratulations to Gary Weaver who was reelected to an at-large seat and Brian Forst who was
elected to an open seat. Professor Ahrens offered congratulations to all who will serve.
According to the current academic regulations, newly elected Senators take office on May 1st.
Professor Ahrens would like to propose an amendment to the academic regulations so that
starting next year the newly elected Senators could take office on September 1st. Professor
Loesberg asked whether the current Senators could vote now on this. Professor Ahrens said that
he thought about it and has come to the conclusion that it may not be seem right to vote on an
item that will pertain to the current Senators rather than the upcoming ones. Professor Loesberg
added that in effect the May meeting cannot really vote on anything because some members are
not in place and others have not heard all of the issues being discussed. He suggested that
perhaps today the Senators could propose a date change and then the upcoming new Senators
would then ratify it. This was endorsed by all members.
Professor Ahrens announced that Provost Broder is talking to campus on April 26th at 3:00 pm
and that the Faculty Recognition Dinner is on April 23rd at 5:30pm.
Professor Schaeff suggested that the Faculty Senate meetings could be moved to 2:00 rather than
1:45 since many Senators teach at that time.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.