Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
September 7, 2005
Present: Professors Ahrens, Becher, Burke, Bennett, Durant, Fantie, Flug, Gill, Girard, Irvine
Belson, Isaac, Jacoby, King, Loesberg, Mardirosian, Petit, Richardson, Riley, Rosenbloom,
Schaeff, Weaver. Acting Provost Broder.
Tony Ahrens called the meeting to order at 1:45pm and took the agenda out of order due to
Acting President Kerwin’s schedule.
1. Campus Update, Acting President Cornelius Kerwin
Acting President Kerwin introduced several topics that would be elaborated on later in the
meeting. He said that AU has responded helpfully and swiftly to the tragedy in the Gulf coast, in
ways in which the university can take pride.
Dr. Kerwin reflected on the university in general, stating his confidence in Ivy Broder as acting
provost while he is acting president. He described the Convocation ceremony as exceptional, due
especially to Richard McCann, Scholar-Teacher of the Year and Professor of Literature, and to
Kyle Taylor, president of the undergraduate student body. He noted that the opening events,
including new faculty orientation, were strongly attended.
Dr. Kerwin reported that the university’s financial footing is strong. He estimated that we would
close the summer with a relatively modest shortfall of less than $700,000 relative to the target;
however, the fall looks strong. This is the most academically qualified freshman class in AU
history. Given the magnitude of the size of the fall budget, the target amount will be missed by
less than $1 million. We are in good shape, and our endowment has shown recent growth to $281
million.
Dr. Kerwin said that he would not comment on the ongoing inquiry involving President Ladner,
beyond making an appeal to the community that we honor the Board’s commitment to the
process they have put in place, including their commitment to conduct the inquiry under a
provision of confidentiality that they believe preserves the interests of the institution.. He
commended the experience and talent of the trustees, who volunteer their time for AU and care
deeply about the institution. He believes the Board needs only the time and space to reach an
acceptable resolution, and he hopes that the community will continue to respond with patience.
He wished the members of the Senate well in the coming year and thanked those who had
contacted him with support. He said the President’s report on the state of the institution would be
made at the October Senate meeting.
2. Welcome and Introductions:
Tony Ahrens welcomed the Faculty Senate and asked members to introduce themselves.
3. Election of Vice Chair
Tony Ahrens noted that a vice chair of the Senate was not elected in the spring and that Jonathan
Loesberg had volunteered to fill the position. The Senate voted unanimously to elect Professor
Loesberg.
4. Report of the Acting Provost, Ivy Broder
Ivy Broder thanked the deans, Provost’s Office staff, and other colleagues for their welcome
support. She acknowledged the many deans attending the meeting. She introduced the new
Kogod Dean, Dick Durand, noting that he comes from Lehigh University’s College of Business
and Economics and that he served previously as chair of the marketing department at the
University of Maryland. She said he was selected from a pool of outstanding candidates and
expressed how thrilled we are to have such a good match.
Acting Provost Broder spoke on several items:
Hurricane Katrina:
She noted that as of early this morning, about 100 students displaced by the hurricane had
registered across the campus with about 25 more in the process. At this point in time, the
breakdown across the units is 4 students in the School of Communication, 12 in the School of
Public Affairs, 9 in the School of International Service, 16 in the Kogod School of Business, 43
in the College of Arts and Sciences, 20 in Washington Semester, and 19 in the Washington
College of Law, including LLM and JD students. The university’s policy has evolved in terms of
charging tuition. Initially, there was no estimate of the magnitude of those who would come and
the emphasis was on accommodating them, so AU decided to waive tuition and fees for those
who had already paid them at their home institutions, setting a cap at 30. The response was
overwhelming, even before announcing what the policy would be. As some higher education
associations weighed in, AU decided to go with their recommendation, and waived tuition and
fees for all those who had already paid at home institutions. The students are paying housing
fees, and about half require housing. Most are staying in residence halls and Park Bethesda, with
Washington Semester students at the Tenley Campus. Approximately 90% of the students are
from Tulane; the rest are from Xavier, Loyola, and the University of New Orleans. They are
evenly distributed across ranks, so they will be in every type of class.
Dr. Broder asked the Senators for help by going back to departments to make sure we’re meeting
the students’ needs for accommodations inside and outside the classroom, as these students will
require extra support. The Office of Campus Life organized a dinner in TDR Tuesday night,
which Dr. Broder attended. She noted that some students were quite disoriented and distraught,
not knowing the status of faculty and friends at their home institutions. She encouraged the AU
tradition of reaching out.
Fall 2005 enrollment report:
Dr. Broder reiterated that the budget figures are strong, although the enrollment of 1225 new
first-year students is below the budget target of 1325. This is the strongest class academically in
AU history, with average SAT scores of 1267 and average GPA of 3.5. Eighteen percent (18%)
are minorities; the new students come from 49 states and 29 countries; 13.9% are Honors
students; 50 freshmen are children of alumni; 18.8% came here on early decision. In addition to
these great statistics, she shared some background information and achievements of a few
students.
The transfer population is 433, above the target of 375, which compensated somewhat for lower
freshman class. Average GPA is 3.2, up from last year’s 3.1.
The university’s retention rate is the strongest ever: 89.6% of freshmen are returning as
sophomores. This also holds across the board – retention has risen by about 3% for each class,
although our retention is still a bit behind other schools of our type. She attributed increased
retention to the good work of faculty in the classroom.
Last year 263 students studied abroad. This year we budgeted for 285; however, 395 have
registered to study abroad. This is a remarkable increase supporting the goal set for global
initiatives.
The Washington Semester Program budgeted for 375 students; 330 have enrolled, which left
room for the “Katrina” students who came. Tulane has traditionally strictly limited the number of
their students in the Washington Semester Program to only four who could carry financial aid
and then a limited number who couldn’t carry aid. This has resulted in a stored-up demand for
the program. Dr. Broder noted that many of the first calls AU received when the magnitude of
Katrina was realized were to Washington Semester.
Overall, graduate credit hours are about 4% below budget, mostly in one academic unit. WCL is
slightly ahead of budget.
New faculty:
Dr. Broder reported that there were 21 new tenure or tenure-track hires last year, including the
new Kogod Dean. Five of them are minorities; 10 are female. New faculty orientation a few
weeks ago was a great success. She shared the names of the new faculty and the schools from
which they received degrees. She reiterated how impressed she was with their backgrounds and
noted that faculty want to come to AU because of the teaching/scholarship balance. They will be
committed teachers, researchers, and colleagues.
Indicators of program quality
AU’s ranking in U.S. News and World Report increased from 86 to 85. Dr. Broder said that we
were named a “Best Buy” institution (one of only 44) by the 2006 Fiske Guide. In athletics, she
noted that in “Power Rankings” National Collegiate Scouting Association for division 1 teams,
AU placed 37 in the country.
Office of Merit Awards committee
Dr. Broder announced the new Office of Merit Awards faculty advisory committee, established
this summer and located in the Career Center. The office has been very successful in getting
students to the highest level of national awards. We have the largest number of undergraduate
Boren Fellowships of any institution in the country, and we’ve had two Truman Scholars in the
last three years. The qualitative improvements of our student body have provided the office with
great material. She encouraged faculty to continue to help by identifying high-achieving students
in their freshman, sophomore, and even junior years and to bring them to the attention of Paula
Warrick, director of the Office of Merit Awards, or to Katherine Stahl, director of the Career
Center.
University College:
The University College has 146 students enrolled in 8 seminars. Dr. Broder thanked Haig
Mardirosian for his great work organizing this program, noting the complexity of initiating an
enterprise such as this. She listed the faculty involved and said that each section has an
instructional team that includes a program associate and a university librarian. Students live in
“neighborhoods” in Anderson and McDowell grouped by seminar. There was a reception for
students and families when they moved in. The students have participated in Welcome Week
volunteer programs and the Freshman Service Experience or Discover DC program. The
University College is emphasizing the integration of what happens outside and inside the
classroom. The students will be seeing Othello at the Shakespeare Theatre, which will lead into a
multi-disciplinary symposium. The assessment process has already begun, with the help of a
$10,000 grant from the Association of American Colleges and Universities given to study highrisk behavior.
External funding/Office of Sponsored Programs
Dr. Broder congratulated the faculty for first quarter results of externally funded awards. The
Office of Sponsored Programs received grants totaling $3.6 million. Proposal volume is also up
from last year.
Dr. Broder acknowledged that Charles McLaughlin passed away last Friday. He was an emeritus
professor of History. There is no news on the memorial service yet.
Dr. Broder solicited questions from the Senate. Mike Petit asked if New Orleans students would
be getting their degrees from AU or their home institution. Dr. Broder responded that the
majority would be getting them from their home institution. There are approximately 12
freshmen who applied to both AU and Tulane; when they come here they may decide to stay, in
which case those students would have AU degrees. We are not aggressively encouraging
students to get AU degrees, and our residency requirements are more extensive than they can do
in one semester or one year.
Phil Jacoby asked if there had been a chance to analyze the freshman shortfall. Dr. Broder said
not in terms of data or focus groups, but that her sense was that there is a large increase in the
number of schools to which each student applies.
5. Approval of the Minutes, May 4, 2005
The minutes were approved unanimously with revision: Jonathan Loesberg noted that the rest of
the committee should be added on the four-course load proposal.
6. Report of the Chair
Tony Ahrens thanked those who have been working behind the scenes on the response to
Katrina. He thanked the members of the Senate for thoughtful advice over the summer, and Ivy
and Neil in helping with the transition to the chair. He reported that Margaret White’s temporary
position ended in August and that they are working on hiring to fill a permanent position. He also
thanked Nathan Price for his “Herculean” efforts.
Professor Ahrens reported on activities over the summer. Regarding the investigation: he
contacted the Board to offer help and support; Leslie Baines thanked him and expressed
confidence in the faculty, noting that the Faculty Senate is an important group with which the
Board should communicate. She wants to have a series of lunches and breakfasts with the faculty
over the coming year at Board meetings.
Professor Ahrens referred Senators to the academic calendar he had emailed. He said that he and
David Rosenbloom, past chair, had discussed it with the provost. Some issues to note: a number
of people have raised concerns about the late end of the fall semester; others have expressed
concern about Monday block classes which miss meeting time for both Labor Day and Fall
Break. Three possibilities are being proposed:
A. Keep things as they are.
B. Move Fall Break to Friday (10/21), end classes on Friday, 12/8. Final exam study days would
be Saturday-Sunday, and the last day of exams would be Saturday, 12/16.
C. Eliminate Fall Break. The last day of classes would be Thursday, 12/7. Final exam study days
would be Friday-Sunday, and exams would end on Saturday, December 16.
For the two proposed alternatives, Friday classes would meet on Tuesday of Thanksgiving week
(Tuesday classes would be cancelled). This would only affect Friday block classes, of which
there are only 17 this semester. He asked for feedback.
John Richardson asked whether this proposal had been submitted to the Student Confederation
for consideration. Peter Brusoe, chair of the Graduate Student Council, said that the general
feeling is that undergrad students want to continue fall break but grad students wouldn’t mind
losing it. James Girard wanted to know what other institutions do. Tony Ahrens said an extensive
search had been done, and some other schools have some sort of fall break. Linda Bolden-Pitcher
said other schools use Columbus Day or have a “study” or “research” day. Tony Ahrens said
other schools with a schedule similar to AU that have a break don’t take off Labor Day. But this
complicates things at AU because Labor Day is also an official university holiday affecting staff,
as university offices are closed. Lesley Gill asked if options B or C would affect the start of the
spring semester. Professor Ahrens replied no, it would only lengthen the semester break.
Tony Ahrens noted a scheduling issue for the next Faculty Senate meeting: the first week in
October is Rosh Hashanah; the second week is Yom Kippur; the Senate will meet October 19.
Gary Weaver moved to approve plan B or C but not A. Jonathan Loesberg seconded. Tony
Ahrens said there would still be considerable discussion about the calendar by other
constituencies. Gary Weaver withdrew his motion and asked who makes the final decision. Tony
Ahrens said the academic regulations do not specify a procedure and that action on the part of
the Senate need not occur in order for the calendar to be approved. Dr. Broder said that Dr.
Kerwin made the decision last year about not eliminating fall break. One person has to make the
final decision, and if it’s her, it will be in consultation with faculty colleagues, vice presidents,
and deans. Alan Isaac said that he didn’t have concerns unless there was a recruitment or
academic impact resulting from the schedule: If students are happier with a longer winter break
or a fall break, that should determine which plan we use. Dr. Broder responded that the academic
implication was in the length of study breaks. In the past, it has been Tuesday-Wednesday, so
between options B and C, the tradeoff is having one day of Fall Break and having a three-day
study break before finals. Tony Ahrens reiterated the Monday class disruption with the current
situation. Gary Weaver agreed: he teaches Monday nights, and you kick off the semester, and
already by mid-October you’ve missed 2 full classes. Peter Brusoe noted that grad students often
miss a whole week of work with Fall Break. Tony Ahrens said he was in favor of having an extra
study day.
John Richardson asked if the Senate should indicate which option it supported. Jonathan
Loesberg made a friendly amendment that this would be the sense of the Faculty Senate in the
absence of student opinions.
A vote was taken. Twelve (12) voted to endorse B or C; 0 were opposed; 2 abstained. Dr. Broder
suggested that only those with a strong opinion should vote. No Senators endorsed option B; 11
voted for option C; 5 indicated indifference.
Tony Ahrens asked for any comments. John Richardson expressed his appreciation for the
Senate Chair visiting with a number of senators to discuss thoughts on the agenda for the coming
year. He felt this was very valuable and appreciated the initiative and time commitment at the
beginning of the semester. Professor Ahrens replied that he would be planning meetings with the
other members of the Senate as well.
7. Election of members of the General Education Committee
Tony Ahrens said that two volunteers are still needed, but Randolph Persaud and Joan Gero have
volunteered to be nominated. They were elected unanimously.
8. Discussion of and vote upon Proposed Changes to the Faculty Action Process, Jonathan
Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg noted that this has been discussed at three prior Senate meetings, originally
coming as one amendment but was separated into two. There were three reasons for the proposal.
First, there is an idea that everywhere else where evaluations occur, they occur according to a
hierarchy of achievement within a field, which has to do with where one is in achievement and
evaluation. Second is the issue of conflict of interest, particularly for assistant professors voting
for tenure. Third, this would bring us in line with most policies at most other institutions.
Professor Loesberg recommended splitting this proposal into two parts because of practical
situations, such as chairs who are associate professors.
Alan Isaac questioned the phrasing in part 1, suggesting that it read “must be full professors.”
Bryan Fantie proposed alternative wording: “only tenured faculty may be voting members of the
Rank & Tenure committees.” John Richardson reiterated his stance from earlier meetings. The
School of International Service has its council meeting before the Senate meeting, and he
circulates the Senate agendas. After lengthy discussion, they voted strongly in opposition to this
proposal. To summarize: the position of SIS faculty is that a one-size-fits-all approach at AU
doesn’t work and the faculty don’t feel it’s necessary in this case. Second, the system is
functioning well, as evidenced by the strong SIS faculty produced under it. Third, the faculty
feels it’s okay to disagree, with the knowledge that the acting president and provost have
provided compelling arguments, and they feel comfortable expressing a dissenting point of view.
If the view doesn’t prevail, they will follow the will of the Senate. Gary Weaver seconded John’s
position, saying only one person at the meeting spoke against it. It’s a matter of principle: using
students and faculty of all ranks have worked very well for SIS.
Jonathan Loesberg noted that although he initially didn’t favor the proposal, he came to support
it. He felt that although untenured assistant professors will lose a valuable experience in
department culture, it became clear to him that the position of assistant professors was perceived
differently from the way everyone else on the committee was perceived. This conflict of interest
doesn’t mean they can’t make objective decisions, but it does mean that in certain kinds of
positions, you shouldn’t force upon the individual the extra burden of thinking about their
position. This is without regard to specific individuals; it has to do with the position and the rank
and those things shouldn’t go together.
Phil Jacoby asked for clarification. Is SIS’s position to be opposed to both parts? John
Richardson said yes, as the rationale for both comes from the same place. Alan Isaac asked if
SIS’s concerns were equally focused on students and assistant professors and whether the voting
is the consideration. Gary Weaver said that having non-voting members delegitimatizes the role
of these individuals. Gail Humphries Mardirosian spoke on part one, reporting that some CAS
colleagues have discussed this with assistant professors who said that they feel strongly that they
would not like to be in this situation. Students would like to have a voice at the table, but do not
want a vote. It’s not a matter of can they handle it, but should they be put in that position. John
Richardson moved to call the question; Phil Jacoby seconded. Fourteen (14) voted in favor of
calling the question; 1 registered opposition.
A vote was taken on part one: 13 voted in favor; 3 voted in opposition. The motion passed.
The discussion proceeded on part two of the proposal. John Richardson asked in what areas is
there a compelling interest for uniformity, and in what areas should there be discretion? Jonathan
Loesberg replied that conflict of interest, in and of itself, represents a reason for the university to
govern in this situation. John Richardson asked if this change would be applicable to the
Washington College of Law. Barlow Burke said it was already the WCL policy.
Tony Ahrens related a colleague’s concern about promotion from associate to full professor: he
had seen the perception of competition among associate professors, and he wanted to speak in
favor of the proposal. Professor Ahrens also spoke to conflict of interest. He said that some
people are or aren’t friends, and people working together in the same general area will have an
impact on each other. Therefore, there will inevitably be conflicts of interest. He said the conflict
for tenure is greater than promotion to full. We have been strengthening standards, which has
resulted in the creation of a cadre of associate professors who are very good, particularly at
determining appropriate level of scholarly output. Third, he said there is an issue with small
departments – it will be very difficult to get people to staff these committees. Units would have
to pull in people from outside their departments, or other steps would have to be taken. Even
now, there is challenge.
Phil Jacoby said he had hoped the committee might have addressed the issue of how full
professors from other disciplines would be added to a committee when it becomes necessary,
saying having a plan in place is necessary before he feels comfortable voting on it. He proposed
to have Part B returned to the committee to address that issue. Lesley Gill said that what is being
considered is disenfranchising people who already have the right to vote. She asked that these
issues be dealt with in other ways, without denying people the right to vote. She added that in a
university setting, as many voices as possible are best. Ivy Broder said that many of the same
considerations for part two are based on the justification of voting in favor of part one. Still,
there are some unanticipated procedural complications for part two that have emerged in
discussing the proposal. Dr. Broder said that because understanding of the process and change in
the Faculty Manual language are necessary, it might be premature to vote on part two.
Phil Jacoby moved to return Part two to committee to develop procedures for committee
makeup. Cathy Schaeff said that it seems that we are comparing apples and oranges: a
philosophical conflict of interest, and a logistical problem with where the university is right now.
They are actually different categories and we have to be clear on what we are deciding. Jonathan
Loesberg agreed to an extent, noting that the issues of tenure are not the same as promotion to
full professor. Cynthia King also felt there was a significant qualitative difference between
faculty levels, in terms of institutional power, knowledge of the field, etc., and that these need to
be considered in the process. Bryan Fantie asked if the votes before us would solve that. Lesley
Gill asked why we are debating this conflict of interest now after the policy has been around for
years. Jonathan Loesberg responded that any change to the Faculty Manual changes existing
rules. He also felt that this is part of the process of bringing AU to a standard of evaluating these
issues. Phil Jacoby had mixed feelings about the issue because we are in transition and raising
standards. He felt strongly that these committees are to be composed of faculty: the faculty role
should be preserved as a faculty role, and when the issue of filling out smaller departments’
committees comes up, deans shouldn’t have too much power in the choice of faculty. Cathy
Schaeff again asked about ideologically supporting the notion versus logistically supporting it,
and noted that there might need to be more full professors to have fair representation. Gail
Mardirosian felt there were significant practical concerns, noting that some smaller departments
have only one or two full professors. She said she would feel more comfortable with an indepartment associate professor on the committee than an outside full professor.
Tony Ahrens said he was opposed to the proposal as it stands, but that if it is sent back, he could
support it. He asked for a straw vote. Jonathan Loesberg said that last year’s Committee on
Faculty Relations discussion raised many of these issues; the conclusion was that it should be
brought to the Faculty Senate for discussion. Alan Isaac called the question.
A vote was taken on sending part two back to committee: 8 voted in favor; 8 voted in opposition;
Tony Ahrens broke the tie, voting in favor of sending part two back to committee.
9. Consideration of the Senate’s agenda for the year
Tony Ahrens said the executive committee sets the agendas and that the Faculty Senate serves as
its own executive committee. The chair is practically charged with setting the agenda, subject to
review by the Senate. He wanted to focus on being more proactive. He has a partial list of items
and asked members of the Senate to give him other items they would like to add. He said that he
would get together with the past chair and vice chair as well as committee chairs to determine
how to proceed.
10. Good of the Order
Janice Flug said that all faculty members of the Instructional Budget and Benefits Committee are
also members of the faculty advisory team. She said there are many seminars given by HR,
particularly some focused on retirement (finances, investments, planning ahead, etc.). They want
to know what else the faculty would like to have offered; if anyone has suggestions, please let
her know.
Secondly, there are preliminary numbers concerning medical and dental renewals. She will bring
up-to-date data in October. Care First Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical and the prescription drug
plan will be increasing costs by only 4%. The Care First Blue Cross/Blue Shield dental plan will
go up 8%. Kaiser Permanente will go up 7%. DentaQuest has no change, because their rates are
guaranteed through December 31, 2007. These numbers are much better than last year, which
saw double-digit increases. The budget advisory committee is also looking at flexible spending.
Melissa Becher announced that the University Library is inviting all faculty to a faculty coffee
tomorrow, from 10-12am at the new Mud Box. People will be available to talk about media
collections, databases, what’s new, etc.
Phil Jacoby expressed concern over starting Senate meetings at 1:45pm, because it’s in the
middle of a block. He proposed starting at 2:00pm.
Mike Petit shared the passing of Marla Schwartz, member of the WCL faculty, after a four year
struggle with cancer.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:04pm.