Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
April 6, 2005
David Rosenbloom called the meeting to order at 1:45p.m.
Present: Professors Ahrens, Arneson, Bennett,Burke, Douglass, Durant, Flug, Heintze, Jacoby,
Karch, King, Loesberg, Petit, Riley, Rosenbloom, Streitmatter, Vogelsong, Weaver. Provost
Kerwin and Dean Broder.
1. Approval of minutes from March meeting
The minutes of the March 2, 2005 meeting were approved with revisions:
Diana Vogelsong asked that the Chair’s Report be amended to read: committee members are not restricted to two 2 year terms; only committee chairs are restricted to two 2 year terms of continuous service, then two years off before becoming eligible to serve again.
2. Report of the Provost, Cornelius Kerwin
Provost Kerwin reported on several items.
Appointment of New Dean of Kogod School of Business
Dr. Richard Durand, currently the Herbert Ehlers Dean of the College of Business and
Economics at Lehigh University, has accepted the appointment as the Dean of the Kogod School of Business, effective July 1, 2005. Prior to assuming the position of Dean at Lehigh University,
Dr. Durand was Professor and Chair of the Department of Marketing in the School of Business at the University of Maryland. As Dean of the College of Business and Economics at Lehigh, Dr.
Durand has done outstanding work with both the undergraduate and graduate programs. He has a deep commitment to excellence in teaching, with a strong emphasis on research and scholarship at the highest level, and he has a proven track record in fund raising. Provost Kerwin thanked the Search Committee, chaired by Professor Edward Wasil, and extended an invitation to all members of the Senate to join him in welcoming Dr. Durand to the community at a reception in his honor when he arrives this summer.
Update on Enrollment for Fall 2005
The Provost informed the Senate that he had just returned from Hawaii where he met with accepted and prospective students in a critical market area for the recruitment of undergraduates.
President Ladner is conducting a round of trips to the East Coast and the Mid-West after visiting
Los Angeles and the West Coast. So far we have received 13,560 applications for the freshman class; a modern record. The admit rate for this fall’s freshman class stands at 51.3% and is expected to stay at that number for the remainder of this cycle. The admit pool has a mean SAT of 1280 and a mean GPA of 3.55. This is a substantial improvement over last year. Applications for transfer students are up 4% and deposits are up 17%. Graduate numbers are even with this

time last year. The doctoral numbers are up 11%. The Washington Semester Program numbers are consistent with Fall 2003 numbers. The Washington College of Law has experienced no appreciable decline in applications even though the national trend is down about 6%. The
Provost offered his congratulations to the Law School on placing in the top 50 law schools in the
US News & World Report.
Athletic Issues on the Agenda
Provost Kerwin was delighted that Professor Robert Karch was reporting on athletics to the
Senate today. The Provost informed the Senate that the Athletics Director, Joni Comstock, would be present for part of today’s meeting. Dr. Kerwin stated that after a preliminary discussion with Professors Rosenbloom, Ahrens, and Douglass some structural changes in the committees would be addressed further.
The Provost reminded the Senate that his speech to the faculty will be later this month, and he would discuss the standards in academics and the collective work of the Senate.
3. Consideration of the Four Course Load Proposal, Jonathan Loesberg
Professor Loesberg noted two revisions to the proposal. In response to concerns regarding
distinguished faculty, or other faculty, who are already on course loads of four or fewer, the following sentence has been added to the first proposal on page two: faculty, whose conditions of employment with the University mandate teaching loads of four courses a year or fewer will not be affected by this proposal. Proposal number six, page two was changed to read: all untenured, tenure-line assistant professors should be moved to a four-course load effective, AY
2005-2006. Professor Loesberg stated he viewed this as a redundancy since he believed the
University no longer had tenured, assistant professors. The Provost and Dean Broder informed the Senate that the University does have tenured, assistant professors. The proposal should be further revised to read: all untenured, tenure-line faculty. This proposal will be open to further review after discussions at unit level.
Professor Streitmatter questioned the use of the term “scholarship” in the first proposal on page two. He stated that the term scholarship might not be appropriate for a member of the faculty very active in filmmaking. Dean Broder proposed changing the language to read: scholarly, creative, professional activities. This change was accepted as a friendly amendment. Professor
Jacoby moved to approve the proposal of the Ad-Hoc Committee. The proposal was approved.
Professor Riley asked if the secondary proposal, item six on page two, was included in the vote.
He suggested splitting the vote, one through five, and voting on item six separately. Professor
Loesberg returned to the podium and explained that assistant professors are hired at the fourcourse level for one year and then move up to a five-course load. If the proposal was revised to read: all untenured, tenure-line faculty should be moved to a four-course load effective AY
2005-2006, then all untenured professors would be on a four-course starting in September 2005 creating last minute changes for department chairs.

Professor Douglass asked how junior faculty leave would be handled, and Professor Loesberg informed him that the committee did not discuss this issue. The Provost reminded the Senate that part of the proposal was the intermediate period where units work with the deans to develop standards for the extension of the reduced load and the management of a differential load policy.
A commitment on the viability of junior faculty leave would be difficult to make until that process is complete. Since junior faculty members are already on a four course load this would be another element to retain the best candidates. Dean Broder clarified that a discussion of benefits and expectations was always part of the interview process when negotiating with new faculty members. Diana Vogelsong stated, for the record, that the library faculty did not fall under the allocation for a four-course load and that their load requirements may need to be addressed separately.
Provost Kerwin informed the Senate that Professor Riley was correct in requesting that proposal number six be voted on as a separate issue. Professor Jacoby pointed out that procedurally the
Senate passed the entire document and stated that if item number six was going to be discussed further he would like to suggest some language changes that might solve some of the issues being raised. Professor Loesberg asked the Chair for a ruling to change the motion. Permission to change the motion was granted.
Professor Jacoby suggested changing proposal number six to read: all untenured, tenure-line professors who are progressing satisfactorily towards tenure should be moved to a maximum four-course load with no effective date. Professor Loesberg pointed out that if proposals one through five go into effect it would be hard to put an untenured professor on a five or six-course load and to keep them on it. If members of the junior faculty are engaged in scholarship moving them towards tenure and promotion, then they should be on a four-course load. Dean Broder stated the phrase “making satisfactory progress” is important if there are faculty members on terminal contract who could be moved to a five or six-course load.
Professor Loesberg proposed changing the language to read: all untenured, tenure-line faculty making satisfactory progress towards tenure should be moved to a four course load effective, AY
2005-2006. Diana Vogelsong stated she did not like the term “satisfactory progress.” If someone is not making satisfactory progress a complaint may be made against the University.
Dean Broder explained this would only concern faculty members given a terminal contract.
Unless faculty members are given notice by December 15, following their second year at the
University, they are entitled to a one year terminal contract if they are not making satisfactory progress towards tenure. Upon the determination that satisfactory progress towards tenure is not being made, with the understanding that there is a one year terminal contract given, the teaching load will be increased during that terminal contract year. This is not Faculty Manual language; this is internal procedural documentation. Dean Broder stated that if these provisions are implemented, there will be documentation and detailed guidance coming from the office of the
Dean of Academic Affairs.
Provost Kerwin stated that the feasibility of implementing the changes by Fall 2005 was unreasonable. If the language was modified slightly it should be implemented as soon as possible, with Fall 2006 being the ideal time frame.

Professor Rosenbloom motioned for the language of the proposal to be modified to read: all untenured, tenure-line faculty making satisfactory progress towards tenure should be moved to a four-course load effective as soon as possible, preferably by AY 2006-2007. The motion was approved.
3. Discussion of the Faculty Action Process Proposal, Rodger Streitmatter
Professor Streitmatter, Chair of Faculty Relations Committee, referred the senate to the Faculty
Action Process Proposal included with the minutes. In brief, the proposal would limit voting membership on Rank and Tenure committees to tenured faculty. In addition, only full professors would vote on the promotion of a tenured faculty member from associate professor to full professor. At the March meeting of the Senate this proposal was reviewed and the Senators were asked to discuss it further within their departments. Professor Streitmatter opened the floor to the Senators to discussion on comments from individual units.
Professor Douglass stated that within the School of Communication untenured faculty members currently serving on the Rank and Tenure Committee felt very uncomfortable voting. The faculty members supported the idea of untenured faculty members and students serving on the committees, and agreed that only tenured faculty should vote on promotions. Professor
Streitmatter informed the Senate that, in the spirit of the proposal, there would be non-voting members on the Rank and Tenure Committees. James Heintze, Librarian, University Library, questioned how this would be feasible within his department since the University Library has only two members eligible to vote. Professor Streitmatter stated this was discussed by the
Faculty Relations Committee and it was determined that full professors from other departments within the University would be brought in; it was not a unique situation that a Rank and Tenure
Committee had to be formed for that process. Dean Broder responded that within the University there are more than two Librarians on the faculty at the full librarian level. Further, members of the Committee on Faculty Relations are from all areas of the campus and have the expertise to vote on librarian tenure. Michael Petit, Law Librarian, informed the Senate that at the
Washington College of Law the librarians are mostly tenured and full librarians.
Professor Ahrens informed the Senate that after discussion within the Department of Psychology it was suggested that the proposal be split into two propositions: 1. voting members of unit Rank and Tenure Committees may only be tenured faculty; 2. only full professors may vote on the promotion of a tenured faculty member from associate professor to professor. Professor Ahrens also reported that one colleague was in favor of the proposal that non-tenured faculty not vote on tenure, one was opposed, and one was indifferent. He also reported to the Senate that two colleagues were strongly opposed to limiting decisions on promotion to full professors only; and one colleague was in favor of the proposal.
A student asked if expertise in the field is how tenure track professors are tenured; if the criteria for tenure are available to the public; if the criteria differed by committee; and what portion of the overall decision is the factor of quality of teaching. The student also questioned if tenured professors from other departments would have the knowledge and expertise to vote on tenure outside of their field. Professor Streitmatter informed him that the Faculty Manual, which is available online, speaks to the criteria and a candidate for tenure has to prove excellence by the

record both in teaching and in scholarly, creative, professional activity. He stated that the committees are formed using the breadth of experience throughout the University; professors may have expertise in an area other than the area in which they are a member of the faculty.
Professor Streitmatter offered himself as an example stating he has a PhD in American History, is in the School of Communication but could conceivably be member of a committee to vote on tenure in the Department of History.
The Provost asked the Senate to keep in mind the critical distinction between participation in a decision as opposed to making a decision. Tenured faculty members are qualified to vote on promotion to tenure. In the past, assistant professors have declined involvement in the voting process. Conflict of interest combined with political pressure and minimum qualifications are strong reasons to restrict voting to tenured faculty members. Historically the same decisions have been made in the Washington College of Law and untenured faculty members are not allowed to serve on the Committee for Faculty Relations. Students are qualified to evaluate the quality of instruction. Teacher evaluations are required in every course, in every semester, and are an element in the evaluation procedure. The quality of a colleague’s scholarship or professional work should not reside in the hands of students. Provost Kerwin stated that untenured faculty members and students should participate as fully as individual units feel comfortable, but that voting should be restricted to tenured colleagues only. The Provost also informed the Senate that splitting the proposal on tenure and promotion to full professor into two propositions would be taken under consideration.
Professor Streitmatter motioned that the proposal for voting on Rank and Tenure Committees be split into two proposals: 1. Voting members of unit Rank and Tenure committees may only be tenured faculty. 2. Only full professors may vote on the promotion of a tenured faculty member from associate professor to professor.
Professor Rosenbloom informed the Senate that a vote on this issue would be addressed in the
May meeting.
4. Athletic Issues, Robert Karch
Provost Kerwin announced to the Senate that Dr. Joni Comstock, Athletic Director, was elected
Chair, of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Committee, heading the ten member group charged with running the tournament from top to bottom. Dr. Comstock is the first person to serve as chair while a member of the Patriot League.
Professor Karch expressed his appreciation regarding President Ladner’s decision to delay cutting the tennis and golf teams from the University athletic program next year. Professor
Karch met with Vice President Albert Checcio and Dr. Joni Comstock to discuss the decision to cut the two programs. He was informed that at the meeting of the Board of Trustees, budget issues were a major factor in the decision process. Professor Karch put forth a proposal to revisit the issue of forming another committee and asked for Senate involvement and leadership with restructuring of the Senate to give the Senate a more active role in the Athletics Department. Dr.
Comstock stated that she would welcome interaction with the Senate in areas such as the

academic welfare of the students involved in the decision to cut the tennis and golf teams from the University athletic program next year.
Professor Rosenbloom informed Dr. Comstock and Professor Karch that the Senate would be happy to take the proposal.
5. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Copyrights, Diana Vogelsong
Diana Vogelsong referred the Senate to the document included with the minutes: What AU
Faculty Need to Know about Copyright for Teaching. Ms. Vogelsong stated that the existing copyright policies have been in place for twenty years and are out of date. In order to make full use of the law the University needs to have a program, and a document, in place that faculty members can respond to. Ms. Vogelsong asked if the Senate Website would be an appropriate site to place the document. The Provost determined that the Library Website would be the most logical site for the document on copyright issues.
6. Open Discussion
Janice Flug asked if the current committee chairs would attend the May meeting of the Faculty
Senate. Professor Rosenbloom informed her that both the old and new committee chairs would attend the May meeting.
7. Good of the Order
Professor Rosenbloom reminded the Senate of the upcoming Emeriti Luncheon on Thursday,
April 14.
Dean Broder informed the Senate that the Faculty Recognition Dinner was scheduled for
Sunday, April 17, at the Washington College of Law.
Professor Rosenbloom spoke of the passing of Harold Petrowitz, Emeriti Professor, Washington
College of Law.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.