Minutes
Faculty Senate Meeting
March 2, 2005
David Rosenbloom called the meeting to order at 1:45p.m.
Present: Professors Ahrens, Arneson, Burke, Douglass, Durant, Flug, Heintze, Jacoby, Karch,
King, La Salle, Leap, Petit, Richardson, Riley, Rosenbloom, Schaeff, Streitmatter, Vogelsong,
Weaver. Provost Kerwin and Dean Broder.
1. Approval of minutes from February meeting
The minutes of the February 2, 2005 meeting were approved with revisions:
Philip Jacoby offered clarification on the Open Discussion portion of February’s minutes. He
checked with Janice Flug who agreed that his changes were accurate.
Ms. Flug stated that the committee recommendation was a 5.25 – 6% raise and that AAUP
should be under merit increase. On page 4 – the desktop replacement program is a future activity
and not yet completed. On page 5 – the action endorsed was the tuition increase, with the two
listed items combined as one.
2. Chair’s Report
David Rosenbloom welcomed Margaret White as the new Staff Assistant for the Faculty Senate.
Margaret will be in Leonard Hall as she gets oriented to the position. Professor Rosenbloom
thanked Nathan Price for “holding the fort” since December 23. He also thanked Janice Flug for
her work with the budget. Professor Rosenbloom stated that greater interest needs to be
generated for people to serve on the Senate and asked that the Senate encourage people in their
departments to become more involved. He called for attention to the term limit rule: two 2 year
terms are the maximum for continuous service; then 2 years off before becoming eligible to
serve again. Anita LaSalle requested electronic copies of the changes. Professor Rosenbloom
reported that on Friday, March 11, ballots for several committees and the at-large seats will be
generated along with a memo explaining the process.
3. Report of the Provost, Cornelius Kerwin
Provost Kerwin reported on several items.
Board of Trustees
The Board met on Thursday and Friday of last week. The primary order of business for the
Senate is the fiscal budget for the next two years. The Provost was pleased to report that all
priorities were endorsed and funded by the Board of Trustees: salary increases of 3.75% in base
merit and .25% market adjustment added for a total of 4% increase in faculty salaries for Fiscal
Year 2006, and 3.5% recommended in Fiscal Year 2007; $750,000 was authorized for new
faculty lines beginning in Fiscal Year 2006, with full funding in Fiscal Year 2007; library
collection funding of $400,000 over two years was endorsed; $250,000 special increase in
graduate stipends was approved; a modest increase in adjunct faculty salaries was approved;
funding for classroom renovations, restorations of funds for part-time wages, recruitment in
graduate programs, and maintaining a tuition reserve account were also approved.
Provost Kerwin spoke about the process of the meetings: student representatives performed well
and were supportive of the Senate’s initiatives, reporting satisfaction with academics at
American University. He thanked the students for conducting themselves with integrity and for
making it known to the Board of Trustees that there is a student voice at American University.
The Provost thanked President Ladner for his support of the Senate, which was crucial for the
Board’s recommendations, and he thanked the Senate, in particular the Chair of the Budget and
Benefits Committee, Janice Flug. The Board asked about the condition of academic programs
and asked for reports on student retention. The Board is also interested in the successes of
students once they leave AU and asked to be kept informed.
Two Year Budget Cycle
The Provost called for caution going into the next two year budget cycle. External conditions
may cause expenditure expectations to change, the most threatening issues being energy and
insurance costs, and annual increases. He recommended vigilance in monitoring the budget;
adjustments may be made if needed. Enrollment estimates are crucial to building the budget.
Update on Enrollments for Summer and Fall 2005
Fall enrollment: Freshman applications stand at 13,500, a “modern record”. There will be an
admit rate of close to 52%. The admit pool has a mean SAT of 1185 and a mean GPA of 3.56.
This is a substantial improvement over last year. Letters to the freshman class will go out in
about one week with a plan to enroll an incoming freshman class of 1325. The preliminary SAT
for Honors Freshman is over 1420, also an improvement over last year. It is too early for
transfer numbers to be meaningful. The Washington Semester Program numbers are consistent
with Fall 2003 numbers. Graduate numbers are down by 2 - 3 percentage points; doctoral
numbers are up. Enrollment for the fall looks solid and the budget just approved by the Board of
Trustees looks solid.
The Provost stated that we are working towards reducing reliance on adjunct faculty in critical
areas of the curriculum, such as teaching incoming undergraduate students, and, at the same
time, increasing adjunct salaries. He reported the current semester adjunct teaching rate in
General Education is 16.5%, a precipitous decline from several years ago. Dr. Kerwin concluded
his report by stating that the ultimate goal at AU is to retain an adjunct faculty that will have a
long term commitment to the students.
4. Proposed Changes to the Faculty Action Process, Rodger Streitmatter
Professor Streitmatter, Chair of the Faculty Relations Committee, referred the Senate to the
Proposed Changes to the Faculty Action Process memo included with the minutes. The proposal
would limit voting membership to tenured faculty and only full professors would vote on
promotions of associate professors. He said that he would like to raise the issue today and have
the Senators go back to their units, talk, and move forward at the April meeting. Professor
Streitmatter highlighted the fact that this proposal came about in the context of increased
standards with respect to faculty being awarded tenure. The university is looking more at the
process and seeing if parts of the review should have raised standards. The concept of peer
review unifies the faculty, allowing for the fact that each department has different methods.
When seeking external letters of review in the rank and tenure process we again seek peers to
review those materials. Therefore, when looking at tenure cases it seems appropriate that the
reviewer would be already tenured.
In the discussion that followed Anita La Salle stated her belief that it is a conflict of interest to
have an untenured faculty member voting on tenure cases. She also asked if it was important to
define “teaching unit council.” Dean Broder responded that the language recognizes the
differences from the major teaching units. Professor Richardson noted the difficulty in getting
people of the right rank on committees. Professor Streitmatter stated that it is not unusual for a
dean to create a committee by bringing in people from other departments, or in some cases, other
schools. He offered the Department of Performing Arts as an example where the dean creates an
appropriate committee. Professor Jacoby said it was wise to separate the 2 issues: tenured
faculty, and full professors. Professor Richardson mentioned that this item came up for
discussion in a faculty meeting just before this meeting and that SIS would unanimously oppose
this proposal, arguing that different units have different cultures. The SIS Rank and Tenure
Committee has a constitution that includes different constituencies, which the faculty feels has
strengthened a sense of community within the school. SIS does not presume to impose their
procedures on the rest of the University. He questioned the need for a University wide proposal.
Professor Streitmatter responded that in Kogod, the Rank & Tenure Committee is made up
entirely of full professors. Professor Leap stated that CAS has the same concerns. The EPC has
been discussing this issue since September: at this morning’s meeting of the CAS EPC they
approved language for Rank and Tenure. They did not vote on whether 100% of the committee
must be tenured faculty. Professor Leap gave copies of the approved CAS language to the
Senate.
Diana Vogelsong asked for checks and balances. The library has a small number of faculty, and
the model of pulling from another department would not work and would be a challenge.
Professor Streitmatter acknowledged that difference. Professor Loesberg said he could see both
sides of the issue. In the case of CAS, it would mean that promotions to full professors would
have a large number of outside members on the committees. Professor Douglas said that in SOC
it is important to have a member on the Faculty Relations Committee because “we are unique in
the University and need to make sure our voices are heard at this level.” Professor Schaeff
expressed concern about conflicts of interest. She asked if the primary objective was to enhance
faculty, if changing criteria would enhance and strengthen faculty, and if the assessments would
be more accurate and reflect the quality of the faculty? Professor Streitmatter informed her that
the objective was to strengthen faculty and create a stronger internal review process that would
be more rigorous and accurate. Professor Douglas questioned the need for a university wide
policy while accepting the idea of university oversight. He also questioned the compelling need
for the Senate to delve into individual units and make them uniform; has this been discussed, and
what are the arguments for this? Professor Loesberg pointed out that if it has been decided that
an assistant professor voting for associate, and an associate voting on full professors was a
conflict of interest, then there is a need to redefine rank and tenure. He said this is a compelling
university interest and an “if-then” situation. Professor King stated she had been in this situation
and felt constrained and uncomfortable judging content, given the politics and hierarchy, stating
a reluctance to make tough decisions with an urge to step back. Conflict of interest was palpable
in the process. She added that the process was instructive and she sees value in being a nonvoting member and not being excluded. Professor Karch informed the Senate that there are a
series of steps that determine promotion: chairs review, comment, and make a decision. The
chair may be an associate, not a full professor. You do not have to be a full professor to serve on
the Faculty Relations Committee. If you remove the chair, there would not be enough people to
constitute a committee with only full professors. Professor Jacoby stated that he did not think
full professors had a monopoly on integrity and it was counterproductive to restrict the process
this way.
A student questioned the removal of student input from the decision process. Professor
Streitmatter replied that there are sometimes complicated decisions that have to be made
regarding scholarships, and book translations. Students do not have the background in the
scholarly, creative areas, and are not knowledgeable enough to make those decisions. Professor
Rosenbloom said that students could have input, but would not vote. The Chair of the Student
Confederation’s Academic Review Committee informed the Senate that they had investigated
rank and tenure committees throughout each school and department and found differences within
departments. He asserted that there should be uniformity from the top-down,with students able
to sit on all committees, and asked for clarity on whether a student had ever voted on faculty.
Rodger Streitmatter informed him that there are guidelines in the Faculty Manual regarding
student involvement. In some departments, students do indeed vote. Professor Loesberg pointed
out that in some cases where R&T committees have made tough decisions, students do not want
to serve on the committee. The R&T committees are rough and assistant faculty members have
felt threatened by the pressure.
Professor Rosenbloom suggested that since the point of this discussion was to give feedback to
Professor Streitmatter and the committee, the Senators should all go back to their units and
discuss these proposals further.
5. Report of the AD Hoc Committee, Jonathan Loesberg
The committee was charged with developing a proposal for four-course loads for faculty actively
engaged with research. If you stipulate that you are financially able, under what terms do you
have faculty carry a four-course load? Criteria are consistent with those at competing research
institutions. The purpose of the four- course load is to enable enhanced scholarship. Professor
Loesberg spoke from personal experience as the Chair of the Department of Literature. He
informed the Senate that other institutions were offering candidates four-course loads and this
created a problem when recruiting faculty to American University and, to some extent, a problem
at the level of retention. Faculty operating at the level of scholarly productivity, as revised in the
Faculty Manual, should be teaching at the four-course load. Professor Loesberg questioned how
this would be determined since the Faculty Manual language is generalized?
Professor Loesberg reviewed the proposals. He referred the Senators to page two of the Proposal
for Four- Course Load for Faculty Actively Engaged in Research. He stated that part 4 was
significant. If faculty producing scholarship at a certain level should be teaching a four-course
load, then it logically follows that those who are not should be extending more effort teaching.
He informed the Senate that part 5 had two functions: 1. Equity – if someone is teaching five or
six courses four-course load, it logically follows that those who are not should be extending more
effort their merit should reflect that; 2. some faculty members might choose to teach at a five or
six-course load if that is where they are in their scholarly career. Tenure-line Faculty should be
moved to a four-course load effective Academic Year 2005-2006. Resource justification is
based on faculty teaching in Academic Year 2003-2004, but those numbers change year by year.
Professor Loesberg informed the Senate that the deans were asked to speculate on how many
faculty would be teaching five or six courses, and the projections for new faculty. They came up
with a loss of sections numbering in the forties; a number we can deal with. At this time there
has not been much formal discussion.
Professor Streitmatter liked “creative scholarly and professional record” better than
“scholarship” in terms of language. Professor La Salle pointed out that how the decision on
course load is made is missing from the proposal. She informed the Senate that in Kogod the
chairs go over everyone’s files and a six-course load can be reversed in just one year; but no one
ever gets reversed from a five- to a six-course load in just one year. Professor Loesberg stated
that decisions will be made from the teaching unit, through the chair, to the deans. Professor La
Salle informed the Senate that this would change the process already in place in Kogod, stating
that evaluations are done every year by chairs, associate deans, and deans. This would mean six
individual chairs, eight people, will make the evaluation. Professor Riley asked, if this was a
zero-sum game, with loads going down for some and up for others? He stated that courses
would still have to be taught. Professor Loesberg informed him, “explicitly not.” The
presumption that the deans operated under was that anyone actively engaged in research would
be on a four-course load. This does not assume anything except where we are now, plus the new
hires we have been told about. Professor Schaeff asked if each new line counted as a fresh
addition to the school, with two new faculty lines assuming sections that needed to be covered,
with no decline in the number of temps? Dr. Kerwin stated that new lines are net adds over the
existing base of the faculty. Professor Jacoby asked the Provost and Dean Broder if they felt this
was feasible, operationally. Dr. Kerwin pointed out that there are a lot of variables from year to
year and that the Board of Trustees was aware of the competitive disadvantage with respect to
hiring and retention. The commitment is putting faculty first with respect to resources. The
Provost informed the Senate that it has been demonstrated conclusively that the investments we
have made in this faculty have improved the quality of education at this institution. Professor
Richardson informed the Senators that Professor Loesberg had discussed the proposal with the
SIS faculty and it was very much appreciated. He stated that SIS unanimously adopted a
resolution to support the proposal with one addendum: scholarship and teaching are not in
competition with each other; good scholarship sustains and enhances good teaching. The reverse
is also true; scholarship is nurtured to sustain good teaching. Professor Loesberg agreed.
Professor Rosenbloom clarified two points: 1. Where it says “all faculty”, some faculty are on a
three-course load. 2. In SPA, faculty teaching six courses generally are getting more rewards for
their teaching than for their publication. Percentage increases in terms of merit pay are related to
level of activity. Those who teach more get more for their teaching in SPA, but less for their
published scholarship. Professsor Loesberg said he would like to hear proposals for revisions
that would deal with that.
Professor Fagelson, Co-Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, thanked Professor Loesberg for his
leadership on the committee and stated that there is a big concern that there is going to be a
University standard for everyone; this proposal does not do that, it is based on unit-centered
standards. The deans and the Provost will reach a consensus, but the proposal does not impose
anything that is not already imposed. The proposal places the responsibility on the faculty to
decide where they put their effort.
6. Open Discussion
Diana Vogelsong made some corrections to a document the Senate had received. The
Committee on Information Services appreciated the efforts of the Office of Campus Life on their
legislation of music file sharing. To clarify, it was their understanding that this technology in its
pure form could have negative effects with regard to privacy and network issues. The pilot is just
focused on residence halls and portions of Mary Graydon Center. There was some (limited) input
from students and faculty. The statement about users’ IP addresses being downloaded is
incorrect. There is continued commitment to a platform-independent service, and there is room
for faculty input. Ms. Vogelsong welcomed further clarifications. Professor Loesberg felt it
would be helpful to have a description of the evaluation process to use as a model, such as when
we implemented Blackboard 6.1, and noted some concerns were due to a lack of information.
He informed the Senate that there would be an evaluation process.
Gail Hanson, Vice-President for Campus Life, informed the Senate that Ruckus was launched
earlier this year. It was determined that this program could relieve some of the pressure on the
library’s resources. Ms. Hanson informed the Senators that there is no connection between
Ruckus and Audible Magic and the University can adopt Audible Magic at the end of April.
Ms.Vogelsong asked that the Senate Committee for Information Service be consulted for this
type of issue since broad consultation was needed. She appreciated that this was a pilot and that
when it goes beyond the pilot the Senate would have the opportunity to respond.
Professor Karch, Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA, reported that his role provides
the balance between what athletics and administrators could be; the conscience. He stated that
the ramification of the decision to cut the tennis and golf teams next year was greater than the
thirty or forty students involved; it also included their parents and spouses. The students chose
this institution as scholar athletes and they perform well across the board. The women’s tennis
team has the highest GPA of any team; 3.8. We dominate the conference we are in. Students who
go on to other institutions go as former American University students. The athletics department
is trying to help students who want to transfer. In some cases students are beyond their transfer
date. From a conscience standpoint, as a faculty, it impacts us. Students are seeking help and
counsel. They need help transferring and in getting transcripts sent and resent. Dropping
students means you also drop those who came before them. There has been a golf and tennis
tradition here for forty or fifty years. In terms of the socio-economic status of athletes, those
who played golf or tennis would most likely have the ability to contribute back to American
University. This has an impact on alumni giving. Professor Karch recommended a systematic
way of reaching back for contributions and asked that the Senate take a closer look at their
responsibility towards athletics.
The Provost informed the Senate that the decision to cut the programs was based on budget
issues. Dr.Kerwin recommended that Vice President Checcio and Dr. Joni Comstock spend time
with Professor Karch to discuss the decision. The Provost offered to facilitate the discussion.
7. Good of the Order
Diana Vogelsong informed the Senate that applications for software awards are due March 14.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.