February 12, 2003

Patrick Kehoe called the meeting to order at 1:50 p.m.

Present: Professors Ahrens, Brenner, Burke, Doolittle, Douglass, Forst, Hakim, Heintze, Irvine Belson, Jennings, Jernigan, Kehoe, Kravetz, Langbein, Olmsted, Riddick, Riley, Rosenbloom, Rubenstein, Sha, Williams. Provost Kerwin.

Absent: Professor Schaeff

The minutes of the January 22, 2003 meeting were approved.

Report of the Provost
During his report, Neil Kerwin spoke about the preparations that American University is making in response to the prospect that the United States may be at war with Iraq in the near future.
He said the campus community would receive a communication from President Benjamin Ladner about the university’s preparations for the possibility of war. He also noted that a well developed set of Emergency Management Procedures are posted on the AU Web page.

Dr. Kerwin also spoke about the high level of anxiety among the students and among the parents of students, as a result of the heightened terror alert. He told the Senate that the university was better prepared that it was a year and a half ago, after 9/11, to inform parents about the whereabouts of their students, including those that are in internships or co-op placements off campus. Moreover, he said, the university has established, through the parent portal, a means for improved communication with parents on an ongoing basis. He also said the institution, as part of a much larger picture, will continue to take the advice and direction of civil officials and adjust those directions, as needed, for the community.

Beyond that, Dr. Kerwin emphasized, the university remains committed to education, and, as long as circumstances allow, the institution will continue its commitment to educating students and conducting scholarship, research, and creative activities.

Dr. Kerwin also included in his report brief updates, as follows, on several items that were to be covered more fully elsewhere in the agenda.

Graduate Program Review – The materials associated with the graduate program review are posted on a Blackboard site and are available to the deans, the members of the Faculty Senate, the members of the Curriculum and Academic Programs Committee, and the Graduate Task Force for the Middle States review. The Curriculum Committee will review the documents to determine whether there are cross-unit implications and make its recommendations to the Senate. The Senate will thereafter have an opportunity to discuss the graduate program review and to convey its views to the Provost, prior to action by the Board of Trustees in May.

Budget Development – Dr. Kerwin stated, once again, that his key budget priorities include support for a salary increase to retain AAUP level one status for tenured and tenure-track faculty; support for funding new faculty lines; support for the library; support for a technology replacement and upgrade reserve fund; and an increase in graduate financial aid. He also noted that he continued to support further transfers to the quasi-endowment and the tuition reserve fund.

Middle States – Dr. Kerwin noted the importance of faculty participation in the Middle States self-study. He urged faculty to complete and return the survey that was distributed by Tony Ahrens and Angela Wu, co-chairs of the Faculty Task Force.

Report of the Chair
Pat Kehoe reported that the redraft of the academic regulations that govern the operations of the Senate was well underway. He said the committee was taking a two-pronged approach: one, to rename things to conform to current designations; and two, to simplify the procedures that the Senate follows, in keeping with the general thrust of last year’s faculty mandate. He said the committee will circulate to the Senate copies of the document showing the proposed changes, along with a clean copy of the proposed final version.

Professor Kehoe then asked for Senate approval to proceed with the election of at-large senators and members of the Committee on Faculty Relations, the Committee on Faculty Equity and Grievances, and the Faculty Hearing Committee. He noted that the custom had been to hold those elections immediately following spring breaks, and he proposed that the Senate hold with that timetable.

The Senate noted its assent with the idea of proceeding with the elections, as Professor Kehoe described. There was agreement that the process would begin with a call to the faculty for self-nominations.

Report from the Committee on Instructional Budget and Benefits
John Douglass, chair of the Committee on Instructional Budget and Benefits, led the Senate in a discussion of the committee’s recommendations on the university’s budget. He first called attention to several documents distributed at the meeting, which included a revised budget report, the “Revenue Plan: FY 2004 Projection,” and the “FY 2004 Budget Planning Model.” Those documents are appended to the record copy of the minutes.

Professor Douglass then went through the report and the supplemental materials, highlighting the following information:

• The Budgets Committee recommended a revenue model that would include a tuition increase of close to 6 percent and an increase in residence hall rates close to 5 percent.

• The 6 percent increase model would still lead to a disparity of $2,882,000 between revenues and expenditures. To offset this disparity, the committee recommended increasing the target enrollments for new freshmen and transfers and also a modest increase in graduate enrollments.

• The committee primarily supported the requests the Provost was making, including the 4 percent salary increase; the technology reserve fund; and the transfers to the quasi-endowment and the tuition reserve fund.

• Over and above the provost’s requests, however, the committee recommended that $250,000 be allocated to raise the salaries of adjunct faculty.

Professor Douglass then informed the Senate that one area of contention was the recommendation for “$1,000,000 to fund new full-time faculty positions to reduce adjuncts and implement differential teaching loads in 2004 and an additional $1,000,000 for additional full-time faculty hires in 2005.” He said that Provost Kerwin had originally asked for an allocation of $2,000,000 for this item in fiscal year 2004. Several members of Budget and Benefits were also in favor of the higher amount, Professor Douglass noted.

During the discussion of the budget report, several senators expressed support for raising the funds available for new full-time faculty positions to $2,000,000. Others raised questions about the amount to be set aside to increase graduate financial aid; it was suggested that the $250,000 figure, roughly a 4 percent increase, would not allow for much flexibility in enlarging graduate awards. There were also comments about a lack of transparency in the budget development process and a call for more information to be made available about the budgets of the other vice presidents.

Bob Jernigan, CAS/Mathematics and Statistics, made a specific request for the committee to review, as a top priority next year, the university’s policy for funding early retirements. John Douglass agreed that the committee would look at that issue.

Actions: Paul Williams, School of International Service, called for the budget report to be amended to increase the amount for new full-time faculty positions in FY 2004 to $2,000,000. The Senate voted in favor of adopting that amendment. The Senate then endorsed the report of the Committee on Instructional Budget and Benefits, as amended. A copy of the report is attached.

Update on the Work of the Middle States Committee
David Culver, chair of the Middle States Steering Committee, provided an update on the status of the Middle States review. He said the Steering Committee had been meeting for a year. There were also almost 100 individuals across campus associated with the various task forces. He reported that two themes run through the self-study and the review: One theme is “Engagement,” chosen by the Steering Committee because they feel it distinguishes American from many of its competitors. The second is the theme chosen by Middle States for all universities—“Assessment.”

Dr. Culver indicated that approximately half of the task forces had provided a first draft report to the Steering Committee. Each task force is charged, he added, with making one or two major recommendations, which will come forward with its report. A theme emerging from the initial recommendations, he noted, was the need for more transparency, not just in the budget deliberations, but also about a broad range of activities across the university.

With regard to the timetable, Dr. Culver said the draft of the self-study report will be completed by the end of the academic year. That draft will be produced during the summer and will be available for community comment by the end of the summer. The site visit by Middle States will take place in spring of 2004.

Strategic Initiatives the Senate Might Consider
Leigh Riddick noted that in order to facilitate the discussion she had compiled a list of possible strategic issues based on feedback from other members of the Senate. She asked how the Senate wished to proceed to further refine that list and set priorities, and after some discussion, the group reached a consensus in favor of re-ordering the topics within the context of the 15-point plan for the future of the university. Professor Riddick agreed to modify the list to include two additional topics, based on several suggestions at the meeting: the diversity of the student body and the faculty; and transparency. She said she would then reshape the issues within the context of the 15 points and re-distribute it, with a request for the other senators to indicate those initiatives that should have highest priority. She also asked that they think about specific actions that should be added.

Preliminary Discussion of the Graduate Program Review
Pat Kekoe prefaced the discussion by noting that Provost Kerwin had asked that the Senate deliberate upon the recommendations that have come forward from the academic units about the graduate program review. He said the timeline for the Senate’s action was fairly well established, and discussion would be scheduled for the March meeting, and perhaps for the April meeting, at the latest, since the Provost must prepare his recommendations for the Board of Trustees, which meets in May.

Professor Kehoe also noted that Russell Stone, chair of Sociology, had requested a few moments to address the Senate. Professor Kehoe said he had indicated to Professor Stone that given the open process, any member of the academic community has the right to express his or her views before the Senate.

In his comments, Professor Stone spoke about the impact of terminating the doctoral program in sociology. He said the termination will affect the campus as a whole. It will affect the goals of the university as a whole. It will affect aspects of the 15-point plan. It will affect AU’s image as an academic institution in the community and in the country. For these reasons, he said, the department was requesting a hearing by the Senate.

Members of the Senate also made the following observations about the review:

• Some faculty are concerned that the criteria laid out to evaluate the programs were not necessarily appropriate to the programs.

• A fundamental premise driving a lot of the thinking and attitudes about the review is embedded in one of the 15 points, which states that AU is going to become primarily an undergraduate institution.

For the Good of the Order
Bob Jernigan introduced the following resolution:

It is the sense of the Faculty Senate that the graduate program review documents should be circulated to the entire campus community.

The Senate voted unanimously to adopt that resolution.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

BUDGET REVIEW

Report of the Senate Budget and Benefits Committee

February 12, 2003

Summary:

This Senate Budget and Benefits Committee recommends a revenue model that will produce approximately $ 307,361,000 after financial aid decreases. This model, based on the figures provided by the Budget Office in the attached “Revenue Plan: FY2004 Projection” and “FY2004 Budget Planning Model” includes an increase in tuition close to 6% and a raise in residence hall rates close to 5%.

To meet the strategic initiatives of the 15 Point Plan and essential academic needs, the committee is recommending the following expenditures for Academic Initiatives:

• $ 3,000,000 for 4% September 2003 merit increase to maintain AAUP-1 for faculty and market salary rates maintain for staff
• $ 3,000,000 to pre-fund a 4% merit increase in September 2004 to maintain AAUP-1 for faculty and market salary rates maintain for staff
• $ 2,000,000 to fund new fulltime faculty positions to reduce adjuncts and implement differential teaching loads
• $250,000 to provide an increase in salaries for adjunct faculty and convert some adjuncts to the position of Adjunct-in-Residence
• $ 1,041,000 Transfer to the quasi-endowment fund
• $ 277,000 Transfer to the tuition management reserve fund
• $ 400,000 increase in the base budget of the University Library for library materials
• $ 705,000 to create a technology replacement reserve fund
• $250,000 to fund an increase in graduate student stipends and increase the number of awards

Additionally, we are supporting the requests of the Vice Presidents of International Affairs, Development, Enrollment Services, Campus Life and Finance and Treasurer. We would specifically like to note our agreement with the recommended convenience charge for credit card users proposed by the Vice President of Finance and Treasurer.

SENATE BUDGET AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Tuition and housing increase: The Budget & Benefits Committee feels this increase is justified to improve the quality of teaching at the University through the recommendations made in the expenditures specifically in the instructional budget to support the academic mission of the University. For a number of years, American University has exercised admirable restraint in its pricing and held its tuition increase below that of the schools with which we like to compare ourselves, especially George Washington and Georgetown Universities in the Washington DC area. As a result, our tuition rate is well below those we compete with in this area. We feel it is time to begin pricing the educational experience offered by American University realistically and competitively.

We recommend considering the residence hall rate increase be less than the tuition increase to reflect what we perceive is softness in the District of Columbia housing market yet a sufficient and fair increase that will bring American University more in line with the housing rates charged by other local universities.

The Committee recognizes the Budget Planning Document, even with a 6% tuition increase still is unbalanced and recommends an increase in the target enrollments for new freshmen and transfers and a modest increase in graduate enrollments to help off-set this disparity between revenue and expenditures. Our understanding is that the applications for next year are strong and thus increasing the incoming freshman number by 25 students should not result in any sacrifice in the quality of students we are hoping to admit into the freshman class. We also believe there are 20-25 transfers we could bring in who are qualified to join the undergraduate class. Although there are changes underway in graduate education at American University, we feel there is a commitment to improve and grow graduate education to more than replace any numbers lost through program terminations as a result of the current review.

Merit Pay Increase: The Senate Budget & Benefits committee continues to support the strategic plan initiatives to keep tenured and tenure-track faculty salaries up to AAUP Level-I for Category I doctoral universities and staff salaries to a level that is competitive to market rates. To maintain this, the committee recommends a 4% merit pay increase for each of 2004 and 2005. Salaries at this level enable us to continue to land and retain the best and most diverse faculty

Funds for Additional Full-Time Faculty: The committee supports the Provost’s initiative to add approximately 30 new faculty lines over the next two yeas. This would have a tremendous impact on the quality of instruction at American University by allowing us to begin a reduction of adjunct-taught classes, especially for freshmen and sophomores a goal stated in the 15 Point Plan. We are supportive of this request, and want to also note the support of the student representative on our committee who feels that this initiative is an appropriate trade-off for a 6% increase in tuition. The committee’s recommendation is based on the assumption that the “average” new faculty line will be funded at approximately $70,000 including fringe benefits. This assumes a junior level appointment and some mix of tenure track and temporary faculty, at least at the outset of this effort. Given that number, an investment of $2 million would result in roughly 14 new full-time faculty members. At an average of five courses these hires would allow elimination of 70 sections currently taught by adjuncts.

By FY2005, the second infusion of funds to the base would further our progress in reducing reliance on adjuncts and also begin the process of reducing faculty teaching to an average four course load, providing faculty with more time to perform their creative, scholarly and professional development. The committee supports the reduction in load for these reasons and to attract superior faculty to the campus.

The committee feels it is important to note that the reduction in our reliance on adjuncts as advocated in the 15-Point Plan and a reduction in teaching load the reduction in our reliance on adjuncts is a long range objective and funds should be added in successive years until we achieve our goal.

Adjunct Faculty: Although the above mentioned budget item suggests a reduced reliance on adjuncts, as this reduction takes place, we still need to provide fair compensation for adjuncts. The gap continues to widen between adjunct compensation at AU and other local universities. The current pool of adjuncts that have not had a significant pay increase in many years should be rewarded for their service to our students with a pay increase. Our stated goal is also to elevate more of our adjuncts to the position of Adjunct in Residence. The Committee is recommending $250,000 for adjunct salary increases where there is greatest need and a portion allocated to elevate some existing adjunct faculty to in-residence status. Based on the data presented to the Committee, $250,000 would permit salary increases of 5%, on average, to all adjuncts and allow the creation of about 20 in residence appointments.

Tuition Reserve and Quasi-Endowment Accounts: Although contributions to the Tuition Reserve and Quasi-Endowment Funds may not seem like strictly academic areas under this committee’s and the Faculty Senate’s purview, we feel that the financial health of American University is crucial to the continuance of the academic mission. Thus, we feel empowered to recommend the continuance of the policy of transfers into these two funds. We are in a time of national and international uncertainty and the Tuition Reserve Fund is the primary buffer against financial exigencies that could cause disruptive budget cuts. These funds are necessary and prudent. The Quasi-Endowment has been a major factor in maintaining the financial health of this institution. It has contributed directly to a stronger bond rating and thus the cost of capital that permits us to borrow, when necessary for purchase, construction or major renovation of academic buildings, at more favorable rates. The Quasi-Endowment spins off income each year that contributes to relief of budget and is another buffer against budget shortfalls. We endorse the continuance of transfers into them.

University Library: The Committee supports the $400,000 the Provost Kerwin is requesting to offset the effects of inflation and keep pace on collection growth of roughly 20,000 titles per year. Where appropriate, emphasis will be placed on building the electronic segments of the collection. The Committee notes that new electronic resources are appearing constantly. Plus many online versions of print journals are now only available for additional fees. If we are to meet new needs as we improve the quality of graduate education on the campus and fill in the gaps identified in the Collection Analysis Project the library needs to remain a priority for development and a candidate for non-base cash transfers when appropriate.

Technology Replacement and Upgrade Reserve Fund:
The need for a fund in the base operating budget to replace and upgrade academic technological needs (laptops and high-end workstations, etc.) on a regular basis has now become essential to the quality of instruction and communication with students. This new fund would create the permanent capacity to replace and upgrade equipment on a three year cycle. This fund is being proposed by the Provost along with the Vice President of Finance and Administration and the Vice President of Enrollment Services but it is our assumption that roughly half this amount will be devoted to academic affairs, and most of that to faculty needs.

Graduate Financial Aid: Since the tuition portion of graduate financial aid is automatically covered through existing policies, we recommend these funds be directed to enhance stipends and increase the number of awards in those programs that will be identified as priorities in the ongoing graduate program review. The variations in stipend strategies across the units and across their programs are dramatic, but the Committee has been assured that this amount would be sufficient to provide very substantial increases in stipends to a large number of graduate students. The committee also hopes that the number of awards can also be increased, understanding that funds would have to cover both the stipend and include tuition remission. It is expected that the increase in stipends and number of awards will allow our strongest doctoral and masters degree programs to compete for high quality students at levels that are comparable to our most prominent competitors.