March 7, 2007

Jonathan Loesberg called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.

Present: Professors Loesberg, Weaver, Ahrens, Becher, Belson, Cochran, Flug, Forst, Girard, Jacoby, Kim, Klein, Langbein, Mintz, Richardson, Sampson, Sha, Silvia, Willoughby, Yates, Weaver, Dean Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.

Welcome and Introduction, Jonathan Loesberg

Professor Loesberg welcomed everyone to the meeting. The minutes for the January and February meetings were approved.

Professor Loesberg nominated Professors Forst and Sha to start the Senator next school year.

Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder

Dr. Broder mentioned that the Board of Trustees passed the budget that was submitted, and also it approved the changes to the faculty manual about temporary faculty.

Regarding the temporary faculty, the individual units have been asked to vote on whether they want to participate. The units are also to develop guidelines about the criteria for appointing faculty for these positions. Additionally, the Deans have been asked to give their requests for how many positions they are looking for in their units. This process is still in the beginning phase.

Admissions

The first round of acceptances at the undergraduate level went out yesterday. There were approximately 2,200 of them. The second round of approximately 5,500 letters will go out this Friday. One additional round of letters will go out on March 15th, and after that any remaining letters will trickle out.

The admit rate last year was 53.06% and this year it looks as if it will be approximately 51%. Last year the GPA/SAT average was 3.55 and 1,282. This year it is approximately 3.55 and 1,285. The quality is as high as last year, with a slightly lower admit rate, and applications are up by 4% this year as well.

Dr. Broder mentioned that there is supplemental information showing the level of interest in AU, done by the Noel-Levitz firm. This information is useful for admissions decisions.

In terms of graduate applications, MA’s are up over 5% from last year, with the largest increase in KSB. Almost every unit has seen a large increase in applications.

Searches

The search for the Athletics Director is down to three finalists who have come to campus and one of those is expected to be given the job.

Regarding the Search for University Librarian, last week the committee conducted off-site interviews for selecting three candidates to come to campus

This morning, Dr. Broder, along with President Kerwin, Professor Irvine-Belson, and Dean Mussell, met with the Accreditation Team for an exit interview for the NCATE accreditation (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education)..

Report of the Chair, Jonathan Loesberg

Professor Weaver spoke about some of the highlights from the Board of Trustees meeting.

• The first student representative was approved to be on the Board, which is a significant step forward.

• New Board members will be voted on in May and are expected to start after the May meeting.

• The new SOC and SIS buildings were approved.

• In 2008 there will be seven new tenure-track positions approved, and eight more for 2009.

• The four-course load was discussed briefly.

Proposal from John Willoughby

Office Hours

Professor Willoughby’s proposed amendment to the current regulations of Section .03 Office Hours of Faculty would consist of replacing the word six with four, and would appear as:

Throughout the academic year, full-time teaching faculty who are teaching in the current session must maintain scheduled office hours during which they are available for consultations with students. The faculty member must maintain at least six (6) four (4) office hours a week on a regular basis and be available for appointments at other times. The time and place of scheduled office hours will be mutually convenient.

Professor Willoughby would like to change the mandated office hours from six to four. One reason for this is that he feels the relationship with students has changed over the last decade with the explosion of electronic communication devices, thus creating an atmosphere of more intensive contact with students. Professor Willoughby feels that the occupation of teaching has become more labor-intensive. Another reason that he supports this proposal is that he feels that AU is above the norm for mandated office hours.

Open Discussion

Professor Jacoby asked about the other universities he contacted to obtain this information about mandated office hours. Professor Willoughby said that he only spoke with one friend at George Washington and another friend at Howard University.

An overwhelming number of Senators voiced concern about the proposal. Some of the reasons include: it would not send a good message in terms of public relations, having mandated office hours actually allows faculty more time to work on their research because otherwise students would just come in at any time, and in person contact with students provides them with a far higher quality of help than email do.

There was some discussion about how to handle this proposal. Ms. Mintz suggested that this get remanded to the Curriculum Committee, and if the Senate passes it, it could go to the CFR for further review.

Dr. Broder mentioned that she and the President are not in favor of reducing office hours. She further emphasized that a particular strength of AU is the way in which AU faculty interact with students, which helps to make students more successful. AU students are spending a tremendous amount of time with faculty, and this strongly benefits the students.

Final Exams

Professor Willoughby also proposes a change to the current regulations of .06 Examinations in Courses, in which he would like to delete the whole of paragraph D:

During the final examination period, all classes will meet to either conduct a final examination, or if no final examination is planned, to conduct the normal classroom activities. No class meetings will be cancelled during the final week except in unusual circumstances in which case the prior approval of the dean or department chair is required.

Professor Willoughby does not agree with the regulation that faculty are required to conduct some sort of classroom activity during the final exam week if they are not giving a final classroom exam. He specifically does not see the purpose if students are given take-home exams or graduate seminars with final papers.

Open Discussion

Many Senators expressed their opinions about the mandatory final exam. There was a feeling that as long as there are the sufficient number of weeks in the AU calendar set in the semester, faculty can decide on their own what to do with their class during the final exam week.

Professor Loesberg suggested that this issue should be sent to a committee that addresses academic calendars so that they could compare the AU calendar with some other universities.

Proposal on Evaluating Scholarship, from Scott Parker, Chair Committee on Faculty Equity and Grievances This proposal relates to how scholarship should be evaluated. The committee would like the Faculty Senate to encourage the CFR to put this topic on their docket for the fall, in an effort to improve the process overall.

Dean Mussell mentioned that the College of Arts and Sciences is currently dealing with this issue. She added that the Faculty Manual has a requirement that each year every department must have an open discussion with faculty about expectations. It is very difficult to have a blanket policy for everyone.

Professor Loesberg summarized the three suggestions: Steve Silvia’s suggestion of starting at the unit level, to charge the CFR with this discussion, to create an ad hoc committee to be charged with this. He asked the Senators if they want to start a university-wide discussion, through some outlet or another. The results of this vote were 13 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. After some discussion, it was decided that Professor Ahrens will lead this effort.

Dr. Broder stated that if the Faculty Senate wishes to have a dialogue about criteria for research, creative and professional activities, as they relate to promotion and tenure reappointment decisions, merit decisions, and variable course load decisions, then that is a good thing to be discussed. Such discussions across campus can only be worthwhile and positive. She noted that many of these concerns have arisen from the Grievance Committee, which only sees files of people who have been turned down and not files of people who have been successful where many of these issues are addressed. There is information to the faculty about the assembly of a file and criteria. Dr. Broder said that she would be happy to lead a discussion or be involved in some way to discuss the process and criteria and changes that have occurred over the past 15 years.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45.