October 3, 2007

Gary Weaver called the meeting to order at 2:15 p.m.

Present: Professors Weaver, Silvia, Loesberg, Belson, Douglass, Forst, Girard, Hall, Kim, Klein, Langbein, Leap, Mintz, Pike, Reece, Riddick, Sha, Stallings, Steinhorn, Wanis-St.John, Willoughby, Yates, Young, Dean Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.

Welcome and Introduction, Gary Weaver

Professor Weaver welcomed everyone to the meeting.

Report by Gary Abramson, Chair, of the Board of Trustees

Mr. Abramson noted that the relationship between the Board and the faculty has changed for the better in the past few years. Faculty now have seats on the Board. There is substantially more interaction between Board members and faculty. Recent additions to the Board have transformed it into a far more diverse group of people who are interested in keeping an open and collaborative relationship with the faculty.

Questions & Answers

Professor Hall asked Mr. Abramson if he thinks that the university’s reputation has suffered because of what happened a couple of years ago. Mr. Abramson said that he does not think so. In fact, some other universities interested in amending their statutes have contacted AU about the University’s governance reforms and have considered the revised bylaws to be a model.

Professor Riddick asked if the Board is planning to be proactive or reactive with respect to the president’s new strategic plan. Mr. Abramson said that the board preferred to leave the process of developing the details of the strategic plan to the University constituencies and President Kerwin.

Professor Forst asked if recent improvements in the University endowment, quasi-endowment and overall financial position would eventually spill over into the academic side of the university. Mr. bramson mentioned that there is a university-wide budget procedure and everyone is battling for more funds. He added that the faculty does have input. Provost Broder mentioned that the budget process had been very open in the past year. The administration had worked closely with the Senate budget committee and the university budget committee. More detailed information had been distributed in the past year than in any other previous year.

Report of the Chair, Gary Weaver

• Professor Weaver announced that the Faculty Senate had passed a motion to endorse the July 16, 2007 letter to the faculty search group and to the Presidential Search committee. The vote was 17 for and one against. Professor Weaver asked for another vote of the Senators present to confirm the electronic vote. The Senate approved the motion unanimously.

• Professor Weaver stated that President Kerwin wished to proceed with a search for a permanent Provost. The University’s academic regulations specify that three faculty members serve on the Provost search-committee and that a faculty-wide ballot take place to elect these faculty.

• Professor Silvia mentioned that the Senate officers had discussed the possibility of adding a proviso to the election criteria specifying that each of the three faculty members come from a different school or college. This had been done for the 2006 election of faculty to serve on the presidential search committee. It quickly became apparent that such a proviso did not have support among the Senators, so the discussion ended without a vote.

The Senate, in an electronic vote passed by 16-1 a motion, written by Professors Langbein and Leap, stating that the Faculty Senate will establish an ad hoc strategic plan committee. The motion reads as ollows:

The Faculty Senate's ad-hoc Committee on Strategic Planning Issues will be composed of nine (9) members, all of whom are currently elected members of the Faculty Senate. One committee member will represent each of the Colleges/Schools (CAS, SOC, SIS, SPA, Kogod, University Library, WCL); one committee member will represent the Faculty Senate at-large; and one will represent the Senate leadership (past chair, current chair, and chair-elect). When there are multiple members in the Senate from each School/College, each School/College will determine whom their one representative is o be. In the event that a Senator designated to represent a unit either cannot or chooses not to serve, the unit could replace that designated Senator by vote of its faculty. The replacement might not be a Senator. The 3 Senate leaders will also chose one representative from among themselves. The Senate will elect one at-large member by majority rule, with a run-off between the two candidates with the highest votes should no majority prevail in the first round.

Professor Weaver asked for a vote to confirm the Langbein-Leap motion, since it had passed in an e-mail vote. All Senators present oted to confirm the passage of the Langbein-Leap motion.

The Senate then debated a motion written by Professor Sha, which had been discussed via e-mail and contained friendly amendments from Ms Mintz and Prof. Silvia, which had been incorporated into the text that Prof. Sha presented to the Senate. Ms Mintz suggested an additional amendment on the floor, which was to change the word “approval” in the fourth sentence to “action.” Prof. Sha accepted this as a friendly amendment.

During the discussion, Prof. Steinhorn proposed an amendment that eliminated the second and third sentences of the first paragraph and he entire second paragraph of the Sha motion (i.e., portions of the motion setting the number of points the report would contain, the page length of the report and the requirement that the Strategic Plan Committee investigate strategic plans at other universities). The Steinhorn amendment passed. The Senate then debated the amended motion, which read:

The charge of the Faculty Senate committee on strategic planning will be to produce a report that recommends objectives to be included in the university’s new strategic plan. The draft report shall be sent to the Faculty Senate for action. The final report shall be distributed to the faculty, university president, the president’s strategic planning committee, and the board of trustees. It will also be publicly available.

The motion passed by 16 to 3.

Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder

• Dr. Broder informed the Senate of a change in financial-aid policy. The change was in response to a situation that had arisen in the past few years in the wake an earlier revision of the University’s financial aid policy. Some students who have come to the University with substantial numbers of AP credits and who had a significant amount f financial aid – specifically institutional merit aid – could become ineligible to receive additional aid after they had earned 120 credit hours. The Office of Financial Aid, in consultation with other units, recommended to Dr. Broder a revision to the financial aid policy that would allow undergraduate students to receive their aid for up to four years or eight semesters of full-time work, thus eliminating the 120 credit-hour evaluation. Dr. Broder approved the policy change during the summer.

• The provost announced a new program to support international travel for faculty members who are doing research or presenting conference papers abroad. Preference will be given to faculty members who combine their trip with a visit to one of our study abroad sites.

• Dr. Broder also announced a new “venture capital/seed money” initiative to support creative ventures within academic units, departments, or divisions. Funded projects will be expected to develop or enhance the reputation of a program, to create a program that has the potential to generate significant new revenue, to expand research that has the potential to attract external funding, to procure resources that will in some way significantly strengthen the academic nit, or to position investigators in leading research roles in the field.

• Dr. Broder has assembled a committee chaired by SPA Professor Candace Nelson to look at issues surrounding dual and joint degrees. She also indicated that the BA/MA Working Group was producing a proposal about BA/MA programs that would soon be submitted to Senate committees for review.

• Dr. Broder distributed an updated four-course load report. The report contained revised data from her spring report on the subject and a breakdown of the data on leaves according to category for the academic year 2006-07. Professor Silvia noted the more detailed 006-07 table did not contain a number stating the total number of faculty that comprised the population of the analysis. Dr. Broder and Karen Froslid-Jones, Director of Institutional Research and Assessment, said that they would provide that number to the Senate.

Reports from Faculty Senate Committees

Committee on Information Services

Professor Yates announced that his committee has set up a blackboard to a website which provides various information on the work they are doing.

Committee on Faculty DevelopmentProfessor Silvia mentioned that his committee is working on trying to make the university curriculum development support awards as clear as possible. The committee is also looking at the process of helping associate professors move to full professor.

Committee on Student Learning and Academic Engagement

Professor Klein stated that students would like a student liaison between them and the Faculty Senate. Also, they are somewhat concerned about security at school. Lastly, they are also concerned about faculty office hours.

Report of the Joint Committee on Curriculum and Academic Programs (JCCAP)

Proposal to Amend Academic Regulations concerning Final Exam Week

Prof. Willoughby forwarded a motion to strike academic regulation 25.00.06.D, which states,

During the final exam period all classes will meet to either conduct a final examination or if no final exam is planned, to conduct normal classroom activities.

The debate focused on the inflexibility of the current regulation, which did not reflect the diversity of needs and teaching practices. Senators also discussed at considerable length the concern that some faculty might give an exam on the fourteenth week and hold no final.

The motion passed the Senate by a count of 15 in favor, 2 opposed and 2 abstained.

After the vote, Senators began to discuss a possible amendment to academic regulation 20.00.01.B to address the concern about giving an exam on the fourteenth week and holding no final exam.

Academic Regulation 20.00.01.B reads as follows:

Final examinations, when given, are scheduled into the last week of the session. Prior to the final examination periods in fall and spring, two study days are scheduled.

It quickly became apparent that the discussion would not produce a simple amendment that would carry a majority. Senators agreed that the JCCAP should consider whether an amendment of academic regulation 20.00.01.B is warranted. If so, it should produce a motion at a subsequent Senate meeting.

Dr. Broder added that she would prefer department chairs review syllabi to ensure that the academic regulations are followed in light of the decision to strike academic regulation 25.00.06.D. Professor Weaver reiterated the suggestion that the JCCAP look at academic regulation 20.00.01.B to see if its current wording remains sufficient in light of the Senate vote to strike academic regulation 25.00.06.D.

Proposal to Change Office Hours

There was additional discussion of the Prof. Willoughby’s motion to reduce faculty office hours from six to four per week. Other options were also discussed. These included an idea previously discussed at the Senate – namely, setting weekly office hours at two hours per course taught – and a new suggestion from the JCCAP, which was to set office hours at four per week plus two “virtual” office hours. Several faculty members stated that they spend a great deal of time engaging in e-mail correspondence with students. Neither the JCCAP nor any Senator gave a precise specification of virtual office hours, how they would differ from simply writing and answering e-mails, and how it could be verified that two hours were being offered each week. Professor Weaver suggested that the JCCAP reconvene to discuss whether they wished to propose a formal amendment to the office-hour proposal and report to a subsequent Faculty Senate Meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45.