October 4, 2006

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

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

Welcome and Introduction, Jonathan Loesberg

Professor Loesberg welcomed everyone to the meeting. The minutes for the August meeting were approved.

Report of the President, Neil Kerwin

Dr. Kerwin outlined the main points of the report that he shared with the Board of Trustees at the September meeting. The executive committee of the Board asked where we stand with the current strategic plan of the university, known as the Fifteen Points. Henceforth, Dr. Kerwin provided them with the update of the points. Dr. Kerwin feels that this particular strategic plan is nearing the end of its effectiveness because on many of the points there has been much progress and the university may be in a different place now.

Point #1: The campaign has made even more progress since the September update; nearing about $124 million, with about $76 million to go. Clearly, the most important elements from a capital perspective are the new building for SIS and the renovation of McKinley for SOC. These two projects combined constitute about $60 million.

Point #2: The idea of a smaller university is a strategy that was abandoned several years ago. Dr. Kerwin feels that the logic behind it was flawed. It was discovered that in fact the university could sustain quality in the undergraduate student population, and remain at a size that is appropriate for the physical plant and the larger interests of the university. As a consequence, this year’s freshman class, of 1,325, will remain the targeted goal for the foreseeable future.

Point #3: The majority of the university’s funds are coming disproportionately from undergraduate tuitions.

Point #4: There has been a termination of about half of the PhD programs and a substantial percentage of the masters programs. This was a contentious and controversial process. The graduate programs that remain continue to distinguish the university. However, Dr. Kerwin feels that more effort should be placed on the graduate programs to improve them and compete with other graduate programs.
Point #5: Costs have not been reduced, and in fact, the budget is continuing to go up. The faculty and student populations are continually going up and additional demands are being placed on plant and facilities. However, the university’s web site needs to be renovated. This will be a one time fixed cost.

Point #6: Last year, the academic supervision for the international study abroad program was returned to the Office of the Provost. This was an appropriate move because of the status of the programs and the kind of work that remains. Further, the university should take a more active role in developing the Washington DC area. The American University is the ninth largest employer in the area, but Georgetown and George Washington are fourth and second, respectively.

Point #7: Faculty research, teaching, and service has increased steadily.

Point #8: There are unrealistic goals for adjunct faculty reduction. Particularly for the undergraduate students, relationships with the faculty are crucial for mentorship and assistance. Dr. Kerwin feels that it is best to leave to the academic units the decision for the use of adjunct faculty.

Point #9: Dr. Kerwin expects to see teaching loads varying between 4 to 6 or 3 to 6, and wants a large percentage of faculty greatly affecting the intellectual lives of their fields. The only way that this university will grow and progress is with high quality research which adds value to the community.

Point #10: Regarding academic advisement, there are generally high levels of satisfaction university–wide. It is important to ensure that there is proper training for the academic advisors, and further, there is a need for continued emphasis on retention.

Point #11: The Board has asked Dr. Kerwin to look at the university’s principles and approach to social issues.

Point #12: Campus life, which is under the leadership of Dr. Gail Hansen, performs very high quality services.

Point #13: Changes in governance speaks for themselves. The way in which the Faculty Senate has conducted itself over the past twelve months has been commendable.

Point #14: Enterprise centers was created to try to take some of the pressure off of the tuition dependency through successful commercial activities.

Point #15: Health through fitness is something that Dr. Kerwin feels that each individual could evaluate for themselves.

Dr. Kerwin thinks that this Strategic Plan has served its purpose and that the Board should direct the next president to engage the university community in a meaningful set of discussions about the next ten years. One reason for this is that the university is coming very close to a review by the Middle States. Second, if this strategic planning process lasts for the usual academic year, this will coincide with the preparation of the next two-year budget cycle. Third, we should have a better handle than we do now on how the demographic changes in the 18-year old population will affect the university. Fourth, the Spellings Commission, put together by the Secretary of Education, looks into problems with universities and in particular, accountability and high tuition.

Open Discussion

Professor Forst asked if we are officially still a category one university. Dr. Kerwin responded that the university is probably at category three, although the Carnegie classifications have changed. Dr. Broder added that the focus is now on the money spent on research, as well as how many doctoral programs and doctoral graduates a university has. Additionally, Dr. Kerwin emphasized that in his opinion, the reputation of the faculty is more important in the decision-making process for prospective students than the Carnegie classifications.

Professor Klein mentioned that he undertook a comprehensive survey of other universities with regard to retention. Professor Klein found virtually no university that had a retention rate of 90% or more had fewer than 50% students in the top 10% in their high school graduating classes. He added that at American University, we have about 45% from the top 10%, and he feels that in order to get to the 90% retention rate, we must somehow increase the number of top students. In response, Dr. Kerwin said we have a retention rate of about 88%. This suggests that we may attract a different sort of student, those who may be more interested in politically active group. We should ensure that we are offering adequate amounts of financial aid.

Professor Jacoby asked if the Board has made a decision about the plan for implementation for the search for president. Dr. Kerwin has not heard anything specific about the search, and he added that the Board is concerned with the process of the presidential search and the implementation of the changes to the bylaws.

Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder

Dr. Broder discussed the presentation that she made at a meeting with the Board of Trustees.

Faculty

Dr. Broder discussed the hiring and retention of faculty, and she noticed that the Board was very impressed with faculty.

Librarian Search

The search committee members are: Marianne Baraskow (SPA), Bob Griffith (History), Billy Joe Kaufman (WCL), Stacey Marian (Library), Dean Mussell (CAS), John Richardson (SIS), Catherine Simpson (Library staff), Jackie Danko (student leadership council), and Taylor Robinson (Kennedy political Union). The timeline is typical for most dean-level searches; first initiating the search process, then having the committee create a job description and putting an announcement in the appropriate publications, and seeing candidates by early spring.

Study Abroad

Dr. Broder repeated that supervision of the study abroad programs will be returned to the Office of the Provost. The Faculty Advisory Committee will review the sites and advise Professor Irvine Belson about any related matters (i.e. – grade translation). The Curriculum Integration Committee will work matters such as: curriculum integration at sites, developing more minors, and language study.

Additionally, Abroad at AU and the Washington Semester Program have begun to collaborate more on putting together their recruitment strategies.
Last week the Creative Communications Association, which makes the View Book, visited the university. They met with students and faculty and took photographs, which they will incorporate into a new and updated View Book.

Math Requirement Working Group

Last year, Dean Mussell convened a committee of faculty and staff campus-wide to review the current math requirement. Currently, students can satisfy their math requirement by taking calculus, finite math, or basic statistics. Because new students have greater ability in math, the committee is reviewing this requirement. A new course which could replace finite math is being considered.

Report of the Chair, Jonathan Loesberg

Relating to the Board of Trustees, Professor Ahrens and Professor Loesberg had expected not to be seated until the November meeting, since normally new members must go through the Trustee Committee, but in fact they were seated at the September meeting.

Report on the Next Two-Year Budget, Janice Flug

Three members of the Instructional Budget and Benefits Committee, Ms. Flug, Professor Ahrens, and Professor Irvine-Belson are members of the University Budget Committee. By October 16th the University Budget Committee will be forwarding to President Kerwin its ‘budget priorities’ for the next year, which he will then be presenting to the Board of Trustees.

Academic Budget Priorities

• Regarding faculty salaries, the assistant and associate levels have slipped some.

• Marketing the university through an updated website is essential.

• Funding for the undergraduate and graduate recruitment takes money.

• Funding for faculty research and international travel must be increased.

• Summer programs are continually underperforming. Summer tuition may need to be reduced to keep the university competitive.

• Library resources are needed.

• The university college is a good retention tool.

• Faculty retention in that the university may not be able to attract and retain top faculty because of salaries issues.

• Graduate financial aid must stay competitive in order to attract top graduate students.

• The Wellness Program was created in an effort to reduce long-term healthcare costs.

• Other items on the list for discussion are: energy costs, technology and classroom renovation.

Open Discussion
.
Professor Richardson asked if the university is spending enough on technology and business continuity. Ms. Flug said that she would add the two items to the list for discussion for the budget committee.

Professor Langbein suggested that it may helpful to think of the budget as a matrix which would provide a comparison of costs and benefits.

Dr. Broder explained that at this stage what we need to present to the Board of the Trustees is a list which would identify priorities in a broad sense. The purpose is to get to the Board a list of priorities in terms of the budget. And, we need from the Faculty Senate a sense of the priorities.

Professor Langbein asked about a 4-couse load for faculty. Dr. Broder responded that if the Board wants this it would take several years to implement. Professor Loesberg asked about the status of the 4-course load. Dr. Broder responded that Karen Froslid-Jones has put together a matrix that looks at course loads by faculty lines.

Regarding faculty lines, Professor Jacoby suggested that there is emphasis on new full-time tenure-track faculty lines.

Professor Willoughby said that it is very difficult to set priorities without having numbers attached. Ms. Mintz replied that at this point it is just the first step. Professor Silvia asked about teaching loads when comparing faculty salaries. Ms. Flug suggested that the university maintains the AAUP levels and that the committee does not actually look at such details. Ms. Mintz asked if the library faculty is under this review of AAUP levels. Dr. Broder answered no and that only the ranks of professor are being reviewed.

Professor Sha asked about what amount of money was involved in this budget discussion. Dr. Broder addressed the idea of the amount of money involved in the discretionary budget. In other words, the discretionary budget is about $4 million, out of the $350 million. This is just a gross number at this point in the process.

Professor Ahrens would like to add to the list student research and travel.

Professor Jacoby suggested that there be a system in place to prioritize the list.

Ms. Flug suggested that if she were to add the items academic technology, student research, travel, and new tenure-track faculty line, would the Faculty Senate endorse this? This was approved, unanimously.

Ms. Flug will put forward a statement recommending a tuition increase of about 4.75% to 6.25%.

Multi-Year Faculty Appointments, Richard Bennett

Rationale for the Proposal:

• The university stresses its Washington, D.C. location.
• Extensive use of adjuncts and temporary faculty
• Benefits of temporary faculty over adjunct faculty

What the Proposal Does:

• Brings exceptional teaching and experience to the students
• Acknowledges that multi-year temporary faculty are valued
• Creates a stringent protocol evaluation

What the Proposal Does Not Do:

• Does not create a new category of faculty
• It’s not a threat to tenure
• Does not create new temporary faculty position
• Does not specify university-wide criteria

Open Discussion

Professor Klein asked if there was any type of guideline for how many or what percentage of the faculty this would apply to. Professor Bennett suggested that this should be left up to the individual units. Professor Cochran said that the 10% cap deals a lot with this.

Professor Silvia asked for clarification on page 5 paragraph 2, which states that as many as 36 additional temporary positions would be created, but Professor Bennett stated no new positions would be created. To clarify this, Professor Jacoby said that the additional 36 positions refer to those beyond the existing policy and are multi-year. Also, Professor Silvia asked if there is a way to be more precise on the numbers of positions. Professor Bennett explained that by working with Haig Mardirosian’s office, they came up with the numbers.

Professor Loesberg asked what does baseline temporary mean. Dr. Broder explained that baseline temporary refers to a line with a number attached to it and a salary, as opposed to a sabbatical replacement or a cash allocation. She explained further that there are three types of temporaries. First, baseline temporary which means they are filling tenure-track positions of someone who has retired or resigned or a dean has chosen to keep as temporary position for flexibility. Second, there are sabbatical replacements. Third, there are cash temporaries who have one-year position.

At this point, the discussion was held over for the next meeting.

For the Good of the Order

Professor Langbein suggested that all future Faculty Senate elections results be published.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45.