February 1, 2006

Tony Ahrens called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

Present: Professors Ahrens, Becher, Bennett, Burke, Cochran, Durant, Flug, Gill, Girard, Jacoby, Loesberg, Mardirosian, Petit, Richardson, Riley, Rosenbloom, Sampson, Schaeff, Weaver, Dean Mardirosian, and Provost Broder.

Welcome and Introduction, Tony Ahrens

Both the November and December minutes were approved.

Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder

Spring ’06 Enrollment

Provost Broder is projecting some negatives in various aspects of enrollment for this spring. Since fall ’05 enrollment was down by about 100 freshmen from budget, undergraduate enrollment will subsequently be below budget this spring, although not by that much since retention is very good. It is expected to be about $½ to $¾ million below budget for undergraduate enrollment.

The Washington Semester Program was down about 90 students from their budget target, which was unrealistically high for the time and the cycle. As a result, it is expected that there will be well over $1 million below the budget target.

Graduate enrollment, which has been soft in terms of admissions recently, will also be down by about $1 million below budget.

The spring numbers are soft in terms of where they are in the budget. There will be some cost savings in some places, but it is not a good picture for the spring semester relative to the budget.

Fall ’06 Enrollment

There is some better news in the fall undergraduate numbers. Thus far, there have been 14,859 applications, and therefore one can expect to have well over 15,000 for the fall undergraduate admissions cycle. This would make it the largest number of undergraduate applications in school history, representing a 12.6% increase in applications from this last time year. The quality is slightly ahead of last year. The average SAT this year is 1221 and 1220 last year; the GPA is 3.33 this year and 3.26 last year.

Transfer applications are also ahead compared with last year by about 4.5%. Of course, this is well ahead of the transfer applications deadline, which is in the middle of the summer.

The weak area is graduate applications, which are down by about 9.3% from last year.

Katrina students

The university hosted 113 students and has retained 14, which is slightly over 10%.

Freshman Census

Almost 1100 students have filled out the census, about 90%. There is some very good news in the results. Over 57% of this year’s freshmen said that AU was their first choice, up from 54.5% last year. Additionally, 58% said that they came to AU for its very good academic reputation, which is up more than 10 percentage points from 2002. They are also more likely to come to AU because they say graduates get good jobs and they go to top professional schools. There are some very positive implications for campus life as well. Almost 65% say they would participate in student clubs and groups, which is up from 54.5% in 2002. They are slightly less likely to indulge in risky behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and coming to class late. In general, statistics show that AU does attract a unique student body that it is politically active, interested in social issues, and developing an understanding of others. In fact, 72% of the students said that keeping up with political affairs is important to them. These demographics which help define what makes AU unique and distinctive continue to be in place.

Ph.D Program in Clinical Psychology

The Ph.D program in clinical psychology is in the final stages of its reaccredidation review. A site visit team from the American Psychological Association visited AU in early December. Last week they sent their report, which was highly laudatory. The program is truly a model of the scientist/practitioner philosophy with a good balance of research and practice throughout the program. They were complimentary about the curriculum; the use of the university’s counseling center and other resources for the practicum placement, and the support provided by the other doctoral program in the department of psychology. They made special note of the integration of issues of ethics and diversity, calling that a strength of the program. They had very high praise for the dissertations that they reviewed. However, there were a couple of things that they mentioned that need attention, such as: issues of space, faculty teaching load, and graduate student support.

M.S. Degree in Accounting

Provost Broder has received a request from the Kogod School of Business for the creation of a new M.S. degree in Accounting, which was approved by KSB, the Deans, and the Joint Committee on Curriculum and Academic programs of the Faculty Senate. Provost Broder has also approved that degree and she is forwarding a request for final approval to the Board of Trustees. There was an M.S. in accounting that was terminated in 2001 when the focus of the graduate business school was put on the MBA program. Things have changed in graduate business education in the last five years. And there is a new Dean of the KSB, who is stressing a portfolio of programs rather than solely being limited to the MBA. There has been an increase in demand for these kinds of programs over the last few years because of changes in credentialing in the accounting profession. As a result, KSB was able to revive, review, and revise the former degree.

Student Accomplishments

Eight students have been named National Finalists for the Fulbright Award. They have applied to programs in Mexico, the U.K., Germany, Peru, Taiwan, Brazil, Turkey, and Zambia. The results will be out later this spring.

Presidential Management Fellow Competition

There were 154 applicants from American University, 90 of which were semi-finalists, while last year there were 80 semi-finalists and the year before 54. So this continues a positive trend. Among the semi-finalists, there were 52 from SIS, 21 from SPA, 12 from the Law School, 2 from SOC, 2 from KSB, and 1 from CAS.

Pamphlet on Summer Programs

The summer programs have some very exciting and interesting course offerings, including study abroad. KSB is doing a program called international management practices. SPA is doing two programs, European Public Affairs and Advocacy and Europe 2006. SIS is doing four programs: globalization in Southeast Asia, Democracy and Development in South Africa, Integrating Europe in a Changing World, and Political Economy of the Gulf State. The Washington Semester Program has put together one program in Sri Lanka, Community Based Development and the Environment.

There are also some interesting new institutes and special programs across the campus. In CAS, there is one program which discusses major African-American writers and musicians, in SOC there will be a program on the digital media, and in SIS, human rights in the 21st century. As well, there is a great set of pre-college offerings.

Open Discussion

Professor Richardson asked if there is a relationship with the Office of International Affairs and the individual units that set up these programs. Provost Broder responded by saying that as far as she knows, the programs are run and managed by the individual units.

Professor Riley asked Provost Broder if she knows the national admissions rates. Provost Broder mentioned that thus far she does not because admissions directors are reluctant to offer data during the admissions cycle. There is overall an increase in applications, part of which is due to more students applying to more schools, as the application process has become easier and virtually cost-free through the on-line application process.

Professor Wendell Cochran asked Provost Broder if financial aid will be held constant since there was such a drop in admissions during fall ’05. Provost Broder explained that financial aid cannot be increased, at least not this year. It is set by the Board of Trustees, and is currently fixed at 29% of graduate revenue. For the future this percentage could be increased which would lead to an increase in revenues. A marginal increase in financial aid would lead to more than a marginal increase in tuition revenue.

Update on Governance Issues, Tony Ahrens

The Board of Trustees has asked the faculty to provide representatives for a number of committees. This should be considered an interim step in that the Board understands the need to have further dialogue with its campus constituents, and this can be done to support the process of governance. There are going to be eight different committees. The Faculty Senate ad hoc Governance Committee suggested that the members who are selected should be somehow mapped to the different committees of the Faculty Senate. Although there is not a clear mapping of the Faculty Senate’s committees to the Board’s committees, it would be a good idea to map the members insofar as possible.

Open Discussion

Professor Riley asked what the role of faculty representation would be. Professor Ahrens responded by saying that first of all, the faculty would be non-voting members. Furthermore, the Board’s committee members could choose to go into executive sessions at any time, in which case the non-voting members would be excused from those meetings.

Professor Richardson asked whether there are committees that make decisions of consequence. Provost Broder said that one example is the Academic Affairs Committee. It reviews changes to the faculty manual, and as such, there was a discussion on changes to the Rank & Tenure Committee membership. The Academic Affairs Committee also reviews program terminations and new programs, so it will be reviewing the new M.S. in Accounting Program. Also, they will look at any recommendations for tenure when they come up in May. Basically, any significant academic activities and legislation would be reported to the Academic Affairs Committee.

Professor Wendell Cochran asked if the Board has made any such offers to other campus constituents. Professor Ahrens said he suspects that the answer is yes.

Update by Stephen Silvia on the Ad Hoc Committee

The Ad Hoc Committee had a meeting with the Board’s Governance Committee, in which there are five members: Pamela Deese, Bishop Schol, Jeff Sine, Regina Muehlhauser, and Gary Abramson. The objective of the meeting was framed by the consultant, Marty Michaelson. The idea was to communicate to the Board a sense of what the experience of the faculty is like, what problems exist, and the faculty’s perception of the Board. The ad hoc committee members have found this process constructive, and in fact, it seemed that the members were listening and taking note. Something that would be useful for the future is to find out what the Board members are thinking with regard to reform to the bylaws and practices.

One area that has been brought up by the Board is confidentiality. The faculty members will receive all of the paper and transactions, but will be non-voting members. For instance, with regard to the issue of trusteeship, it seems that the faculty will participate fully in discussing strengths and weaknesses of the nominees, but will not have a vote.

The ad hoc committee is in the process of trying to understand if there is consensus on the Board about the exchange of confidentiality for information access and about faculty participation and at what levels.

Furthermore, the ad hoc committee will discuss the issues with its constituents. There will be an Open House with the faculty on February 13th to give the faculty an opportunity to express their opinions.

Open Discussion

Professor Rosenbloom asked if the faculty members would vote on trusteeship. Professor Silvia said that the Board has not yet fully aired the answer to this.

Professor Jacoby indicated that the issue of trusteeship is particularly important at this point for the university, and especially dealing with integrity and personal character. Furthermore, he made the following proposal:

It is the sense of the American University Faculty Senate that the most important criteria for membership on the University’s Board of Trustees should be the candidate’s fundamental integrity, reputation for exemplary moral character, and uncompromised values which are consistent with the ideals and purposes of the University.

Events of the past year clearly demonstrate that these personal qualities should not be taken for granted.

Professor Loesberg said that integrity is an expected characteristic and that it may be better to deal with as needed if a problem arises. Professor Rosenbloom asked Professor Jacoby to define moral character. Professor Weaver said that there are certain terms in the faculty manual that we cannot define, and that as an institution there is a certain level of standards. Professor Jacoby responded by saying that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the Faculty Senate which is looking for a fundamental change in the composition of the Board. He added that if these vacancies are filled with lawyers, business-people, and real estate investors that would not be consistent with moral character and integrity. Professor Ahrens asked Professor Jacoby if he was suggesting that having integrity is not associated with people in these professions. Professor Richardson added that perhaps it is not necessary to make this link of moral character and integrity, and he further suggested that there has been plenty of discussion from both sides of the issue. There was a call to question. There was a vote on Professor Jacoby’s proposal; nine votes in favor and 7 opposed. The motion carried.

Professor of the Practice, Richard Bennett

Professor Ahrens provided a bit of background on the topic, by saying that this is a matter of great importance to the university and that there are very strong arguments on both sides. Thus, it is vital for the Faculty Senate to air topics, discuss them, and then move forward. Professor Bennett began by saying that there are many details about the Professor of the Practice that still need to be worked out. He spoke with many faculty members and found out what the individual concerns are. One of the most important questions related to this issue is what criteria should be used for evaluating people. For instance, there should be criteria in place to ensure that they are keeping current with their field.

Professor Riley asked if in the universities in which Professor of the Practice is already in place, there has been any erosion of the tenure-track positions. Dr. Bennett mentioned that it is not in the interest of the university to eliminate tenure-track positions, and that the best young professors would not be interested in teaching here in that case.

Professor Jacoby asked how many positions this would pertain to, keeping in mind that there is a cap of 10% of full-time faculty. Provost Broder said that there are 550 full-time faculty members; therefore, the cap would mean about 55 potential positions. Professor Bennett noted that the cap would apply to each school or college. Provost Broder noted that this number includes a certain definition, for instance, some non-teaching positions and double-counted faculty. Professor Jacoby emphasized the importance of specifying the number.

Professor Loesberg said that if this does go through, it will be at the expense of tenure-track positions to some degree. There may be a justification in terms of certain positions because they are teaching certain skills for which scholarship is an undesirable demand. But he argues that the position before the Senate was broader than that. The courses that these professors would be teaching would be the same as those taught by other professors. Under certain circumstances, a Dean may propose to hire this type of position, rather than a tenure-track position, and it would be difficult not to shade tenure-line requests in light of the new position. Perhaps, there needs to be a newly defined proposal. Professor Schaeff mentioned that Professor Loesberg’s logic may not convey and that the question is how many instructors do we have already here that are not tenure-track and that this current proposal does not affect tenure-track faculty. Furthermore, this new category does not define people as permanent, but rather, as just entitling them to renewable contracts.

Professor Weaver asked if there are any safeguards in place to protect these people so that they are not treated as second-class citizens and at the same time to protect the tenure-track positions. For instance, if they are on renewable contracts up to five years, how many years could they carry over if they were to apply for a tenure-track position? Also, they are teaching a six-course load, courses which many of the tenure-track teachers may not be interested in teaching since they concentrate on publishing. Professor Bennett replied that as of now a person in such a temporary position would only be able carry over up to two years if they were interested in a tenure-track position. There needs to be more work done on this proposal to work out these types of details. Professor Gill raised a concern about whether a lack of protection for these professors would erode academic freedom in the classroom. Janice Flug raised the issue of travel expenses. Members of her committee wondered whether there should be similar salaries for people in these new positions given they do not have the same job requirements. Melissa Becher suggested that the issue of second-class citizens is really determined by the faculty itself.

Dean Durand of the KSB elaborated on how his former university, Lehigh, handled the Professor of the Practice. He argued that such professors could be used for program development that could then be used to justify tenure-lines. The bottom line was that by the end of the five-year term, faculty found that it added a great deal of value and flexibility. Those teachers brought in a different perspective to teaching, although they were paid much less than the tenure-track teachers because producing scholarship requires a lot more work. Overall, the experience was very positive at Lehigh University.

Professor Weaver wondered if the University does value teaching, why teachers in that category are not paid the same. This actually does perpetuate the notion of the second-class citizens. Moreover, the term Professor of the Practice may be confusing and needs to be clarified. In particular, it could be referring to different types of professors. Professor Richardson agreed that the terminology is very important. He added that perhaps one type of person who would be interested in this position is the typical temporary faculty who may be a bit younger, who did not “cut it” in the tenure process, who wants to gain experience, and who is hoping for a tenure-track position. Or it might be a typical temporary faculty who simply has decided that teaching is their focus. In that light, it is important to be clear on the terminology of the proposal.

Professor Gill believes that the creation of this position would promote the idea of second-class citizens, in that many of the people who are applying actually are interested in tenure-track positions but use the opportunity as a way to enter the University. Professor Loesberg argued that up to a point departments could define positions so that faculty would not feel that they are second class citizens. Additionally, he wondered who would fill these positions - perhaps someone who did not get a tenure-track position. These people will get less money, teach more classes, and not have the security of tenure. This will create a different class that for some positions will be perceived as a lower class. There are numerous reasons to avoid it. Professor Schaeff noted that these professors would not have the same job or same responsibilities or same requirements. So, maybe it is just better to acknowledge that they are different and just define them as such. Professor Sampson argued that there are already differences in classes among the tenured faculty, so in some ways the class differences discussed here are not new.

Melissa Becher said that some faculty may want this type of arrangement and for various reasons they prefer it. Professor Weaver mentioned that some very good faculty members came in this way, such as Neil Kerwin. He wondered whether sabbaticals would or would not be appropriate for these faculty. Professor Jacoby has mixed feelings about this because on the one hand, there are many good temporary teachers who should not leave after five years, but there are many sides to this issue. Perhaps the CFR could discuss it. Professor Loesberg responded that the CFR has already discussed it and voted 6 to 1 against it. But, they could discuss it again, if necessary.

Professor Burke mentioned that the Law School has some teachers who are working in much the same situation. For these people, starting their career or being ¾ into it, it seems to meet their needs. In addition, Professor Mardirosian suggested that the Faculty Senate should look at the way that Duke University has handled this situation because they have addressed certain issues such as criteria for promotion, funding for travel, and sabbatical leave.

Professor Durant suggested that there are certain positive aspects to this other category. These people may bring an added dimension to the quality of education. Because of their varied backgrounds, they bring in an outside perspective and a new set of skills to the classroom. In this way, they may fill in gaps where other teachers may not have been able to, thus improving the quality of education being offered. Furthermore, Professor Cochran mentioned that professional schools may have certain different needs that other departments may not. The ability to be dynamic may be the key and having the ability to choose keeps the system open.

Professor Ahrens suggested that the CFR be involved in the evaluation of the Professors of the Practice. Also, he suggested that there are three types of faculty who were described in the discussion. Some are particularly excellent teachers, others bring a particular set of skills and but are not involved with traditional academic scholarship, and others have particular professional backgrounds whose experiences are valuable to share with the students. There is a need to make clear definitions to correspond to the needs. Different programs see this position in different ways. He also wondered what the effect on general education would be.

Professor Riley says that this category may or may not be an advantage, depending on the uses of the particular position. Would the person function as a substitute, just by replacing a tenure-track person or would the person fill in gaps that are not being filled. The category must be very well-defined.

Professor Jacoby asked where the Faculty Senate is going in terms of process. It is not useful to keep going around in circles. It may be a good idea to gather together a group to look into this. Professor Ahrens added that there could be committee and that he will ask for volunteers or just appoint people.

Professor Schaeff suggested that by having temporary positions in place for more than five years, it may not be best serving the students. She is concerned about the separation of teaching and scholarship. She also indicated that it would be important for these professors to retain their skills.

Professor Loesberg indicated that he heard a consensus involving a narrow definition of the new category, somewhat like that of the college writing instructor, involving the teaching of particular skills. This would be different from the sort of broad proposal that was made here.

Professor Richardson suggested that there should be included in this discussion people who are actually in these roles to get their feedback. This would illuminate the discussion.

Professor Ahrens asked Professor Jacoby to make a formal proposal about the committee to look into this proposal. Professor Jacoby indicated that Professor Ahrens form an ad hoc committee. Peter Brusoe, graduate student, said that both the undergraduate and the graduate students would like to have representative seats on the Senate’s committee so that they could show just how much they do want this proposal.

Report of the Chair, Tony Ahrens

Lyn Stallings has included an attachment about the Student Evaluations of Teaching.

Elections are coming up and please encourage your colleagues to run for the various positions.

Good of the Order, Tony Ahrens

Janice Flug said that there is a Wellness Program study going on a subcommittee of the University Benefits Advisory Project Team. A Wellness Survey will be circulated to the faculty and staff in the next few weeks. This will help the group access where to focus their limited resources. Dr. Stacey Snelling will then come to speak at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting.

Melissa Becher announces that on February 16 at 2:00, the library be honoring four faculty authors, two from SPA and two from SIS.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.