February 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, Sampson, 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 January meeting required revisions, and will be submitted for approval at the next meeting.

Report of the Provost, Ivy Broder

Announcements

• There is a visiting team here from ABTI-American University of Nigeria. This is an American style university that has been established in Nigeria with the help of AU. The founder of the university, who is also the Vice President of Nigeria, has been working closely with teams from AU to establish this first ever American style university in West Africa. It is in its second year of operation. This week the deans of all the schools and the provost are meeting with counterparts here at AU to review syllabi and program development. This sister institution will create the opportunity for numerous student and faculty exchanges.

• The Board of Trustees will meet next week.

• Dr. Broder has accepted the changes to the Faculty Manual and the Academic Regulations approved recently by the Senate.

• Candidates for the position of Athletic Director will be brought in for off-site interviews at the end of February.

• Similarly, the Search Committee for the University Librarian has narrowed down the list of candidates to about eight and will be bringing these candidates for off-site interviews in March.

Report of the Chair, Jonathan Loesberg

Announcements

• The Grievance Committee has lost another member. Mike Sampson has agreed to replace Lesley Gill. The Faculty Senate voted and approved this replacement.

• At the end of the prior discussion for multi-year contracts, there was some language that the Senate intended for Manual Language. Upon further reflection, Professor Wisman, the Chair of the CFR, Professor Loesberg and Dean Mardirosian found the language inappropriate for the Manual. They have come up with a few ideas of what to do with that language. One idea is that the memo that Professor Loesberg wrote to Dr. Broder would function as a memo of understanding. Similarly, Professor Loesberg could write a memo of understanding to Dean Mardirosian. Another idea is that every year in August the CFR send a letter articulating the requirements for putting people up for promotion, and that language could be a part of that. The Faculty Senate approved this final idea.

College Writing, Sarah Irvine Belson

The college writing administrator, John Hyman, and Dean Kay Mussell have come up with a proposal to change slightly the college writing requirements. This proposal does three things: it changes the requirement to eliminate some of the courses that are no longer available. Secondly, it changes the requirement for students that have IB or AP test scores of five or above, so that they are required either to take the test or to take an intensive course. Lastly, it changes the name of the test from the English Competency Test to the Writing Proficiency Examination.

Dr. Broder asked if there was a discussion anywhere in the Academic Regulations about the writing proficiency test. She added that the wording of this proposal was a bit unclear and inconsistent. And further, she wondered if the intent of this is to have every student take the course because then this would have resource implications, such as extra instructors and classrooms. Professor Belson will clarify this, but believes that even students with a high AP/IB scores would have to take the course.

Professor Cochran agrees that the wording seems unclear, and he also prefers that students are required to take the English course. Professor Forst stressed that it would be beneficial if writing could be more a part of students’ grades in other courses, so that when they graduate their ability to write reflects better on the university. Professor Loesberg said that the university has put the first line of responsibility for writing with the actual writing courses. The proposal was remanded to committee for further consideration.

Presidential Search Committee, Mary Mintz & Alan Kraut

The presidential search is still relatively early in the process. The committee is receiving resumes, nominations, and credentials.

The most pressing issue for the Search Committee and for the faculty was that of confidentiality. The Search Committee intends to offer candidates who demand it a fully confidential search and such confidentiality would have as a consequence that finalists for the position might not meet with the University community. The Committee believes that only such an offer of confidentiality will assure that we have a full range of the best possible candidates from which to choose. Of the several Senators and faculty visiting the meeting who spoke, on the other hand, almost all supported a search in which finalists met the University community, whose input the committee would afterwards seek.. Only such a process, they argued, would accord with the increasing stress, in the light of last year's events, on transparency in University decision making.

Discussion of the Budget Process, Janice Flug

Ms. Flug briefly went over the handout that she circulated to the Senators. She then discussed the relationship of the Faculty Senate and the budget committee with regard to the budget process. She explained in more detail how budgets are arrived at. Various Senators expressed concern with their inability, as the process works now, either to make choices or to see alternatives to the options offered to them when they are asked to approve budget proposals. There was some sense that the process of consultation could be improved in the future.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45.