Faculty Senate Homepage
Summary of the Faculty Senate Meeting
December 4, 2024
I. Chair鈥檚 Report
The Faculty Senate Past Chair, Tom Merrill, called the meeting to order at 2:30 pm. Jenny Axe was unable to attend, so Tom Merrill presented the Chair鈥檚 report:
A. Approval of the November 6, 2024 Minutes:
1. Faculty senate members聽approved the minutes.
B. Working Groups:
1. Senate Transformation for Enhanced Performance (STEP) Working Group:
STEP, which is a working group tasked with reforming the faculty senate, had its second meeting last month. The Group decided to create two subgroups. One would address the faculty senate鈥檚 structure and the other the senate鈥檚 functions. STEP has one more meeting scheduled in the fall semester.
2. Title IX Working Group:
The University is forming a Title IX Working Group that includes faculty and administrators. The election of Donald Trump means that Title IX rules are unlikely to change as much as had been anticipated when the Biden Administration initially had proposed rules changes. The working group will focus on clarifying and streamlining Title IX practices. The Title IX office anticipated beginning its work shortly, which left a short period to form a working group before that work was supposed to commence. To meet the deadline, the faculty senate Chair sent out an e-mail to all faculty to solicit interest, and the senate leadership chose Daniela Kraiem (WCL), Nuria Vilanova (CAS), Dave Haaga (CAS), Sherita Flake (SOE) and Kylos Brannon (SOC) to serve. In the future, the senate leadership will at minimum ask the executive committee to vote on choices for university working groups. This working group has not yet met.
3. Sexual Misconduct Working Group:
The University will create a Sexual Misconduct Working Group. Once the Provost asks, the senate leadership will put out a call for nominations, ask the senate executive committee to make selections and ask the senate to ratify the choices.
4. Steve Silvia informed the senate that he made the Board of Trustees aware of the resolution from last May to create a written procedure for faculty participation in future presidential searches. A Board member asked him to provide a draft text, which he will do.
C. Consent Agenda
1. The Faculty Senate approved a minor change to the 2024-25 Committee on Faculty Actions 鈥 Dean of Faculty instructions memo that moved the spring open meeting to Wednesday.
2. The Faculty Senate approved the 2025-26 Committee on Faculty Actions 鈥 Dean of Faculty instructions memo with minor changes.
D. Chris Tudge (CAS) at-large senator is leaving the senate because of a teaching conflict in the spring 2025 semester. Shawn Bates (SIS) will replace Chris starting in February because Shawn had the next highest vote total in the spring 2024 senate elections. Past Chair Tom Merrill thanked Chris for his contributions to the senate and welcomed Shawn Bates back onto the senate.
II. Provost鈥檚 Report 鈥 Vicky Wilkins
A. Board of Trustees Meeting:
The provost gave a presentation to the Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee on 鈥淩1 the AU way鈥 that focused on taking advantage of this change in classification by continuing funding and investing in research. The provost also mentioned that a recent report on higher education by U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) focuses on many fields where AU is active. The university needs to be vigilant to comply with future Congressional actions. The February Board of Trustees meeting will take up the topic of teaching by addressing the question, 鈥淗ow do we maintain who we are?鈥.
B. Budget:
The university is still meticulously refining projections regarding revenue. The September 15 exercise undertaken by all units in academic affairs is proving to have accurately identified the actual steps that units will need to take. The Provost stated, 鈥淚鈥檓 not being coy with numbers. I鈥檓 putting them out there.鈥 Each dean will get a number that is a target for budget cuts. The Provost鈥檚 Office will take into account savings already achieved. The Voluntary Retirement Incentive Program (VRIP) will affect the number. We are likely to have a clearer indication of the number and distribution of faculty and staff opting for voluntary retirement sometime in February. The Provost let the faculty know that she was available to help with identifying and implementing savings and ideas for new revenue sources.
C. Enrollment:
Undergraduate enrollment looks promising so far. Early action has been a big success. One thing that isn鈥檛 clear at this point is how the new option of early action will affect regular admissions. Recruitment events have mostly been successful. The Provost asked the faculty to help convert applicants into students. Estimates of graduate enrollments are consistent with the realignment that the provost presented in her 2024 annual spring address. There is no single template for realigning graduate programs. Academic units need to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. The request was made to work within academic and teaching units to cultivate and convert graduate applicants into students.
D. Report on the President鈥檚 Listening Tour:
The findings from the tour are starting to feed into the development of a new strategic plan. Sine Civic Life Faculty Fellows were also chosen.
E. Questions for the Provost:
1. A senator asked the provost to compare the VRIP program with the last buyout, which the University implemented in 2015. The provost replied that the last buyout only covered tenured faculty; 16 colleagues took it. This buyout also includes continuing (but not term) faculty and staff. This time, there will be a one-year pause before filling a vacated tenure line. This will save money in the short run and is common at other universities that have done buyouts. It is worth noting that a buyout is not automatic; the administration must approve it. Buyouts are being implemented on a first-come, first-served basis. If the target for buyouts is reached, the opportunity will end. The Provost added that the buyout language may generate trepidation in some. We need to support one another. We also need to respond to false rumors quickly.
2. A senator asked how budget discussions have gone in other units. Most reported that they have held faculty discussions and that they were informative.
III. Office of Academic Integrity Report 鈥 Alison Thomas
Alison Thomas gave a comprehensive report on academic integrity. OAI has considerable information on a range of topics on its SharePoint site. AU has only recently been collecting data for the whole University because AU only recently centralized the academic integrity process. As a result, university-wide information does not go back very far. Alison Thomas reported that the frequency of academic integrity violations does not decrease from first year to senior year. Academic integrity is as much of an issue at the graduate level as it is at the undergraduate level.
The issue of faculty using artificial intelligence to grade arose in the discussion. It became clear that the university needed a transparent policy, and that developing a sound and transparent policy for faculty use of AI in teaching would not be simple and would likely vary from discipline to discipline.
IV. Provost Search Committee Section 21, Faculty Manual Changes: Provost searches 鈥 Steve Silvia
In September, the faculty senate passed a stand-alone document that established new procedures for undertaking a provost search. During the discussion, it became clear that it would be best to put the document in a place where faculty would be likely to look for it. In consultation with the Provost, the consensus was to add the document to the faculty manual, which is the objective of today鈥檚 vote. The language in the current proposal is largely the same as what the senate approved in September. There is one significant addition; the document now has language to regularize the creation of an advisory committee (a.k.a., satellite committee) of faculty to meet with finalists. A second change was to make consultation easier and quicker in an instance when a candidate declines an offer by requiring the president to consult in advance of taking additional action only with the search committee Chair rather than the entire committee. Other changes were clarifications. The language would not be submitted to the Board of Trustees until the spring of 2025. The ongoing provost search may reveal a need to amend the document. However, given the other two faculty manual changes that the senate leadership intends to bring forward, which cover senior searches in academic affairs and senior administrator 360-degree reviews, the executive committee thought it best to vote on the provost search document now to avoid an excessively crowded calendar in the spring.
The discussion focused on amending the language to add an option that would allow unit representatives to ask the senate executive committee for an exemption for academic units that have none or very few of one type of faculty rank (e.g., the University Library) from the provision specifying the election of one tenure-line and one non-tenure line faculty member for the selection pool. Steve Silvia accepted this as a friendly amendment. The Senate approved to add the amended language to the faculty manual.
V. For the good of the order 鈥 Senate Past Chair Tom Merrill
There were no items for the good of the order.