LAU Faculty Senate

Dear LAU faculty, In an attempt to keep you up-to-date on issues that are of importance to the well-being of LAU and its faculty, allow me to share with you some of the recent senate activities, and to report on some of the issues raised at the last meeting of the Board of Trustees held in Washington, D.C, on March 27 and 28, 2008.

In my message dated January 7, 2008, I had asked you to participate in the decision making of one particular issue, namely the new Promotion Criteria and Guidelines as proposed by the Faculty Welfare and Promotion Council. With great pleasure, the Senate received the input of a considerable number of faculty members. The input was compiled and discussed in the Senate meeting of January 25, 2008. During that meeting, the Senate moved not to change the current promotion criteria and guidelines and requested that the FWPC develops a vision whereby schools are empowered to develop comprehensive school, departmental or even program specific criteria for all ranks for promotion and tenure. At the same meeting, the time-in-rank proposal developed by the FWPC was discussed and the senate felt that this rule should not be changed until a new [global research] vision is in place; in addition, it was noted that this raises the question of quota in rank because fast track promotion would create problems with this system. It is my pleasure to announce that the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Abdallah Sfeir, reported the Senate’s concerns to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board. The Committee, in its meeting on March 27, 2008, resolved to “encourage the Administration to recommend a comprehensive proposal addressing these issues in due time” (Minutes of the Committee’s meeting held on March 27, 2008). The Committee also approved the Senate’s recommendation to extend the instructors’ contracts to two years, provided that the instructor has been at the service of LAU for 5 consecutive years. Other equally important and critical decisions were made by this Committee and were communicated to us all by the President.

On the COLA issue and as you know, an ad-hoc committee of the Senate had suggested the need to an 11% increase in the salaries in order to come to terms with the inflation rates recorded since the year 2002. President Joseph Jabbra forwarded those findings to the University Budget Committee, and following an in-depth scrutiny of the issue, a recommendation was taken to the Board of Trustees asking for a 5% increase in our salaries with a cap of $200. It is true that this adjustment falls short of what was hoped for, yet this was “the best that LAU can afford” (Minutes of the Planning and Administration Committee” of the Board held on March 27, 2008).

Other issues were discussed at the last meetings of the senate. Below is a list of the recommendations that were forwarded to the President (bullets 1, 2, and 3) and to the VPAA (bullet 4):

1. Benefits after Death: The spouse and dependants of faculty, whether retired or active, continue to be covered by the same benefits after the death of the faculty member on the same terms as before death (Senate meeting of January 3, 2008).
2. Teaching Load of Retirees: Retirees be allowed to teach on a full-time or part-time basis on a yearly contract after the retirement age but transparent criteria for re-hiring and a fair process should be established (Senate meeting of January 3, 2008).
3. Educational Benefits: LAU already does a good job on the whole of providing for the education of its faculty dependants. However, the senate has noted two areas in which LAU could improve its performance in this respect, both to benefit the university by offering a useful recruitment tool and at the same time to deal more equitably with the needs of faculty dependants. The senate therefore recommends:
   1. That dependants of faculty who wish to pursue a major not offered by LAU should be allowed to do so at another institution at the expense of LAU provided that the actual cost of tuition covered by LAU not exceed the tuition costs of a similar course at LAU, and that only tuition fees will be borne by LAU.
   2. There is an apparent problem with tertiary educational benefits for dependants whose “home” is outside Lebanon. The Faculty Senate wishes to be involved with the administration in formulating a definition of faculty and/or dependants' “home” so as to resolve this issue equitably.
      (Senate meeting of February 21, 2008)
4. English Standards at LAU: The Senate passed the following resolution in its meeting of February 21, 2008:

Preamble:

The Faculty Senate notes that there is considerable disagreement, misunderstanding, and a general lack of direction and vision in the matter of English language instruction at LAU. Dissatisfaction has been noted from corporate employers of LAU graduates, from senior faculty in the professional schools, from the English Language instructors in the department of Humanities, and even from students. The English Language instructors feel that there is a lack of transparency in regard to what the university expects of them and what the criteria should be both for admission and to measure success. The faculty at large that there is a lack of transparency in regard to the output of the department, and there is an attitude common among students that English is merely a burden to be either got rid of or postponed as long as possible. In this regard, the Senate has already passed a resolution that “The senate demands that students be forced through the proper implementation of the Banner system to take their English courses sequentially from their 1st semester until they have completed all the English requirements”, but wishes the university to make a general re-examination of the issue a high priority within the whole university.

Resolution:

The senate resolves to recommend to all relevant powers in the University that the issue of English Language should be examined and that the English program should be generally revised. The senate suggests that the following issues could profitably be examined:

1. The need to revisit the English program in light of trends in the field and work with other disciplines,
2. International standardized tests (TOEFL, IELTS) rather than EEE, and standards of admission,
3. a re-examination of the way LAU assesses students English Language learning outcomes,
4. an English Language Department separate from the department of Humanities and responsible for Freshman and Sophomore English programs which are part of the Liberal arts Curriculum, concentration on the standards we should have and our ability to measure outcomes,
5. concentration on the standards we should have and our ability to measure outcomes, and
6. the creation of an English Language Institute for all pre-freshman English with a standardized test at the end.

I thank you for taking the time to read this message. As always, I urge you to stay up-to-date on all Senate discussions and resolutions through the minutes that are available online and/or through the Senators that represent you.

Sincerely,
Samer Habre
April 18, 2008