CAS Minutes of 16 March 2005 (4:09-5:40p in Alumni House)

Proxies (17): held by Dr. O’Neill for Dr. Weiss; Dr. G. Lang for Drs. Khadjavi and McSweeney; Dr. Rakowitz for Dr. Kubasik; Dr. Klug for Dr. Sauer; Dr. Osier for Dr. Harriott; Dr. D. Keenan for Drs. Rosivach and W. Abbott; Dr. Davidson for Dr. Schwab; Dr. Weiss for Dr. Coleman; Fr. McGregor for Dr. Eliasoph; Dr. Boquet for Drs. Simon and Thiel; Dr. DeWitt for Drs. Cassidy and Bayne; Dr. Scalese for Fr. McGregor; and Dr. Epstein for Dr. Bowen.

Called to Order: Dr. Crabtree, Chair of CAS Faculty, at 4:09p

Attending: 50 voting faculty (plus 17 general proxies); 1 invited guest

1. Motion by Dr. Boquet “To invite Dr. Roben Torosyan to this meeting of the CAS faculty.” Seconded by Dr. Keenen. No discussion. Vote: 39 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstained. Passed.

2. Motion by Dr. Patton “To approve the minutes of 9 February 2005.” Seconded by Dr. Boquet. Discussion included slight correction: Dr. Dallevalle asked for clarification regarding whether or not departments are allowed to change standards in the Proposed CAS Merit Plan. Dr. Rakowitz replied that the minutes should state that departments can add criteria to the standards stated in the Plan but may not subtract. Dr. Rakowitz offered to contact the CAS Secretary to make sure this clarification was reflected in the approved minutes. Vote: overwhelmingly approved with 4 abstentions. Passed.

3. Motion by Dr. Keenan “To reorder agenda.” Seconded by Dr. Boquet. No discussion. Vote: 39 in favor, 1 opposed, 0 abstained. Passed.

4. First Agenda Item: Presentation by the Center for Academic Excellence (CAE).

Drs. Miners and Torosyan provided the CAS faculty with a PowerPoint presentation that outlined recent accomplishments and future plans of the CAE. Dr. Miners began by (re)introducing Dr. Torosyan and his many impressive credentials. Dr. Miners also reminded faculty that applications have been distributed for the Faculty Fellow—Course Resign grants and encouraged faculty to submit proposals before the April 4 deadline.

Dr. Torosyan described the Midterm Assessment of Teaching (MAT) program. In response to faculty request, Drs. Miners and Torosyan visit classes to distribute midterm surveys and to facilitate student group discussions with the intention of providing faculty with feedback that can be used to adjust teaching at the mid-point of the semester. This type of feedback supplements the end-of-semester student teaching evaluations. The deadline for Spring 2005 participation is March 31.

Brochures were distributed for the upcoming Summer Conference “Focusing on Learning Outcomes: Technology, Pedagogy & Course Redesign V” to be held June 1-3. The deadlines for submissions are April 15 and May 15. Dr. Miners announced that the topic of the pre-conference workshop is “e-portfolios.”

Dr. Torosyan discussed several other CAE services, including his availability to provide faculty consultations, to discuss problem-solving strategies, to work with faculty interested in conducting research on the scholarship of teaching and learning, the development of faculty learning communities, the availability of a lending collection focusing on pedagogical issues, and an upcoming e-survey of faculty needs. An upcoming lunch was also announced, which will be hosted by CAE, in honor of new faculty.

Dr. Miners reminded faculty of the new location of the CAE in the basement of the library. This beautiful space can provide faculty with meeting space and library resources. The CAE’s efforts to access external grant funding continues: several proposals are pending, including one for $500K that has been submitted to a private foundation. The CAE’s long-term plan includes building an endowment that will help sustain campus efforts.

Dr. G. Lang asked Mr. Miners to describe the annual operating budget of the CAE: Dr. Miners hopes/expects it will be approximately $200K, which includes Dr. Torosyan’s salary and benefit package, as well as funding for faculty grants and other expenses.

5. Second Agenda Item: Remarks by Dean Snyder.

The Dean’s remarks began with a few words of encouragement to the CAS faculty: “Spring is a time when a certain level of exhaustion can arrive for us and for our students. It is also a time when our teaching—especially for two-semester sequences—can reach a peak potential. For our students, this will be one of four such times, perhaps across their entire lifetime, when they can have this kind of opportunity for deep learning and reflection.” The Dean offered encouragement in faculty attaining their goals, and in encouraging our students to “go deep.” He then introduced a member of the CAS faculty for a brief announcement: Dr. Orman announced his intention to challenge Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate. This announcement was met with enthusiastic applause.

The Dean reported that the Full-time Faculty Teaching Equity Committee recently completed its task and submitted several formal recommendations, all of which were recommended uniformly by the Dean’s Council and by the College Planning Committee and will be accepted by the Dean, except the third item, part of which was referred to committee (ASCC). A memo from the Dean is forthcoming on this matter. He also announced that several new faculty lines had been successfully filled and said that he is greatly pleased with the outcomes so far in terms of issues of diversity. For example, two senior-level hires have been made in the Black Studies program; the Communication Department has hired a junior faculty member who is a Chinese national; other departments and programs including History, International Studies, and Modern Languages and Literatures and have also hired highly-qualified faculty who diversify the CAS faculty.

The Dean’s update of “Merit” followed. He informed the faculty that the AVP has formally rejected the Plan proposed by the CAS; therefore, it will be necessary for faculty to default to the Dean’s plan again this year. Applications for sustained and additional merit pay are due on March 31. Upon completion of the evaluation process, the Dean said he will be willing to meet with Department Chairs to discuss his decisions; however, due to time constraints, he will be unable to meet with individual faculty in the CAS.

To submit applications for merit pay, the Dean encourages faculty to use the “NaserNet”; however, doing so is not absolutely required. The Dean pointed out the benefits of using the NaserNet, including the fact that much of the required information is preloaded (e.g., advisees, committee work, etc.), assisting department chairs in their compiling end-of-year reports, helping Media Relations identify appropriate faculty based on expertise, and helping the Dean better understand what each faculty member does, which will help attain a fair evaluation of performance.

Within roughly one week, the Dean said he would distribute a request for department-based merit plans, which would be due no later than May 30. The Dean reminded faculty that, as noted in his fall faculty speech, he had set this as our last year to accomplish merit planning. Otherwise, it will be up to him to create each department’s plan. The Dean stated: “This is it; we will do it.” To assist department chairs in their roles in this process, workshops will be offered at the chair’s retreat to be held this summer. The Dean reiterated that he “and probably everybody in this room” wants fairness and transparency. At the last College meeting, Dr. Rakowitz had indicated that the AVP’s guidelines on merit had not been followed, in part because the administrative position on merit represented “shifting ground.” That is not, however, consistent with the facts: the AVP, the President, and he, in memos to faculty and in his speeches and meetings, have all proposed a departmentally-based model. Amidst this stable model, as we have waited to develop planning, new parties have weighed in, including the new President, which should be expected. Each such moment makes the assortment of options available to the College smaller. To date, the AVP, the Board of Trustees, the Guiding Principles document, and the President have weighed in, and “Our window of opportunity is shrinking quickly,” and we “must do department-based reviews” at this time.

Describing the current situation as “grim,” he clarified his position, which agrees with that of the faculty, that the level of sustained merit should meet CPI, and that an additional merit pool should be used to bring sustained up to CPI in years when the University-wide level of sustained merit is below CPI. He stated that all of the deans agree that sustained should be at COL. However, as a result of the recent linkage of co-pay increases to additional merit and violation of faculty contracts, the Board of Trustees is now more involved in the situation, and it may be the case that the sustained level will drop below COL this year. In other words, the Dean is concerned that the level of sustained merit is now being compromised because of recent actions. According to the Dean, the involvement of the Board is narrowing further the options available, for the faculty and the administration alike. In sum, “we are all losing time to act.” He summarized, and reiterated, that he expected faculty to be at a place where departments make merit plans. In closing, the Dean suggested that we carefully consider making motions at this meeting that direct the CAS faculty to continue by suggesting modifications to and further development of the proposed plan. At this point, the floor was opened for questions from the faculty.

Dr. Dennin asked for clarification regarding the call for plans that will soon be distributed by the Dean. Specifically, he wanted to know that if a department wishes to opt for the Dean’s plan, will it receive a one- or two-page written description in advance so that the faculty will be fully informed of the specifics before they’re forced to make a decision. The Dean responded that there was no option this year—that his plan would be in action. As for the future, he can distribute a more detailed description of his plan. It would be similar to the description that Professors Bernhardt and Coleman distributed to the Mathematics and Computer Science Department following their meeting with the Dean. .

Dr. Boquet asked if there was a way on the NaserNet to indicate a request for additional merit. The Dean said that a check box will exist on the online form; in addition, faculty members are required to submit a two-page letter to request additional merit, just like last year. The Dean indicated that he would see if facility to do this online could be made. Dr. Bucki asked about the submission of student teaching evaluations; the Dean asked that only a copy of the white (quantitative) summary sheet be submitted. Dr. G. Lang asked about the levels of sustained merit and their relationship to CPI over a several-year window. The Dean agreed that there should be a window; however, under the current situation, only a one-year window will be considered this year. This is one of several points that could be discussed College-wide.

Dr. Mulvey revisited Dr. Dennin’s question, asking if a department currently does not have a merit plan, and its faculty wish to be evaluated under the Dean’s plan, may faculty receive the Dean’s evaluation criteria before the March 31 deadline. The Dean answered that this was not possible under the current circumstances and timeline. In the end, the Dean expressed an intention to do what he can to be fair and to protect the financial interests of CAS (i.e., secure maximum funding for CAS faculty). At the same time, the Dean strongly urged departments to develop plans.

Dr. Boryczka asked whether or not untenured faculty will automatically be awarded the top level of merit compensation. The Dean responded that, in the first year, untenured faculty will receive a set amount of merit pay (given their short amount of time (six months) at the university), but that first-year faculty must still submit a report and application. The Dean added that the CAS still can discuss the window of years for future reports so that sustained merit can be evaluated over the long-term. The Dean is also able to have discussion about how many levels of additional merit should be awarded. There are many models we may consider for this.

To conclude his remarks, the Dean expressed strong interest in retaining funds for an equity pool to which faculty with low pay (in comparison to faculty in CAS or at other universities) can apply. The Dean likes this idea and wants to start doing it in 2007; however, this is a third issue that remains open for further discussion.

6. Third Agenda Item: Report from College Committee on Implementation of Guiding Principles.

Dr. Rakowitz reminded the faculty that the Proposed CAS Merit Plan was recently rejected by the administration. She admitted that the Plan needed revision based on faculty comments at the last meeting (e.g., the standards); however, she disagreed with many of the points made in recent correspondence with the AVP. For example, the AVP contends that the Dean did not participate in process of creating the Plan. Dr. Rakowitz strongly disagreed, providing examples. She also contended that the AVP seems to hold the CAS to different standard. To support her claim, she pointed out that the AVP likes the “process” of plans generated in the DSB and GSEAP, which he approved; the CAS plan has many common elements to those plans, yet apparently he does not like the process under which it was developed.

The bottom line: the CAS Committee followed the Guiding Principles (GP) document. Dr. Rakowitz reminded the faculty that the GP underwent ample revisions and were approved by both the Academic Council and the General Faculty. She pointed out that the AVP was on the committee that generated the GP, so since he signed off on it (as a committee member), it puzzles her that he’d have any problems with the faculty using it to develop the Proposed CAS Merit Plan. She proposed a motion.

Motion by Dr. Rakowitz: “The College of Arts & Sciences calls on its committee charged with implementing the Guiding Principles to submit the College Merit Plan to the Academic Council for review by its Guiding Principles subcommittee. If the subcommittee indicates that any modifications are needed to bring the plan into compliance with the Guiding Principles, the College committee is directed to recommend such revisions to the College. The College committee is further directed to ask the Academic Council to clarify the role of the Guiding Principles in defining what makes a merit plan acceptable.” Seconded by Dr. Salafia.

Discussion of motion: The Dean spoke strongly against the motion, stating that in order to develop the Proposed CAS Merit Plan, we cannot limit our scope to the Guiding Principles document. He insisted that the bigger picture must be considered, including numerous statements from AVP, the Board of Trustees, the President, and the Dean’s office, as well as the Guiding Principles. He argued that it was naïve to consider the Guiding Principles as the only document when developing the Proposed CAS Merit Plan, and that he had expressed this to the committee during the planning process. He noted that the Board of Trustees had asked the AVP to deliver merit plans in consultation with the deans and faculty, so his role is key. The Dean advised the faculty that the current version will continue to be rejected, so continuing with this motion seems fruitless. The departments in CAS must work with all the documents associated with the process.

Dr. Epstein supported Dr. Rakowitz’s interpretation of the situation. He warned faculty not to position the main objection to the Proposed CAS Merit Plan that it will be rejected. He clarified his belief that the problem with the Plan is that it was rejected simply “because it was unacceptable.” He concluded that the problem is not the Plan, and that the AVP’s communication is confusing. According to Dr. Epstein, the Proposed CAS Merit Plan was created according to the GP document, so if the AVP has objections to the Proposed CAS Merit Plan, he should clarify his objections rather than just rejecting it, according to Dr. Epstein. Speaking passionately, Dr. Epstein said that he and others on the committee tried to be objective and fair. He admitted that the Plan needs revision; however, according to him, it’s not all bad, and revision is part of the process of a living document. He reiterated his strong support for the motion.

Dr. Umansky wondered if anything other than a department-based plan could be acceptable, or by generating a College-based plan, were we setting ourselves up for failure from the start. She asked Dr. Rakowitz if going to the Academic Council would do any good. She asked whether direct communication with someone, rather than a committee, might be more productive. Dr. Epstein interjected his opinion that direct communication has already taken place and it proved unsuccessful. Dr. Rakowitz agreed with Dr. Epstein. Dr. Rakowitz encouraged the faculty to support the motion.

The Dean responded to Dr. Epstein by saying that the problem with the Proposed CAS Merit Plan is that the AVP’s mandated structure was ignored. While it may follow the GP document, it does not seem to comply with other documents produced by the AVP and President. In other words, following the GP document is not enough, even though it may be a starting point. The committee had no evidence that the Guiding Principles nullified or constituted the entirety of the AVP’s requirements. He also noted that in no way was the proposed plan “flat-out rejected.” The AVP gave clear reasons, and the Dean had given ten reasons at the previous College faculty meeting, as documented in the minutes that had just been approved. To Dr. Umansky, the Dean responded that he was open to merit plans being made at the college level, but the Proposed CAS Merit Plan doesn’t give individual departments enough freedom and flexibility to work as units within the CAS. He noted that, when the College merit committee was proposed, several had commented that the committee could explore the departmentally-based planning options that he had advocated. At the first meeting of the merit planning committee, the Dean asked the committee whether they might first establish a level of expansion, from the Guiding Principles toward the departmental level, at which the committee might work, leaving a remaining layer to be developed by departments. The committee chair did not allow this discussion to take place, opting instead to develop, from the beginning, a single plan that left little departmental involvement. While making this point, Dr. Mulvey was offended by the Dean’s reference to having, at a previous College meeting, a “shouting match” with her. The Dean apologized to Dr. Mulvey and asked that his apology be reflected in the minutes.

Dr. Salafia followed with a reminder to the faculty of the history of incentive and merit plans at the University. He discussed how plans, at times, served to punish faculty rather than motivate them. He recalled relationships throughout the years among faculty members and those representing the administration. He ended his point by speaking in favor of the motion. Dr. Yarrington expressed concern, admitting that she doesn’t see how we can move forward on this topic.

Dr. G. Lang discouraged the faculty from talking further about the Plan since it has already been approved by the CAS faculty. Disagreeing with the Dean, he pointed out that the Plan has mechanisms to allow departments to be involved, but it maintains an equitable core that ensures fairness as departments add new criteria. He noted that the Plan allows for flexibility and recommended to the faculty that a vote on the motion take place (he did not call the question, however).

Dr. McGregor thanked his colleagues on the faculty committee for their work on the CAS Merit Plan. As a junior faculty member, he then praised the merit plan developed in his department (i.e., Visual and Performing Arts). He expressed confidence in his department’s plan, saying that it “seems pretty adequate.” He said that it works well for their purposes, and collegiality in the department is okay. He expressed confusion concerning the motion, wondering if it made sense to fight the administration’s decision, given his suspicion that the proposed plan will be ultimately rejected. He respectfully encouraged other departments in CAS to generate their own plans that are customized to each department’s specific criteria and standards. In the end, Dr. McGregor’s comments focused on collegiality as a priority.

The CAS Faculty Chair, Dr. Crabtree, then asked the Dean to clarify what he felt were the major faults in the proposed plan. The Dean responded by reiterative that ten of his specific objections were recorded in the minutes that had been approved earlier in this meeting. He repeated that the primary problem in the plan is structural, but reminded the faculty that the AVP also articulated several problems in his recent correspondence. The Dean then noted that the merit plan he offered the faculty over a year ago might make a good place to start. He reminded the faculty that within a week, they will receive more guidance. He also suggested that departments look at merit plans used at other universities (e.g., Georgetown, which shared all its College departmental plans with him, and which he distributed to department chairs). Using other plans as models may help departments in CAS create their own.

After the Dean finished his comments, Dr. M Regan asked for further clarification about which documents were relevant. Dr. Mulvey responded that the AVP’s correspondence should not be considered “formal documents.” It is her belief that an e-mail message, for example, should not have equal weight with the GP document in terms of providing mandates to the faculty. Furthermore, she explained passionately: memos that make informal suggestions to the faculty should not be considered “official.” Dr. Boquet added that this situation is an issue of governance. She pointed our that there has been growing interest in departments chairs possessing more power as well as having much closer relationships with the Dean. She followed these comments by asking what stops individual departments from simply adopting the proposed plan as their departments’ plans. Dr. Rakowitz said that departments have the right to do so; however, they may end up losing a level of appeal unless further revision took place. Dr. Gardner expressed appreciation of the efforts made by her colleagues who worked on the CAS Merit Plan but indicated that she was unable to support the motion, for it would not be a productive use of time. Then, she called the question.

Call the Question by Dr. Gardner. Seconded by Dr. Davidson. Vote: 23 in favor, and 11 opposed. Passed.

Vote (on Motion): 16 in favor, 16 opposed, 14 abstained; Proxies: 8 in favor, 4 opposed. The motion was approved by a vote of 24-20-14. Passed.

7. Announcements will be distributed by e-mail, due to time limitations and room availability.

8. Motion by Dr. McCarthy to “adjourn meeting.” Seconded by several in attendance. Vote: unanimous consent. Passed.

Respectfully submitted,

David Alan Sapp

Secretary Pro Tem, Faculty of the CAS