Minutes of the 9/21/05 Meeting of the College of Arts & Sciences
Proxies were held by:
Beth Boquet for Dennis Keenan
Cecelia Bucki for Patricia Behre
Ron Davidson for Kathy Schwab
Gisela Gil-Egui for Sallyanne Ryan
Laura McSweeney for Matt Kubasik and Matt Coleman
Call to order: Prof. Crabtree called the meeting to order at 4:09, and requested a motion to reorder the agenda to vote on allowing No‘l Appel to attend. Prof. Lane so moved, seconded by Prof. Salafia, and the motion to reorder passed without objection. Salafia then moved to allow Appel to attend; Prof. L. Miners seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Election of officers: Prof. Rakowitz, seconded by Prof. DeWitt, nominated Crabtree for Chair, and she was elected by acclamation. DeWitt, seconded by Salafia, then nominated Rakowitz for Secretary, and her election was uncontested. The body offered a round of applause to thank Prof. Steffen for his three years of service as Secretary.
Approval of minutes: Crabtree pointed out that the June meeting to discuss the draft of merit structures was not a formal meeting, so the only minutes to be approved were those from 4/27/05. Prof. Davidson, seconded by Prof. Yarrington, moved to approve the minutes from April. The minutes were approved unanimously.
Prof. Boquet, seconded by Yarrington, moved to reorder the agenda to place the merit discussion prior to the DeanÕs remarks. The motion passed with 2 opposed and 1 abstention.
Crabtree introduced Dean Snyder by thanking him and the faculty members on the College Merit Committee (Profs. DeWitt, Epstein, Lang, Rakowitz, and Yarrington) for maintaining collegial conversations throughout the past year. Snyder echoed the thanks to the faculty, emphasizing his respect for the committeeÕs willingness to return to discussions after the rejection of the College-wide plan they originally wrote. He then went on to offer a few introductory remarks about the document currently under consideration. He pointed out that the committee had to balance various opinions and documents in drafting the proposed structure. He noted that the proposed structure attempts to address shared concerns regarding amounts of money available. It uses a Òcollapsing accordion model,Ó so that the number of levels of additional merit each year is determined by the resources available. He remarked that issues remain to be discussed, especially an ombuds system, but that he and the committee agree that these issues can be addressed separately from approving the current document. If the proposed document is approved, he would give departments 2 weeks for near final drafts of plans, and 4 weeks for final drafts. He then asked whether Rakowitz had anything to add, and she thanked him for his work on the committee, and particularly his strong commitment to addressing issues of shared concern. At this point, the floor was opened for questions.
Prof. Dennin asked how quickly the Dean would return departmental drafts with comments. Snyder replied that he thought he could turn around drafts in a few days. Prof. Gil-Egui asked for clarification about how standards for A0 should differ from standards for sustained merit. Snyder explained that departments would have to determine an appropriate level of difficulty for each level, but part of his task in evaluating the plans would be to look for rough matching of levels across departments. He noted that departments could help in the process of equilibration by using the ÒCommon FrameworkÓ proposal distributed by the Merit Committee, but that the use of that framework is optional. He concluded with the suggestion that most departments would take the standards for sustained, and ratchet them up a bit (i.e., make a quantitative, rather than qualitative shift) for A0.
Dennin asked whether the discretionary raises would use the 3-year window that assessments for additional merit will use. He noted that if the same outstanding achievement merited a discretionary raise for 3 consecutive years, then each year, fewer new outstanding achievements could be recognized. After some initial memory failures regarding the committeeÕs discussion of this question, Rakowitz explained that the expectation was that an outstanding achievement would only merit one discretionary raise, but with the vagaries of resource availability, that raise might not come immediately following the achievement. So the discretionary raises will consider the 3-year window, but each outstanding achievement should ordinarily only be recognized once during that window.
Davidson moved to approve the document entitled ÒDraft 1 of College-Wide Structures for Merit PlansÓ dated 9/5/05. Prof. Simon seconded.
Lang spoke in favor of the motion, with reservations. He said that he liked A0 and the collapsing accordion structure, but that he saw this plan as a step back from previous College votes endorsing a single level of additional merit. He also expressed concern about the lack of a grievance mechanism or a mechanism for continuing review. He pointed out that it is still possible for faculty to lose buying power with this plan (for example, if there is no merit one year and sustained is over CPI the next year, or if benefits are cut through things like raising co-pays). This plan, therefore, does not meet the explicit goal laid out in the Guiding Principles of allowing faculty to maintain buying power over a period of years. Nonetheless, he said thereÕs no such thing as a good merit plan, so we might as well get it over with by voting for this plan.
Epstein spoke in favor of the plan. He said that the Dean was very accommodating in some of the committeeÕs summer meetings, and we have ended up with a plan that avoids some of the worst pitfalls of merit plans. It doesnÕt require faculty to evaluate departmental colleagues in ways that could be very detrimental to departmental functioning. However, he pointed out, it doesnÕt prevent departments from doing that. He urged departments, therefore, to be attentive to the plans theyÕre developing and to communicate with other departments around the College.
Steffen asked about the plans for continuing discussions on an ombuds system. Rakowitz and Snyder both acknowledged their agreement to continue with those discussions in a few weeks, after they have a chance to gather some more information about ways of structuring such systems.
Seeing no further comments, Crabtree called the question. The motion passed with 1 opposed and 6 abstentions.
Before moving on, Crabtree urged departments to consider the Common Framework proposed by the committee as a way of thinking about commonality across the College. She also noted that the chairs have agreed to share their departmental plans. Prof. Bucki asked whether the Common Framework could be brought to a vote. Crabtree said that it could be voted on departmentally, but not college-wide. Gil-Egui repeated her confusion regarding A0. Snyder suggested that things like that would be easier to address once department plans begin to circulate. Prof. Mielants introduced himself as having recently arrived from a large research university. Based on that experience, he was very interested in a suggestion in the Common Framework that a faculty/administrative committee might compare plans. He had seen cases of departments trying to impose their disciplinary standards on other departments, and feared that some future Dean might try to impose the perspective from his or her particular discipline on the entire College. He urged the current Dean to forestall such a possibility by agreeing to a joint faculty/administrative committee to review departmental plans. Snyder said that he would take MielantsÕ suggestion under advisement.
This phase of merit in the College concluded with a brief discussion of the DeanÕs offer to treat the College Merit Committee to expensive champagne.
Remarks by Dean Snyder
Snyder began with a series of thank yous, to: the staff of the College (Jean Daniele, Benedetta Maguire, Sue Peterson, Mary Hofmann, Miram Gogol, and Ray Poincelot); Robbin Crabtree for continuing as Chair of the College; Kraig Steffen for his 3 years of service as Secretary of the College; Susan Rakowitz for taking on the Secretary position; last yearÕs Steering Committee (Marti LoMonaco, Phil Lane, Ed OÕConnell, Ellen Umansky, Robbin Crabtree and Kraig Steffen); the faculty who have welcomed students from New Orleans into their classes; and all the faculty who served on hiring committees last year. He also announced that Rick DeWitt had been elected to replace Marti LoMonaco on the Steering Committee, and that the program chairs had not yet elected their representative.
He then moved to some data suggesting the strong academic performance of the College in the past year. 218 students were in internships; 246 students studied abroad; 109 students went to graduate or professional schools; 2 students were awarded Fulbrights; and 128 students were involved in research. Furthermore, over the past 6 years, the faculty of the College have produced 67 books, with 13 in the last year alone.
The next section of the talk considered the state of the CollegeÕs Long Range Plan (LRP), especially as we are in a transition from long range plans to the new strategic plan. The LRP called for new lines in the College, and that process has been moving ahead thanks to an agreement between Vice Presidents Grossman and Lucas. According to that agreement, when faculty leave the College, their salaries remain dedicated to instruction in the College. That meant that last year, the College had 13 replacement positions and 3 new lines. Since 2003, 11 new lines have been added, bringing us one-third of the way to the LRPÕs goal.
This year there will be 16 searches, including some for people whose teaching responsibilities will be split between departments. The searches have been designated in the following areas: Biochemistry (2/3 Chemistry, 1/3 Biology); Biophysics (2/3 Physics, 1/3 Biology); Environmental Toxicology (2/3 Biology, 1/3 Chemistry); Materials Science (2/3 Physics, 1/3 Chemistry); Mathematics; Analytical/Instrumentation Chemistry; Physiology; Physics; Spanish; Asian Philosophy; Acting; Classics (2/3 Classics, 1/3 History); Latin American History; Hebrew Scriptures; and, pending departmental acquiescence, Bioinformatics (2/3 Biology, 1/3 Math) and Biostatistics (1/3 Biology, 2/3 Math).
The Academic Vice President has been working on new hiring guidelines. Among the features are that search committees will need to be agreed on by departments and the AVP. The Dean and Director of Human Resources will meet with departments conducting searches. All relevant parties should weigh in with their observations prior to votes. Departmental recommendations should be more holistic- indicating whoÕs acceptable and what the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates are. Affirmative Action compliance reports should be prepared earlier to ensure that weÕre doing our best to attract underrepresented faculty. Only those who have been involved in a search should have voting privileges for that search. We should ensure that hires fit well into University mission and the strategic plan.
Returning to the LRP, that document included the work of 2 committees on scholarly and programmatic excellence. One of those committees addressed a shift to a 4/4 student load and a 3/2 teaching load. That discussion is currently on hold, awaiting the strategic plan. The other committee called for a Center for Academic Excellence, which is now up and running, and a huge success.
The LRP also called for new and increased revenue streams for the College, and fundraising for endowed chairs is now underway. It further called for increased diversity, international presence, and focus on mission and identity. Last yearÕs hires improved diversity among the faculty, and we will seek to continue expanding faculty diversity through this yearÕs hires. More diversity is needed among administrators and students, as well. Other programs and initiatives related to these goals include: the soon-to-be Center for Faith and Public Life; the connection with Managua Universidad Centroamericana in Latin America; the Migration Seminar held this past summer; the Literacy Program; and the Latin American and Caribbean Studies seminar.
Looking ahead, the Dean announced the recent formation of the College Board of Advisors. Consisting of 18-25 members, it will meet three times a year; a Fall retreat, with opportunities to become familiar with the College, each other, and their potential roles as Board members, has already taken place. Members were recruited with the explanation that Fairfield is at a critical transition point, moving from a President focused on building programs and a strong faculty, with emphasis on finance and infrastructure, to one focused more purely on things academic. To that end, President von Arx has called for school-based Boards of Advisors and partial decentralizing of development. The Board will offer the Dean strategic advice and engage in fundraising; they will have no fiduciary responsibilities and no policy-making abilities.
The Board is chaired by Jorge Figueredo (President, International, of Liz Claiborne, Inc.) and includes faculty liaison Kathy Schwab (who presented at the retreat on faculty life and structure) as a member, Advancement Liaison No‘l Appel, and Jean Daniele handling staff management. The Board members are passionate, intelligent, experienced with boards, resourceful, excited, and include many alumni. They expressed a desire for more interactions with faculty and students in retreat assessment surveys.
The Board will eventually help the College prepare for the next capital campaign, which will be more academically oriented than past campaigns. In the first phase, they will work with 3 departments– Biology, Religious Studies, and Visual and Performing Arts– on developing and shaping statements for the next campaign. Ultimately we hope that these statements will include things like endowed chairs.
Another emphasis in the coming year will be diversity initiatives. Snyder quoted his remarks from last year about the importance of diverse environments for student learning and for consistency with the Mission. He noted that some changes are being made in student recruitment that should help with recruiting a more diverse student population. He also suggested that the increase in faculty diversity begun last year should make it easier to attract a more diverse student body. The Dean suggested that search committees establish relationships with chairs and deans at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, in order to encourage a more diverse applicant pool. Finally he announced that the Humanities Institute will focus on enhancing and supporting diversity at Fairfield in 2005-2006.
The Dean went on to talk about program and staff reviews. Last year a cohort review of the sciences produced many recommendations that are now being prioritized by the chairs and Dean Poincelot. This spring, Deans Gogol and Poincelot will conduct a review of interdisciplinary programs. There will also be a review of Modern Languages and Literatures. In addition, the staff, often hired ad hoc, rather than programmatically or systematically, will be reviewed. The other major event of the coming year is the rollout of the university strategic plan. A draft was released on 9/19. It will be discussed at upcoming DeanÕs Council and College meetings, with the goal of it going to the Board of Trustees in December.
The Dean wrapped up with a hodgepodge of thoughts and announcements. He feels the College is the only ÒunbrandedÓ school at the university, and that needs to be changed. He would like to see ads, posters and media interactions refer to departments as Òof the College of Arts and SciencesÓ at Fairfield U. He then noted that the memo on full-time faculty teaching equity will appear soon. He referred to the increase in grant workshops, and encouraged seeking external grants before looking internally. He announced that, as a first step in living and learning initiatives, there is now a residence floor (the second floor in Campion) devoted to women in science. The hope is that this emphasis will encourage women to stay in the sciences, and will thereby make inroads against insidious stereotypes regarding appropriate career paths for women. Continuing on the theme of living and learning, he indicated that he would like to see more faculty attend the CollegeÕs annual Sophomore Symposium. He concluded by reviewing anecdotal data suggesting that our students may know more about celebrity news than national news.
Despite the lateness of the hour, the floor was opened to questions. Prof. Umansky asked whether the class of 2009 is more diverse than previous classes. Snyder replied that it was comparable to the class of 2008, but the new recruitment process will take a few years to produce results. Mielants asked whether there are data about grade inflation in the College; he was referred to Prof. Abbott. At this point, Peter Burns rose to introduce himself. He is a political scientist at Loyola New Orleans, spending the semester at Fairfield. He announced that he would like to meet with all Loyola students at Fairfield and could be reached at pburns@loyno.edu.
There followed a brief discussion about adjourning versus completing the agenda. Somehow the latter option won out, and the new faculty (mostly in absentia) were introduced to the remaining diehards. The new faculty are: Sripriya Seetharaman (Chemistry- Visiting); Qin Zhang (Communication); Michael Pagano (Communication- Visiting); Kevin Dawson and Yohuru Williams (History); Steve Bayne (Philosophy); Raquel Ukeles (Religious Studies); Rose Gorman (Religious Studies- Visiting); Angela Biselli (Physics); Mike Brienza and Leslie Schaffer (Physics- Visiting); Terry-Ann Jones, Eric Mielants, and RenŽe White (Sociology); Suzanne Chamlin, Laura Nash, and Marice Rose (Visual and Performing Arts).
The motion to adjourn to food and drink made by Lane and seconded by Dennin was recognized at 5:52.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Rakowitz