College of Arts and Sciences                                                                                                                         Fairfield University

MINUTES OF MEETING, MARCH 25, 2010

There were approximately 30 CAS faculty members present.

The meeting was called to order by Chair Glenn Sauer at 3:37.

Approval of Minutes of February 19^th 2010

These minutes were approved unanimously.

 

Discussion of Governance Document

Chairman Sauer gave some background. A committee (Abbott, Coleman, Epstein, McFadden, Sauer, Weiss), had been appointed last fall to examine and draw up revisions to the CAS Governance Document. Glenn stated that the purpose of today 's meeting was to discuss the Committee 's suggested revisions, after which all changes would be posted, in expectation of a vote on the entire set of changes on April 28 (4:30-6:00 p.m. followed by gala reception at Alumni House).

Associate Dean Joan Weiss handed out a copy of the CAS Governance Document, with the suggested revisions included. She also handed out a shorter, 'road map ' of these revisions (see attached). Dean Weiss went over the revisions one at a time, and called for discussion and feedback.

 

1.3.1:

Vin Rosivach stated that, as we get more and more non-tenure-track faculty working at Fairfield, we will have a larger and larger percentage of these faculty in each department, with full voting rights. Did the Committee consider this problem? Another faculty member stated that, in her department, there were six visiting faculty members and only four tenure-track faculty. We could see the possibility of temporary faculty outvoting permanent ones on key departmental issues.

Dean Weiss replied that people who vote in General Faculty meetings are allowed to vote in departments; this is part of the Faculty Handbook.

 

 

Leo O 'Connor recommended that this issue go back to the Committee. Dean Weiss asked how we might change the wording.

Dean Crabtree stated that this is a matter for the General Faculty, and that for the College to abrogate a rule in the Faculty Handbook would be wrong; our document should affirm decisions made by the General Faculty.

Leo O 'Connor stated that the College is the only school that has large numbers of non-tenure-track faculty. Dean Crabtree denied this, stating that Nursing and Engineering have a lot of non-tenure-track faculty. Leo responded that, if it is indeed open practice in the CAS and other schools, then this is an even more compelling issue to be addressed. It will be prevalent in a decade.

Bob Epstein clarified: such faculty are either Visiting Professors or Professors of the Practice. There are only a limited number of the latter, but we can have many more of the former.

Leo suggested that we, as a college, bring this issue to the General Faculty.

 

MOTION by Leo O 'Connor, seconded by Mary Ann Carolan:

That the College bring to the Academic Council, for its consideration, the issue of voting rights for non-tenure-track faculty members.

After further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

 

Dean Crabtree stated that the College should be OK with clarifying language, but that any change in policy is still an open question, pending consideration by the Academic Council.

 

1.6.1:

Dean Weiss stated that "casting votes" should and will be withdrawn; the Committee was in error here.

It was asked whether such an issue was subsumed by a quorum requirement. Answer: there is no quorum requirement. Vin Rosivach added a point of information: absentee ballots are allowed.

 

1.7.15:

Dean Weiss stated that the phrase "and the Fairfield University Timetable and Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion" should be struck out, because they are not official. Dean Crabtree added that the Timetable and Guidelines USED to be official, in 2007, having been approved by the Academic Council, but that they may have undergone revisions since then, and if those were not sent back to the Academic Council, their status would no longer be official.

Dean Weiss suggested that perhaps this phrase be replaced by "Journal of Record", but in the end the consensus was that the phrase simply be struck out.

 

1.7.15, *a.:

John Lasseter asked whether the words "at least" imply that other people can come in? Dean Crabtree replied that "all appropriate faculty" means all those who are at or above the rank to which the candidate is applying. However, faculty below that rank can certainly be consulted. John then asked whether all those who ARE qualified MUST be involved. Answer (paraphrased from the Faculty Handbook): candidates for promotion will not be penalized simply because all of the "appropriate faculty" do not participate.

 

1.7.15: Chairpersons paragraph:

Dean Weiss stated that the phrase "as determined by the Dean" needs to be withdrawn, because this issue is University-wide.

David Crawford asked whether the course releases will be determined by the dean. Susan Rakowitz, as Chair of the Faculty Salary Committee, stated that the University administration recognizes the need to remedy the large discrepancy in the schools ' compensation for chairs: Business chairs get $7500, compared to College chairs ' $4500. College chairs ' stipends will go up, to $5500 (if budget approved), and over time be increased up to the DSB $7500 amount. Since chairs ' workloads can differ (based on number of faculty, majors, and other duties), and compensation structure should acknowledge this, the Sr. VP is working with FSC to determine a formula for calculating Chair course release across the University. The Dean asked if there was the possibility that DSB chairs ' might get less released time under the new system. This is unknown at this time.

 

1.11.19: Dean Weiss stated that this language was struck to reduce redundancy.

 

1.12-13:

Dean Weiss stated that these paragraphs were approved by the CAS faculty in April of 2009 but had not gone to the Board of Trustees yet. Now that school governance documents go only up to the President for approval, this material will not need to go to the B of T.

 

2.0 Dean:

Vin Rosivach stated that the final sentence, "The most recent Dean 's Job Description is on file in the Senior Vice President 's office and is posted on the College of Arts and Sciences webpage", can mean that the job description is in the SVPAA 's office but nobody can see it.

The general consensus, by consequence, was that "and is posted on the College of Arts and Sciences webpage" should be replaced by "and is available for consultation". Also, "for Academic Affairs '" should be inserted between "President" and "office".

Question: Why not post it on the CAS website? Vin Rosivach replied that the website is not an official document. It is maintained by the College Secretary, and is not subject to review. It has no official status.

 

3.1:

Dean Crabtree explained that the reason why "the Dean and Assistant and Associate Deans" was to be replaced by "Administrators with faculty status" was because there are an increasing number of administrative positions, and it would be tedious and inconvenient to have to list them all and periodically extend the list.

Cecelia Bucki asked whether this extended to voting rights. Dean Crabtree replied no: this refers simply to membership.

Vin Rosivach asked who determines whether or not an administrator has faculty status? The words "the Dean and Assistant and Associate Deans" are from the Faculty Handbook; this new wording is faulty and open-ended, depending upon who can grant faculty status. Can someone without a terminal degree be granted faculty status?

Dean Crabtree stated that the SVPAA should pursue this with the Academic Council.

David Crawford asked how many instructors there are currently at Fairfield? Dean Crabtree replied that there are very few. Many Visiting Professors and Professors of the Practice have terminal degrees; rank within those categories depends on highest degree earned. "Instructors" are those without terminal degrees in the field; rank and salary are lower.

General consensus: the Committee should undertake to resolve the problem that Vin outlines. Proposed changes, after appropriate consultations, will be brought to the CAS faculty at a later date.

Larry Miners asked whether full-time faculty members who currently hold administrative positions can vote? Answer: Yes. Dean Crabtree stated that, on the larger questions of administrators ' voting rights, the dean asks associate deans to take a low profile within their departments, as their role is to be more College-wide, but this is a norm, not an inscribed rule.

 

3.3.3

Dean Weiss stated that the proviso "Chairperson votes only in case of a tie" is not accurate, according to Robert 's Rules. There are other instances in which the Chairperson can vote.

 

3.5.1.1

Dean Crabtree explained that these changes are simply to bring the language to the norm.

 

3.5.1.2

Dean Crabtree gave some history: since the summer of 2009 the new Dean of Academic Engagement 's office has become involved with many of the functions of the Health Professions Committee. We want to bring the Governance Document into line with the new administrative structure, but we also want to recognize the work as a service to the College.

Vin Rosivach stated that he could not see why the Dean of Academic Engagement should be a voting member. If the chair of the committee doesn 't vote, why should the Dean of Academic Engagement? Is there a reason?

Dean Crabtree replied that the Dean of the COLLEGE had always voted; she stated "I am fine with the Dean of the College not voting, and the Dean of Academic Engagement voting."

Question: what if the Dean of Academic Engagement is not a member of the College, or even an academic? It was agreed that the Dean would bring proposed language to the HPC for discussion and their recommendation for new language would be inserted into the document with the other proposed changes for the April vote. [Note: several members of the faculty also contacted Dean Weiss with opinions and suggestions on this issue and those were taken into consideration].

3.5.1.3

Dean Weis said that these changes are to bring the Governance Document into line with current practice.

3.5.1.4

Dean Weiss stated that we did not know how the Planning Committee was being elected given the lack of clarity in the current language. The proposed changes are to prescribe their election and terms.

Dean Weiss thanked the College faculty for a fruitful discussion. She stated that on April 28 the revised document will be put to the faculty for a vote, either in its entirety or part by part.

Discussion of Merit in the College

 

Susan Rakowitz reported on how the University merit system will work out in the College.

Susan explained that, last fall, the General Faculty had approved a plan that had common criteria, with opportunities for disciplinary specialization. This plan is not based on quotas but on thresholds, and consists of Standard, Additional, and Extraordinary merit: qualitative not quantitative assessment. Now, the College needs to work out procedures for doing the 2010 evaluations. Should we go with divisional committees (Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences/Math)? Or shall we leave merit decisions to the individual departments?

One argument in favor of divisional committees is that they will be more fair and consistent. Another is that our departments are small, and not everyone is going to qualify for Extraordinary merit; this will lead to interpersonal tensions within departments.

Each divisional committee would have representation from each department within that division. Each department can design specific criteria for research, based upon the practices accepted in their respective fields. We can put practices into place to limit the workloads.

So, is it worth pursuing this approach? If so, the College should perhaps appoint a subcommittee.

 

Discussion ensued.

John Lasseter: I find the arguments for divisionally-based review persuasive. I agree that our departments are too small for good comparisons and that this also invites unproductive conflict.

Joe Dennin: Divisions are a good idea. Remember that the applications will be limited in size.

David Crawford: Will these divisional committees only be convened when Additional and Extraordinary merit are offered? Susan: No: they will be working when just Standard is offered as well. Some people might not make Standard.

Larry Miners: Will the three divisional committees talk to each other? Susan: This makes sense to me.

Betsy Bowen: Will the responsibility for formative review go to the divisional committees, or stay with the department chairs? Susan: Ultimately, it is the chair 's responsibility. With someone from each department on the divisional committee, that person could take the feedback back to the department chair.

John Lasseter: These divisional committees seem similar to the Rank and Tenure Committee in their function. I would therefore like to see the same cone of silence over them as is currently over RTC.

Larry Miners: I assume that Betsy is referring to untenured faculty. Answer: no; the department chair is responsible for formative feedback to all the departmental faculty.

Gisela Gil-Egui: I am concerned about the mechanics of selection and rotation. What are the incentives to serve?

Janie Leatherman: Do we start with a tabula rasa? Or are we working with a three-year window? What about the case of the professor who produces a book in a year when there is no Additional or Extraordinary merit, and then has no publications when there is such merit pay? Susan: The University plan awards Standard merit on an annual basis, and Additional takes account of everything a professor has accomplished since the last time we had Additional merit.

Marcie Patton: I oppose divisional committees. We are creating an additional layer of bureaucracy; we have enough committees already. These divisional committees would be like the Rank and Tenure Committee. I would rather be mad at people in my department than at colleagues in the College.

Susan: Decisions have to be made at some level.

Rose Rodrigues: I prefer that the decisions be made at the departmental level. We should not assume that divisional committees will decrease the tension. I like the idea of annual review in a department, when colleagues are helping each other to improve. Departmental formative review will not be as good under a divisional system.

Joe Dennin: Departments can be divided terribly over merit decisions, e.g. Mathematics six years ago. I fear that it will be even worse in small departments. Divisional committees will spread out the responsibility and so reduce interpersonal tension.

David Crawford: I agree with Rose. The division system may spread responsibility out, but in a department people are judging each other, so everyone must be careful of retaliation.

Marcie: Now that we have a solid plan, departments can administer that plan fairly. Most of the rancor has come from the fact that departments had different plans, not from the broader question of merit review.

Response: Whatever the plan is, the rancor will happen.

Rose: There will be rancor under the divisional system.

Joe: But it will be more dispersed.

Janie Leatherman: It seems as though the divisional committees would resemble shadow committees to the Rank and Tenure Committee, but the latter has many procedures in place to ensure that the special characteristics of that field are made clear to the RTC. These divisional committees would not. I would prefer the decisions to be made at the departmental level, where colleagues will have deeper understanding.

 

MOTION, by Ryan Drake, seconded by John Lasseter, that a subcommittee be formed to investigate and propose a divisionally-based merit system.

Discussion ensued.

 

David Crawford spoke in opposition, on the grounds that we have not run through the University-wide plan yet; let 's do it at least once at the departmental level.

Susan: I am in favor. If we do not use a divisional system now, no departments will have the energy to shift to a divisional system in the future.

Lynne Porter: There are two parts to the procedure: (1) Assembling the documents; (2) viewing them. We have talked about the second part, but we have never agreed on how to assess the documents. We do not have a full plan yet. It needs to go to a committee.

Marcie: I speak against the motion. You are asking departments to come up with a lot of information for understanding the specific aspects of the discipline, but you are limiting them to one page, unlike the Rank and Tenure Committee. This is not only onerous, but is open to greater unfairness.

Larry Miners: There needs to be a unification across departments.

 

The motion was accepted, 17-11-3.

 

Dean 's Remarks

Dean Crabtree noted that, while she voted in favor of supporting a subcommittee on merit in the College, she was still on the fence about whether we should have a divisionally-based process. She is keeping an open mind. In conversations with SVPAA Fitzgerald, Dean Crabtree has the belief that he likes a school-based plan. In Nursing and Engineering, the dean makes the decision. In Business, it is departmentally-based. The new University plan does not speak to implementation.

She stated that, given the time and the fact that she had little to report, she would take questions or input from any faculty member on any issue. There were none.

 

Moved by Joe Dennin, and seconded by Dean Crabtree, that we adjourn.

Passed, nem. con. The meeting was adjourned at 5:08.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Bill Abbott