College of Arts and Sciences Fairfield University

MINUTES OF MEETING, OCTOBER 27, 2010

 

There were 42 faculty members present. Proxies were held as follows:

 

         Javier Campos: proxy held by Jerelyn Johnson

Tod Osier: proxy held by Jen Klug

David Sapp: proxy held by Betsy Bowen

         Dennis Keenan: proxy held by Matt Kubasik

Glenn Sauer: proxy held by Brian Walker.

 

Chair Sally O'Driscoll called the meeting to order at 4:09.

 

1. Minutes

 

MOVED by Betsy Bowen, and seconded by Brian Walker, that the minutes of the September 16^th meeting be approved as submitted. PASSED 35 in favor, 0 opposed, and 7 abstaining.

 

2. Divisional Annual Performance Review Process

 

Matt Kubasik presented the proposal that had been drawn up by the Divisional Merit Review Committee (Matt Kubasik, Dennis Keenan, Laura Nash, and Susan Rakowitz), and which had been introduced at the CAS faculty meeting of September 16 [See Appendix A]. Matt projected the entire proposal on the large screen and reviewed its basic points. In reviewing the proposal Matt reminded the faculty that this is not a merit plan; it is simply a mechanism for carrying out the evaluations. Susan Rakowitz elaborated on one point: there are two readers for standard merit; if either or both deny it for a given faculty member, it goes to the whole committee. There is a big burden of proof to deny standard merit.

Matt Kubasik and Susan Rakowitz then fielded questions. David Crawford asked, concerning additional/further merit, whether everyone has to agree. If only one out of six oppose it, does the faculty member not get it? Answer: the only time a question goes to the whole committee is over standard merit, not additional.

Matt reviewed the additional merit section more extensively. Two members of the subcommittee are assigned to each reflective essay. A major goal is to minimize the amount of time spent by each faculty member.

Mary Ann Carolan asked how many applications the Committee would handle per year. Matt replied that it varies by divisions. Dean Crabtree stated that there are approximately 160 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, and the total number of people who will be involved in this evaluation process is 36. Matt broke down the numbers: Humanities 15; Natural Sciences and Math 9; Social Sciences 12. Each committee should have roughly the same amount of work. Dean Crabtree summarized: 36 people looking at 160 applications of three paragraphs each. Susan elaborated: for standard merit, every person on the Committee reads about ten applications; for additional, you are reading more.

Don Greenberg asked: (1) How are members of the Committee evaluated? And (2) In the case of further/additional merit, is there an appeals procedure? To the first question, Matt answered that there is no special procedure, but of course a Committee member would not read his/her own application. To the second question Matt answered yes; a new appeals procedure has now been approved by the Academic Council. Susan Rakowitz noted that it had not yet been placed in the Journal of Record, although the Academic Council has approved it and it will be there soon.

David Gudelunas asked how long the terms were. Matt replied that they are two years in length, and that they will be staggered.

Angela Biselli asked concerning years when there is additional merit versus years when there is not. Matt replied that that is covered in the merit plan that is currently in the Journal of Record; you make an application every year, but in applying for additional merit (during a year when there is money for additional merit), you include everything you have done since the last year that there was additional merit. Curt Naser then asked whether, in an additional-merit year that followed many non-additional merit years, all of a faculty member's accomplishments over that long period of time would have to be put into the same short space requirement as in a year when only one year's worth of accomplishments was being reported. At this juncture Dean Crabtree reminded everyone that these issues are covered in the merit plan itself, and that they are not

under consideration today. Matt added that if you have a great deal to report, you can use bullet points.

Manyul Im asked what will happen if this proposal is voted down today. Dean Crabtree replied that she would produce a plan and present it to the department chairs.

Steve Bayne pointed out that, for a year in which additional-merit money is to be provided after, say, a five-year hiatus, we would not know whether to prepare a five-year report, because we would be preparing our reports long before we even knew that there would be such money. Dean Crabtree replied that she has been urging the administration and the Faculty Salary Committee to ensure that the notification comes out by early March. SVPAA Paul Fitzgerald has reiterated his commitment to do so.

Manyul Im asked why two members serve from each department. Matt answered: (1) workload (dividing the applications by more committee members means less work for any one committee member); and (2) the availability of a departmental colleague as a reviewer for all applications, in years without additional merit, even for those serving on the committee itself.

David Crawford asked whether, in the event that the CAS faculty votes this proposal down today, the various departmental plans will come back into force. Dean Crabtree replied no; the earlier merit plan, around which the department plans were based, was different from the current merit plan. The department plans are too varied; it would be too problematic. In making up her proposal to the department chairs, however, Dean Crabtree joked that she might settle on the Sociology/Anthropology plan, if it is a good one.

 

MOVED, by Kraig Steffen, and seconded by Brian Walker, that the Divisional Annual Performance Review Process proposal be approved as submitted.

 

MOVED, by Rick DeWitt, and seconded by Manyul Im, that the proposal be amended as follows:

 

At the end of the document, just above "The CAS Planning Committee will initiate a review...," insert the sentence: "The Dean shall follow the recommendations of the committee unless there are compelling reasons not to, in which case such reasons shall be stated in detail and communicated in writing to the committee and to the applicant."

 

Rick DeWitt explained and defended his motion, reminding everyone that, inasmuch as the College faculty have accepted the responsibility to conduct evaluations in good faith, making negative as well as positive judgments when they see fit, the document should include the proviso that the Dean should follow the recommendations of the committee unless there truly are compelling reason not to.

Dean Crabtree expressed neutrality over this amendment, stating that she agreed with Dr. DeWitt's philosophy, and approved of the care and transparency for which it provided. She also affirmed the importance of rigorous peer review.

David Crawford recalled that there was a similar proviso in the appeals process; how would this amendment fit in with that? Dean Joan Weiss replied that, to the Committee, this is new, and that therefore it is different.

 

The amendment PASSED, 43 in favor, 2 opposed, and 1abstaining (proxies voted).

 

Discussion returned to the original motion, now amended. There were no further questions or comments.

 

The motion PASSED , 42 in favor, 2 opposed, and 2 abstaining (proxies voted).

 

Chair O'Driscoll reminded the faculty that elections to the At-Large positions on the Committee will take place at the December 8th meeting. Between now and then departments will elect their representatives.

 

3. Report from the CAS Board of Directors

 

Renee White, the faculty representative on the CAS Board of Directors, reported on the composition, responsibilities, and activities of this board, describing what occurs at its meetings, and what its primary concerns are. Renee called upon the CAS faculty to send her information and concerns.

 

Board of advisors: Launched in Fall 2005

 

Charge:

- Help to champion and facilitate the University Strategic Plan

- Augment college resources

- Involvement in university activities

- Attend three board meetings

- Support fundraising

 

Membership

- Alumni, parents of students and alumni, friends, and a faculty member

- Role of CAS Dean, Faculty representative, Noel Appel
         a) faculty invited by Dean & Noel—First faculty representative was Kathy Schwab of VAPA, from whom Renee took over.

- This is not a handbook committee

 

Typical meeting

- Defined by specific theme or question

- Sometimes advanced materials—brief reading

- Updates on current activities / events.

- Group discussion and reflection—plan of action. We help with programmatic work.

- Presentation featuring faculty and students

 

Past initiatives

- Bellarmine Museum

- VAPA Visiting Scholar Program

- RS Departmental Scholar Initiative: 2 faculty selected to (1) oversee curricular review (2) research development

- Biology—Transitions Student Mentoring Program: Drs. Glenn Sauer and Shelley Phelan
         a) Science Scholarship Center; mentoring programs; expansion of undergraduate research activities; a research assistantship program; industry          speakers; and faculty-run programs in discernment.

 

Past Meetings:

- Overview of Environmental Issues on Campus (2/4/09)
         a) David Downie, Director of Program on the Environ & Politics faculty
         b) David Frassinelli, Assistant VP & Director of Facilities Mgt
         c) Alexandra Gross '09, Editor of The Mirror (minor in Environ. Studies)

- Living and Learning through GC: Implementation at Home and Abroad (1/28/10)
                  a) Janie Leatherman (AAC&U funded project), Scott Lacy (Mali), Danke Li (Trip to China with President von Arx), Katie Cincotta  '10 International Studies major, and Dr. White.

- Endowment Case Statement Review (6/11/09)

- Small Ideas Big Results: How our work makes a difference (10/10)

 

Current Focus:

- Community: on line interaction, sharing core stories—impact of core on professional and personal

- Integration, Innovation, and Excellence: Advancing Curriculum, Pedagogy, Research, and Engagement Endowment
                  a) Core curriculum—faculty and curricular innovation + GC—White Paper in 2008

- Science Institute—faculty research and equipment.

 

We inform Board members of what we are doing and our connection with the Strategic Plan. My job is to hear from you what we can do.

 

MOVED and tacitly seconded, that Dr. Renee White be thanked by the assembled College faculty for her fine work on this Board. Motion unanimously PASSED with an enthusiastic round of applause.

 

4. Election of Acting Secretary for Spring 2011

 

Chair O'Driscoll called for nominations for an Acting Secretary to fill the CAS Secretary position vacated by Bill Abbott, who will be on leave in the spring semester 2011.

Brian Walker nominated Susan Rakowitz, and the nomination was seconded. There being no further nominations, Susan was elected by acclamation.

 

5. Remarks from the Dean

 

Dean Crabtree stated that she felt remiss in not having, at the last CAS faculty meeting, moved that Dr. Glenn Sauer, CAS president for the previous two years, be thanked for his excellent service. MOVED and tacitly seconded, that Dr. Sauer be thanked for his service. Motion PASSED unanimously, with a vigorous round of applause.

Dean Crabtree also thanked Susan Rakowitz for her willingness to serve as Acting Secretary in the spring 2011 semester.

 

Dean Crabtree then reported on a number of issues and concerns:

 

        I. Budget Requests

The budget process is underway. Please assist your department chairs and program directors by informing them of what is needed. Please ensure that chairs understand all expenses, routine and unusual, and that they all get into the budget request (many things have not been budgeted properly).

Vice President for Finance Julie Dolan has been a great help; she is regularizing budget and accounting systems (less contingency-based funding) – this is a good thing.

 

A. The Dean outlined some of her budget priorities:

                                              i.     Faculty travel (primary research support for faculty)

                                            ii.     Holding on to replacement lines for recent retirements

a.    Searching this year in: EC, EN (2), HI, PO

b.    Hope to search next year in 4-5 departments depending on the requests we receive and the budget prospects

c.    Strategic new lines related to high traffic programs, etc.

d.    Adding lines through grad program revenue-generation

e.    BTW, to follow-up on Dr. Im's question from the last meeting re: diversity of faculty – Sr. VP has indicated that around 40% of the TT hires in the last 6 years have been members of historically under-represented groups (including women and racial/ethnic minorities), International faculty, Vietnam Era veteran status, and/or faculty with disabilities

                                          iii.     Continuation of funds to support program reviews (which Dean's budget got this year to fund external reviewers, workshops and other faculty engagement in the process, etc.)

                                          iv.     Increasing Department Chair stipends with new funds $5500-$6500 along with IDP director stipends (currently half of chair stipends). This works out to $1000 increases for department chairs and $500 for program chairs. I'm not sure where FSC is on this matter, but I have raised it with the committee chair (Joe Dennin) and the Sr. VP to ensure they haven't dropped it from their agenda.

                                            v.     Endowment building and other fundraising related to faculty research and faculty-student engagement.

 

II. University investment in CAS faculty research – 2-year totals

                 (Items i-vii below were not stated at the meeting, but were provided in writing to the Secretary by Dean Crabtree after the meeting).

 

i. Faculty Travel: $414,360

ii. Summer Housing for students Budget: $63,638

iii. Payouts on Startup Commitments: $106,519

iv. SCIENCE INSTITUTE payouts - $10,595

v. Donor gifts (dean's discretion was to assign for faculty research: $10,000

vi. Matching funds on successful grants: $10,506

vii Course releases as matching/start-ups: $185,689

viii. TOTAL 2-YR CAS FACULTY RESEARCH SUPPORT:  $801,307 This is not inclusive of Capital Investments through the annual budget request cycle for supplementary computers and other technology, labs, equipment, supplies, etc. Also not inclusive of basic facilities and staff support, FRC funding, sabbatical and pre-tenure leaves.

                  PLUS - SUCCESSFUL GRANTS LAST 2 YEARS: $3,783,921 (this is grants to CAS faculty or institutional grants on which CAS   faculty were instrumental to success)

 

    

III. University College Update

 

A. AA program closing (passed through CUC, UCC, EPC; on its way to Academic Council)

B.   BPS closure/phase-out is being considered by CUC next week

 

C.   We're discussing many academic policies related to part-time/UC students, particularly connected to the core curriculum, and these will go to UCC and through the usual committees

 

D.  Please bring ideas or issues to the attention of:

                                              i.     Your chair

                                            ii.     CAS committees (ASCC and ASPC)

                                          iii.     CUC members (CAS representatives are Ed Deak and Rick DeWitt)

                                          iv.     Acting UC Dean or CAS Dean

 

     IV. General Announcements

 

A. Enrollment management and course scheduling.

i. Thanks for cooperating with chairs and assistant dean Peterson; we're doing our best to work collaboratively with chairs to create           the tightest schedule possible, and to avoid many time consuming changes to course listings after students have already registered. This saves staff time, chair time, and also doesn't inconvenience the students.

 

ii. Plan on 925 first-year students next fall in course scheduling

 

 

B. Abatement of CNS Hall

i. New carpeting going in, just hallways -- no offices or classrooms.

ii. Schedule will be forthcoming with exact dates the building will not be accessible (by floor on any given week).

iii. CAS Dean and 1^st floor will be closed 12/2310 - 1/2/11.

iv. Chairs will be given more detailed info soon, all affected faculty will be notified soon thereafter, and schedule will be        posted around CNS soon thereafter.

 

C. Advancement Update and the Comprehensive Campaign

i. No longer using the term "capital"

ii. Goals for the campaign (all embedded in strategic plan and implementation documents) are being vetted with the most significant "friends" and Stephanie is working with the Advancement Committee

iii. Other developments faculty should know about:

a.    FY '10 pledges from major gifts (not annual giving) $6.5M compared to $2.3M the year before

b.    Major gifts prospects (those with $50,000+ capacity) list has grown from 700 to over 3700 in last 4 years

c.    Annual giving going up around 3% in an economic climate where most institutions are seeing negative, flat, or 1-2% increase. Total around $14M last year (not sure I caught this right in senior management team meeting).

 

Dean Crabtree then fielded questions.

 

Amanda Harper-Leatherman asked concerning the Science Institute. Will there be a call for proposals this year? Dean Crabtree replied that she has every intention of there being a call. The idea concerning that fund last year was that it would be a source for matching funds, and there were no budgeted operational funds for matching last year, so the S.I. payout had to be used. We have had new pledges. Dean Crabtree will talk to Noel to determine the amount available. The call generally goes out in early spring to help faculty plan for their summer research.

Susan Rakowitz asked whether Dean Crabtree is arguing for parity in travel funding between CAS and DSB, as she is aware that the Business School travel budget is $3000 per person. Dean Crabtree replied that the dean of the School of Business has an endowment, a restricted fund that he raised from his board members, that CAS does not and he uses it this way. Dean Crabtree has also developed an endowment (as described by Dr. White in her presentation), but in this economic climate, it is difficult to build an endowment without a leadership gift of at least $250,000. The Dean reminded the faculty that she has funded faculty travel over and above the department allotments in her first year as Dean, and has done so again this year. Many faculty in the College do indeed get $3000 in a given year, based on department processes, etc.

MOVED by Joe Dennin and seconded by Susan Rakowitz, that the meeting be adjourned. PASSED unanimously.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:15.

 

Bill Abbott

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

APPENDIX A

 

Proposal for a Divisional Merit Review Process in the College, 9/13/10

What follows is a proposal for how the College of Arts and Sciences will implement the Guidelines for Faculty Annual Merit Review and Self-Evaluation. The Guidelines were approved by the General Faculty in October of 2009, and are housed in their entirety in the Journal of Record. They describe an application process consisting of three short essays presenting achievement/activities in teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service. They also specify three levels of merit: standard, "a threshold that the great majority of faculty should be able to achieve annually;" and two levels of further merit, namely, additional and extraordinary. Each level requires activities and achievements that meet or surpass particular thresholds in the three areas, as follows:

• The threshold for standard merit requires achievements and activities at the standard level in teaching and one other area.
• Additional merit requires achievements at the additional level in two areas and the standard level in the third.
• Extraordinary merit requires achievements at the additional level in two areas and at the extraordinary level in the third.

Note that additional and extraordinary merit will only be available in years when the increase in the salary pool is greater than the increase in the cost of living.

 

This proposal concerns only summative feedback for determining pay increases. Department chairs are responsible for conveying formative feedback to their colleagues.

 

Divisional Committees

By October 15, each department will elect two tenured members to staggered two-year terms to serve on a divisional review committee. Then, no later than at its November meeting, the CAS faculty will elect additional at large member(s) for each division, with no more than one at large member from any department. These elected faculty will form three committees as follows: Natural Science/Math (9 members representing Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics and Computer Science, Physics, and 1 at large); Humanities (15 members representing English, History, Modern Languages and Literature, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Visual and Performing Arts, and 3 at large); Social and Behavioral Sciences (12 members representing Communication, Economics, Politics, Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology, and 2 at large).

Departments may prepare a brief handout for their divisional committee outlining key disciplinary-specific issues in assessing scholarly/creative achievements.

 

Process for Years in which only Standard Merit is Available

Each merit application will be randomly assigned by the elected divisional committee chair to be read by two members of the divisional committee. One of these two will be from the applicant's department and one will be from outside the applicant's department. If both readers agree that an application meets the threshold for standard merit, that recommendation is forwarded to the Dean and the applicant. If one or both readers judge that an application has not met the threshold for standard merit, that application will be forwarded to the entire committee. All committee members will read and discuss disputed applications and a simple majority vote of the committee will determine the recommendation forwarded to the Dean and the applicant.

Procedural Notes. This process should involve only two full committee meetings – one to elect a chair and review criteria, and one to discuss disputed cases. Because of the difficulty in scheduling large committees, dates for these meetings may be set before the committees are elected. All discussions of individual cases will remain confidential, though the chairs of the three divisional committees may meet with each other to review applications that did not meet the threshold in order to ensure consistency across the College.

 

Process for Years in which Further Merit is Available

Applications will be divided into their three component essays (teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service). Each committee will also be divided in thirds, with members of the same department placed on different subcommittees. Each subcommittee will read only one of the three types of essays, and each essay will be read and categorized by two subcommittee members from different departments. If the two members independently categorize the essay in the same way (i.e., as reflecting achievements at the standard level, the additional level, the extraordinary level, or as not reaching the standard level), that categorization is combined with the categorizations of the other two essays to determine the level of merit to be recommended to the Dean. If the two readers disagree on the categorization, another member of the subcommittee will read the essay in question and the majority designation will prevail. The recommendations forwarded to the Dean and the applicant will consist of the level recommended along with the categorization of each component essay.

If the categorizations result in an application not reaching the standard threshold, that application will be forwarded to the entire committee for discussion and vote. A majority vote of the full committee will be required to recommend against standard merit.

Note again that the work of the divisional committees is confidential, though the three chairs may meet to discuss samples of each level of merit application to ensure consistency across the College.

 

The CAS Planning Committee will initiate a review of this proposal after three years.