Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

January 17, 2008

 

 

Present:  E. Boquet, M. Coleman, R. DeWitt, M. Gogol, J. Gordon, D. Greenberg,

M. Kubasik, P. Lane, M. LoMonaco, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, L. O'Connor,

S. Peterson, S. Rakowitz, G. Sauer, J. Shanahan, J. Simon, M. Sourieau, and D. Winn

 

Not Present:  J. Leatherman, Fr. Hannafey, R. Rodrigues

 

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

 

Introduction

Newly Appointed Dean—Dean Poincelot informed the department chairs that Dr. Robbin Crabtree will join the College, as the newly appointment Dean, on August 1, 2008. 

Dean Crabtree will meet with the Dean's Council at our May 2008 meeting to discuss her philosophy and outlook for the future of the College.  The May meeting will include both department chairs and program directors.

 

Academic Probation Policy—Ms. Susan Peterson circulated a copy of the message from Dr. Orin Grossman, Academic Vice President, sent to the Class of 2009, 2010, and 2011 dated November 2007.  This message covered the University's new probation policy.  One purpose behind implementing a new probation policy is to have standards coincide with the University's graduation policy, and the criteria set by Financial Aid and the NCAA, who instituted a new multistep probation policy for athletes.

 

After a thorough study and consultation for a year, faculty and administrators developed a new policy on probation.  The study included a comparison with some of Fairfield's fellow schools, Boston College, Holy Cross, Loyola, Providence, and Villa Nova.  The study found that Fairfield was much more lenient in terms of probation.  Our current probation policy requires a G.P.A. of 1.8 across all levels of students.

 

The new policy states the following:

 

Dr. Matthew Kubasik asked Ms. Peterson if she had a sense, in terms of the number of students that would be on probation if the new policy was already in place.  Ms. Peterson shared the following statistics reflecting students who fall between a 1.8 and 1.9.

 

With the current policy, there are no seniors on probation, because they hit the bar at 1.8; however, they are faced with a problem meeting the graduation requirement of 2.0 and have only one semester to raise their GPA to meet this requirement. 

 

Dr. Gogol asked how many students were dismissed during the Fall 2007 semester. 

Dr. Boquet, who handles the academic dismissals for the College, shared that there were approximately 8 or 9 dismissals, of which 3 were dismissed for a second time, so they are not eligible for readmission.

 

Dr. Elizabeth Boquet shared that the College is faced with a problem regarding incompletes.  Incompletes that are not, yet, converted into a grade during the academic probation and dismissal process could cause an inaccurate reflection of a student's GPA. These incompletes may turn into, either, a failing grade and/or a poor grade that eventually reflects a deficiency.  This causes a future problem with student's meeting graduation requirements and/or the possibility of having another poor performing semester.  Boquet suggested that, during student advising sessions, faculty inquire whether their advisees are attempting to negotiate incompletes, and, if so, how many.  What are their plans for completing these courses?  A fuller conversation gives advisors an opportunity to see if there is a possibility for future problems. 

 

E-mail notification and a letter to the students' home address will be sent to assure that notification of these changes reach them.  This new policy will become effective at the start of the academic year 2008-09 and will apply to all students.

 

Student Awards Ceremony—The College's annual Student Awards Ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday, April 29.  Students interested in entering work in this award competition should submit their project to the Dean's Office no later than Monday, March 17.  During this special evening, one student from each department will be recognized for their outstanding work in the College. The deadline for departmental submissions is Friday, April 6.  Submission of each recipient will be made electronically to the following site "Awards Input Form" that is available within the Online Faculty Directory.

https://apps.fairfield.edu/eidos/Fac/Login_Form.cfm

 

Approval of Minutes

Dr. Matthew Coleman moved to approve the November 7, 2007 Dean's Council minutes, and Dr. Leo O'Connor seconded the motion.  Dr. David McFadden mentioned a correction to be made on page 3 under the section relative to Chairs' Selection.  All were in favor of approving the minutes upon this amendment. 

 

 

Exam Policy

Dr. Glenn Sauer discussed the Academic Vice President's exam policy.

 

Altering of this policy has caused problems for our students and adds additional unwarranted stress.  Sauer recommended that department chairs implement a stronger stance on maintaining the exam policy.  There may be some situation where there is a necessity to change exam schedules.  Under these circumstances, faculty should be held accountable to obtain approval from the department chair, as a first step, followed by final approval from the Dean.

 

Boquet agreed with Sauer's suggestion.  She mentioned that the exam situation may be part of a larger issue to manage crunch time.  Faculty generally are not deliberately noncompliant. Therefore, it would be beneficial to look further into the issue to see why the College is experiencing a compliance problem, and what actions could be taken to rectify the problem?  Do we need to pressure faculty on submitting grades within the 72 hour time frame, along with other possible parallel issues?  Sauer mentioned that it was his understanding that, as long as grades are submitted prior to the New Year, late grade submissions are not an issue. 

 

Lane mentioned that the exam policy was written by the Academic Vice President; therefore, this is the person who should be responsible for the enforcing of this policy.  

 

McFadden commented that the exam policy is in the Journal of Records, which was voted upon by faculty, and approved as a policy to follow.  If faculty do not abide by this policy, they are being unjust to both students and colleagues. 

    

Dr. Winn mentioned that there are situations where students are given a take home exam because the material on the exam would take longer than the allotted 3 hours; however, the exam deadline does reflect the final exam schedule.  Dr. Lane mentioned that take home exams are not an issue, as long as the exam due date follows the final exam schedule.  Dr. Donald Greenberg mentioned that there is a policy for take home exams, which specifies that take home exams should not more than the time allotted for the in class exam.  The Dean shared that he received approximately 7 requests for fall 2007 final exam schedules to be altered, and he denied all requests. 

 

Dr. James Shanahan asked if there was a policy stating that all courses must have a final exam.  Lane explained that the policy states that all courses must have a final assessment due on the appropriate scheduled exam date.  McFadden commented that final assessment in lieu of the final exam are acceptable; but the work should not be demanded prior to the date of the final.  If students want to hand in their work prior to the due date that would be acceptable.

 

Procedure for Scheduling Courses in University College

Dean Edna Wilson and Dr. Laura McSweeney, Chair of University College Committee, discussed the new procedures regarding University College course schedules.  The purpose of these procedures are to increase full-time faculty involvement in teaching University College courses, strengthen the lines of communication between University College and the different departments, within the College, and ensure that the content of the course materials are in line with traditional day-time courses.  The following procedures were discussed.

 

 

If full-time faculty are interested in teaching a University College course, they will receive preferential treatment over hiring an adjunct faculty member.  Any faculty interested should discuss their intentions with their department.  Dean Wilson welcomed the opportunity to work with department chairs to discuss faculty interest, the syllabus, and the content of their course materials.

 

Dean Wilson asked department chairs to contact her if they had suggestions in implementing their goal towards making the course work more uniform with the day-time undergraduate curriculum.  In consultation with the University College Committee, she is working on a proposal for a more formal role with department chairs to validate the College's participation in University College.  She mentioned that working with the department chairs, to decide what courses are appropriate for the needs of the students, is beneficial in making decisions on course choices, the number of courses that should be offered, and who will teach the courses based on student needs.  Department chairs are most familiar with their faculty and the syllabi they use, so their assistance in implementing course work consistency with current day time curriculum is helpful. She previously worked with the Communication, English, History, and Psychology departments.  With an increase in full-time faculty's involvement, University College will obtain stronger programs and services for the students. 

 

Dean Wilson commended the University College Committee for all of their contributions. 

 

Calendar Communication

McFadden discussed the challenges that the College was faced with relative to the academic calendar this year. Because there were numerous version of the calendar, changes were communicated at various intervals, which resulted in important dates being eliminated from scheduled courses.  Not only were the changes made at such a late notice, the many versions that were shared amongst faculty resulted in differences recorded among colleagues.  It is difficult for faculty to plan their schedules appropriately and accurately with this kind of inconsistency.  An error with indicating a Monday course schedule on the Tuesday following President's Day caused problems for some faculty. Rakowitz asked who was responsible for the academic calendar.  It was McFadden's understanding that the Registrars Office was responsible for constructing the calendar and the Academic Vice President Office was ultimately responsible for the final product.

 

Dr. James Shanahan noted problems that the Communication Department experienced with room assignments for spring semester.  The Dean recommended that the chairs forward room assignment complaints to Robert Russo, Director of the Registrars Office, with a copy to the Academic Vice President and the Dean. 

 

Blue Ribbon Governance Commission.

The Dean informed the department chairs that, at the University's Town Meeting, President, Rev. Jeffrey von Arx, indicated that he had two external appointments, a retired University President, and the other an expert on faculty governance.  The names were not publically announced.  The remaining members of the Commission would consist of both administrators and faculty appointed by the President. 

 

The Steering Committee requested that the Academic Vice President join the Dean's Council during February to discuss the Governance Commission and to answer any questions or concerns the Council may have.  The Academic Vice President will ask for permission from the President before committing to this discussion. 

 

The College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Chair, Dr. Rick DeWitt was approached by the College faculty inquiring whether the College should put together suggestions relative to the Blue Ribbon Governance Committee, to share with the President.  Although DeWitt thought it was best to leave these decisions up to the President, he addressed this question to the department chairs for their opinion.  McFadden agreed with DeWitt; it is best to wait to see what transpires—who is on the Commission, what the charge is, and some of the outcomes of the Committee's work.  Because of the impact the College has on the University and the outcome of the NEASC report relative to the College, McFadden thought there should be a role for the College at some point. 

 

Sauer asked what the charge of this Committee would entail.  The Dean explained that the main components of the charge would be to examine the issues that the NEASC report specifically communicated as a problem. 

 

Dr. Phil Lane mentioned that the President was addressed several times to explain specifically the governance problems within the College.  There was not a direct or formal answer to this question. 

 

Dr. Boquet mentioned that she asked the President whether the Governance issues were relative to faculty governance or a review of institutional governance.  The President mentioned that the issue was with institutional governance.  Boquet shared that in choosing members for the Commission, the Academic Council and the President would put forward two separate lists of names to determine the Committee members. 

Dr. Don Greenberg mentioned that the Executive Committee, the Academic Council, Drs. Don Greenberg, Irene Mulvey, and Marcie Patton are meeting on Thursday, January 17, 2008, with Billy Weitzer and President von Arx to exchange nominees that were solicited from Academic Council.  The meeting follows the classic mediation technique seeking to determine the commonality between the two lists first and then to discuss the possibilities on each list, in hopes to form the Governance Committee.  When the work of the Committee is completed, which is targeted for May, it will then move to the proper faculty governance.  There will be ten people on the Commission—4 College Administrators, 4 faculty, 1 former president, and 1 expert.

 

The Core Unmasked

Dr. Kathy Nantz discussed the summary of evaluations and feedback from The Core Unmasked event that took place on October 31, 2007.  There were 254 student participants who completed evaluations.  The following questions were rated by the students with an average score ranging from 4.3-4.51 on a five point scale.

(232 participants agreed or strongly agreed).

(219 participants agreed or strongly agreed).

(223 participants agreed or strongly agreed).

 

The report indicated written remarks from participants listing their most valuable experiences from this event, ways in which they could have benefited more, and other comments and suggestions.  Meeting professors from the different departments, and talking with students actively enrolled in the disciplines were two comments listed under the most valuable category.  It was clear that several students did not fully understand the concept of the College core by commenting that "there were no representatives from the school of Business."  Nantz suggested that this be addressed in terms of educating our students about core integration and the core requirements.  It is important that students understand these concepts. 

 

The overall feedback was positive; over 400 people attended this event.  This event was organized to educate students, staff, and others about the core. Admissions, in particular, communicated their interest in learning about the core to increase their knowledge, so they could assist perspective students more effectively relative to the core.  

 

Nantz distributed a $10 Border's gift certificate to the department chairs as a sign of their appreciation for their assistance with The Core Unmasked event. 

 

The next event is the Poster Fair and Exhibition poster session on Wednesday, February 13, from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.  Nantz asked the department chairs to provide information to faculty about the event. The purpose of the poster session is to provide an opportunity for  faculty to learn more about what Fairfield's faculty members are doing to encourage integrative teaching and learning. 

An overnight Faculty Retreat is scheduled for April 11 and 12.  The retreat is scheduled from Friday, April 11, at 5:00 p.m. through Saturday, April 12, at 2:00 p.m. in Avon Old Farms Inn Hotel, Avon, CT.  The retreat is designed to provide the opportunity for discussion on ways to enhance integrative teaching and learning on Fairfield's campus.

 

Nantz mentioned that there will be a survey addressed to faculty to determine the events that have been most helpful.  This will help the Core Advisory Group to determine where they should place most of their efforts.  Nantz mentioned that she did get positive feedback on the May faculty development workshop that took place last year.  They are working on putting this workshop together for this coming year; however, they are experiencing technical difficulties—how faculty log in; who has access to log in; who has specific addresses?  Having the "speakers bureau," where faculty shared short abstracts, of approximately 20 – 30 minutes of lectures or class activities, were useful to colleagues in their own classes.  Nantz encouraged colleagues to suggest their needs; so in organizing this workshop, they could find someone with expertise in these areas to assist faculty in obtaining resources and activities to share with their students.  A $50 stipend was offered for each time presenter, up to $200.

 

Merit Discussion

Dr. Marti LoMonaco asked if the Merit calendar was set for the College.  The Dean mentioned that he did not receive a specific date, and Billy Weitzer is presently in discussion with the appropriate bodies to determine the levels of Merit for this year.  The Dean did hear that the levels of Merit will be minimal.  One reason for this is because the cost of living is 4.1%.  There may only be enough funding for the Sustained level and maybe A-0.  If so, the Merit procedure will be much simpler this year.  Rakowitz mentioned that if the number is below cost of living, or at cost of living, and the Board does not insist that there be additional Merit, then there would only be Sustained.  She explained that the way the College plan is written, there will only be more than A0 if the University receives a raise over 4.1%; therefore, raises will be at Sustained and/or Sustained and A-0.  The Dean recommended that the chairs begin the Merit process with a scaled back version until these levels are determined. 

 

Shanahan mentioned that their department has a calendar to follow for the annual reviews, which involves preparation on the part of the chair and the faculty, so it is difficult to complete this work without this information.  LoMonaco mentioned that the Visual and Performing Arts deadline is January 31 for dossier submission.  The Dean will discuss these calendar issues with the Academic Vice President, and ask him to inquire if decisions were made.   

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:00.