College of Arts and Sciences

Dean's Council Meeting

Chairs and Directors

October 6, 2010

 

 

Present: A. Biselli (for D. Winn), S. Bayne, C. Bucki, M. Carolan, D. Crawford, N. Dallavalle, M. LeClair, J. McCarthy, M. Patton, S. Sawin, J. Simon, K. Steffen, B. Torff, B. Walker,

J. Weiss, M. Wills

 

 

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Mark LeClair moved to approve the minutes of September 8, 2010, and Dr. Brian Walker seconded the motion. LeClair mentioned that his name was inadvertently omitted from the attendance list, and Dr. Steve Sawin had a minor edit on page 2 of the minutes. All were in favor upon these amendments with one abstention.

 

FY '12 Budget Submissions

·      Time Line—The Dean's Office was not yet prompted with FY '12 budget guidelines from the Sr. Academic Vice President's Office. The new Vice President of Finance, Dr. Julie Dolan and the Academic Vice President are working on changing the budget submission timeline and procedures. This year an excel spreadsheet format will be implemented and distributed to you by Ms. Jean Daniele. Department and IDP program assistants could help manage your spreadsheet request. We are hoping to distribute the guidelines and spreadsheet templates early enough to offer a 10 day turn around. Once department/program budgets are submitted to the Dean's Office, Ms. Jean Daniele will incorporate all College requests into a College-wide budget, which will be reviewed by the Dean for approval and prioritized accordingly. The Dean attempts to reflect the priorities listed on each department/program budget. In terms of capital equipment, the Dean attempts to reflect the priorities listed by departments and programs. Often she consults with science chairs to get an aggregate priority list for equipment that is shared.

·      What to include in your budget—We are trying to get routinely funded initiatives properly aligned to the appropriate budgets.

o      Operating budgets should include all small capital items, under $2,000.

o      Include expected startup for new faculty hires, such as an office printer and other computer essentials (software, etc…)

o      VP Dolan is amenable to properly allocating startup funding into appropriate department budgets.

o      Once new faculty are identified and hires negotiated, the chair and the dean will work out the spending pattern. Often (in sciences) there is a lot of front load spending to accommodate their initial needs.

o      Computer cost for new faculty will come out of the IT budget. If a new faculty's needs are greater than the allotment offered, the additional cost should be factored into budget requests.

o      Dr. Maryanne Carolan was concerned about printing cost. The Dean shared the College's problem with trying to account for the printing costs being charged to VP Dolan, and she mentioned that she would look into this situation to obtain proper accounting for printing.

o      Any facility upgrades should be included. Anything under $2,000 is non-capital and over will go under a capital requests.

o      Dr. Kraig Steffen shared with the Dean the difference between items with service contracts opposed to non-contract items that may need periodic servicing. An estimated cost should be included on budget requests for any equipment not under service contract.

o      Newly purchased items that require service contracts should be noted.

o      The Dean prioritizes instructional materials first and multi-department or large classroom needs; followed by research needs, etc…

o      Dr. Carolan mentioned that all language courses need technical classroom support. The Dean responded that there are plans to turn more classrooms into tech classes, but developing pedagogy where there is not space to support them may not be advised. It is important to communicate technical needs. The Dean recommended that departments forward a one-page memo, explaining their needs, so that she could share this information with Michael Graham-Cornell, Director of Computing and Network Services. This year there are problems with determining what is under the media center or IT purview.

o      Dr. Bisella mentioned that e-mail communication was sent, asking that the Registrar's office be contacted with any classroom issues. The Registrar's Office will determine where to forward their request, in order to meet their needs. Carolan e-mailed the Registrar's Office DML needs for next year and copied the Media Center on her request. The Dean recommended that departments contact Michael Graham-Cornell, keeping him in the loop, so he is aware of faculty needs and/or could forward their requests appropriately. The Dean suggested that chairs invite Michael to a department meeting to discuss their needs.

·      Salary—The Dean expressed the importance behind communicating all salary budget items in their requests. There are many areas that are not being sent forward, adding to the insufficient salary pool budget allotments.

o      Non work study students and graduate assistants were not always budgeted properly. All instructional or clerical support that we use students for should be recorded comprehensively, with clarification that this is a routine expense that has never been budgeted properly. If there is no money in an account, the Payroll Action Notices that move forward will no longer be paid or approved from the Finance area.

o      Work study needs should be recorded on a separate sheet, and the Dean's office will forward those needs directly to the Financial Aid Office. The request should include the number of students and hours needed.

o      Adjunct needs should be estimated, listing the number of sections needed for the academic year. The Dean commended the chairs for their efforts in adjunct estimates last year. The Dean's Office used estimates, over a 5 year span, and compared it to these submissions to see if there were any requests that looked out of the norm.

o      Salaries of continuing TT or tenured faculty do not need to be included; nor do continuing exempt (e.g., lab supervisors) and non exempt (clerical) employees. But requests for new or continuing visiting faculty and Professors of the Practice do need to be included.

 

 

Faculty mentoring and performance review

·      Pre-tenure Annual Reviews—The Dean sent an e-mail copy of sample letters to each chair, consisting of the Dean's evaluation and the chair's recommendation for the same pre-tenured faculty, within their discipline. Each chair received a letter specific to their department. The purpose was to prepare chairs for a group discussion on the expectations of what should be reflected in the chair's letter and share departmental practices in terms of their evaluation process.

o      What should the chairs letter do? The chair's letter should supply constructive feedback to the candidate. A copy of both the Dean's and the chair's letters are sent to the candidate, so they have a hard copy of their evaluation to reflect on. Some chairs were not aware that the candidate received a copy of their evaluation, which signifies that as a tenured faculty they most likely did not receive a copy of their evaluation prior to tenure.

o      The Religious Studies department addresses the letter to the candidate and all colleagues sign the letter.

o      The Math Department's letter of recommendation is agreed by their entire department faculty prior to making a decision. They negotiate the content of the letter to ensure that everyone agrees. There letter is based on a group effort and consensus even on the wording of the letter.

o      If the Chairs letter does not reflect the appropriate assessment it makes it difficult for the Dean to discern the department position. It also makes it difficult to provide terminal letters to those candidates who do not warrant renewal. Recommendations should reflect honest assessments of what the department believes are the strengths and weaknesses of each person in relation to their progress year by year. The Chair writes the letter, but should incorporate all tenured colleagues' views.

o      The Dean commented that if the chairs letter does not include a concrete recommendation about contract renewal, then the letter has not accomplished its fundamental purpose. This is a critical component of the letter. Departments should be making a formal recommendation together, not just chairs.

o      The Sociology and Anthropology department has the chair write a cover letter to reflect the department meeting minutes assessing the teaching, service, and research of the candidate. If the minutes are poor then the chair will have to submit a more substantial letter of assessment.

o      In the annual review process classroom observation and feedback are two major components. If tenure track faculty do not receive feedback, there is no means of determining the areas that need strenghtening. When senior faculty observe the teaching of pre-tenured faculty, they should share feedback in writing and the chair should receive a copy of their evaluation to include in the chair's letter of recommendation. The strengths and weaknesses that are highlighted in the letter should be agreed upon by the department.

o      D. Bucki shared that senior faculty in the History department are not accustomed to sharing their evaluations with the chair. She approached her department last year and senior faculty did not welcome the idea of sharing their evaluations. The Dean recommended that she e-mail her colleagues, mapping out the Dean's expectations discussed during the Dean's Council meeting, so they are aware that their transparency will be required in order to create a substantive letter of recommendation. The Dean should be copied on the message, so that she could offer her input to any concerns and/or comments. The Dean finds it shocking that colleagues would be evaluated and not receive feedback.

o      The Dean reiterated the two fundamental points that need to be addressed in chair's letters—recommendation of contractual renewal and sharing feedback to pre-tenure colleague. During the first two years there are many ways to talk about what the candidate is engaged in, in order to develop a successful trajectory of teaching, research and service. The third review year should clearly reflect expectations of outcomes including warnings if expectations are not being met. If colleagues are not working towards expectations, chairs/dept should address their concerns with pre-tenured faculty. By year 3 or 4 if a person is consistently not making progress, then we should suggest a terminal contract. It is not good practice to put faculty up for tenure and send work out to external reviewers if their progress has not met our standards.

o      The Dean suggested sharing statistics of the norms of faculty work in the department, discussing disciplinary expectations, and giving colleagues an opportunity to measure themselves against the average within their discipline and related to their colleagues. This will give the chair the opportunity to determine if colleague expectations are mismatched with department norms.

o      Dr. Simon commented that he liked the idea of transparency; however, there are times when he has concerns relative to what is ethical and procedural. In this type of situation, it was recommended that the chair should speak to the Dean, before writing their letter. The Dean reiterated that it is OK to give feedback that is not just positive, but that is suggestive. Expressing concern is important for the growth of the faculty and for the process. The Dean's letter is subsequent to an hour meeting with each candidate. The conversation is a frank, honest assessment and hinges on the recommendation provided by the chair.

o      Dr. Walker inquired if it would be appropriate to have a staff person take department minutes when discussing a candidates pre-tenure evaluation. The Dean's Council agreed that personnel meetings, where a candidate is being discussed, should be an executive session and stay within the department.

o      Dr. Carolan commented that she would like to draft a letter first then bring the letter to the department for consensus relative to additions and /or omissions. The Dean commented that this process seemed perfectly sound. The Dean encouraged sharing feedback through frank conversations. Letters can be reflected in a unanimous way, by stating "one faculty felt….," or "the minority or majority felt…."

o      Dr. Walker asked if a history of these letters should be in the file within the department. These letters should be filed within the department, but if a copy is needed, chairs could send their request to Ms. Daniele. The bottom of the chair's letter should reflect a copy has been sent to the candidate. A copy of the chairs letter will be sent to the AVP by the Dean.

o      Dr. Steffen asked the Dean how the Council could share assessment norming among chairs, and what is the Dean's understanding of how that norming should be done? The Dean commented that her responsibility is to reflect some norming in the Dean's letter. She recommends having a conversation with chairs, relying on each other, sharing wisdom. If past chairs have been doing this well, they are good resources. If not, reach outside the department to hear what others are doing.

o      The Dean mentioned that in terms of publishing expectations, the discipline and departments are in charge of making sure that the candidate has the necessary background that external reviewers, at time of tenure, are going to affirm. It is different by department and discipline. As well, expectations were created within departments as part of their cultures, and these should be communicated to pre-tenured faculty, as well.

o      Dr. Dallavalle mentioned that it would be helpful to form break out groups, during next year's Chairs' Retreat to discuss norms for junior faculty, with a larger group sharing session at the end. She asked if the Dean could format a simple check list for chairs to follow during the annual review process. Dr. McCarthy reiterated this request. The Dean agreed that this would be beneficial and will forward an e-mail to all chairs.

o      The Dean mentioned that when external colleagues visit classrooms it is creating a culture of integrative teaching. When we hire we expect evidence of effective teaching and promise for excellence in teaching. One of the measures of evaluation is by visiting junior faculty in the classroom. These formative and summative evaluations are one way of observing student enthusiasm for the instruction of someone we would seek to make a lifetime investment in. It is also useful to encourage shared conversations about teaching, including classroom observations that cross rank.

o      The annual pre-tenured faculty meeting with the Dean is scheduled for Friday, October 29, from 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. in Alumni House. After the session, the Dean will forward chairs the check off list used during their discussion.

 

R&T Reviews

·      Dr. LeClair commented that there is a problem with the referee process over the past few years. The lag time approximately doubled since he was a candidate.

·      Dr. McCarthy mentioned that peer-review is very important. There are presentations that are peer review and articles that are written and peer reviewed. Are distinctions being made between the two? It is hard to weigh things in terms of peer review, non peer review, pubs, etc… Is a publication of a chapter in a book viewed more favorably than a publication of an article? The Dean's opinion is that there prestige is generally thought of as different. Peer review articles generally have a more vigorous review. Book chapters often do not have the same acceptance rate. Candidates are responsible for demonstrating, in their annual materials and at the time of Rank and Tenure, the peer review process, how rigorous it was, and how prestigious the venue. The Dean commented that she felt this varied according to discipline, but presentations alone will not warrant faculty tenure in her opinion. Candidates should be inquiring about these types of questions at Rank and Tenure. Presentations are indications that the candidate is building a pipeline. McCarthy mentioned that it is hard to make distinctions, sharing that publications in the discipline of psychology will take a very long time.

·      The Dean announced a few changes to Handbook and Guidelines. Changes on external letters did pass beginning next year. Academic Council will talk about the time line guidelines that relate to external letters at a future AC meeting. The Dean expects that a change of the Journal of Records will be in place, by May 31, 2011, in time for faculty interested in applying next year. The Dean commented that candidates should not go up in their 5^th year if they do not have a strong case. The Dean, chairs, and colleagues could discuss with the candidate whether energy should be put on the case or additional work to build a stronger case. Mentoring is important. The Dean is happy to help faculty and assist chairs with the mentoring process.

·      Internal letters should be submitted to the AVP's Office. Nine copies are required. The Chair's letter should be submitted to the Dean. The chair's letter should be very frank, reflecting the department vote on the candidate's achievements and whether or not the department recommends tenure and promotion.

·      The Dean mentioned that faculty at or above the rank are required to write a letter of recommendation, but all faculty are encouraged to do so.

·      Dr. Simon asked if the chair's letter is shared with the candidate. The Dean confirmed that the chair's letter is not shared with the candidate. They are only submitted to the AVP's office for the Rank and Tenure's review. Once the cases are determined, materials for all successful cases are shredded and unsuccessful cases are forward to the AVP's office. The Dean recommends that once cases are decided, their letters should be shredded too.

·      Dr. Bayne inquired about the procedure when a department chair is an Associate Professor and one of their colleagues is applying for full professor. The Dean mentioned that the department should select a senior colleague to shepherd the case; this should be communicated to the Dean who should agree with the selection. R&T committee should also be consulted in these cases.

·      Dr. McCarthy asked if the Dean could specify the difference between what is recommended vs. required. The Dean will put together a check list. The check list will reflect requirements and will include some recommendations. Most of conversation shared today is not new, though departments have wide ranging norms and also variable grasp on the requirements of both systems.

·      External Letters are due to the Dean's Office by November 1 and Ms. Daniele will put together a packet of these letters for the chairs.

·      Faculty dossier and supporting materials should be evaluated by chair and colleagues.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.