Dean’s Council Meeting
College of Arts and Sciences
November 1, 2006


Present:  R. Crabtree, J. Garvey, M. Gogol, J. Goldfield, D. Greenberg,  F. Hannafey, D. Keenan, Matthew Kubasik, P. Lane, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, E. Mielants, L. O’Connor, E. O’Neill, S. Peterson, Ray Poincelot, S. Rakowitz, G. Sauer, B. Torff, and D. Winn

Not Present:  M. Coleman, J. Escobar, K. Schlichting
 
The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

Dean’s Introductory Remarks
The Dean discussed the faculty announcement sent by Mark Reed.  The e-mail was about Living and Learning.  Reed’s message to faculty and Student Services staff was relative to the benefits of collegiality amongst divisions.  

Dr. Robbin Crabtree previously participated in events with Reed relative to Living and Learning.  She invited David Ryan-Soderlund, Director of Academic and Disability Support Services, to participate in department activities.  Crabtree also mentioned that Ms. Jeanne DiMuzio, Director of Health and Wellness Education, will instruct one of her family Communication classes, while she attends a conference.  Ms. DiMuzio’s assistance will evade the cancellation of class; but more importantly, it reflects the integration between Student Services and the Academic Division.  The topic of discussion will be alcohol and gambling.  Dr. Dennis Keenan suggested that Student Services visit with the Council and/or a specific department, when there are important topics relative to a particular body. Although he appreciates the invitation, he did not find a need for a visit without a defined motive/topic of interest.

The Dean recommended that the Steering Committee revisit Reed’s request; and once the Living and Learning initiative begins to develop further, they would consider extending an invitation to either Reed or Dean Pellegrino.

Branding the College—The Dean re-expressed his concern with College events being inappropriately acknowledged.  College-related programs, lectures, and/or sponsored events housed in the Dolan School of Business Dining Room tend to bring recognition to the Dolan School of Business instead the College.  Misrepresentation occurs, especially with off-campus publicity. Although the use of the Dolan School of Business dining room is accommodating, the connection between the department facilitating these events and the College are not being recognized.  The idea is to market the College as a “viable vehicle and entity.”   
To avoid these misconceptions, the Dean recommended that the College consider the use of the newly designed Kelley Center Conference Room.  This facility is physically attractive and fully equipped to meet multimedia needs. The Kelley Center has the capacity to hold a large group, with a maximum of approximately 150 people.  Dr. McFadden mentioned that scheduling for the use of the Kelley Center is handled through Judy Dobai.  This is inconsistent with reserving other campus facilities, which is handled by Ms. Jan Buswell.  For convenience, there should be a central place to schedule an event.  The Dean mentioned that he will discuss this with Ms. Dobai.  Keenan mentioned that Fr. von Arx approved the use of the BLM 114 for smaller group dynamics.  The Dean asked that the Council share this information with their colleagues.

Course Releases—The Dean shared the concern of the Full-time Faculty Teaching Equity Committee associated with core course releases.  The Dean asked that faculty who receive a course release still carry out their core responsibilities.  He and Committee members prefer that adjunct faculty instruct within their field of expertise rather than the core.  

Sr. Vice President, Billy Weitzer—The Steering Committee will invite the Sr. Vice President, Billy Weitzer to attend a Council meeting.  Vice President Weitzer will participate in our November 28 College faculty meeting.  McFadden made a presentation to the Budget Committee expressing the importance of more full-time faculty.  Vice President Weitzer was present for this meeting.  The Dean recommended that the College’s November meeting’s attendance reflect our 60 % of the Institutions faculty (which McFadden mentioned during the Budget Committee meeting as responsible for servicing 80 % of the institution’s undergraduate education).  This will demonstrate the weight of the College relative to the School of Nursing, School of Engineering, and the School of Business.  The integration of the core and the integration of living and learning cannot be fulfilled if the College is not equipped to deliver the core with full-time faculty.  The success of the Strategic Plan will hinge on the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences and the fortification of the faculty in numbers to deliver the core.

Dean’s Passaround—Position announcements from Emmanual College, Graduate Studies at Southern Methodist University, and West Chester University, and fellowship opportunities for Smithsonian Fellowship and Mellon Fellowship were shared with the Council.

Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Philip Lane moved to approve the October 11 minutes, and Dr. Donald Greenberg seconded the motion.  Fourteen were in favor of the approval of the minutes.  

The minutes from the September Dean’s Council meeting were not previously approved.  These will be reviewed at our next Council meeting, along with the November 1 minutes for approval.

Budget Submissions
Budget submission policies were discussed.  Ms. Jean Daniele will e-mail information to all department chairs and directors, which will include an instructional memo from the Dean and additional instructions and worksheets from the Academic Vice President’s Office.  The Dean highlighted the importance of requesting new full-time faculty in service to the University Strategic Plan.  He recommended that each department submit their normal faculty requests; and in addition, departmental needs for new hires relative to the core, to reduce the use of adjuncts, should be presented.   He explained the importance of basing these additional requests only around needs, with discussions about the reduction of adjuncts and enrollment patterns. The Steering Committee and the Council will discuss these submissions and work towards prioritizing and condensing a list for end-of-the-year submission.  The Dean suggested that this final list might include signatures from all members of the College faculty demonstrating the importance of their appeal.  

Draft of Interdisciplinary Program Report
The Dean charged Associate Deans Miriam Gogol and Raymond Poincelot to co-chair a committee he appointed to look at specific charges relative to the College’s Interdisciplinary Programs.  The Committee consisted of Drs. Matthew Coleman, Dina Franceschi, Danke Li, Tod Osier, Ellen Umansky and Yohuru Williams.   In addition, there was another committee—Drs. Maryann Carolan, Rose Rodrigues and Ellen Umansky—appointed as a subcommittee of the Dean’s Council—charged with suggesting to the Dean a list of duties for program directors. This list of duties was not included in the report.  The Dean assured the Council that overall resources from the programs are not going to diminish.  He was not seeking to add to the interdisciplinary programs, but through coalescences, for example the environmentally oriented interdisciplinary programs, some initiatives might gain resources.  The outcome would constitute the need of one program director utilizing the funds allotted for each of these programs—allowing for a larger budget to look into greater opportunities.  

The Dean explained that the draft of the Interdisciplinary Report was not distributed to the entire College Faculty.  This report was discussed at the October program directors meeting, and will be further discussed with the chairs and the interdisciplinary team prior to distribution to the entire College.  The Dean reminded the program directors and the chairs that the Interdisciplinary Report is the report of a subcommittee.  He assured the chairs and program directors that their ideas/concerns will be reflected back to the committee for consideration.  Subsequent to the committee’s revisions, the report, along with key issues, will be distributed to the College faculty for discussion.  The idea is to have the College faculty as the primary body participating in decisions relative to program structure and/or curriculum.  Lane asked the Dean to clarify the role he would like the department chairs to take in reviewing the report—should they review the report program by program, or are they making a recommendation?  The Dean explained that he would like them to voice any key issues and/or concerns that might emerge from the report and how they may be addressed.  

Dr. Gogol reiterated that the report is a work in progress, and she explained that the Dean asked her and Poincelot to work on the restructuring and function of the report.  Handouts reflecting updated information were distributed.  In addition, the Advisory Board Committee, along with Gogol and Poincelot, had a meeting with the Women’s Studies Director, Dr. Rose Rodrigues.  
Gogol highlighted some recommendations that seemed prominent at this early stage of the review.


Gogol explained that some of the programs were not reviewed; therefore, they were not addressed in the report.  The main reason for their omission was time constraints.  The Committee reviews took place through June, and it was agreed that the reviews would be resumed at the start of the academic year.  In addition, the new director for International Studies, Dr. Janie Leatherman, is working on changes within International Studies; therefore, the Committee is waiting for her feedback.   McFadden asked if all of the programs were reviewed with the exception of the global programs, which are connected to International Studies.  Gogol explained that people involved with the programs wanted to label the integration Global and Transcultural Studies; they expressed an interest in developing a global center.  Beyond discussions relative to procedural and operational issues, they felt uncomfortable discussing specific programs without more representation within these areas.  Gogol commented that there are some sections of the report that are still works in progress, e.g., Applied Ethics.  The reviews are not considered closed until the Committee meets with the associated program director.  The Committee will meet with Dr. Lisa Newton next week to discuss the Applied Ethics Program, and Gogol assured the Council they will receive feedback shortly after their meeting.   

Crabtree did not understand how the report could be constructed without speaking to all of the program directors and/or program advisory committees.  She felt that, in terms of the administration of the interdisciplinary programs, the work of the Committee and on-going work is incredibly important.  However, faculty who teach in these programs should be consulted in terms of the intellectual content addressed within the report—curriculum should be determined by faculty within the programs.  The Dean explained that it is important to recognize that this is not a review of the quality of the programs; the goal was to answer specific questions, which are included in the report—issues in terms of program structure; how programs relate to the Strategic Plan; coalescence of the environmental programs; and specifics relative to the election of program directors, term limits, and responsibilities.  Crabtree mentioned that the report clearly reflected on the experiences of people working within some of the programs; so in some sections of the report, it is clearly stated that there was a conversation and an on-going review, while other programs seemed to be randomly represented.  

The Dean reminded the chairs that the program reviews followed a two-year process, where extensive questionnaires were distributed to all directors.  The program directors also discussed, during an entire meeting, the Committee’s formal charge, and they contributed significantly to the charge.  In addition, directors have submitted annual reports; therefore, the review was not done without consultation and information.  Directors were also invited formally by the Committee to meet with them.

DeWitt asked for clarification in regard to the report and the future process that will follow.  The Dean explained that the Interdisciplinary Advisory Committee worked largely over the spring and summer.  The charge addressed to the Committee was discussed with the program directors; some met with the Committee.  The draft of the report was approved by the Committee and distributed to the program directors, and now, to the department chairs.  The Committee will meet again for discussion of key concerns/issues and revise the report for future distribution to the College faculty for their input.  DeWitt, Rakowitz, and the members of the Steering Committee will work together to assure that the report includes the best faculty input.  The faculty should own this report in order for it to succeed.  McFadden requested that the report not be distributed to the College faculty until all of the global studies areas are individually addressed and made visible for future discussion.   

DeWitt mentioned that it seemed that the consolidation of the Applied Ethics program may result in diminishing the program.  Peace and Justice has ties to both the Catholic Mission and the new proposed Center for Ethics and Social Justice, while the Applied Ethics program is not relative to the Catholic Mission—amounting to an elimination of the program.  O’Connor mentioned that Applied Ethics would never be eliminated, as long as it served the Philosophy Department’s core.  Gogol mentioned that this was one area that was not in any way resolved—the Committee has not had the opportunity to meet with the program director, Newton.  McFadden recommended that various programs and issues be separated.  Whatever goes forward to the faculty should be clearly stated, explaining which issues are still under discussion and which issues are ready for their consideration.  Programs are at different levels and need to be prioritized as to what programs have sufficient support to move forward.  

Lane mentioned a few “red flags” represented in the report.  He felt that the word “center” has become a way for faculty to receive a reduction in course loads.  In addition, the globalization area not only changes the program but also affect the International Studies major, such changes require state approval.  Crabtree reminded the Council that each program change must go through the EPC and ASCC for approval.  All involved with the Committee acknowledged that this had been an ongoing assumption.

Poincelot reported that currently three programs exist that have an environmental connection—Marine Science, Environmental Studies, and Environmental Science.  The subcommittee recommendation was to merge these three programs into one Program on the Environment.  There are numerous advantages to consolidation—an increase in programmatic resources; greater on-campus presence, where a larger group of students are attracted to the same program instead of three competing programs; clearer marketing through admissions; and a greater visibility for grant applications.   There was a discussion with all current directors—Drs. Diane Brousseau and Lisa Newton (the Environmental Science component is presently on hold with no area director); they all seemed to be in favor of this consolidation.  The consolidation will offer two tracks—one science-related, and the other a humanities, social science, and economics component.  Students within each track would be required to take courses within both areas.  Program curriculum would be determined by the newly chosen director.  The program will also have an international studies component, possibly involving the existing programs with UCA, Costa Rica, and Brazil.  

Lane made a motion to move the environmental issue to the next level—addressing their proposal to College faculty.  The Dean mentioned that the next step would be to ask the coming co-directors to create a proposal for the program directors and chairs to review prior to submission to the College faculty.  Winn encouraged a discussion with Engineering, because of the environmental engineering component.

Crabtree suggested that Classical Studies and Judaic Studies proposal be moved to a next level of approval; Gogol agreed with her suggestion.    McFadden showed concern with one of the recommendation cited under the Judaic Studies Program review, “…the Dean approve the hiring of an adjunct faculty member in the Department of History for one semester every other year to teach a course on Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East.”   Gogol agreed with McFadden on that issue; therefore, she thought it best to hold off proceeding to the next step.  Crabtree stated that the next step should not be to address the College faculty, but the recommendation is to have an internal review.  This should be the process prior to College faculty discussion and/or approval.    The Dean mentioned that these issues do not have to go to the College; the idea is to utilize the College faculty as a resource.  Rakowitz commented on the Dean’s statement by expressing her understanding.  It seems that the entire report will no longer be distributed to the College faculty, but a smaller subset of individual proposals will be distributed.  Crabtree suggested that highlights be distributed to the faculty, as opposed to the entire report.  This offers an opportunity for a conversation about process and the thoughts of the faculty rather than the faculty reacting to the more specifics.  The Dean commented that he would like the process to be more transparent.     

The Dean mentioned that he had already committed some program director changes, and he will follow up with a memo relative to the following changes.   As of October 2006, Professor Kevin Cassidy accepted directorship of the Irish Studies Program.  Effective January 1, 2007, Professors Dina Franceschi and Tod Osier began to co-direct the Environmental Studies Program.  Effective July 1, 2007, Professor Jocelyn Boryczka will become Director of the College’s Program in Peace and Justice.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.