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.
- Coalescence of programs related to the environment;
- More consistency in policy and procedure within each of the
minors;
- Programs should have cross-listed courses, an academic advisory
committee, a steering committee, and a 15- to 18-credit requirement
(with some exceptions).
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.