Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

December 7, 2005

Present: C. Bucki, M. A. Carolan, R. Crabtree, R. DeWitt, J. Escobar, J. Garvey, M. Gogol,

J. Goldfield, D. Greenberg, Fr. Hannafey, S.J., A. King, P. Lane, D. Li, J. McCarthy, L. Newton,

E. O'Connell, L. O'Connor, R. Poincelot, S. Rakowitz, R. Rodrigues, G. Sauer, K. Schlichting,

M. Sourieau, D. Winn, R. White

Not Present: D. Brousseau, K. Cassidy, A. Katz, J. Mullan, Ellen Umansky

The meeting convened at 4:00 p.m.

Introductory Remarks

Budget Submissions—The Academic Vice President informed the Dean that the Budget Committee will broker the many different budget requests, which range from the standard requests, requests affiliated with the new Strategic Plan, and salary adjustments. Because this is the College's first year of conducting merit reviews, the requests for salary adjustment are important.

Last year, the Academic Vice President's Office distributed the budget results directly to the chairs and program directors. Linda LaVine is the contact person, and she will distribute the budget outcomes upon completion. The Dean will attempt to fund some of the smaller items that may not be approved, such as printers for departments, or software for new faculty members.

January Agenda—The January agenda will consist of selected topics relative to the Strategic Plan, responsibilities of secretarial staff, internships, and the Merit process.

Strategic Plan—The original discussion regarding the Strategic Plan, among the Council and the College, was solely based on strategic measures, and not on tactics, which will be considered next. Dr. Robbin Crabtree was charged to contact Fr. von Arx to obtain information regarding his plans for implementation, so the Council could base the next phase of their discussion on those plans.

Program Assistants—The Council will discuss the various responsibilities of the secretarial staff. What are the expectations uniformly, and what should be specialized within various areas. How might the College utilize their assistance and help them gain accomplishments more efficiently?

Internships—Dr. David Sapp completed his work relative to internships, and he will share this information during our January or February Dean's Council meeting. There are a number of issues for discussion—consistency between programs, accessibility to internships, electronic tools available for internships, among other items of concern and/or interest.

Merit Process—Dr. Curt Naser will demonstrate the available resources that could benefit the College throughout the Merit process. He will create additional recording tools, as needed, in order to convey consistency among departments. With the College's recommendation to review a three-year window, electronic input would assist faculty with the efficiency of recording their accomplishments once, allowing the window to move electronically through the advancement of their careers.

Pass-around Information—The Dean circulated the following opportunities to the Dean's Council:

á Academic Chairpersons Conference—National conference sponsored by Kansas State University, February 8-10, 2006 in Orlando, Florida;

á Midwestern State University, Wichita Fall, TX—Position announcement for a Dean of the College of Science and Mathematics;

á University of LaVerne, Ontario, CA—Position announcement for a Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs; and

á University of Scranton, Scranton, PA—Position announcement for a Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Full-time Faculty Teaching Equity—Dr. Phil Lane distributed a list of the faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences who were not teaching a three-course load during the Fall 2005 semester. The Faculty Teaching Equity Committee recommended a policy, which stated that the Dean will publicize a list of full-time faculty members who are not teaching a full course load, along with an explanation for their course reduction. The Dean informed the Council that he was aware of some of the reasons behind the distributed list of course reductions and is willing to discuss these reductions with any member of the College who is seeking explanation. Lane reiterated that a written explanation was required. He mentioned that this was the second registration cycle where the College did not implement the operating principles that were agreed upon by the Council.

Dr. Kurt Schlichting suggested that if a faculty member is approved to teach less than three courses, and they are a member of a department that facilitates a heavy core responsibility, then a requirement to teach at least one introductory level course within their department should be implemented. These course reductions tend to lead to a greater use of adjunct faculty teaching introductory level courses.

Lane informed the Council that the compensation for the chairs in the School of Business is at a much higher rate than the College of Arts and Sciences. The Dolan School of Business increased their chairs stipend from $5,000 to $7,500. The Dean explained that these funds came from within the Dolan School of Business—resulting in a $10,000 expenditure. For the College of Arts and Sciences to increase compensation at an equitable level, the expenditures would be higher—approximately $45,000. The Dean explained that the College could dedicate funds towards an increase in compensation; however, these funds would eliminate the approval of a faculty line. Dr. Leo O'Connor suggested that the College utilize some of the profits generated within the College through the American Studies Graduate Program. The Dean is in the process of negotiating a policy with the Academic Vice President, which will guarantee the College half of the profit attained by a particular program, after acquiring a designated threshold. These funds could be utilized for many things, but initial plans were for fortification and support of the programs that generated them, at least in part.

The Full-time Faculty Teaching Equity Committee was also concerned about the final exam policy. There are members of the College faculty who are not administering final exams and/or final assessments at the designated time and date appointed by the Registrar's Office. This is a violation of the policy. Lane addressed this issue with the Academic Vice President, whose response was that the final exam policy should be enforced through the chairs. Lane did not agree; the enforcement should come from the administration. A list of faculty who deviate from the final exam schedule is required to be publicized.

The Dean agreed with the importance of publicizing the course reduction and final exam deviation lists, and he assured the Council that these lists will be shared in the future. He communicated that the disappointment seems to be with faculty who are not administering a final assessment at all, not with the faculty who are deviating from the traditional exam style. The cancellation of a final assessment short-changes the students and the educational process.

Approval of Minutes

Dr. Johanna Garvey motioned to approve the minutes of November 9, and O'Connor seconded the motion. Crabtree asked for a minor change in the section relative to UCA. All chairs present were in favor of approving the minutes upon the amendments stated, along with an abstention from the program directors.

Chairs Normalization

Dr. Richard DeWitt facilitated a discussion regarding the selection and compensation for a department chair. The College Governance Document, which was approved in 1985, did not include a role for the Dean. Previously a suggestion was made that the chair be recommended at the department level and appointed by the Dean. The Steering Committee did not agree with this proposal; however, they do feel that the Dean should play a role in the process. Presently, if a department cannot agree upon a chairperson, the Academic Council may appoint a tenured member of the College of Arts and Sciences to serve as chairperson. These decisions should remain within the College; therefore, input from the Academic Council does not seem appropriate.

DeWitt distributed proposed language concerning the election of chairs to the Council. This suggested outline was drafted by the Steering Committee in consultation with the Dean. The procedure stating that the chairperson must be elected by a majority of the department remains the same. The proposed changes will result in the following procedures:

1. The results of the election will be forwarded to the Dean for approval.

2. If there is a conflict of interest, then an appointed College Committee, the College Chairpersons Committee (CCC), will mediate between the Dean and the department in an attempt to resolve their differences.

3. After consultation, if these attempts fail, the CCC may appoint a tenured department member to serve as chairperson for one year. If a member of the department is not willing to serve, after consulting with the department members and the Dean, a tenured member of the College of Arts and Sciences will be appointed for a one year term by the CCC.

Dr. Lisa Newton questioned the necessity of changing the current procedures. After 36 years of departments electing chairs, with the exception of only one or two conflicts, the system seemed to run efficiently. Why the necessity for the Dean to have veto power? DeWitt clarified that the Dean does not have a veto power; the Dean would be allowed a voice.

Dr. Donald Greenberg opposed the projected changes. He felt that the current process was working just fine. He did not see the point of changing a collegial model that worked for the College. The College handbook was founded in approximately 1969, at which time the chairs were represented as members and servants of the department not by authoritarians and forces of the department. Greenberg is concerned with the Dean's position stated in the proposed changes. If the Dean does not approve of their suggestion, the election is out of the hands of both the department and the chair. Over the past fifteen years, the only time faculty exercised the College's Governance power was when the language was absolute. Greenberg strongly opposed offering an opening for involvement of the Administration, because situations seem to result in consistent exploitation on their part. He felt the Faculty Handbook was eroded under many situations and that untrustworthy and dishonorable behavior had been perpetrated by the Administration for years; therefore, why should the College reward this behavior. Greenberg also expressed his disapproval with the Administration's ability to manipulate the request for a course reduction as part of the chairs compensation. DeWitt stated that the Steering Committee's intention was to seek agreement from the Council only on the election for the chairs selection policy—the vote is not tied to the compensation issues. These two components are decoupled.

Fr. Frank Hannafey spoke in favor of the proposal. He felt that the language was reasonable, and the process placed Fairfield in line with other strong academic institutions. This was a step in the right direction; it institutionalizes relationships that already occur at the University. In terms of course reduction, Hannafey agreed that chairs do need a course reduction. Chairs are requested to participate in many curricular activities, which justify the fact that a course reduction is a necessity. In comparison to other institutions, a course reduction is a common factor in the chairs compensation package.

Crabtree was extremely sensitive to the issues that Greenberg raised. She agreed with his understanding of the history of the University. A lot of Crabtree's frustrations revolved around some of the issues that Greenberg raised, but she thought that the language proposed by the Steering Committee accomplished two things that the College really needed—1) The proposed language brings the decision-making processes fully into the College. Crabtree recommended that other areas of the Governance Document, where decision-making goes beyond College involvement, need also to be evaluated. Decisions that go straight to Academic Council are problematic. The Governance Document was written when the Academic Council was represented by the College of Arts and Sciences tenured faculty members; therefore, in previous years, this was not an issue. 2) The proposed language recognizes that the College is in a collegial relationship on both a department and College level. The language, without being the language of appointment, without being the language of decanal power, brings a compromised collegial process to the College. The purpose of having the conversation between the department and the Dean is to make decisions that are in the best interest of the department.

Goldfield was pleased to see that there was a formal role of service that could be helpful in a collegial way to broker decisions on disagreement. The idea of appointing the CCC is very helpful for collegiality; it is a role that will foster decisions back to the College. Goldfield also researched the issue relative to chairs compensation. He consulted research on all Modern Language departments in the United States that belong to the MLA, and his observation concluded that Fairfield's compensation for chairs was uncommon in comparison—much less compensation is awarded at our University.

O'Connor agreed with the portion of the amendment that referred to changing the role of the Academic Council to the role of the proposed CCC. The remainder of the existing Governance Document seemed to produce harmony and productivity over the years with an exception to the recent Physics chairs search. He shared his reservation concerning future dean appointments. A dean who might be a difficult player relative to departmental decisions would cause ongoing bureaucratic business subjecting the College to continual deliberation. DeWitt again reiterated that the proposal only gives the Dean a voice, not veto or appointment power. The only case where a dean would sustain an objection is if the CCC group agreed with their decision.

The Dean addressed some of the Council's concerns. He noted that he was responsible for the coupling of the chairs selection issue with the compensation issue: at stick is what he calls the "normalization" of chairing in the College—at present, our ways are markedly different from those of sibling institutions and the wider, evolved academe. He also noted that, in the past, when the Academic Vice President and University President discussed course releases for chairs, they had linked the releases to the selection issue.

The Dean assured the chairs that he would like to fix their compensation and help set up a system of selection that evidences more checks and balances. The goal is for the chairs to serve the faculty as well as possible. In response to O'Connor's future concerns, if an appointed Dean repeatedly worked against the faculty, their behavior would not result in longevity at the University. Basing policy on an extreme situation or person is not valuable to the College.

The Dean researched the policies of other Jesuit institutions, in respect to procedures for chairs' selections; and he found that the dean or their superior appointed the chairs in all reported cases. In other institutions, the faculty elected someone, and the election went to the Dean for approval. The final approval was based on the Dean's decision. He thought the proposal suggested by the Steering Committee was an extraordinary compromise relative to what went on elsewhere. Fairfield can operate differently from other institutions, but, when it does so, the College should have an intellectual reason for being different. Many institutions have succeeded with a model that is uniformly different from the College's.

The Dean mentioned that he has a close relationship with the faculty, and he holds a substantial amount of information regarding the departments; therefore, the College would benefit in having a decanal voice in the decision making process. He outlined situations in which such a voice would benefit disenfranchised faculty. The Steering Committee convinced the Dean that the way to incorporate more checks and balances would be to appoint a group to broker these decisions; the Steering Committee proposed this as the CCC.

O'Connor suggested that the Steering Committee come back to the Council with an additional proposal that would include the deliberations set forth during the present meeting. The proposal might remove the Dean's role, but include the recourse of utilizing the CCC as the mediator. This would offer two separate motions for the Council to view and vote on.

Crabtree informed the Council that a policy must be followed before changing any language to the Governance Document. The Steering Committee presented this proposal to gain a consensus and/or representation from the Council prior to bringing this in front of the College faculty. There is a voting procedure that needs to be followed, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

Escobar spoke in favor of the proposed changes, but he suggested that the members of the departments be informed of these changes. The Visual and Performing Arts department have transitions coming up in the near future, and it seems appropriate for the department to be made aware of the proposed changes.

DeWitt felt that the Council worked out a few reasonable comprises. He suggested that any Council member who did not state their opinion could do so through e-mail.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15