Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

March 8, 2006

 

Present:  M. Coleman, R. DeWitt, J. Escobar, J. Garvey, M. Gogol, J. Goldfield,

D. Greenberg, F. Hannafey, S.J., P. Lane, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, E. O'Connell,

L. O'Connor, S. Peterson, R. Poincelot, S. Rakowitz, S. Ryan, G. Sauer, K. Schlichting, E. Umansky, D. Winn

 

Not Present:  R. Crabtree

 

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

 

Introductory Remarks

 

Governance Document Changes—Recommendations were made to revise the Governance Document in areas relative to the Health Sciences Committee and Chairs Selection. The Health Sciences Committee modified the charge of the Committee and will approach the College Faculty for their approval upon completion of these revisions.  The Steering Committee's revised proposal for chairs selection was accepted by the Dean's Council and will be addressed to the University President, Academic Vice President, and the College faculty for their approval.  The Academic Vice President expressed reservations to the proposed changes for the chairs selection.  He suggested that the CCC work as a mediating body, rather than a body of decisions, to assure balance to decision making.  The current arrangement still allows for a chair to be selected without the dean's consent, unlike any plan for any school on which we have data. Given the suggested change to the administrative role with the selection of the chairs, the Steering Committee will continue to work on the proposal and select an appropriate time to address the wider College faculty for approval.

 

Distribution and Sale of Student Course Packets—The Dean's Council's concerns about the sale of student course packets was shared with Art Payne, Director of Printing and Graphics, and the University Bookstore.  The Bookstore was pleased with the proposed procedure and agreed to work directly with Printing and Graphics. Faculty would distribute course packets to Printing and Graphics, and the exchange of packets would be between Printing and Graphics and the Bookstore, and the sale between the Bookstore and the students. This would alleviate faculty and/or staff handling money.  Dr. David McFadden asked about copyright issues.  The Dean mentioned that Printing and Graphics were familiar with these issues, and he recommended that departments and programs ensure copyright regulations are taken into consideration. 

 

Proper Use of Program Assistants—The Dean informed the chairs that, on numerous occasions, program assistants were asked to administer and proctor exams or start a video when instructors were not available to teach.  This erodes the development of the College and what it signifies, and it is inappropriate use of program assistants.  Chairs should make faculty aware that this is not acceptable.

 

Stag Web Audits—Ms. Susan Peterson reminded chairs that student evaluations were on Stagweb.  She encouraged them to urge students to review their audits and to assure they are properly working towards satisfying their core and major requirements. Stagweb audits will specify areas in which a student has "not met" their requirements. Some students have a tendency to ignore the "not met" notification, which leads to graduation problems.  Ms. Peterson suggested that during advising sessions, faculty encourage their students to read their Stagweb audits and address any problems to eliminate future impediments towards graduation.

 

In some cases, there are flaws in the system were the "not met" areas are inaccurate. 

Ms. Peterson worked closely with SCT to rectify these problems.  They worked on properly defining the program; and with much success, there are very few flaws left in the system. The Study Abroad courses still remain an area of concern; however, Dr. Iris Bork-Goldfield is working towards clarifying the proper distinctions for these courses.  Ms. Peterson encouraged faculty to communicate to Fran Potocky, from SCT, any additional attributes or changes to existing courses or newly designed courses, so these adjustments can be filtered through the system appropriately, alleviating future recording errors.  It is important to correspond any peculiarities—specific definitions of courses or exceptions made for students—to assure that the audits reflect the arrangements made.

 

Teaching Evaluation—The University policy on the distribution of teaching evaluations states all faculty must distribute student evaluations for all of their courses.  The Dean shared evaluation data, which demonstrated a large number of adjunct faculty not following this procedure, along with smaller numbers of full-time faculty.  He encouraged department chairs to remind all faculty, especially adjuncts, that student evaluations must be distributed for all of their courses.

 

Pass-around Information — The Dean circulated opportunities consisting of a position available at The College of St. Catherine, NIH Undergraduate Scholarship Programs, Internships for New York City Parks, DOE mid-career award for recognized scientist and engineers, and New York State Senate Office Graduate/Post Graduate Career opportunities.

 

Approval of Minutes

Dr. John McCarthy requested an amendment to the section of the minutes stating that he would communicate photocopying concerns, voiced by the College, to Printing and Graphics.  McCarthy agreed to create an appropriate memo for the Dean's Council review relative to these concerns.  Dr. Sallyanne Ryan spoke on behalf of Dr. Robbin Crabtree asking that the section of the minutes stating that Crabtree addressed concerns relative to copyright issues be removed from the record.  She did not address this concern.  Dr. Jesœs Escobar rectified that he voiced these concerns; therefore, the minutes will be changed to reflect this. Dr. Phil Lane motioned to approve the minutes as amended, and Dr. Rick DeWitt seconded the motion.  All chairs were in favor of the motion.

 

Merit Briefing

The Board of Trustees determined that the University will receive a 4.6 total compensation increase—2% Sustained Merit, 1% Additional Merit, and 1.6% towards benefits.  With the level of Sustained Merit less than CPI, Sustained will remain at 2% and the remaining 1% will be utilized reflecting an Additional Merit level of A0.  There will be only one level of Additional Merit, and the College will not distribute Dean's Awards this year; these kick in only when the A1 level is in place.

 

Dr. Donald Greenberg asked for clarification on what was needed for departmental Merit reviews. The Dean explained the process—chairs will schedule a meeting between March 15 and April 15, submit the outcome of the departments' assessment, and supply detailed information on individual faculty contributions, including explicit evidence of teaching effectiveness, and the thoughts of the chair, committee, and entire department (for all, where applicable, according to the department's individual merit plan).   McCarthy asked if the departments' Merit assessment should be submitted in a written or verbal format.  The Dean agreed to either of these formats but noted that chairs should have appropriate data with them for consultation at the time of the meetings.  The review should be used as a proactive opportunity to assess faculty and address various issues moving towards positive outcomes. Although there is only one level of Additional Merit this year, the Dean asked the chairs to determine the outcome for each faculty within their department across all four possible levels of additional Merit.   He will organize group meetings amongst the chairs subsequent to the end of the semester.  There will be three group meetings—one with the humanities chairs, one with natural science chairs, and one with social science chairs—to discuss the results of each department, with a goal of making the various departmental plans equitable.  Names of colleagues will not be identified.   Having a trial assessment will offer an opportunity to discuss the plans as a team, share ideas, and appropriately adjust plans relative to one another.

 

Dr. Kurt Schlichting proposed a motion relative to the Merit process, which stated the following: 

1.     The Academic Vice President and the Academic Deans no longer participate in the collegial discussions with the Faculty Salary Committee.  The Vice President of Finance should represent the administration. 

2.     Next year the Faculty Salary Committee and the administration should collegially discuss and conclude a three-year Memo of Understanding.  

 

Dr. Leo O'Connor seconded the motion.  All chairs present were in favor.

 

The Dean agreed that a three-year window would benefit the yearly budget process—e.g., in the event that, say, a three-year agreement was set up with, say, year three being one that privileged salary, the cycles for year one and two would give the College and University the opportunity to focus on departmental and other needs other than salary, with year three, the "salary year,"  understood as one during which these kinds of requests would be of lesser priority.  Dr. Phil Lane added that by determining salary compensation on a three-year cycle, the College could focus their energy on strategic planning. 

 

There were three suggested paths to pursue this motion: 

 

O'Connor thought that having an ad hoc committee would place the College in an adversarial position with standing committees who are part of the Governance of the faculty.  If there is a select committee, it should be derived from the General Faculty population, overseen by the Academic Council. 

 

Schlichting felt the importance was to have conversation across various levels, including Fr. von Arx, the Academic Vice President, Faculty Salary Committee, Academic Council Steering Committee, and faculty body.   McFadden motioned to empower Schlichting and Lane to form a committee to meet with the President and other constituencies to share the proposed motion.  O'Connor seconded the motion, along with a unanimous approval by all department chairs present.

 

Schlichting had other concerns relative to faculty teaching loads and Merit compensation.  He and Dr. Susan Rakowitz, searched on-line for schools that were AACSB—approved with a 4/4 teaching load.  The outcome of their search determined that no such schools followed this standard. Schlichting recommended that a conversation relative to the 4/4 teaching load be discussed between the entire faculty.  

 

With the University's tuition increasing to over $40,000, recruitment numbers may be affected.  As nominal tuition is increased, the University will define greater financial need, impacting our overall budget.   If the University followed this path, how would faculty compensation for Merit grow beyond the level of A0?  Schlichting reported that in the next five to seven years, there will be a decline in high school graduates in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, causing a decline in our recruitment average of 825 incoming students by approximately 100 students—400 less students over a four-year cycle may cause a future deficit.  

 

College Student Awards Ceremony

The Dean expressed his concern with the length of the College of Arts and Sciences Students Award Ceremony.  Time limitations set for presenters were not being followed.  In some cases, the number of awards distributed was far too many.  By departments utilizing a greater amount of time to honor their student over that of another department, the acknowledgment of the majority of equally deserving students weakens.   Lane agreed with the importance of equitable recognition of students across all of the departments.  Extensive recognition for some students over others is not an ethical way to treat good students. 

 

The Department of Modern Languages and Literatures and Visual and Performing Arts host multiple degree programs.  These departments may present a set of awards for each of these programs, but the presentation should be by a single individual.  Escobar mentioned that the Visual and Performing Arts Department had a different presenter for all five programs, in the past Awards Ceremony; and their department was successful in following the presentation guidelines.  He was disappointed to see other departments who did not follow the outlined procedures.  He feels that having a single presenter diminishes the recognition of the students—representation should be individualized within each program.  By doing this we are not properly serving the students.  

 

Departments and programs will be limited to a maximum of one award per department or program.  There are several departments who collapsed their award ceremony to a presentation of one award and expanded the recognition of their students through a separate departmental award ceremony, giving them the opportunity to present multiple awards.  English has been a leader in this approach.

 

Ryan suggested that the focus be placed on the achievement of our students, not the achievements at the faculty or departmental level.  This would help with the appropriate use of time.  Greenberg recommended that a suggested dialogue be distributed, so presenters could get a sense of what they should mention when presenting their award.  He also suggested that a separate document with additional information might accompany the formal program booklet, allowing departments to highlight noteworthy student accomplishments.

 

College Assessment Process and Committee Formation

The Dean passed out a brief description of the College Assessment Plan. He explained that the College would form two committees.  The first committee is the College Assessment Steering Committee (CASC), consisting of Curt Naser, Larry Miners, Roben Torosyan, Kathy Nantz, Olivia Harriott, Liz Hohl, and the Dean.   This committee will organize the College Assessment project, by educating the faculty and following up on the process with each department.  The second committee will include a representative from each department to form a larger committee—the College Assessment Learning Committee (CALC).  Department chairs were asked to appoint one member, from their department, for this committee by March 24.  The CALC committee members will be required to attend three seminars.  The CAE and CASC will sponsor an introductory workshop on the methods of assessment of student learning outcomes on April 7.  A two-day workshop will be facilitated by Professor Doug Eder, a biologist from University of Illinois Edwardsville, on April 27 and 29.  The focus will be on how to implement a program in assessment of student learning outcomes.  On May 16, The CAE and CASC will sponsor a third workshop to plan the College's pilot implementation for the Fall 2006 semester. The CALC Committee members will receive $1,500 stipends for their participation through April 2007.   McFadden mentioned that he had already appointed two faculty members to serve on the CALC committee and asked the Dean for approval of two representatives opposed to one.  The Dean agreed to his request—both the responsibilities and the stipend will be split between the two representatives.

 

College Faculty Recruitment and Strategies

The Dean shared the continuing success of College faculty recruitment.  When negotiating for a hire, he generally offers, for ethical reasons and for simplicity and honesty,  the maximum salary compensation, reserving negotiations for specialized faculty needs that deliver a one-time cost.  These decisions are made on an individualized basis to assist faculty in getting started in the most beneficial way.   He asked department chairs not to discuss these negotiations or opportunities with new candidates.  The Dean explained details associated with how this hinders effective recruitment. All compensation-related portions of the recruitment process should be handled exclusively by the Dean. 

 

Schlichting asked if the Dean could assure that faculty contracts, for the new hires, include their proposed teaching load.  If their teaching load is split between departments it should be clearly specified.  The Dean assured Schlichting that he would ensure this in the future.

 

DeWitt suggested that the College orchestrate a brochure offering helpful information to our candidates—demonstrating information about the Institution, the College, the departments, the surrounding area, real estate, restaurants, along with other helpful resources.  The Dean recommended this discussion be continued to develop a useful resource for future candidates.

 

Dr. Glenn Sauer recommended that Human Resources mail each candidate a letter stating that the University received their application and include an affirmative action card for them to complete and return.  This would alleviate this responsibility for the department chairs.  The Dean asked Sauer to e-mail this request, and he would forward it to Human Resources. 

 

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