Dean's
Council Meeting
College
of Arts and Sciences
April 4, 2007
Not Present: M.
Coleman, D. McFadden, E. Umansky
Dean's Introductory Remarks
The Dean reminded the chairs that the College's end-of-year celebration is scheduled for Wednesday, April 25. He encouraged chairs to remind colleagues to submit their scholarly and creative work for display to represent their accomplishments.
Admitted Student Profile—The Dean shared information distributed by Ms. Karen Pellegrino, Director of Admissions, which reflected admitted students comparative information.
Ms. Pellegrino encouraged departments to request a list of students, who had been admitted to their programs. Communication and Physics have already indicated a desire to obtain this information.
Student Awards Presentation Guidelines—The ceremony will honor one award per department with the exception of Modern Languages and Literatures and Visual and Performing Arts, who have multiple programs within their department. The time allotted for presentation is one minute per award. This is a symbolic event, and a phrase honoring the student is appropriate.
Dean's Passaround—The Dean shared a few position announcements, and information pertaining to 2007 CCAS Seminar for Department Chairs, sponsored by the Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Philip Lane moved to approve the February 28, 2007 minutes, and Dr. Leo O'Connor seconded the motion. Thirteen were in favor of the approval of minutes with two abstentions.
Search Committee for Dean
The Steering Committee recommended that the Council discuss important criteria for the new dean's position. The Dean encouraged the College to reflect on a list of desired characteristics for the next dean. He also mentioned that the Council should consider nominations to represent the faculty sitting on the search committee—there will be four faculty from the College and one from outside of the College, who participate in the search. These nominations will go to the Academic Council, which will select the committee faculty. Dr. Robbin Crabtree mentioned that the Academic Vice President will act as chair for the dean's search, accompanied by non-faculty members that he selects. Crabtree recommended that the administrators not necessarily be under the Academic Vice President. She recommended perhaps, an administrator from the Advancement Division, such as Ms. No‘l Appel, who is our College Board of Advisors Liaison. Dr. Rick DeWitt mentioned that Dr. Orin Grossman indicated he will chair the search and appoint one Dean and an alumnus to assist with the search. The Dean opened the floor for a discussion on issues important to the chairs for the search.
The chairs' input was as follows:
The Dean added the following suggestions:
The Dean added that some central questions could be expected from the search committee, no matter how it is constituted.
Crabtree asked the Dean if there are any institutional agendas that the College is not presently aware of; if so, will the candidates be informed of upcoming institutional agenda. She exemplified the institutional Merit agenda, in which Dean Snyder was faced with upon his arrival. The Dean expressed a concern with the chair selection policy in the College, indicating that many candidates would not favor that—sharing the College governance document may not be a best recruiting strategy for external candidates. The Dean was informed of the Merit agenda by the AVP during his interview—there were no hidden agendas.
Dr. Cecilia Bucki represented Dr. David McFadden at the chairs meeting. She voiced McFadden's inquiry about the nomination of a program director to serve on the search committee. The Program Directors, at their most recent meeting, selected Dr. Rose Rodrigues to be nominated to serve as their voice on the search committee. The Dean reiterated that the Academic Council selected faculty committee members. DeWitt shared the date for the call for nominations, which is April 16, with a voting date of April 30.
Crabtree asked the Dean to update the chairs on the status of the hiring for the new position for Assistant Dean, and the Associate Dean position to replace Dr. Raymond Poincelot. The Dean informed the chairs that the Assistant Dean position was placed on hold for one year so that the next permanent dean could fill it. This will help as a recruiting tool. The Dean's Office is waiting until an interim dean is appointed before considering replacement of Dean Poincelot.
Merit Instruction
The Dean explained the present status for this year's compensation. There is a 3.5% salary pool increase that was suggested by the Budget Committee. This salary suggestion has not yet been approved by the Board of Trustees. The issue of contention is drawing the line between Sustained Merit and Additional Merit. The administration, represented by Dr. Billy Weitzer, has set 2.5% Sustained, which will be consonant with this year's cost of living increase and 1% for Additional Merit. The Faculty Salary Committee, with concerns about previous years' level of Sustained being below cost of living, would like to have a greater proportion of Sustained Merit—2.8%, with Additional Merit at 0.7%. These decisions have not been determined; therefore, we cannot yet distinguish whether there will be two or three levels of additional merit. The Dean recommended that the department chairs conduct their reviews with the three levels of additional merit—A1, A2, A3. If the University determines that two levels of Merit will be used, the A3 can be re-categorized as A2. The Steering Committee discussed this and estimated approximately $300 between each level. They also had an informal consensus to propose changes in percentage-based cutoff levels used to determine how many levels of Additional Merit should be available in a given year. Additional Merit at 0.5% over the cost of living would be used to trigger level A1, 1% to 1.5% over cost of living would use two levels—A1 and A2, and anything greater than 1.5% would use three levels—A1, A2, A3. These suggestions are for future discussion.
The Dean informed the chairs that there is no need to submit materials prior to departmental Merit discussions. During their meetings with the Dean, chairs will need evidence for decisions—data available to backup their decisions, such as teaching evaluations, classroom reviews, and lists of publications and service. He also explained that, consistent with his messages shared earlier, if departmental evaluations are assessed with all A3's, the department will most likely be forfeiting the opportunity for appropriate shared governance. Unless justification is clearly stated making a case that all members of the department are at a highest level of productivity in the College, the Dean and the Academic Vice President, will be forced to make the merit decisions.
Bucki mentioned that the History Department made their decisions based on extensive point systems, and the points accumulated reflected a significant number of faculty resulting in approximately half of the department at A3 level. She mentioned that, because no one received additional reward for their excellence last year, working with a three-year window reflected a greater reward of excellence this year.
Weiss cannot understand how someone cannot believe that their faculty are excellent. She felt that there are excellent faculty, and the consideration that only a percentage of faculty are excellent is upsetting. The Dean explained that the implementation is not that the faculty receiving A3 are excellent and the A2 and A1 are less than excellent. The College has excellent faculty, but they do not all have their most excellent years at the same time. The three-year window is designed to protect faculty from institutional, State, or federal economics being lackluster during faculty members' "banner" years. Weiss mentioned they are looking at two different groups of faculty who should be awarded A3 for the current year, because of last year's lack of a variety of levels.
McCarthy stated that, because this is the first year department chairs had an opportunity to work with their Merit plans in their entirety, the College should live with the results that are formed from this year's evaluations. He explained that these plans were devised in good faith; and as they are reviewed, they may need to be modified. Results may be a little higher this year than next year; but as departments move forward with their plans, the operation of the plans will lend to the elimination of any recognizable kinks. McCarthy felt that changes should not be made mid-stream. McCarthy stated, "if we do not do that I think we are going to have a lot of problems. Because the plan turns out too many A3's, in your judgment, and you say I cannot give all of these A3's and you rearrange it, I think that is very destructive." The Dean asked the chairs to recall the concerns he had with the department plans that had cutoffs based on points—such as History, Mathematics, and Psychology. There is an interdepartmental challenge where equity between the departments needs to be addressed. The Dean realized the challenges faced from the beginning of this process, and he understood that it would be hard to determine how various thresholds would result, but he asked the chairs to conduct responsible evaluations of their faculty. This was the purpose of his bringing the chairs together in cohorts (Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social & Behavioral Sciences) at the beginning of the current academic year.
McCarthy assured the Dean that Psychology would review the faculty responsibly, but the only way to determine if a plan does or does not work is by actually utilizing the plan. McCarthy stated that next year we will have to "sharpen" the plans and that to impose changes after plans were approved would not be appropriate. The Dean assured McCarthy that he respected departmental plans, but that departments, in turn, must respect the full process. The process was set such that the Dean must make recommendations to the Academic Vice President. Furthermore, there would not be changes to any approved plans, for the plans' thresholds for the various degrees of Additional Merit have not been approved. McCarthy summarized what he thought were fears the Dean had (or fears that McCarthy was suppressing) of submitting too many recommendations at a high level.
The Dean explained his main concern: if some chairs evaluated their departments with all A3's, but other departments submitted recommendations having a wider distribution of awards, the College would have to find a way to assure interdepartmental balance. That is the Dean's role. To assure this is not a problem in the future, we have options. One option would be to distribute monies for Merit as is done in the Dolan School of Business, where a department would be awarded a monetary amount and would have to divide this amount amongst their department. In this case, the amount would be a proportion of the available merit pool that equaled the proportion of a given departments salary pool relative to the total College salary pool. This is also the model used in the College at Georgetown. Having expected proportions, across the College, of persons receiving the various levels of merit, is another option.
The Dean mentioned that the entire documentation
and
discussion for Merit has been geared towards creating differential
levels of awards,
and that the College-wide Structures document and the conversation of
the
committee that created it reflected this.
Rakowitz mentioned that a big issue discussed throughout the
process was
the tension between the notion of ranking and the notion of thresholds. She reminded the Dean that the faculty favored
thresholds, and that the Dean agreed that plans could be based on
thresholds. With this in mind, Rakowitz
expressed
her discomfort with the Dean mentioning that faculty receiving A3's had
to be
the best in the College. If a
faculty member passed a threshold, then they should be rewarded at that
particular level. Rakowitz
mentioned that the Dean agreed department's could use the framework of
language
where A3 can be attained by exceptional achievement in one area and
more than
ordinary achievement in another.
It is not unreasonable that many people would meet these
thresholds in
different areas—some exceptional in teaching, some in research, and
some
in service. Thinking in terms of
thresholds and the other terms the Dean agreed with, it would not be
unreasonable if a department's assessment resulted in numerous faculty
of the
same levels. Rakowitz agreed with
McCarthy's when he stated that the outcomes from the current plans may
not be the
best, in terms of making distinctions; but because these plans were
approved,
the College should move forward with them for this year.
Discussion about necessary changes
should take place after this year's assessment. The
Dean agreed that these plans where approved, but he noted
that nobody had a realistic idea about how the thresholds would work;
that he
had repeatedly expressed concerns about the levels; and that he would
have to
act in the event that people came in without the differential levels of
rankings. McCarthy mentioned that if
the Dean makes adjustments to recommendations "that is going to be very
dangerous."
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.