Dean's Council Meeting
College of Arts and Sciences
September 12, 2007
Not Present: M. Coleman
The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.
The Dean's Introductory Remarks
Welcome New Chairs—The Dean extended a welcome to the new chairs of the College—Drs. Rose Rodrigues, James Shanahan, James Simon, and Marie Agnes Sourieau.
Travel Requests—Anticipated additional travel requests, beyond the normal departmental budget, should be forwarded to the Dean as soon as possible. These requests will be reviewed and determined on a first come first serve basis. The Dean's discretionary budget was reduced by fifty percent this academic year, so it is important for the Dean's Office to determine budget assistance early in the year. Requests should be e-mailed to the Dean with a copy to Ms. Jean Daniele.
Merit Reviews—The Dean reminded chairs that faculty materials for departmental reviews should be submitted to them by early February. This will allot sufficient time to review and analyze the data submitted. The Dean encouraged them to announce this early in the academic year, so colleagues will gear towards the preparation of their materials to meet the appropriate deadline. Dr. Matthew Kubasik shared that the Chemistry Department's submission goes directly to the merit committee as opposed to the chair. Following departmental reviews, each chair will meet with the Dean for discussion beginning approximately mid-March.
Work-Study Procedures
Dr. Elizabeth Boquet discussed the changes relative to obtaining work-studies. Beginning last October a new procedure for work-study was introduced. Fall 2007 is the first semester that the workflow procedure was implemented. Responsibilities for obtaining work-study shifted from Financial Aid to the individual departments increasing resource time onto programs and departments. This was one drawback that had been voiced, in addition to work-study positions remaining unfilled. The system is beneficial in that it offers the opportunity for departments and programs to participate in interviewing and selection processes, which potentially offer a better fit. They could obtain students who have a greater interest and knowledge in their specific discipline. Boquet communicated with Ms. Kim Droniack, Assistant Director of Financial Aid, and she will work with her to get a sense of how the program is operating for the College. There is no plan from Financial Aid, at this time, to solicit feedback on how the new procedure is functioning. Boquet will facilitate a survey, on behalf of the College, that she will circulate to chairs and program directors mid-semester. This will give the College sufficient time to see how the system is working. These surveys should be shared with anyone within the College who is in charge of work-study duties. The surveys will be forwarded back to Boquet, so she could accumulate the data and work with Ms. Droniack towards shaping this procedure and making it beneficial to everyone. Dr. Simon asked if an individual faculty member could seek a work-study student to help out with internships in English. This is an example where this new procedure gives faculty an opportunity to find a student with a good fit for their needs. Simon was concerned that bringing in a work-study to assist with internships would result in losing a work-study for the English department's office. Boquet offered to find out if there were restrictions on the number of work-studies allotted for a specific department.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Phil Lane moved to approve the May 2, 2007, Dean's Council minutes. All were in favor of approving the minutes.
College Steering Committee Selection
The Dean asked for volunteers to serve on the College Steering Committee for the academic year 2007-08. The Dean's Council agreed to the following representation:
Representation for Program Directors—Drs. Ellen Umansky/fall semester and David McFadden/spring semester
Humanities—Drs. Dennis Keenan/fall semester and James Simon/spring semester
Natural Science—Dr. Glenn Sauer
Social Sciences—Dr. John McCarthy
In addition, Drs. Rick DeWitt, Chair of the College of Arts and Sciences Faculty and Susan Rakowitz, Secretary, will serve on the Committee.
Drop/Add and Class Roster
Boquet reminded the chairs that the drop/add period ends the week of September 10. She encouraged chairs to communicate to colleagues, within their department, to check their class list for any students who are not attending class regularly. The record keeping during the drop/add period is not always recorded appropriately, which results in students still actively listed in a given course. Future complications such as—students receiving an ÒF" for non participation can lead to unnecessary dismissals. These situations could be prevented through better communication and/or faulty record keeping.
Chairs Accountability, Merit and Governance
Issues
Dr. Orin Grossman, Academic Vice President, joined the Dean's Council for discussion on various topics that have gained urgency with the expectation of the new Dean's search. The College is faced with a number of differences, whose resolution would be a major step in the ability to attract a superior candidate and obtain successful leadership and growth within the College.
Dr. Grossman mentioned many new positive changes that occurred within the College over the past few years. These changes allow the new Dean to find a vibrant College with creative and energetic faculty—International Studies' solidified its curriculum and resolved difficult tensions within their program, Environmental Studies gained approval of a senior higher and increased their level of energy within the program, Center for Academic Excellence led significant pedagogy innovations, mostly within the College, and the College's ability to retain all monies from the retirement of faculty salaries, which contributed to the increase of new faculty in the College.
Dr. Grossman focused on the difficult governance issues that affect the unity of the College—chairs selection, release time, stipends and Merit. He focused on these divisive issues with hopes for compromise and settlement.
Attached is a copy of Dr. Grossman's Governance concerns that were shared with the Council. Following his remarks, the chairs responded with some questions and concerns of their own.
Questions Relative to Chair Selection, Release
Time and
Stipends
Dr. Orman asked if a department nominated a candidate for chair and the Dean rejected their nominee, would the department be given the opportunity to nominate another person or would the Dean make the appointment? Dr. Grossman mentioned that the department would be asked to nominate another person, but that the nominee would have to be acceptable to the Dean.
Orman asked if the current selection of the chairs hurt the recruitment for previous deans. It has become such a major issue for the College, that Dr. Grossman felt that most candidates would be aware of the current College Governance and that the present Chair Selection policy would be an issue. Dr. Grossman felt that by changing the process the College would link the faculty to the administration—with the chair being the link. One of the tensions in the College is that faculty consider the chair to be only an advocate for their department.
Winn asked how chairs compensation would be different with a change in Governance. Grossman mentioned that chairs are not being compensated purely for their time; they are compensated for responsibilities they undertake. Chairs are responsible for being the two way conduit between faculty and administration. Grossman mentioned that it is evident in the flurry of e-mails, memos, deans' reports and annual reports that this link is not being implemented. The change in process would result in a course release and an increase in monetary compensation.
Shanahan asked how department chairs were evaluated for Merit. Dean Poincelot mentioned that this varied from department to department. Some departments have a subcommittee who evaluate the chair, while others are evaluated by the whole department. Dr. Poincelot mentioned that Dean Snyder assigned his own weight to chair's evaluations. Kubasik mentioned that Dean Snyder demanded that evaluation of chairs be part of the Merit plan. Dr. Grossman felt that there was a fundamental responsibility for the Dean to evaluate the effectiveness of the chairs.
Umansky asked if Dr. Grossman was proposing release time in addition to an increase in stipends. Would the chair get one course release per semester? Dr. Grossman thought that there should be a 2/2 teaching load for departmental chairs. Umansky asked if a chair decided to teach a 3/3 load how would they be compensated. Dr. Grossman mentioned that the third course would be treated as an overload.
DeWitt mentioned that the tricky part in changing the Governance is the use of language. What language would be used to address the rare case where the dean does not approve of the chairs' recommendation? DeWitt suggested that in those cases the decision go to a third party other than the dean or the chair. The Council proposed that the third party could consist of the existing chairs or the Academic Council. DeWitt asked the Academic Vice President if he would be agreeable to that structure. Dr. Grossman stated that ultimately the Dean should be the determining factor. He mentioned that there could be mediation opportunities and ways to obtain resolution, but the Dean should have the opportunity for the final acceptance. He asked DeWitt if he had models from other institutions that followed a procedure were the Dean did not have the final approval; and if so, he would like to see them. He would be willing to call these institutions to survey how their system was working. He asked DeWitt to see if these institutions were willing to share their Governance structure describing the election of chairs. The idea is to seek a language for the Governance Document that would offer better collaboration.
Simon asked Dr. Grossman to share his vision of what the future would hold if his proposed changes to the College Governance Document were approved. Dr. Grossman hoped that over time collaboration would gradually develop between the deans and the chairs helping them to get through the tension and Governance challenges that block the ability for the College to move forward as an institution. This is the most important Governance step within the College, where the absence is an obstacle in recruiting a new Dean.
Dr. Grossman mentioned that there are many other Governance structures that should be revisited that go beyond the College. Faculty and administrators should be planning changes together. While some of these changes are presently being administered through some of the Strategic Goals Committees, they have not come down to the level of implementation.
Boquet mentioned through some of these cultural changes we could project ways in which we could think about how the College is engaged in administration. She mentioned faculty and administration should seek to agree on a process, rather than on a specific outcome. It would be an incoming Dean and invested parties on the faculty side agreeing to a process that would lead to a reasonable outcome that the College could live with. Consideration of a model should be accepted by both sides of the parties.
Questions Relative to Merit Process
DeWitt wanted to clarify Dr. Grossman's thoughts on what he considered to be a equitable Merit system. Would it be one where the College had a sustained level, in addition to two levels beyond Sustained? Grossman thought that the complication the College faced was that they did not meet the original vision for the College. He felt that there was a lack of trust between the faculty and administration—they did not trust many of the recommendations that were put forth. He mentioned that some departments created a check list method for Merit beyond the point of reason. He felt that the check list approach trivialized the performance of faculty—they are important to the institution and this method did not represent their central role to the institution. He sees a lot of fear in the way departments developed their plans.
Dr. Rodrigues mentioned that the check list and point system did not come from the faculty. The model was introduced to faculty by the College merit committee as a possible system to be used for assessment. It was their impression that this quantifying system was what was going to be acknowledged. Rodrigues mentioned that there was an overwhelming group of faculty who preferred an assessment based on quality and not a system focusing on quantification. Dr. Grossman mentioned that there was danger in each extreme. If assessment is based only on quality, without a set of guidelines, there is an obvious accusation of partiality. How do you measure what type of performance constitutes higher quality? There has to be a thoughtful balance and a sense of these differentiations cannot be collapsed as a result of everyone being classified in the top tier. He suggested that the College seek a system that was not totally arbitrary or totally check-listed. Dr. Grossman will distribute some suggestions in a few weeks in hopes that some of his thoughts will resonate with everyone.
Dr. Kubasik commented on the statistics noted in Dr. Grossman's comments that nine faculty were assessed at Sustained Merit. Dr. Grossman mentioned that this number was too small. Kubasik felt that it would be easier to agree with the Academic Vice President if the Sustained raise was more dignified. If Sustained is offered below cost of living, then he felt the number of faculty receiving Sustained should be zero. Sauer mentioned that this is the biggest problem with awarding Sustained Merit. If the faculty had the assurance that Sustained would be cost of living, they would agree to work on a two level tier.
Rakowitz mentioned that Dr. Grossman's suggestion to change the College Merit structure by reducing the accordion down to two levels would not be a problem for the College faculty. The concern is that departments were asked to write plans and the Dean approved those plans. Although Dean Snyder was not pleased with the outcomes, Rakowitz did not hear him communicate that department plans were not implemented correctly. What the Dean did communicate was that the departments' standards differed from one another; his concern was equity. Rakowitz asked Dr. Grossman if he was suggesting that a College committee be formed to bring these plans into alignment. Dr. Grossman mentioned that the thresholds that trigger placement into categories is off in most departments. DeWitt agreed with Rakowitz that the faculty would most likely approve two levels of Sustained Merit, but the equilibration of plans would be difficult.
McFadden shared some of the history behind the implementing of Merit.
McFadden felt that unless the College had a Dean that would contribute an enormous amount of time, along with a committee of faculty, the College would never find uniformity or equanimity. Dr. Grossman mentioned that departmental plans may not have to be discarded; their focus should be on tweaking the triggering of awards. There has to be some process that reflects meaningful differentiation. Most plans encourage good teaching, scholarship and service.
Boquet shared some of the challenges due to the time frame associated with the Budget Committees salary suggestions and the Board of Trustees approvals relative to distinguishing whether there will be two or three levels of additional merit. There is difficulty in making a distinction, as to where people may fall within various levels, prior to knowing how many levels really exist. Boquet expressed the importance of communication between these various groups. Different sets of people should have different conversations about various pieces of the process. Some of the distinctions that are getting collapsed about what is fair across the departments are issues that need to be dealt with. What is an appropriate distribution? What are the criteria across the College? There should be College-wide goals executed by departments.
Grossman mentioned that the College has the opportunity to include the mission of the University within the criteria of the reward structure for Merit. Fairness does not mean less differential and less change.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.