College of Arts and Sciences

Dean's Council Meeting

Chairs and Directors

September 8, 2010

 

                                                                                              

Present: S. Bayne, J. Borycka, S. Brill, C. Bucki, M. Carolan, D. Crawford, Nancy Dallavalle, D. Downie, L. Hohl, M. Im, J. Leatherman, M. LeClair, D. Li, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden,

L. O'Connor, M. Patton, G. Rosenfeld, S. Sawin, J. Simon, K. Steffen, B. Torff, B. Walker, J. Weiss, M. Wills

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Nancy Dallavalle moved to approve the minutes of May 5, 2010, and Dr. Kraig Steffen seconded the motion. The minutes were passed unanimously by department chairs.

 

On-Campus Meeting Space

·      The Dean informed chairs and directors that the CNS 100 conference room was no longer available as a meeting space. This room is being used as work space for the CAS Dean's Office. Once the Southwell Hall renovations are completed, the Counseling Center located on the lower level of Canisius Hall will be utilized as the Vice President's Conference Room. Other room options for small meeting groups are DMH 230 (book through Michelle Lesko), DMH 330 (book through Joan Huvane or Charlene Wallace), Kelley Center Conference Room (book through Susan Victor), Library Conference Room (book through JoAnn Garrity), or Women Studies (book through Julia-Rose Liptak).

·      Dr. Jim Simon commented that there was no process implemented for space allocation. The Dean shared that the Sr. Academic Vice President showed interest in implementing a space plan, but this has not materialized as of yet. She will continue to share feedback with the

Sr. VP relative to academic space.

·      Some of the science chairs, along with Engineering, and Visual and Performing Arts, are putting together a facilities committee to work with the facilities department relative to planning for construction, sharing the impact and disruptions others are faced with during the process, inclusive of safety, protocol and equipment issues. They communicated that construction during the summer months is disruptive to summer programs and other initiatives. In the science area, summer is as vibrant as any other time of year with student and faculty research collaboration in the labs.

 

Classroom Issues

·      There were complaints relative to classrooms being locked. The Dean asked chairs and directors to communicate with their faculty that they should utilize the help of their program assistants to resolve these issues, by asking them to contact the Registrar's Office to make sure the classroom is regularly open. Complaints should be directed to the appropriate offices where responsibility resides so as to ensure issues are addressed in a timely manner.

·      The Dean commended the Registrar's Office in their attempt to ensure that there were enough seats to accommodate the enrollment numbers for all classes prior to the start of the semester. Unfortunately, FYE used these classrooms and moved seating configurations for various rooms, as well as moved chairs from room to room affecting the efficient efforts of the Registrar's Office. If faculty are having seating problems, they should inform the Registrar's Office of the days they are teaching and how many chairs they need to accommodate their students. Bob Russo is in charge of classrooms. The Dean mentioned that she should be copied on messages when the person in charge is not responsive to chair requests.

 

Enrollment Update quick assessment of any new semester issues

·      925 undergraduates, 62% female (SON & DSB factors), all in top 19% of graduating classes.

·      The test optional group had an unusually high yield. This group is based on a highly engaged application process, inclusive of an essay about how they are going to engage at Fairfield, a visit to campus, and an interview.

·      There were currently 1269 graduate students. These enrollments are not final, but if we reach 1272 we will exceed 1970's all time high for graduate enrollment. (NB: the number is now over 1300)

 

Quick Assessment of New Semester Issues

·      Dr. Bucki asked how we were going to house the increase in student population. The Dean commented that there were some triples and extra space gained from what use to be the Jesuit Residence and is now the Creative Life L&L community.

·      Dr. Walker asked if there was an assessment to determine if students enrolled are prepared for the classes they are coming into. The Dean reiterated that faculty should teach the students enrolled in their classrooms. Students are eligible to be at the University, and as a reflection of top 20% of today's high school graduates. Students are most likely differentially prepared, but it is the job of the faculty to figure out how to educate all students appropriately. Statistics show that in our country, especially in the area of Math and Science, scores and aptitude are falling. We cannot decide that we are going to educate only the best students. We have to educate all the students coming in, so our expectations locally should match the population. It is fine to communicate to students what expectations are and grade them accordingly. Walker asked the Dean if she would be willing to support pedagogical changes in order to address the differences. The Dean will support changes, but they need to be resource sensitive. If we care about maintaining students in certain majors, we should devise strategies for cultivating in ways similar to the peer learning groups offered in Biology, which were designed to help students succeed through their early course of study within the major.

·      Dr. Downie shared that, in his previous job, the idea of a math boot camp was implemented, where students came early in the summer to engage in this program. Student fees could be used to pay faculty for their assistance. The Dean is not opposed to this type of initiative, if there are interested faculty members. These should be local department conversations and then any initiatives that are found to be potentially viable should come forward through the budget process.

 

 

 

 

 

Supervising Office Staff and Other Exempt and Non-Exempt Employees

Chairs and Program Directors should participate together in the reviews of staff. A few changes have been implemented relative to annual reviews. The annual review process for non-exempt (hourly employees) is completely on-line through a workflow process. Instead of annual reviews being on the anniversary of the hire, there will be one annual cycle with all annual reviews occurring over the summer and any salary increases taking place as of September 1. The designated supervisor (chair) for each assistant will receive a prompt from Human Resources by July. Dr. Elizabeth Hohl suggested that the prompt be sent in May, rather than July. It is a more efficient time for supervisors to reach out for feedback, as some faculty may not be easily accessible later into the summer. Ms. Daniele will communicate this to Human Resources.

 

Employee Assessment Process

• Primary Supervisor should receive a prompt and review criteria. Assessment for assistants, who are supporting more than one department, should be made by all chairs and directors they are supporting.
• If you are listed as the primary supervisor, but other chairs and interdisciplinary program directors are utilizing the time and expertise of your staff person, then it is the responsibility of the primary supervisor to reach out to others to gain a constructive shared assessment. Once feedback is gathered the primary supervisor should incorporate it into each of the criteria listed in workflow, basing their assessment on the University grading scale and offering recommendations for improvement and explaining the graded assessment.
• Before the review is submitted, there should be a face-to-face constructive assessment with the program assistant to discuss what they are doing well and areas of potential growth. This is a good opportunity to offer formative feedback and honest appraisals. Communicating strengths, areas where there are room for improvements, and an expression of appreciation for their support are all beneficial in creating an efficient and respectful work place environment.
• The staff person will receive a copy of their assessment, giving them the opportunity to comment.
• The primary supervisors should rotate every couple of years.
• The Dean receives frequent complaints from chairs, directors, and faculty about program assistants; however, submissions of annual assessments do not reflect these complaints. Often chairs submit a review listing the highest ranking in all categories for their assistants, accompanied by no comments. If the Dean receives an assessment with no comments, she will send the assessment back, requesting explanations for each ranking.
• The Dean's staff is subject to rigorous reviews and no one on her staff receives all 6s (highest ranking), because jobs change, situations change, demands change, and expectations change. Moving forward, the Dean is expecting a more rigorous assessment process across the College. She encourages colleagues to utilize the same principals as they do for classroom assessment. If program assistants are given new responsibilities, or if expectations and circumstances evolve, there always is room for growth.
• The grading system is based on a 1 through 6 ranking.

o      1 and 2—Does not meet expectations.

o      3 and 4—Meets expectations (most items for most folks would be in here)

o      5 and 6—Exceeds expectations.

• The Dean recommended that if chairs and directors have any questions relative to staff, they should contact the Staff Manager, Ms. Jean Daniele, for assistance. The College is looking to clearly map out the expectations of our program assistants and to assure that they are meeting the needs of the department and obtaining the necessary developmental skills needed to work most efficiently. Ms. Daniele is working with Human Resources to supply appropriate training and professional development for our program assistants. The idea is not only to obtain information relative to developing their skills from the administration, but to learn best practices from each other. There will be a meeting with all CAS Program Assistants twice a year, preferable in January and June. If there are

any ideas from Chairs and Directors, they should forward their recommendations to

Ms. Daniele at jdaniele@fairfield.edu.

• Ms. Daniele will communicate vacation allotment and accumulated sick time for each program assistant to the appropriate area supervisors, along with an updated job description listing the expectations of their assistant. If chairs and directors find that there are changes to be made (additions or omissions), please communicate these changes to Ms. Daniele.
• Non-exempt staff hours are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. with an hour for lunch. Assistants should be keeping reasonable hours. They should not routinely work over time. The chair should make a request if extra time is needed to accommodate a special project or initiative over the course of the year. These requests should be sent to Ms. Daniele to seek approval, but the norm would be that program assistance not work over time. Help them delegate some tasks to grad assistants or work studies to make room for significant work, e.g., related to budget preparation, faculty searches, etc.
• Dr. Hohl commented that program assistants receive an extraordinary range of request and demands some of which are unreasonable. In the past, the Dean asked department chairs to sit down with their faculty and discuss the appropriate range of requests that should be asked of their program assistant. She encourages this to be a routine practice. Chairs should also sit down with their program assistant to determine whether certain requests are inappropriate. If there are inappropriate requests, it is the primary supervisors' responsibility to communicate this to the faculty members. Program assistants should not be expected to proctor exams, engage in student advisement, etc. Hohl asked if program assistants' job descriptions could be sent to each department chair and affiliated program director, so their expectations are easily mapped out. Ms. Daniele will work with Human Resources to ensure that these descriptions are updated appropriately, and she will forward a copy to the corresponding areas.
• As Interdisciplinary Program Directors change and move from department to department, the ID program support is provided based on what department the program director is associated with. It all moves around, and over time the workload is shared.

 

Exempt Employees

• Non-faculty hiring contracts changed from an annual contract to an "at will" letter of appointment two years ago. The policy was always this way, but the annual letter was misleading and a consulting firm determined it was non normative as it mimicked the faculty contract in a way that was inappropriate to staff and administration positions. For this reason, the University changed the appointment letter to an "at will" letter. Most exempt employees in the College are lab managers and the like.
• Dr. Steffen felt that by doing this normalization seemed to be counter to the building of a community. The Dean agreed, but suggested that the community should be local. The Dean mentioned that sloppy review processes characterized by overly general and too little frank assessment could result in poor performing or our continued employment of individuals who are not actually effective a their jobs. Communities are built by having more localized conversations and local inclusion. The Dean mentioned that these new measures had to be brought to bear, because of a small number of situations that turned litigious (none of the cases have been deemed meritorious, but that doesn't stop people from trying to sue). These cases could have been avoided if we had good review procedures and clearer contrasts. The Dean reiterated the importance of performing honest, open assessments, with feedback and expectations delineated clearly, to avoid cause or merit for a lawsuit.
• Exempt employees are compensated with a set salary, where overtime is not implemented. Chairs and program directors have the right to ask employees to log in how much time is spent on various projects and/or daily initiatives. This will enable chairs and faculty to assess whether their staff time is being utilized efficiently. This helps to assess how work should get done opposed to how it is getting done. Some tasks being completed by exempt staff could be shifted to a graduate assistant or work study, so as to create a more efficient and timely environment.
• Chairs need to take charge of the situation and make any necessary changes within the department. Review job descriptions for both non-exempt and exempt staff to see if changes need to be made, to assure expectations that need to be met within the department are clearly mapped out. If job descriptions need to be revised to meet the mission of the department and/or University, please communicate these changes to Ms. Jean Daniele for non-exempt staff and the Dean for all exempt staff. We will work with HR to get necessary changes implemented.

 

Part-Time Faculty Issues

Every year we engage in an elaborate process for the College's pre-tenured faculty, but yet the College does not engage in classroom visits for visiting instructors or part-time faculty, who have taught at the University for many years.

 

The Dean reviewed points made in her memo concerning improving our practices based on good principles, outlining current policies, and previewing policies that are being developed. The memo sent out originally on April 17 was designed to give a heads up to the process and to support the efforts locally to ensure the highest quality of instruction is going on within each department. Part-time faculty are a large proportion of faculty, at the University, and we could not deliver the academic program without them. She asked that chairs and directors to read this memo again prior to the September 8 Dean's Council meeting and share any of their ideas and/or issues.

 

The following were some points discussed relative to Part-time Faculty:

• As part of the process, lawyers reviewed the part-time faculty contract, creating a new contract letter with clearer terms of employment. Approximately 200 contracts went out to A&S Faculty and about the same for UC faculty, and there were fewer than 10 responses to the changes. Some of those responses were about the relevance of particular details in the contract; a few comments regarded the coldness of the new language. The terms of the contracts have not changed, but the terms are made much clearer in the new contracts.
• There are a few areas in the new contracts that are too specific and these areas are being worked on. Feedback from part-time faculty and from chairs is welcomed by the Dean.
• Some part-time faculty are not interested in professional development, community building or governance representation, which is fine; but most part-time faculty are interested in professional development and having meaningful participation in the departments where they teach. We want to effectively evaluate and build community with part-time faculty.
• The Dean funded a three-year Humanities Institute project relative to part-time faculty community building around social engagement, creating informal gatherings for part-time faculty, inclusive of arranging the opportunity to talk with the Sr. Academic Vice President at the start of his appointment at Fairfield. All part-time faculty across the University have been invited to these events.
• The Dean is working on addressing concerns raised by part-time faculty over the years, particularly through a previous Humanities Institute grant that surveyed the part-time faculty. It is hard to consider situations, such as seniority, faculty recognition, and benefits if there is no supervision, no performance review, no feedback about teaching, no routine review of teaching evaluations for part-time faculty. All instructional staff should have a rigorous performance review about course content (relative to department learning objectives) and instruction.
• Supervision and classroom performance evaluation is inclusive of syllabi and course materials vis-à-vis department learning outcomes. Our student population has changed tremendously, along with our assessment process. We have completed assessment work and shifted our learning outcomes; therefore review of syllabi and course materials should be part of ensuring that instruction is keeping in pace with these changes. Departments seem to be doing this work to some extent with full-time colleagues but not with part-time colleagues. The departments of English and Modern Languages are notable exceptions, because these two departments have been engaged in a post external review of curricular and learning outcomes that has been substantial, involving among other things, common learning outcomes for courses at particular curricular levels. Part-time faculty should be included in that process particularly when they are teaching substantial core offerings. Peer teaching exchanges should include part-time faculty.
• Dr. Carolan expressed concern about reviewing part-time faculty, in terms of the quantity of part time faculty within the DML—approximately 30 part-timers. The Dean commented that evaluation could be in a cycle, where not every part-time faculty member would be evaluated comprehensively every year. Colleagues within each area should figure out what structure is viable and necessary within individual departments. If there is a resource component involved, it should come forward in individual budget requests.
• Course evaluations and student perspectives should be part of every performance review for every faculty member. The Dean shared her experience as Communication chair. When evaluations came in, she contacted part-time faculty, mentioning that she would like the opportunity to talk with them about their teaching. She would ask them to reflect on their evaluations, and then come to discuss with her what they considered strengths and challenges. All faculty were willing to meet and most invited the Dean to read the evals openly as they discussed them together.
• There are part-time faculty that are routinely evaluated so poorly by students, and these people should not be put in front of a classroom at an institution that states its hallmark is an undergraduate education. The student perspective really must be taken into account.
• Dr. Im inquired about where the focus should be for ID program directors. The Dean's recommendation was to focus on program learning outcomes, materials, and the approaches of those materials in the classroom. This could be in discussion with all full- and part-time faculty that teach in the ID program.
• Dr. Downie shared that the Program on the Environment gathered syllabi for discussion during a program meeting to determine historically what courses were inefficiently suspect. Sometimes it was about performance in the classroom or learning whether the course met the learning goals. The program attempted to decrease the number of sections taught by part-time faculty. This process is not yet completed. Downie asked students directly what works for them in the program, etc. The student perspective was vital to the curricular review.
• Dr. Dallavalle mentioned that part-time faculty never had the experience of viewing other faculty evaluations. It may be useful to them if we offer to share evaluations with them. The Dean agreed, commenting that by discussing evaluations in general, it would be useful to determine what students may have meant by a particular comment or what are some common student assessments? Is there something in the course that should be reconsidered?
• Dr. Hohl commented that when part-time faculty were surveyed, the number one motivation for working at Fairfield was teaching and servicing students, so this would be an easy conversation to generate. Hohl mentioned that the initiative the Dean inaugurated gave part-time faculty an opportunity to talk about their classes and share stories; there is a lot of enthusiasm relative to these conversations. Hohl added that there is a national conversation about the terminology used for part-time faculty. Adjunct is a misnomer. She recommended that the University tap into this national conversation, because there is a whole range of classifications. Do we want to adopt the term non-tenure track faculty? The Dean felt that faculty leadership should take this discussion in front of various committees—Academic Council, Rank and Tenure, and the Faculty Salary and that all departments should engage it locally, as well.
• The Dean mentioned that the English Department has a part-time faculty representative for their faculty meetings. Dr. Sawin added that the Math Department has part-time faculty at all of their meetings, as well on search committees. The Dean suggested that departments construct procedures and by-laws that create opportunities for part-time faculty participation, input, etc. Procedures should be transparent enough to apply to everybody. It is important to be open about expectations and streamline a transparent process for all faculty.
• The Dean noted as an aside, that lack of transparency and honesty also takes their toll on department culture. Sometimes routines are developed because faculty are not prepared to speak honestly to colleagues, or to confront inappropriate or unprofessional behaviors. It is much more effective and efficient to be very clear about expectations, and to discuss concerns directly with people in the moment or in an appropriate and professional way.
• Dr. Downie asked if part-time faculty were always reminded that they were on a semester by semester appointment. The Dean assured him that this communication was always included in their letter of appointment; however, it is elaborated more in the newly designed letter. Downie asked if he could share the Dean's memo of April 17 to faculty within the Program on the Environment. The Dean would rather Downie communicate the importance behind assessing the programs teaching needs for next year and verbally share a summary of the points in that memo (which was constructed for an audience of f/t faculty leaders). In terms of long-standing part-time faculty, she reiterated the importance behind part-time faculty hearing very frank feedback multiple times to avoid any surprises in terms of not being invited back to teach. Chairs and/or directors should be able to demonstrate that a particular person has failed to meet expectations over a period of time, which would be a perfect explanation not to invite someone back to teach. Part-time faculty, teaching at Fairfield for a long time, seem to have developed an expectation of continued appointment. It is not a legal expectation but it is a common sense expectation, because no one has communicated that their performance did not meet expectations. Then, if someone doesn't get invited to teach again, while it is perfectly legal, it may seem unethical.
• The Dean commented that this has implications to course scheduling, as well. Fairfield faculty tend to submit their teaching interests prior to determining curricular needs. Part-time faculty should not be making course requests, time requests, etc. Assessments should be made by chairs and ID directors based on what needs to be taught given the curriculum, the number of students we have, and resource constraints. Once this is determined, the chair and/or director, in collaboration with their colleagues should decide which faculty will be fulfilling these needs. The curriculum within a program is the business of the department and the programs with their steering committees. Overload might fall into this same category – overloads should be approved only when we must have the section to meet our curricular requirements for students.
• The Dean reiterated the need for faculty to create a more professional climate within our practices, which will result in instructional improvement. If we seek measures to improve instructional performance in core classes, the teaching of part-time and full-time faculty, or in a particular program's curriculum, it will raise the level of instructional effectiveness across the board, because we are creating a context in which instructional excellence is the expectation, inclusive of pedagogical methods, contents, materials, student assignments, and classroom discussions. We should communicate high expectations and work together to make sure they are achieved.
• Dr. Bucki mentioned that she had some ideas relative to changes in the Instructional Handbook. The Dean informed the Dean's Council that the Academic Vice President's Office handles changes made to the handbook. This resource, now being called the Instructional Guidebook, has been under review all summer in collaboration with AC EC. Suggestions should be addressed to Dr. Mary Frances Malone.

 

Heads up and Announcements

• Changes to R&T guidelines will be presented to the General Faculty for a vote. They passed through all the committees.
• Faculty Salary Committee (healthcare cost containment, earlier announcement of raise figure).
• Thanks were extended from the Sr. VP and Dean to all present for their FRC, LRC engagements. Dr. Im commented that in one of his PH10 sections he found students actively engaging in conversation and contributed this to community building outside of the classroom.
• Core Pathways:
• Please engage your departments and program faculties in connecting pathways to your core and major/minor courses
• Please invite folks to begin referencing the pathways on their syllabi, whether for core or major courses.
• Prepare to participate in developing and assessing measurable learning outcomes associated with the pathways as those initiatives move forward.

 

Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.