DeanŐs Council Meeting
College of Arts and Sciences
May 4, 2005
Present: J. Beal, M.Coleman, R. Crabtree, R. DeWitt, J. Goldfield, M. Gogol,
D. Greenberg, F. Hannafey, K. Kidd, P. Lane, M. LoMonaco, J. McCarthy, L. OŐConnell, S. Peterson, R. Poincelot, G. Sauer, K. Schlichting, J. Simon, E. Umansky
The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.
Introduction
Strategic Planning
Dean Snyder provided an update of the UniversityŐs Strategic Plan to the Department Chairs to articulate the process, in terms of the upcoming calendar of events.
James Estrada, Chair of the Drafting Committee, furnished the College with a rough outline on the strategic plan and emphasized that this schedule was not official.
Draft 2.
á August and September – Draft 2a will be created to incorporate the ideas from the Vice Presidents and the Deans that are consistent with the Board of Trustees proposals. Estrada had a sense that at this stage changes would be minimal; therefore, the outcome will be labeled as a Draft 2a.
á October – Draft 2a will be shared with groups that have special relationships with the University including—The Trustees Advisory Council, Alumni Board, College of Arts and Sciences Board Members and similar Boards of Advisors at our sibling schools, Selected Major Donors, Parents Committee, On-Campus Community, and the Board of Trustees at their fall meeting.
College
Web Site
The Dean reminded the Department Chairs that Laura Johnson, Public Relations Webmaster, is working on updating the University website on an individualized department level. Each department should designate a contact person to work on these changes. Training sessions offering assistance and guidelines on updating their site will be offered. The content generator and individual designated person will approve the information prior to being displayed on their sites. This will be a two step process within content where the website will be approved at the department level followed by an approval person within the DeanŐs Office. Changes can be made at any time allowing for the University website to be currently accurate at all times.
Final
Exam Schedule
The Dean reviewed the policy for final exam scheduling, which can be found in The Journal of Record. The statement indicates that any faculty member who is not offering the traditional final exam must inform the Dean of their college and their chairperson and/or program director of their intentions in writing. Lane shared that the Department Chair is responsible to maintain a list of these requests. Faculty requesting a change must obtain permission in writing from the DeanŐs office. Faculty should be aware that there will be a published list of these approved exceptions. Lane felt that if permission was not obtained then a violation of the Journal of Records and possibly of the facultyŐs contract would exist.
Dr. Philip Lane showed concern about the great amount of deviation that occurred from the standard exam schedule. He strongly felt that changes to exam schedules cause a disadvantage to students who follow the routine schedule. He noticed a large number of empty classrooms. The exam schedule is generated by the RegistrarŐs Office and listed in the semester course catalog; therefore, both faculty and students are informed of exam schedules prior to the start of the semester.
Dr. Kate Kidd expressed her concern about her capstone courses. Each student is responsible for a 30 page final paper in replace of the final exam. The Dean communicated that under these circumstances, the final exam procedure must still be followed.
The Dean recommended that final exam procedures be communicated at the first Arts and Sciences faculty meeting. He advised that the communication to adjunct faculty be secured in order to obtain effectiveness among all faculty.
Approval
of Minutes
Dr. John McCarthy motioned to approve the minutes. Dr. Rick DeWitt requested changes be made to the minutes on pages 5 and 6. Ms. Jean Daniele will make the necessary changes and forward the updated minutes to the DeanŐs Council. All of the Department Chairs approved the minutes subsequent to these changes with the exception of one abstention.
Merit
Plan Formation
The Dean started a discussion on the Merit Plan formation in hopes for the Chairs to share their ideas and best practices. The Steering Committee thought it would be best for the Chairs to communicate where their department was in the process, what they put together that seemed to be working, and what challenges they are faced with. These issues are important to exchange, so they can see how the difficulties are being solved.
Dr. Matthew Coleman shared the Mathematics and Computer Science departmentŐs work towards submitting a plan. Presently there are two plans on the table that differ very much. The first plan has a check box system, which would guide faculty offering them a sense of what they should aim towards in order to obtain a certain level. In this plan, the disadvantage is that after this procedure is complete all of the records would be erased. The second plan would begin with a linear ranking, followed by a transformation of this information into different levels of merit prior to being shared with the Dean. Recording of these rankings will be saved. Coleman stated that some of his colleagues within his department are apprehensive about the latter plan, because it ranks people linearly and because of its complexity.
Crabtree asked for an explanation on what Coleman meant by Ňrecords being erased.Ó He explained that, by using the first plan, if a faculty member accomplished three journal articles and only one of these articles was needed to obtain a given level, then the two remaining articles would not be accountable. With this plan, faculty are not evaluated on a three-year window basis.
Dr. Joel Goldfield shared the Modern Languages and Literatures departmental plan. They adopted the concept of the Visual and Performing Arts plan in combination with the College-wide criteria guidelines. His department found that the criteria, which were put together by the College merit committee, were helpful. They plan on ranking the criteria a little differently. The department would get together as a group and have a collegial session so faculty would have the opportunity to share their annual successes. A presentation would be accompanied by a written report, and this would follow an anonymous ranking amongst colleagues. A subset of three faculty members would be elected to review the recommendations and tally up the rankings.
DeWitt expressed a concern about how the Visual and Performing Arts plan encompassed the collecting of anonymous rankings to be passed along to a chosen group to tally. Upon completion of this process the identity and opinions of evaluators cannot be determined. The primary data cannot be recollected in case of an appeal. The lack of a physical record can cause a problem for the appeal process. The only physical evidence that would hold substance would be a mathematical error in the tallying process.
DeWittŐs feeling was that an anonymous ranking is violating the PresidentŐs call for transparency in the development of a merit plan.
Goldfield mentioned that the anonymous component of their plan seemed irrelevant during their planning stages. He had a sense that most people did not focus on this portion of the plan. He does think that it would be an important issue compared with others.
Snyder stated that the value of a trusted hard-working committee is that they can make the right decisions, but no single individual should have to stand up and state the likes and/or dislikes of their colleaguesŐ work. Snyder shared DeWittŐs concerns about assigning a three-person appeal committee, especially after the entire department already voted. This places a second stage of decision with a subset of the department. This can cause a weakening, as opposed to a strengthening, towards what would have been a department-wide vote.
Goldfield asked the Dean how he would feel about participating in an appeal relative to merit. The Dean stated that he would prefer to stay out of the departmental appeal process, because the department sets the criteria and they know each otherŐs work best.
Greenberg asked the Dean what would happen in a case where the department and the Dean disagree. The Dean would share the conflict with the Academic Vice President, leaving the decision up to the Academic Vice President. This procedure is spelled out in Father von ArxŐs structure for the merit process.
The Biology DepartmentŐs merit plan was actively used for this yearŐs evaluation of faculty within their department. Dr. Glenn Sauer shared the departmentŐs annual reporting process. Each faculty member in the Biology department submitted a copy of their annual report to their colleagues for peer-review. They met as a group for approximately an hour to answer any questions or share additional information with each other. An open vote was conducted as a department for Sustained Merit. Additional Merit was based on a check list utilizing the College merit committeeŐs criteria, with the department planning to develop new criteria for the coming years. Each faculty member forwarded their submission to the department Chair, along with their annual report. The Chair reviewed and confirmed the check list for accuracy and then proceeded to rank each colleague with a level of 1, 2, or 3. These ranking were based on the categories of research, teaching, and service. Sauer then discussed his assessment with the Dean. With an agreeable outcome, Sauer communicated his final evaluations within the department. A second meeting with the Dean followed to discuss the monetary compensation allotted for each level. The process was collegial at all points.
Dr. Ray Poincelot shared his thoughts as he envisioned the plans discussed. He showed concern by using a possible scenario where a chair may weigh a significant importance on research and give the teaching and/or service component a lesser value. In this scenario, if a faculty member is exceptional in the chairŐs secondary area of interest, will faculty be at a disadvantage in obtaining the higher ranking due to lack of interest on the chairŐs part? How do we protect faculty against chairs who are prejudicial in certain areas? Sauer assured Poincelot that the Biology DepartmentŐs checklist was set up by the department as an entire body, and they prioritized each section. A prioritized check list approved by the entire department should avoid any prejudicial decision making.
The Dean felt that with this plan there were checks and balances on both sides. The Dean was able to evaluate the recommendation of the Chair, and question the ChairŐs decision-making if he felt a bias decision was apparent. The other form of checks and balances was between the Chair and his colleagues as his final evaluation was communicated. The AVP provides another check and balance.
Lane expressed the importance of the transparency component in the merit planning process. In order for performance to be modified, it is necessary to know what the visual target is. He expressed a concern with the insufficient data on teaching. The evaluation does not make it easy to assess whether someone is successful at teaching. Feedback numbers are necessary. If an individual does not show strength in a given category, should they be penalized permanently or should it be communicated that their tactics need to be changed over the course of the year? He is concerned with the lack of viable data on faculty. The Dean shared that he has statistics related to teaching data. He will share this with colleagues in the fall.
The Dean feels that an improved and online teaching evaluation would be beneficial. Students could be asked to submit an online evaluation prior to receiving their grade. This would be a necessity in order for them to receive their grade and would allow the faculty to ask more specialized questions that would not go into the standard form.
Lane discussed his concern on equity. He feels that there is an equity issue relative to the School of Business. His sense is that money is being distributed at a greater capacity to the School of Business and is continuing to do so. The Dean indicated that the distribution of Additional Merit was in the CollegeŐs favor, and literally so relative to the prior plan—more money will go to the College salary increases. Lane cited the recent equity distribution to the School of Business. Snyder reminded chairs that salaries in that school had reached a point where hiring was being challenged because of what competing institutions pay; the College does not have this problem. He encouraged the Department Chairs to submit, in writing, any market adjustment issues they may have—as a College or as a department—for discussion.
Dr. Kurt Schlichting shared his concern with the situations where a faculty member divides their teaching and service between a department and an interdisciplinary program. The Sociology department has two faculty members who are contractual with obligations to International Studies—Dr. David Crawford, and, a new faculty member, Dr. Terry-Ann Jones. In addition, Dr. Renee White, another new faculty member, will join the Sociology department, along with the Black Studies interdisciplinary program. Schlichting was concerned that each of these disciplines would have an evaluating plan of their own, which would then add complication to the evaluation process. The Dean commented that each individual has a tenure home within a specific department, and the strongest concern would probably be within the teaching and service parameters, because the scholarship is likely to be within the departmental scholarly realm. A feature can be built into the system where the Department obtains information relative to where the faculty member stands within the teaching of their interdisciplinary courses, and how the overall courses within the given discipline are ranked.
Crabtree thought that the College should develop a statement and set of recommendations for departments to follow. A formal mechanism within the departmental plan to gather data from the Program Directors might be beneficial in these circumstances. Her feeling was that some departments value the work given to the interdisciplinary programs—viewing this as an extra contribution in linking a department to College-wide programs. Other departments feel they are at a loss. Faculty who are dividing their service need a sense of clarity in the evaluation process. The three departments impacted are—Sociology, Economics, and History.
The Dean
stated that this could be determined at a department level or a College
level. He suggested this
situation be placed on hold, so that the Committee can discuss this to
broker appropriate language.
College-wide
Merit Parameters
The Dean addressed the College-wide merit parameters by discussing various models of Additional Merit.
One model would be a fixed model approach, which would have a uniform fixed number of levels of Additional Merit. The monetary difference between these categories would be established by the amount of funds available to distribute—the more money, the farther apart each award.
A second model was labeled as the accordion model—the amount of funds available would determine how many levels of Additional Merit would exist. There would be an advantage to this plan when the College has a larger year of monetary award to offer. The downside would be the year where the monetary award is not plentiful, because this may be the year that an individual excels. Having a three-year window of evaluation would be beneficial for this reason. The windowing procedure views a faculty memberŐs progress over the course of a pre-determined amount of years. A window policy could be decided at a departmental level, but the College merit committee plans to discuss it as College-wide policy.
Another feature discussed was distribution of money across the levels, which could apply to either of the models 1 and 2. Larger awards to take up a greater portion of the money, but one way to guardian this would be to proportion the money so that each level receives, in total, an equal amount. The advantage of this plan is that it gives the department and College a Ňrough guideÓ as to how many individuals should be assigned to each level, maintaining uniqueness of the departmental plans while also helping departments to have similar standards for similar levels. For example, if the College has an expectation that, say, the number of people obtaining a second level of Additional Merit is roughly half the number obtaining the first level, then departments know how to set standards that might be similar from department to department, in terms of difficulty of obtaining the different levels. In this case, departments deeming themselves not to map out according to the College-wide proportions would have to provide evidence as to why.
Dr. Greenberg was concerned with the Additional Merit levels becoming a competitive system opposed to a system where the monetary funds available for Additional Merit be divided amongst the individuals whose performance warrant Additional Merit—a single level. The Dean commented that as he reviewed individual performances there were differences among colleagues.
The Dean expressed concern that, once our system is devised, a department may not acknowledge the different number of levels determined for Additional Merit, and the ranking of their colleagues would be the same (at the highest level). This would create an interdepartmental problem causing another difficult issue where the Dean would need to determine how to broker across departments on a year-to-year basis. There needs to be a more regular expectation for the system to work well.
Greenberg commented that when departments are analyzing their colleagues, it would be an economic advantage for individuals to down play their colleagues and upgrade themselves—the fewer people ranked at the highest level would offer a better chance for them to obtain a larger pool of money. The Dean felt that the number of individuals who would practice this behavior would be minimal, and a good committee or a good chair would disapprove of this behavior. Greenberg stated that there may be a minimal amount of individuals who would act this way now, because the College presently has collegial ways of acting. He feels that future collegiality in this respect may not be minimal. Lane agreed with Greenberg. He felt that simplicity would be the appropriate way to go—the fewer the number of levels, the easier the administration of Additional Merit. Lane thought that three or fewer levels would be appropriate. Crabtree commented that all types of contribution can be assessed looking at disciplinary trends and values, but she believes there should not be finer distinctions.
Father Hannafey shared that the Religious Studies Department has two levels of Additional Merit and an exemplary level of merit. The exemplary level would compensate the individual who demonstrated an exceptional performance. This extra level of compensation may not be utilized during every evaluating period.
The Dean mentioned the concept of having a discretionary fund. This would be established by taking a certain percentage of Additional Merit and setting these funds aside for the DeanŐs discretionary use to further compensate those faculty who had exceptional years. This system would allow the Dean to accept fewer levels of Additional Merit. There are several ways in which discretionary funds could be obtained—faculty could apply, and/or Chairs in consultation with the Dean could recommend discretionary compensation.
Poincelot stated his opinion on the importance of having no more than three levels of merit. He shared that because the financial package from the University is not keeping pace with their competitors, Fr. von Arx indicated that more money will be needed for this package—approximately two million dollars for the next two years. In addition, future plans for a new Maintenance building will warrant a large amount of depreciation. Poincelot felt that because of these situations the amount of funding may not be sufficient for numerous levels of merit—keeping the system simple makes most sense. The DeanŐs recommendation was to be cautious not to make decisions based on todayŐs economics.
Crabtree commented that HannafeyŐs idea of an exemplary level may be best. Departments have the option to utilize a third level in any given year when an individualŐs performance justifies an exceptional compensation.
DeWitt understands that keeping the number of levels simple is important, but there is also an importance in how levels of merit are utilized. He felt that if Sustained Merit and cost-of-living are not equivalent, then the first level of merit might be used to bring individuals up to CPI. This situation does not really fall under the Additional Merit category; it would bring faculty up to what Sustained Merit should be. The second level would probably be a level where 99% of the faculty would be categorized, while the third level would capture the Ňsuperstars.Ó
Crabtree encouraged each chair to place a strong statement in their plans on the issue of cost-of-living as sustained, and to encourage the Dean to continue his advocating for that.
DeWitt, in closing, articulated that the Academic CouncilŐs resolution stated that Ňthe College merit plan is essentially the College merit plan.Ó The Dean concluded that the resolution did not state this; the statement was that any plan conforming to the Guiding Principles could not be rejected by the administration. The Dean was very clear at the Academic Council meeting to specify that the Board of Trustees requested the plans to be delivered by the Academic Vice President in discussion with the Deans and the faculty.
The Dean reminded the chair that if the College merit issue was not prolonged and their plans were written according to the criteria originally set forth, then the cost-of-living adjustment would have been tied to Sustained Merit. If the UniversityŐs level of Sustained was below cost-of-living, money from the Additional Merit pool would have been poured into the Sustained Merit to bring each faculty member receiving Sustained Merit up to the level of cost-of-living. With the Board now involved, this is no longer an option.
The Dean reminded the Council that within the College, the merit plan deadline is May 31. Those departments who opt not to complete their plans will participate in the DeanŐs plan.
The Dean will meet with the college merit committee followed by an emergency meeting, inviting all College faculty, to discuss the College merit plan.
The DeanŐs Council meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.