College of Arts & Sciences Planning Committee
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
10:00-11:30
CNS 8
Minutes
Present:
Ex officio:
o Robbin Crabtree, Dean
o Sally O'Driscoll, Chair of CAS (2010-2012)
o Scott Lacy, Secretary of CAS (2011-2013)
Elected:
o Amanda Harper-Leatherman, Natural Sciences (2010-2012)
o Marti LoMonaco, Humanities (2011-2013)
o Eric Mielants, Social & Behavioral Sciences (2011-2012)
Associate Dean:
o Joan Weiss, CAS Associate Dean
I. Dean Crabtree confirmed dates for CAS faculty meetings for 2011-12
a. Friday, November 11, 3:30-5:00 pm, Alumni House
b. Friday, February 10, 3:30-5:00, Alumni House
c. Friday, March 23, 3:30-5:00, Alumni House
d. Wednesday, April 25, 4:30-6:30, Alumni House, Annual Celebration
II. Committee approved modifications to CAS Governance Document re: A&S Awards Committees
a. Assoc. Dean Weiss presented rationale for proposed changes:
- Currently one A&S Awards Committee selects two awards
- A subcommittee for each of the A&S Awards is appropriate
- Three instead of four members on each subcommittee is sufficient (there is a total of 12 committee members)
- The majority membership of
each subcommittee from the relevant division or discipline allows for
outside representation on each subcommittee.
b. Dean Crabtree noted rationale for appointing A&S Committee members
- Previous calls for volunteers did not populate committees
- Dean continually tracks
cross-disciplinary activities, and is in good position to identify
potential A&S Awards Committee members
- A&S Awards Committee makes no policy decisions
- Issue of Dean appointed
A&S Awards Committees brought before CAS meeting two years ago with
no significant objections from CAS faculty
c. Committee unanimously approved the following change to CAS Governance Document (see Appendix 1)
Revised: 3.5.1.3 Arts and Sciences Awards Committee
The purpose of the Arts and
Sciences Awards Committee is to solicit and review submissions of work
completed by students in the College of Arts and Sciences. Awards are
made annually in the areas of: humanities; visual and performing arts;
natural sciences and mathematics; and social and behavioral sciences.
The committee of twelve faculty
members is comprised of four subcommittees, one for each award. Each
subcommittee consists of three faculty members with the majority from
the relevant division or discipline, appointed by the Dean to staggered
three-year terms
III. Committee set the agenda for November 11th CAS Faculty Meeting
a.
Dean Crabtree suggested that the call for nominations for the at-large
positions of the Divisional Merit Review Committees include all three
areas: Humanities, Natural Sciences & Mathematics, and Social &
Behavioral Sciences.
- Two-year terms: 1-Social & Behavioral Science, 1-Natural Sciences & Mathematics, 1-Humanities
- We
will wait and see how many nominations are submitted and decide whether
there shall be one or two positions for humanities faculty
b. Committee added several items to meeting agenda (November 11)
- Add merit committee elections (at-large replacement members, start Spring 2012)
- Add announcements prior to Dean’s remarks
- Add Q&A following Dean’s remarks
c. Committee
moved presentation by CAS Board of Advisors representatives; they will
present at the February meeting
d. Dean
Crabtree asked committee members if there were any suggestions for
additional agenda items or discussion points for the November meeting;
committee members suggested that the Dean’s remarks include perspective
and clarification on the President’s recent message on the budget.
- November meeting should
include ample time for faculty to ask questions about recent messages
and news about the impact of our current budget shortfall
- Committee members noted serious and immediate impact of CNS cutbacks (slower response to help requests, for example)
- Committee strongly
suggested a discussion on what led to the current shortfall, and what
might be done to prevent additional shortfalls in the future.
Members noted that multiple years of budget shortfalls can create
morale issues among faculty.
- Committee members suggested the Dean specifically address latent (or otherwise) fears of possible cuts to tenure track lines
- Dean Crabtree noted that
technology, use of restricted funds, and other budget savings are
already underway, and that the President has said that freezing current
searches would be a last resort.
e. Dean
Crabtree added an agenda item to the next CAS Planning Committee
meeting to discuss the issue of cutting programs in the context of our
current budget. Dean Crabtree suggested that the A&SPC might
discuss a variety of “what if” scenarios to look at ways of cutting
costs and/or discontinuing under-enrolled or non-essential academic
programs.
f. Revised Agenda for November 11th CAS Faculty Meeting
!. Approval of Minutes
II. Election of additional Planning Committee member
III. Election of sabbatical replacement for CAS chair, SPR 2012 ONLY
IV. Merit committee election
V. Change to CAS Governance Document re: A&S Student Awards Committees
VI. Announcements (Steve Bayne report on MLS)
VII. Dean’s remarks
VIII. Q&A
IV. Committee discussed other miscellaneous issues
a. Independent Studies, standardizing policy
- The Dean asked the committee to consider the attached document (Appendix Two) on independent studies policy
- Priority of the document is to establish single CAS model for independent studies
- Model includes clarifying
compensation for Ind Studies (none during contract year and only if
budgeted by program if during the summer)
- Each department should have an official policy on independent studies
- Capstone (e.g., in the
major or in honors; also in some minor programs) should use seminar
model or its own course code (rather than using Ind Study course
number) so that the experience is reflected on student transcripts and
also to facilitate institutional research.
- Committee advised Dean to
share the document with all chairs and program
directors, but did not believe it was necessary to send to all CAS
faculty.
b. Graduate Program Compensation structures
- The Dean spoke with Graduate Directors about compensation structures. The major findings of these discussions:
- Some faculty do supervision
(e.g., of theses or capstones, and allow students register late (and
pay late, meaning enrollment/revenue targets are not being met)
- Compensation for MA thesis supervision, required/essential
- General independent study
supervision typically goes without additional compensation, so this
should be the same in Grad programs
- Properly registering
students for independent study, honors work, and capstone projects
could lead to significant financial benefits (estimated $70,000
preserved revenues using data for previous year with new compensation
structures) that could support requests for additional operational
funds, tenure lines, etc..
c. Department and Program By-Laws
- Dean Crabtree reported that Associate Dean Im is working on the issue of Department and Program By-Laws.
- The purpose of developing
Department By-Laws is to promote equity and transparency in department
operations (e.g. meeting rules (Robert’s Rules or not), minutes
policies, code-selection process for courses, chair selection &
terms, etc.
The Committee Chair added that
developing By-Laws for English was a positive experience; the process
facilitated discussions that brought up critical issues that previously
went unaddressed.
d. Department Chair and Dean Performance Reviews
- Dean Crabtree tabled this
agenda item due to potential developments that may directly impact the
discussion of Chair and Dean performance Reviews.
- Currently the Dean is
serving on an Academic Council subcommittee that is considering
adopting the IDEA evaluation form for “administrators.”
e. Instructor IDEA evaluation forms and process
- The Dean and committee
members briefly discussed several issues and concerns regarding the
on-line instructor IDEA evaluation system.
- On-line evaluations lead to significant savings (economic and human resource)
- Each class that will use
the IDEA evaluation will have a single, unique URL for the evaluation
(to increase ease-of-access for students)
- Committee members expressed
great concern over their lack of control over the timing/release of the
on-line IDEA evaluations. Faculty who want students to complete
the evaluations after or during the final class session have no control
over the evaluation timing. Automatic email reminders hit student
boxes every three days from as early as mid-November.
- The Dean will share this feedback with Tracy Immerso in the SVPAA’s office.
f. Anticipating Merit Review
Dean
Crabtree reported on a discussion of merit review across the schools.
She demonstrated the CAS online system for the other Deans.
- There was some concern that CAS is not collecting “supporting materials” on faculty performance beyond the “3 essays.”
- The Dean suggested that in
future years, if/when there is “additional” or “extraordinary’ merit,
faculty who apply should be required to submit some form of supporting
documentation. She supports the continuation of the current
system (those who apply for standard merit do not submit supporting
documentation).
- The committee agreed in principle to this idea
g. Rank & Tenure Cases
- Dean Crabtree reported that
15 faculty members filed for promotion and/or tenure this year.
If all of these cases are successful, the number of pre-tenure faculty
annual reviews will be somewhat smaller this year.
- New guidelines for rank & tenure are operating smoothly
- One potential area for
reconsideration regarding external letters for rank and tenure
candidates. Current guidelines say that external letters go to
the candidate’s Chair, but there is no policy on whether the Chair may
share these letters or their contents with Department colleagues.
Dean Crabtree asserted that this issue must be clarified and has asked
the SVPAA and the Committee on Rank & Tenure to do so. She
suggested that Chairs should be able to share the “gist” of the
external letters, but that specific content from the letters must
remain confidential.
Meeting adjourned, 10:22 a.m.
CLOSING NOTES
1) Call for nominations and CAS Faculty Meeting Agenda – send out by Friday, Oct 28
-Merit Committee
-CAS Planning Committee; replacement position for Spring 2012 (chair)
2) CAS Planning Committee Meeting: Wednesday, January 18, 3:30-5:00 p.m., CNS 8
APPENDIX ONE
AMMENDMENT TO THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT
The current entry:
3.5.1.3 Arts and Sciences Awards Committee
The Arts and Sciences Awards
Committee consists of four professors from the Humanities and Visual
and Performing Arts, four from the Natural Sciences and Mathematics and
four from the Social and Behavioral Sciences, appointed annually by the
Dean.
The purpose of this committee is
to solicit and review submissions of their work by students in the
College of Arts and Sciences. Awards are made annually in the areas of
Humanities, Arts, Natural Sciences and Mathematics, and Social and
Behavioral Sciences.
The suggested revised copy:
3.5.1.3 Arts and Sciences Awards Committee
The purpose of the Arts and
Sciences Awards Committee is to solicit and review submissions of work
completed by students in the College of Arts and Sciences. Awards are
made annually in the areas of: humanities; visual and performing arts;
natural sciences and mathematics; and social and behavioral sciences.
The committee of twelve faculty
members is comprised of four subcommittees, one for each award. Each
subcommittee consists of three faculty members with the majority from
the relevant division or discipline, appointed by the Dean to staggered
three-year terms.
Rationale:
Currently
one committee decides two awards. A subcommittee for each of the
four awards is appropriate. Three instead of four members on each
subcommittee is sufficient. The majority membership of each
subcommittee from the relevant division or discipline allows for
outside representation on each subcommittee.
APPENDIX TWO
AMMENDMENT TO THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT
COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES
and
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
MEMORANDUM FROM THE DEAN OF CAS / ACTING-DEAN OF UC
October 28, 2011
The following are some changes
and clarifications regarding supervision and compensation for
independent studies in both CAS and UC, beginning in the spring 2012
semester.
Independent studies are not
individually remunerated in the undergraduate program for full-time
faculty during the contract (Sept 1-May 31), and beginning spring 2012,
the same will hold true in University College (except GS 399, the BPS
capstone) and also in CAS graduate programs (except for thesis and
capstone projects that are, by program design, conducted independently
under faculty supervision). This changes past practices in UC and CAS
graduate programs and aligns them with broader practice in the College
and across the undergraduate programs at Fairfield University. For most
departments and programs, and for most faculty members who supervise
independent studies, this is currently the model so you will experience
no changes.
In the rare cases when the Dean
(in consultation with the Chair) makes a formal request to a faculty
member to supervise an independent study due to some unusual
circumstances, whether this occurs during the academic year or the
summer, compensation may be arranged on a case-by-case basis.
Supervising independent studies
is always optional for faculty members, who decide whether or not (and
under what circumstances) they wish to supervise a student’s
independent study project. Under some circumstances, faculty may
determine that independent studies are justified (e.g., a subject area
is unavailable in the curriculum but critical to the student’s academic
program; the student proposes an extension of a course-based project as
collaborative research with the faculty member that may result in
publishable research; or a student seeks to engage in an experiential
learning project for which there is no alternative for-credit option).
Generally, students warranting this kind of faculty commitment should
be academically exceptional and the project should be so compelling to
the faculty member that s/he is willing and pleased to supervise it.
Independent studies should not substitute for effective curricular
management by programs or for responsible management of academic
requirements by students themselves.
Some departments, due to the
large number of independent and supervised research normative for the
discipline, have developed "bundling" mechanisms and created
part-of-load models. These are viable when they meet the criteria
previously endorsed by the ASCC and approved by the Dean. Chairs and
directors should discuss with the Dean any situations where "bundling
into a course" should be considered.
If they do not already exist,
each academic program should develop a formal policy regarding
independent studies. This should include limiting the number of
independent studies a student can use to complete degree (or minor)
requirements and the circumstances under which students may be approved
to do them (e.g., junior/senior status, 3.2 GPA, etc.). Such policies
should make clear that it is the faculty member's discretion to
supervise independent studies, and that these are subject to approval
by the Chair or Director (and in some cases, the Dean). The ASCC should
be alerted if such a policy is a new addition to or change in your
program requirements. These policies should be published in the
catalog, posted on the department webpage, and included with all other
program information.
Adjunct faculty generally should
not be asked by students or approved by departments or programs to
supervise independent studies and I have asked chairs to limit
expectations held by adjuncts. There has never been a budget allocation
to pay adjuncts for this in the past, so it simply resulted in a budget
deficit in cases where this occurred. If it is deemed desirable and
necessary for an adjunct to supervise an independent study, it will
require permission from the Dean based on compelling rationale from the
chair or program director before an independent study is arranged.
There may or may not be any funds in the department/program or College
adjunct budget to cover this request, and funding will be an important
consideration in the rare cases when such a request is made.
During the summer months, if
there is compelling reason for an independent study (and an allocated
budget for it), compensation will be 10% of the usual course stipend
per student (registered for 3-credits). In these cases, the Program
Director and the Dean both must approve Independent Studies prior to
student registration (ensuring there are indeed funds in the program’s
salary pool to pay for it). “Bundling” models can be used when a
faculty member supervises a large number of credit-bearing summer
independent learning experiences (such as internships). Many programs
already use this model successfully and this will continue to be
appropriate; compensation is prorated based on the number of students
enrolled.
Moving forward, it is crucial
that we engage in effective budget planning for any independent study
or other supervision of individualized student learning experiences
where there is overload compensation. Chairs and Program Directors
should decide how much to put into their annual budget requests for
summer independent studies based on a realistic appraisal of necessity
(for the students and based on the curriculum). I will advocate for a
reasonable amount to be available for credit-bearing independent
learning experiences in the summer months.