12_09_06_ASPC Minutes

A.    Summer Humanities Fellows – progress update. The Dean reported that Humanities Fellows are identifying key phases for the development of the Humanities Institute.
The Dean will discuss the document produced by the fellows with the ASPC prior to taking it to CAS Faculty

B.    Health Sciences Initiatives Task Force
*The Dean updated the ASPC on the summer workings of the Health Sciences task force, comprised of the deans of the schools, key faculty members, and some administrators. Their work will inform expansion of the School of Nursing Building and hopefully expand Bannow so that it more directly connects to SON with integrated commons across sciences. Part of the plan is to move the school of engineering into Bannow, as well.

C.    Possible ad hoc (finite) task forces/working groups for 2013-14

1.    CAS rank & tenure guidelines (elaborations from University-wide doc)
*This group could explore the question of whether the College needs any elaboration on R&T procedures as reflected in the Handbook and the Journal of Record. In particular, schools are supposed to define “appropriate faculty” as it relates to appointment and promotion.
*The Dean and committee agreed that faulty (not the ASPC) should write any new guidelines and procedures.
*Associate Dean Simon cautioned that any CAS policy must conform to (fit within) University guidelines.   Simon agreed to chair the ad hoc task force because of his recent service on the rank and tenure committee.
*Four task force members will be elected at the next CAS meeting (one member from each rank, and at least two member with previous rank & tenure service).
*Professor LoMonaco advised that potential committee members should be strong in governance and policy writing.
*The Dean asked the CAS secretary to prepare and distribute a Call for Nominations to be added to the next meeting’s agenda packet.

2.    The committee discussed the large number of Associate Professors serving as Department Chairs (rather than full professors). The Dean noted that she has encouraged full professors to serve before their associate professor colleagues, though there are a variety of reasons and department cultures that lead to the large number of associate professors serving as chair.

3.    Dean performance review

The Dean discussed periodic 360 degree reviews for Deans, noting that she has not had a performance review since she became Dean (360= input from administrators, senior and junior faculty, adjuncts, staff, students, etc.). The Dean noted that she spends approximately 25% of her time on performance reviews, but does not get reviewed herself.
Associate Dean Simon offered several best practice standards drawn from an AAUP document:

all stakeholders should participate, it should be qualitative and quantitative
it should incorporate a feedback loop
it should be transparent
it should include actions that occur as a result of reviews
the position description (Dean’s position) serves as basis for evaluation.

Chairs are also discussing modes for chair review within the departments
Associate Dean Perkus added that we should have the 360 degree review (a formal procedure) for all administrators, not just for the Dean.
Dean/Administrative reviews should be every three years, however, rotating Deans (Associate Deans) could be reviewed in year two
The committee will discuss creating a call for nominations for the task force at the next ASPC meeting