13_01_16_ASPC

A. CONFIRMED the 3 dates below. Robbin noted that we need to have at least 2 meetings; the March meeting could be cancelled if there isn't sufficient business.

1.    February 22, 2013 (Friday, 3:30-5:00)
2.    March 22, 2013 (Friday, 3:30-5:00) - elections of Secretary and Planning Committee members (as per gov doc, I think)
3.    April 26 (Friday, 3:30-5:00)

B.    Should we have a set day/time for CAS faculty meetings (e.g., first Friday following each general faculty meeting)? Yes—that will happen in future. Sally will send out a memo to all faculty via Jean Daniele.

C.    Do we need governance language for this? (discussion at last CAS faculty meeting produced no opposition, and mostly support and indifference). No.

D.    Discussion of whether we should have elections in February in case March meeting is cancelled? (Yes)

A. Health Sciences case statement

1. What is the best way to share this initiative with faculty outside health sciences? Dean of Nursing, Lynne, and Robbin will host a social that will involve a brief presentation but then focus principally on allowing faculty to meet and chat. Robbin discussed the fact that lots of faculty don't know the work others are doing and this would be an opportunity to bring people together, where they may identify opportunities for innovative collaborations. She also wants CAS faculty in the Humanities and Arts to feel invited and potentially involved. Jim suggested that Robbin do a brief, 5-minute power point overview at the Feb. 22 CAS Faculty meeting that gives the highlights of the longer, rather tedious (aka comprehensive) document included in our attachments. Robbin liked that idea.

2. How might this relate to longer-range planning in the College that would involve ASPC?

B. Humanities Institute long-range plan (will distribute prior to next meeting)

Robbin said she has a document but it needs revision before it can be distributed. Sally characterized the writing style as “labored” and Robbin concurred, indicated that she also needs to enhance the student component and adjust the budget and timeline. It will be distributed to this committee before our next meeting to give Robbin feedback before she presents it to the full faculty.

C. Strategic Plan “refresh” (Crabtree)

President von Arx is talking about these things but Robbin said it's principally a marketing strategy arising from our areas of distinction (identified by the Deans in discussion with their chairs and faculties; CAS planning committee helped the Dean develop these). As well, the areas of emphasis in the “refresh” will guide resource allocation and priorities in the Comprehensive Campaign. How might this relate to longer-range planning in the College that would involve ASPC? What is the best way to share updates with faculty at large? (no discussion was stimulated)

D. Long Range Planning and the ASPC & CAS

Robbin pointed out that we have a planning committee for CAS and we can work on specific issues ourselves. What other long-range planning efforts should we consider? Robbin thinks the question of Core Review should be taken up, in some form, in advance of the 2017 self-study/NEASC reaccreditation. We could have at least one preliminary task force on core revision prior to the 2017 NEASC review. Robbin discussed a model at another university whereby a task force in the College was formed to research and investigate potential possibilities for “the core of the 21st century”. They presented their findings to the University, and then were disbanded. A SECOND task force was then created to actually create a new core curriculum. Bob Epstein warned about the problems we experienced with the “integration of the core” and “core pathways.” Robbin wants the Planning Committee to help think about what would be the right time to introduce this and then determine how we would get there. We should really be able to report out our plans for the Core, based on what we’ve learned through assessment of the Core and Pathways work, in our next NEASC. She invites us to think about this for our next meeting. Aaron and Robbin think we should see what comes out of UCC's current efforts on core assessment within the next year. This might inform a broader conversation on “what should the core of the 21st century should be?”

E. Other planning issues?

What are other planning issues? Robbin suggested time codes. Marti brought up the continuing issues with Marketing, both undergrad and grad, and Aaron concurred. Marketing should be a major discussion point; Robbin will ask us to generate a list in advance of the meeting where this is the major agenda item for ASPC.

A.    Approval of Minutes

B.    Elections—we need to have them at the Feb. 22 meeting. Glenn (math & science rep) and Marti's (Interdisciplinary Programs rep) terms are up at the end of this semester; Secretary's two-year term is also up (Scott). Scott, do you want to run for re-election? Other names were generated as potential candidates.

C.    Presentation or Main Topic for Discussion

1. Rank & Tenure language for CAS gov doc—Rick said this report will be ready for Feb. 22 and it will have some action items. Rick said the document is longer than he thought it would be; there are quite a few policy issues that will need discussion. Robbin expressed gratitude for the work. She feels everything needs to be clear and transparent in the best interests of the candidate, hence, clear and agreed-upon protocols are needed.

D. Recommendation to form a “Must/Should/May CAS Policy Review & Guidelines Document Committee”. Rick DeWitt will explain what all this means. Rick will call for nominations from the floor and suggested that perhaps the current committee members would be most appropriate since they are now so steeped in the CAS gov doc. He will check to ascertain their interest.

E. Dean’s remarks and Q&A—She suggested the following:

1. Updates on projects/initiatives

• IHS Power Point overview
• Portfolio Review – Robbin said the College came out “smelling like a rose.” CAS is generating all the revenue. We have some tweaking to do (e.g., enrollment management, alignment of faculty to reflect student interest, etc.)

2. Anticipating Merit Review

We elected merit review committees in the fall. Robbin will meet with Jay Rozgonyi to work out glitches in the merit submission and review system. Robbin wants to say a few words at the meeting about faculty responsibilities and peer review with regards to Merit. Rick DeWitt offered to send Robbin a great 1915 statement from the AAUP which basically states, “if you don't do it yourself, someone else will do it for you.”

3. Faculty involvement in pre-tenure faculty reviews. Robbin will remind faculty of their duties in this regard; this is a shared responsibility.

4. What else will faculty want to know/hear from the Dean?