Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. The minutes of the August 17, 2011 meeting were approved.
All proposals on the September 13, 2011 consent agenda were approved.
1. Budget process
Dean Skerrett informed Council of a pilot program for program-based budgeting. Program-based budgeting would allow department chairs to submit budget request based on the needs of the program. Chairs would receive their three year budget history to start, and from that, forecast their needs for the next three years. Programmatic planning allows room for conversations about how the schools money is allocated. It will take a couple years to pilot this new budgeting process; in the meantime, the dean would like at least five departments to participate in the pilot program. Chairs who are interested in participating in the pilot program should contact the dean. The budget and operations unit in the dean's office would provide support to department chairs in this initial process.
The dean wants to encourage more faculty governance in the schools budget planning process. Members of Council suggested that it would be helpful if A&S endowment funds were more transparent so departments know exactly how much they might receive from year to year.
2. Associate deans
The dean discussed the associate dean nomination process. When a faculty member is nominated, the dean will contact the nominee and ask them to submit her or his c.v., etc. The deadline for applications is October 3, 2011. Three members of the Dean's Advisory Council will review the applications with the dean to make the selection. The dean hopes to appoint both associate deans by July 1, 2012, however, if someone would be willing to begin January 2012, that would be preferable. These three-year positions will allow colleagues to experience work in administration with a diversity of tasks in each portfolio.
3. Annual performance reviews
Dean Skerrett continued the discussion surrounding the annual performance review process for faculty. The dean would like to keep the conversation going over the course of the next year in order to write guidelines for subsequent years. SACS requires annual reviews, but is not specific as to how they need to be conducted. The dean recited an excerpt from the handbook regarding the criteria for salary decisions and performance reviews. The chair is required to inform the faculty member where he/she stands with regard to tenure, promotion, and performance. The guidelines on the A&S website, however, can be revised and modified. This is where the dean will need feedback from Council over the next year.
Questions to think about during this time: What is most meaningful in the current process, and What is the most effective timeline for annual reviews?
4. Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee
The dean requests that chairs submit, for each faculty member, her or his preface, appendices, c.v., and department chair's report. The reports will be due October 26, 2011. The dean will ask the faculty to vote for divisional representatives from among the chairs of the quadripartite divisions to serve on an ad hoc committee. The representative will meet with the chairs in their division to calibrate what are the different ranks of merit. The divisional representatives will discuss with the dean their assessment which will assist the dean in assigning merit.
Some members of Council expressed concern that the faculty would be asked to vote on something that they have not been consulted about prior to today's faculty meeting. There was additional concern about naming the committee an ad hoc committee without a specific charge. The dean asserted that the ad hoc committee would have a limited charge. The dean also stated that this process is not a huge departure from what has been done in the past. The divisional representatives will advise the dean on what they consider excellence in each of the three areas. The same form will continue to be used and the discussions of the ad hoc committee would not compromise the chairs' role.
Council asked whether faculty would vote within their own division or across divisions. While most seemed in favor of voting within their division, there were some who would like to vote across divisions because they identify with departments outside of their division. It was asked if an election was required, since it is, in essence, an advisory committee. The dean stated that it was not required, but that she is seeking faculty input and believes that in general, it is important for the faculty to be part of the process that addresses the allocation of resources, such as merit pay. The dean will continue to consult with faculty and Academic Council about this.
It was suggested to inform the faculty at the faculty meeting that the committee would not have any access to faculty reviews or salaries.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Burns
All proposals on the September 13, 2011 consent agenda were approved.
1. Budget process
Dean Skerrett informed Council of a pilot program for program-based budgeting. Program-based budgeting would allow department chairs to submit budget request based on the needs of the program. Chairs would receive their three year budget history to start, and from that, forecast their needs for the next three years. Programmatic planning allows room for conversations about how the schools money is allocated. It will take a couple years to pilot this new budgeting process; in the meantime, the dean would like at least five departments to participate in the pilot program. Chairs who are interested in participating in the pilot program should contact the dean. The budget and operations unit in the dean's office would provide support to department chairs in this initial process.
The dean wants to encourage more faculty governance in the schools budget planning process. Members of Council suggested that it would be helpful if A&S endowment funds were more transparent so departments know exactly how much they might receive from year to year.
2. Associate deans
The dean discussed the associate dean nomination process. When a faculty member is nominated, the dean will contact the nominee and ask them to submit her or his c.v., etc. The deadline for applications is October 3, 2011. Three members of the Dean's Advisory Council will review the applications with the dean to make the selection. The dean hopes to appoint both associate deans by July 1, 2012, however, if someone would be willing to begin January 2012, that would be preferable. These three-year positions will allow colleagues to experience work in administration with a diversity of tasks in each portfolio.
3. Annual performance reviews
Dean Skerrett continued the discussion surrounding the annual performance review process for faculty. The dean would like to keep the conversation going over the course of the next year in order to write guidelines for subsequent years. SACS requires annual reviews, but is not specific as to how they need to be conducted. The dean recited an excerpt from the handbook regarding the criteria for salary decisions and performance reviews. The chair is required to inform the faculty member where he/she stands with regard to tenure, promotion, and performance. The guidelines on the A&S website, however, can be revised and modified. This is where the dean will need feedback from Council over the next year.
Questions to think about during this time: What is most meaningful in the current process, and What is the most effective timeline for annual reviews?
4. Ad Hoc Annual Performance Review Committee
The dean requests that chairs submit, for each faculty member, her or his preface, appendices, c.v., and department chair's report. The reports will be due October 26, 2011. The dean will ask the faculty to vote for divisional representatives from among the chairs of the quadripartite divisions to serve on an ad hoc committee. The representative will meet with the chairs in their division to calibrate what are the different ranks of merit. The divisional representatives will discuss with the dean their assessment which will assist the dean in assigning merit.
Some members of Council expressed concern that the faculty would be asked to vote on something that they have not been consulted about prior to today's faculty meeting. There was additional concern about naming the committee an ad hoc committee without a specific charge. The dean asserted that the ad hoc committee would have a limited charge. The dean also stated that this process is not a huge departure from what has been done in the past. The divisional representatives will advise the dean on what they consider excellence in each of the three areas. The same form will continue to be used and the discussions of the ad hoc committee would not compromise the chairs' role.
Council asked whether faculty would vote within their own division or across divisions. While most seemed in favor of voting within their division, there were some who would like to vote across divisions because they identify with departments outside of their division. It was asked if an election was required, since it is, in essence, an advisory committee. The dean stated that it was not required, but that she is seeking faculty input and believes that in general, it is important for the faculty to be part of the process that addresses the allocation of resources, such as merit pay. The dean will continue to consult with faculty and Academic Council about this.
It was suggested to inform the faculty at the faculty meeting that the committee would not have any access to faculty reviews or salaries.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment