Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room. Bill Ross moved approval of the minutes of the A & S faculty meeting from September 20, 2012 Abigail Cheever seconded the motion. After discussion, the faculty voted to approve. Michelle Hamm moved approval of the Academic Council actions of October 2, 2012. Lazarro Lima seconded the motion. After discussion, the faculty voted to approve.
Dean Skerrett observed that the Academic Council actions included approval of a new Arabic Studies major. She explained that she had divided this item from the consent agenda in Academic Council to invite discussion of a proposed new degree program. Dean Skerrett said that she is concerned that even significant developments of the curriculum are passing through faculty governance on consent agenda. She will place all new programs on discussion agenda. Dean Skerrett said the curriculum should be the most significant area of faculty governance, and she would like to bolster faculty leaders’ opportunities to reflect on meaningful changes or developments.
Dean Skerrett then introduced the discussion topic for the meeting: the experience of directors or faculty of practice. She indicated that she put this topic on the agenda because of concerns that were raised in two “listenings” devoted to directors last spring. The Dean then provided some background on such positions at the University and she read the description of directors from the current Faculty Handbook.
In the School of Arts & Sciences there are a number of faculty with the title of Director. Such individuals are affiliated with an academic department and teach in that department, although they may have a job description that involves a mixture of teaching and administrative duties. They are not eligible for sabbaticals, but otherwise have benefits similar to those of other full-time faculty. The School of Arts and Sciences uses the classification "Faculty of Practice" for the position of Director, a non-tenure track, continuing faculty position that combines teaching and administrative duties. The classification does not affect rank or individual titles, but does differentiate these faculty from staff who hold the title of Director, other contracted non-tenure track faculty, applied music faculty, post-doctoral fellows, exchange faculty, and artists-in-residence.
Dean Skerrett noted that in April 2009, Associate Dean Dona Hickey wrote a document that defines directors as “Faculty of Practice.” The Arts & Sciences Academic Council and the University Faculty Council approved this status in March of 2010. There are now 41 directors in the School of Arts and Sciences. Nineteen of these individuals have been appointed in the last five years. They constitute 18% percent of the Arts and Sciences faculty. In the most recent benchmark study, they are compared to other institutions at the lecturer rank. Directors are not eligible for research grants, sabbaticals, and tenure. They do have voting rights, although there seems to be inconsistency and confusion about whether these are exercised in department meetings. Directors must teach undergraduates in some way, but there are no research expectations.
Dean Skerrett said that she wants to be careful that we do not expand our curriculum by expanding our use of non-tenure-line faculty.
Dean Skerrett invited faculty reflections.
Gary Radice asked how directors are integrated into committees. He stated they are often not elected to committees, but he is not sure of the reasons. Are they not on the ballots or not elected? Yvonne Howell commented that perhaps a director does not have time to serve on a committee if you are teaching 4-4 course load each year. Claudia Ferman noted that some directors are serving on committees.
Elizabeth Outka asked if there is a reason for having a two-class system of faculty? She did not question the use of directors, but wondered if it were possible for faculty in tenure-track positions fulfill those responsibilities. Michelle Hamm noted that directors help faculty in the sciences in numerous ways. For example, they are in charge of instruments and they help organize and implement the curriculum. It would be very difficult to operate without them. Yvonne Howell asked if directors would have time to publish? Laz Lima noted that directors are very well-trained, but some do not want to do research, although they may be very interested in teaching. Directors have made choices to serve the university, but have they chosen not to pursue a research track. Others remarked that some research is done through the summer, but directors do not receive university research support.
Julie Laskaris (speaking from her involvement in AAUP) stated that she is very glad the Dean is raising this issue. She reported that non tenure-track faculty now teach half the university courses offered in the United States. Prof. Laskaris asked if there could be two paths to obtain tenure? Could directors achieve tenure in a different way, as faculty of practice? This would offer security, academic freedom, ability to serve on committees, etc., but not an obligation to perform research. .
Jim Lanham noted that in the Education Department, there are strong educators/practitioners. Offering this background makes the program stronger and provides good preparation for education students who pursue teaching positions. Dean Skerrett agreed that such professional expertise is valued and provides the best rationale for having a “faculty of practice” in Arts and Sciences.
Claudia Ferman noted that in LAIS, the director positions are continuing positions. Positions continue, but not necessarily the person in the position. Therefore, some directors have concerns about job security. Is there a way to offer more job security and academic freedom? Perhaps this could be achieved through a multi-year contract?
Joe Essid announced that the directors have been talking and meeting in recent months and they are very close to producing a document about their concerns. The top three priorities are: 1) Compensation 2) Responsibilities (administrative expectations, advising, teaching load) 3) request for a triennial rather than annual evaluation for directors who have several years of service. Dean Skerrett appreciated hearing this new. She is willing to approach issues in the their preferred agenda. She asked if we could discuss some of those priorities now? Joe responded that he wants to make sure all colleagues feel comfortable with the agenda before moving forward.
Abigail Cheever asked about rank, but Joe said that concern had not appeared yet. Claudia Ferman stated that it is important to listen to directors first and then bring issues before the entire faculty. Dean Skerrett agreed that it is important that they organize themselves, but it is also important that the entire faculty thinks through the implications and issues associated with non-tenure-line colleagues.
Christie Davis commented that receiving a one-year contract leads to insecurity. The one-year contract changes how someone approaches departmental meetings, discussions, disagreements, etc. Yvonne Howell asked if the director positions were not de facto life-time positions. Dean Skerrett said that directors do not have privileges of tenure. Joe Essid also stated that another concern is the possibility of losing director positions if the curriculum shifts. Bill Ross asked if the university could offer a five-year contract to enhance security? Corrado Corradini commented that he received a one-year contract that made reference to a three-year probationary period. This seems confusing.
Elizabeth Outka suggested that directors should be able to apply for summer research support, even though all of them may not want to do this. Joe Essid said that PETE grants have been very helpful for some directors. Terry Dolson stated that awarding some grants in the past has been a problem with 10-month and 12-month contract people with compensation procedures at the university.
Elizabeth Schlatter shared that in the museum community, the need to publish and to present at conferences is required to advance and support a career in the field. Dean Skerrett stated that there are travel funds in the Dean’s office that are available to directors. Sharon Scinicariello noted that the process has changed over the years and it is somewhat confusing. Jeannine Keefer commented that travel funding has been inconsistent for her position. Dean Skerrett stated that travel money is budgeted for directors. She asked if it is better distributed through the departments or the Dean’s office. Linda Hobgood prefers funding from Dean’s office. She explained that the Speech Center is a university facility. She noted that travel funding has made a huge difference in her position. She has learned about best practices elsewhere, but she has also promoted the success of Richmond’s Speech Center.
Dean Skerrett noted that faculty directors make important contributions to the educational program. She asked if there are other issues, such as teaching load. Joe Essid stated there is discontent with the 4-4 load. There are many administrative duties with some director positions, but they do not receive course release. These duties vary and it would be helpful to document them. Dean Skerrett observed that if we reduce units from director positions, then we have to decide who will teach the students? How will the faculty we have teach our students the curriculum that we want to offer?
Dean Skerrett will bring analysis about how we are using adjunct positions, especially introductory courses, etc. She stated that introductory courses are important and they can make a huge difference to the paths students take. We need to continue discussion and study of how we are employing contingent faculty.
Claudia Ferman asked about the ratio among term faculty, directors and tenure-track faculty. If we reduce teaching load for directors and we do not want term faculty to teach, how will we handle it? Is there a continued need for directors? Dean Skerrett replied that she would like to avoid growing through the use of contingent faculty. That is not the education we promise our students or our model of teacher-scholar community. She recognizes that there will always be term faculty with us, because tenure-track faculty will need leaves.
Julie Laskaris commented that AAUP states that if you have a position that has been filled over four years with a term appointment, then it needs to become a tenure-track position. She said that students and parents are upset when a student has numerous adjunct faculty members for classes. This affects the student’s ability to seek solid letters of recommendations, build a relationship, etc.
Yvonne Howell remarked that many director positions are not filling term needs, but a specific director role and that role may be exactly what department needs. Dean Skerrett noted that we have a status for “faculty of practice”, but we need to work on ensuring and security and the dignity of citizenship for these colleagues.
Abigail Cheever asked why are there not benchmarks for payment of unique director positions? Why didn't that happen last year during salary benchmarking? The Dean responded that there was a deliberate decision for no further allocations to directors because there was a large allocation to directors in the previous year.
Joe Essid asked Dean Skerrett about the number of directors (19) that have been hired since 2007. She replied that those are not all new positions. In some cases, staff became faculty. Directors have different kinds of expertise. We need to take these differences into consideration for position descriptions.
Dean Skerrett asked the group: What do you want? If we want to hold the line expansion of non-tenure-line faculty, we need to make trade-offs and decisions. Are there places where we can commit that we will not hire terms and adjuncts? For example, are there tenure line requests where departments may be able to reconfigure in order to have a leave-proof department?
Angie Hilliker asked a question about tenure-stream leaves and how to fulfill the department’s obligation for FYS, SSIR, etc. Dean Skerrett replied that we should not expect contingent faculty to teach those courses. Julie Laskaris agreed and again noted that there is a problem when term faculty are fulfilling a continuing position so that we do not have to hire a tenure stream faculty. Dean Skerrett noted that departments may want to consider taking a continuing term appointment and turning it into a down payment on a tenured position. However, it is not possible to trade a term faculty position for a tenure-track line and three adjuncts!
Dean Skerrett noted the time and she thanked the faculty for their questions and excellent discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Then next Arts and Sciences faculty meeting will be held on Thursday, November 8, 4 p.m., Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
