University of Richmond
School of Arts and Sciences
Minutes of the February 21, 2012 Meeting
Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in the Brown-Alley room of Weinstein Hall.
The minutes of the January 19, 2012 A & S meeting were approved as circulated. http://richmondas.blogspot.com/2012/02/faculty-meeting-january-19-2012-minutes.html
The actions of A & S Academic Council from December 6, 2011 and January 17, 2012 were approved as circulated.
http://richmondas.blogspot.com/2011/12/december-6-2011-academic-council.html http://richmondas.blogspot.com/2012/02/academic-council-january-17-2012.html
All proposals on the January 21, 2012 consent agenda were approved by unanimous consent.
Dean Skerrett introduced Gene Anderson, who presented an overview of the Inuksuit performance project being coordinated by the Department of Music and eighth blackbird, the University’s ensemble-in-residence, for April 21, 2013 to commemorate Earth Day. Gene invited faculty to consider ways in which they can join the project as performers or to include it in their syllabi. Information about Inuksuit, a ninety-minute percussion work for 99 performers, and its composer, John Luther Adams, can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/arts/music/22luther.html.
Dean Skerrett introduced Provost Allred, who led a discussion of and invited questions about the February 17, 2012 revised draft of the university’s Faculty External Consulting Policy, a final version of which he hopes to bring to the full university faculty in March or April. Bill Myers suggested that records be kept to document the instances in which faculty requests for external consulting are disallowed. Bill Ross asked for clarity about the compass of the term “week” and Allred confirmed that the language reads “one day per work week.” Dan Palazzolo requested clarification about the conditions under which a faculty member would not be permitted to engage in external consulting, to which Dean Skerrett stated that external consulting work must not interfere with the member’s ability to do their job at UR. Allred clarified that the policy’s intent is not to prevent faculty from consulting, which in many instances is good for the member and the university, but to clarify the parameters in which external consulting work can be taken on. Palazzolo asked about the restriction concerning use of the University logo and its application to items like business cards; Allred suggested that this language could be removed from the policy. Provost Allred asked the faculty to email suggestions about the External Consulting Policy to him before the beginning of Spring Break.
Dean Skerrett reported that the “Listenings” are wrapping up and mentioned a useful definition for “transparency” that emerged from the process, i.e. transparency is knowing who makes decisions, how they are made, and why they were made. The Dean used the remainder of the meeting to discuss the annual performance review and merit raise processes used by the A & S Dean’s office to determine 2012-13 salaries. The key points of her presentation were:
• Evaluation processs
o the June personnel reports were culled together in a “War Room”
o Associate Deans worked on the process but were not involved in evaluating colleagues in their own departments
o the Deans consulted practice over the past five years, using the department chair’s evaluation as the principal guide; when they were in doubt, the Deans erred on the side of generosity. Dean Skerrett commended the chairs for their clear and thoughtful evaluations of their faculty
o the Dean and Associate Deans worked together to determine a faculty member’s annual evaluation score based on a five-point scale, with five being the highest score
• Calculation of raises
o the Trustees authorized a 2% increase in the faculty salary pool, half of which the Dean used for block raises and the other half for percentage increases
o a faculty member’s salary increase represents the combination of a block amount plus a percentage of base salary based on the faculty member’s meritscore
The Dean reported that individual faculty scores will not be a part of the annual appointment letter, but affirmed her willingness to share this information with faculty members who ask for it. Department chairs will not receive the Dean’s score for each member of their Department, but Dean Skerrett expressed her willingness to share them if there is consensus to do so. Questions were raised regarding the evaluation process for first year faculty and those on sabbatical. The Dean reported that all first years were given a block amount that allowed them to retain relative position in rank. When considering scores for those on sabbatical, they relied principally on the chair’s evaluation. A question was raised concerning the evaluation of department chairs, and the Dean reported that there currently are no standard procedures in place for this process.
Dean Skerrett reported that she soon will bring to the faculty proposed drafts for a new merit raise process. She is eager to clarify the process and establish a new set of guidelines in which the faculty can feel invested. Lazaro Lima thanked all of those who worked on the merit increase policies and procedures.
The next Arts and Sciences faculty meeting will be held on March 29 from 4:00-5:00 in THC 305.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Riehl for Jim Gwinn
