Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in the Carol Weinstein International Center Commons.
Dean Skerrett moved directly to the regular agenda.
Approval of the minutes for the March 29 meeting: Bill Myers requested that the March 29, 2012 minutes circulated be amended to add the references made by Dean Skerrett at the meeting “that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) accreditation rules require ‘annual reviews of faculty,” and to note Bill Myers observation that SACS rules only require “regular reviews of faculty, not specifically annual reviews.” Dean Skerrett agreed to the additions.
The amended minutes were then approved by voice vote.
The actions of Academic Council for March 20, 2012, April 3, 2012, and the consent agenda from April 17, 2012 which had been circulated, were approved by voice vote.
Assistant Dean Kathy Hoke then made the annual motion to approve the awarding of degrees for the class of 2012 for Arts & Sciences, which was seconded and then approved by voice vote.
Suzanne Jones, Chair of the Department of English, then read a tribute to Daryl Dance, Professor of English, who is retiring this spring after 20 years with the English Department and the University.
Dean Skerrett then honored Scott Allison, Professor of Psychology, and Mark Rhodes, Associate Professor Art, for twenty-five years, respectively, of service the University.
Dean Skerrett asked Emma Goldman, Chair of the Arts & Sciences Nominating Committee, to present “Slate for Appointed A & S Committees for 2012-2015” found at: https://richmondas.box.com/s/2e7c29dc3280e180e292
The slate of nominees was then approved by voice vote.
Dean Skerrett presented powerpoint slides showing the proposed documents (1) Merit Review Process: guidelines for merit review; (2) triennial schedule; (3) chair evaluation
Dean Skerrett recounted the faculty consultation process to this point. In early fall the A & S faculty elected the Ad Hoc Committee on Merit Review, which consisted of Dorothy Holland, Lisa Gentile, Carol Wharton, and Yvonne Howell. This committee helped advise the dean on revisions. The Ad Hoc Committee led conversations among department chairs in their quadripartite divisions. From these conversations, the dean prepared draft documents. These draft documents were sent to department chairs for conversation within the departments. The Ad Hoc Committee members collected and analyzed the department reports and made further recommendations to the dean. The dean revised the documents. A March meeting was held for A & S faculty to discuss the revised documents and add further ideas of concerns. The dean revised the documents again. The dean met with the members of the Ad Hoc Committee for a final consultation and made further amendments. The final revised documents were circulated with the agenda to this meeting. The dean has scheduled an online vote on the documents all Arts & Sciences faculty who are regularly reviewed by the Dean – both tenured and non-tenured - starting Friday, April 20, at 8 a.m. through Monday, April 23, 9 p.m.
Having reviewed the process so far, the dean invited discussion on the proposed documents.
Question: How will the new system deal with faculty who are on leave from the University?
With Academic Council, the Dean’s office needs to develop a consistent policy for how to award merit scores for teaching, scholarship and service during semesters when faculty are on leave.
Question: How will the chairs implement the policy across departments for rating teaching and advising and mentoring?
Mentoring of undergraduate research is integral to excellent teaching in many departments but not all. Therefore, we continue to consider mentoring as part of teaching, but to give it different weight in relation to the question of teaching excellence.
Question: How will the numbers work in the new system?
Although the chair will assign words to the faculty member’s evaluation using the 5-point rubric, the dean’s office will translate the summative word into a number with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest. The number will typically be used in a formula to determine salary raise.
Question: How will the department chairs develop consistent guidelines to apply?
The proposed guideline provides that each October, the department chairs will meet in small groups to discuss calibration of the merit rubric across departments. As we develop precedent from these discussions, we may share them among the department chairs.
It was suggested that creating a service track for a faculty member’s career might also be another goal in the new system
Question: Why not continue to use the existing Faculty Handbook’s guidelines for granting tenure and promotion since there are already good definitions for what constitutes scholarship, teaching, and service?
In writing these documents, we had in mind the FH provisions. However, the merit review process is distinct, though clearly aware, of the tenure and promotion standards. Question: How will a new department chair use the new system and implement it in his/her department?
The dean’s office is developing a new chairs’ orientation program as well as a chairs’ website. A calendar with associated documents is planned for that resource.
How will untenured faculty know where to look for guidance and clarity?
The dean’s office is developing a three-year orientation program and website for early career faculty to help them find information and advice concerning these issues among others. Dean Skerrett commented that the new merit system does not directly align with the tenure review. Although merit reviews become part of a candidate’s dossier, the tenure & promotion committee is looking at a whole trajectory of maturation in light of Faculty Handbook standards.
Question: How will the new system impact the faculty member’s dossier?
The goal is to limit the elements of the dossier so that individual faculty, chairs, and the Dean’s office see a consistent but focused set of documents.
Dean Skerrett expressed her confidence in the department chairs being able to make sound and fair judgments when using the new guidelines. The chairs have access to the SCI and there may be a need to revise them at some point.
Dean Skerrett commented on the dates in the “guidelines for merit reviews” and asked if they should be changed? There was consensus to stay with proposed dates in the document.
Dean Skerrett stated that the implementation of the “Triennial Schedule” should not be viewed as a “post tenure” review. The schedule can be changed and the chair, the dean, or the faculty member can request a change in the three-year cycle.
It was brought to the attention of the Dean for a friendly amendment by Julie Laskaris that the wording in paragraph three of the “Triennial Schedule of Merit Reviews for Tenured Faculty” document was misworded and should be corrected to read “Any faculty member or the chair or the dean may elect to have a typical merit review to attain a merit score based on that review. However, such interim reviews do not change the triennial schedule for the faculty member.” The Dean agreed to make the needed change.
Concerns were raised about how A & S could roll out the Triennial Schedule for tenured faculty for all departments in the first year? Perhaps it would be better to stagger the implementation by departments over a couple of years? Dean Skerrett commented that this may be possible. In the first year of the triennial schedule, everyone is in Year A in any event.
Another concern was raised about implementing the first paragraph of the Triennial Schedule with so many faculty being on leave, sabbatical, etc. every year. Dean Skerrett indicated that she would work with the department chairs to develop policies to handle this important issue.
Dean Skerrett asked if the faculty felt they were ready to vote starting April 20 on the new proposed policies? There was much discussion back and forth about whether there had been sufficient time, interactions, meetings, discussions, draft documents among the faculty for an online ballot this weekend. Some faculty called for a week delay, at least, to have an A & S listserv discussion before an online ballot. Other suggested perhaps postponing the proposal for another year to discuss other options or retaining the existing system. Dean Skerrett agreed that delaying the online ballot for several days might be helpful to allow for more individual and group discussion. She said that there had been ongoing discussions, counter proposals, drafts, meetings, etc. since the fall. The faculty can vote to keep the existing system if faculty members do not feel the proposed revisions are an improvement.
Hugh West urged Dean Skerrett that the vote on the annual merit review process be delayed until next week to allow more opportunity to review the documents and deliberate.
Woody Holton then made the following motion, which was seconded by Peter
Smallwood:
"THAT the A & S faculty approve the 1) Chair's Evaluation Form, and 2) the Guidelines for Merit Review, and 3) the provision for a Triennial
Schedule of Merit Reviews for Tenured Faculty, with electronic voting to
begin at 8 AM on Wednesday April 25 and ending Sunday April 29 at 9 PM."
The motion was approved by voice vote.
Dean Skerrett further explained that all faculty members who are reviewed by the Dean of Arts & Sciences are eligible to vote on the Chair's Evaluation Form and the Guidelines for Merit Review. Tenure-line faculty are further eligible to vote on the provision for Triennial Schedule of Merit Reviews for Tenured Faculty. Faculty who are eligible for the vote will receive electronic ballots by email on Wednesday morning.
Dean Skerrett reminded everyone of the special reception on April 26th from 3-5 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room to say fair well and thank you to Kathy Hoke and Scott Johnson.
The meeting ended at 5:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Gwin
Secretary
