Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room. The meeting minutes from April 19, 2012 were approved by faculty members in attendance with a motion made by Dr. Abigail Cheever and a second by Dr. Bill Ross. Dean Skerrett introduced two new Arts and Sciences Communications staff members, Jessica G. Pittman and Andrea Almoite. These staff members are now integrated with the Office of Communications, at Dean Skerrett’s request, but they focus on Arts and Sciences.
Dean Skerrett then made a short presentation on the eight listening sessions that were held during the 2011-2012 academic year with Arts and Sciences faculty. In September 2011, the Dean’s office created a web portal that invited A & S faculty and staff to submit “insights and priorities” for the new Arts and Sciences dean. After responding to each submission, Dean Skerrett organized the reflections into four categories: 1) Teacher/Scholar Model 2) Transparency 3) Future of our Academic Endeavor 4) Role of Directors. Then the Dean’s office scheduled eight “listenings”, that is, open-ended discussion on these topics, to which faculty members were invited to attend, and at which the Dean was present as listener. The Dean thanked all faculty who participated in these sessions, and particularly thanked Zandria Ivy who took and transcribed notes on each session.
After reflecting on these sessions, Dean Skerrett observed that the Teacher/Scholar model is thriving, but it is also a burdened. This past summer A & S faculty members mentored over 250 undergraduate researchers. This represents a huge commitment to the pedagogy of teacher/scholars; however, it also requires resources to sustain that commitment. The Dean further stated that revisions to the annual review process keep in the forefront how we value the various elements of our professional profile. There is widespread agreement that teaching and research are our highest priorities. The dean would like to continue conversations about “merit” in the future, and there is a need to finish up some issues that remain.
One critical element of transparency and faculty governance is budget planning. The Dean’s office is focused on this project this year. Questions include: How do we build a process that allows departments to make appropriate program-based requests? How are faculty members involved in substantial and rigorous conversations about trade-offs and allocation of resources? How do we offer more transparency with respect to budget and resource decisions? At the same time, how do we keep the work of faculty governance commensurate with its effectiveness? The Dean and her staff spent time over the summer designing a program-based budget process and she explained how we will implement it this year.
The Dean also reported on new ways that her office has worked to strengthen department chair effectiveness and confidence. For example, there is now a chair website, with tasks organized by a calendar, and hyperlinks to documents needed. There is a “new chair” orientation program, and she also foresees building mentoring relationships with new chairs; continuing revisions of the website; involving others in training efforts and seeking opportunities for chairs to know one another. As we begin five-year equipment budget planning for the sciences and the arts, the Dean’s office will organize opportunities for the relevant chairs to work together on setting priorities.
The Dean’s Advisory Council is a potentially robust component of faculty governance. The Council includes eight faculty members elected from the tripartite and quadripartite divisions. Composing the Council is a complex layer of elections. The Dean’s Advisory Council is charged with making recommendations to the Dean on staff and tenure line allocations and other resources allocations. This year the PBB process is designed to provide the members of the DAC with substantial information and timely discussions to support recommendations in the annual budget process. The Dean recommends that A & S faculty and the university will be served by having a strong Dean’s Advisory Council. Refer to the Dean’s website (http://as.richmond.edu/deans-office/committees/index.html) for further information on the election process and the charge to the Council. Dean Skerrett’s goal is to work within A & S traditions and structures to build resilient and robust faculty governance in the School.
Dean Skerrett then commented on the “future of our academic endeavor” priority. She has now met with faculty members who joint appointments to learn about their situation. Dean Skerrett also relayed that she and the associate deans work regularly with Career Services to strengthen the case for liberal arts education. Her message is that we do not apologize for the liberal arts. We must continue to work intensively to continue conversations with Career Services, employers, parents and students about the value of a liberal arts education.
The Dean shared summary information from the listening session with directors. She noted that salary challenges with director positions continue to be vexing and the 4/4 class load is a heavy load on some directors. In addition, all directors do different things. The Dean is committed to working with directors next semester to develop an agenda for making progress on their concerns. She then reviewed the A & S Dean’s office goals for 2012-2013, including program based budgeting; faculty governance and review; the Arts Initiative; and the Sciences Initiative.
The Dean then moved into a discussion of the Arts and Sciences Budget. Through the use of a PowerPoint presentation, she reviewed the 2012-2013 budget and noted goals for the FY13 budget. Dean Skerrett explained various aspects of the budget, including the movement of salary surplus funding into the plant fund. However, the plant fund is not continuing budget. We have permission, on a one time basis this year, to move a portion of the surplus for FY 12 into planning for FY 14.
The Dean noted that funding for Faculty Summer Research Fellowships remains level. Currently there is no budget for faculty mentoring stipends associated with the Undergraduate Research Summer Fellowships. The Arts Initiative is underway and the Dean’s office has met triage needs. But further discussion is needed on other priorities. Consultants will be on campus in early October to assist with benchmarking facilities in the arts against our peers. The Dean also explained the Kresge Endowment for the Science Initiative. The science departments are developing a 5-year rolling plan to meet equipment needs.
Dean Skerrett then opened the floor for questions.
Bill Myers asked if excess annual income could be returned to the Kresge endowment. Dean Skerrett replied that we have not yet returned accumulated income to the endowment, but that we will make that decision in the context of the 5-year plan of science equipment. Similar concerns can be raised around the A & S plant fund. If return money to endowment, it does not return to us as income for many, many years. However, we are the beneficiaries of predecessors who build endowment so we should consider our decisions in both short- and long-term frames.
Tom Bonfiglio asked about the plan to move away from term appointments to tenure-line appointments. What will happen to various courses if there are not sufficient faculty to teach them? He noted the huge impact on course offerings. Dean Skerrett noted that that term appointments operate differently from directors and this is another area of concern that needs attention. It is not an ideal situation, but we cannot make immediate decisions. The Dean recognized that term appointments are currently employed regularly in the languages. Yet the dean asks the tenure-line faculty to commit to designing a curriculum for our undergraduates that can be and is regularly taught by the teacher-scholars we employ. This is the mission of the School of Arts & Sciences. So she urges the faculty not to try to expand by out-sourcing teaching to term appointments or adjuncts. These are curricular decisions as well as budget decisions and so genuine faculty governance is key. The Dean hopes to produce an analysis of our use of contingent faculty in the spring for discussion.
Jennifer Nourse asked if the topping off policy for faculty salary from grants and fellowships could be revisited? Dean Skerrett said our policy is complicated so we might try to simplify it. This issue could be a consideration of PBB process.
Gary Radice asked if funding for research projects is the same during the year as well as the summer? Dean Skerrett said that we are committed to the same level. Bill Myers asked if an argument could be made to the central administration for additional funding. The Dean noted that the university’s priority is funds for undergraduate summer experience, which can include an appeal for additional support for undergraduate research. Dean Skerrett noted that the Richmond Promise emphasizes at least one strong summer experience for students. However, some Arts and Sciences students have two experiences, giving them multiple rich experiences. She is supportive of this model, but she also asked if it is too exhausting for faculty. Further conversations are needed on appropriate levels.
Associate Dean Lisa Gentile spoke briefly on the Arts Initiative. She met with Arts faculty last spring to outline a vision for the arts. A firm has been hired to benchmark the programs, including a comparison to peer and aspirant schools and a space analysis. Dean Skerrett then noted that Malcolm Hill is building an equipment model with STEM 6 and he is working with the Grants Accounting Office to fill a position with grants budgeting.
Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for their input and questions. The next Arts and Sciences meeting will be held on October 10 at 4 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
No comments:
Post a Comment