Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. The minutes of the October 2, 2012 meeting were approved.
All proposals on the October 23, 2012 consent agenda were approved.
Discussion Agenda
Motion to Abolish the A&S Honors Committee
David Lefkowitz moved to abolish the A&S Honors Committee. After some discussion regarding the work of the committee, it was decided that a committee was not necessary and the motion was approved.
The dean informed council that she is preparing a report from last year's Priorities and Insights listening series. This will be sent to the faculty members through the A & S listserv. It will also be posted on the Dean’s office webpage. The agenda for the year centers on ways to strengthen faculty governance especially around budget planning and resource allocation. As A&S takes steps to enhance faculty governance, the dean would like to hear from faculty to ensure that we involve faculty members in informed, meaningful decisions without over-burdening their time. The Dean praised David Lefkowitz for his motion to abolish a committee that seemed to require busy work.
Annual merit reviews
Dean Skerrett asked Council members to discuss how their annual merit review process was going and asked if there were issues discovered in the implementation of the new process. A question was asked as to how to weigh teaching, service, and scholarship. The dean asked other Council members to share how they calibrated each category. Many chairs give equal weight to accomplishments in teaching, scholarship and service when they prepare their summative score. A few members continue to use the 40-40-20 weights, with service weighed less than teaching and scholarship. Some members said that they feel an actual number gives the faculty member a sense of one’s performance overall. Others agreed that their department members do not want a number, but would much rather see a word. The dean reminded Academic Council that last spring both the members of the council and the A & S faculty approved a verbal rubric as opposed to a numerical rubric. This was to allow for a more holistic summative evaluation.
A question was asked on how a department should review a faculty member who has been away on leave or sabbatical. Dean Skerrett asked council members to discuss how their departments handle reviews for those on leave or sabbatical. It was decided that a policy should be in place for these situations and the Dean asked council for a recommendation. After some discussion, it was decided that there would be a merit review for work accomplished on sabbatical or professional leave. The merit view would take into account that the faculty member had been released from most teaching responsibilities and some service responsibilities during that time. Thus, the review would focus on progress in research and scholarship.
As the dean’s office prepares triennial schedules of annual reviews for the tenured faculty, she will avoid having year “A” reviews following a year in which the faculty member is eligible for sabbatical or professional leave.
Program based budgeting
The dean asked if there were any questions regarding the program based budgeting process. A chair asked if the dean’s office would rather see the final bottom line or if departments should include their three-year history. The dean observed that the dean’s office is able to provide the three-year histories so it is not necessary for chairs to create these. However, the department should make its best argument, which may include reference to the three-year history.
Dean Skerrett invited the departments to include any information that will make their proposal informative and persuasive. There was a question whether a department could choose the fast track option but realign funds. Dean Skerrett noted that her office had completed a realignment project last year in preparation for program based budgeting. She suggested that if a department continues to find that there is money in a line that isn't being used, then the department chair may reallocate that money to another line. The dean stated that the budget should reflect how the department plans to spend the money. Dean Skerrett suggested that department chairs should reach out to Terri Weaver, director of budget and operations, for further help with realigning budgets.
The dean then reminded everyone of the October deadline for budget requests. This is a real deadline. Once all budget request are in, the Dean's Advisory Council will review them and make recommendations to the dean on what goes forward to Planning and Priorities, as well as how to allocate the $270,000 one-time enhancement rolled over from FY 12 surplus.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
All proposals on the October 23, 2012 consent agenda were approved.
Discussion Agenda
Motion to Abolish the A&S Honors Committee
David Lefkowitz moved to abolish the A&S Honors Committee. After some discussion regarding the work of the committee, it was decided that a committee was not necessary and the motion was approved.
The dean informed council that she is preparing a report from last year's Priorities and Insights listening series. This will be sent to the faculty members through the A & S listserv. It will also be posted on the Dean’s office webpage. The agenda for the year centers on ways to strengthen faculty governance especially around budget planning and resource allocation. As A&S takes steps to enhance faculty governance, the dean would like to hear from faculty to ensure that we involve faculty members in informed, meaningful decisions without over-burdening their time. The Dean praised David Lefkowitz for his motion to abolish a committee that seemed to require busy work.
Annual merit reviews
Dean Skerrett asked Council members to discuss how their annual merit review process was going and asked if there were issues discovered in the implementation of the new process. A question was asked as to how to weigh teaching, service, and scholarship. The dean asked other Council members to share how they calibrated each category. Many chairs give equal weight to accomplishments in teaching, scholarship and service when they prepare their summative score. A few members continue to use the 40-40-20 weights, with service weighed less than teaching and scholarship. Some members said that they feel an actual number gives the faculty member a sense of one’s performance overall. Others agreed that their department members do not want a number, but would much rather see a word. The dean reminded Academic Council that last spring both the members of the council and the A & S faculty approved a verbal rubric as opposed to a numerical rubric. This was to allow for a more holistic summative evaluation.
A question was asked on how a department should review a faculty member who has been away on leave or sabbatical. Dean Skerrett asked council members to discuss how their departments handle reviews for those on leave or sabbatical. It was decided that a policy should be in place for these situations and the Dean asked council for a recommendation. After some discussion, it was decided that there would be a merit review for work accomplished on sabbatical or professional leave. The merit view would take into account that the faculty member had been released from most teaching responsibilities and some service responsibilities during that time. Thus, the review would focus on progress in research and scholarship.
As the dean’s office prepares triennial schedules of annual reviews for the tenured faculty, she will avoid having year “A” reviews following a year in which the faculty member is eligible for sabbatical or professional leave.
Program based budgeting
The dean asked if there were any questions regarding the program based budgeting process. A chair asked if the dean’s office would rather see the final bottom line or if departments should include their three-year history. The dean observed that the dean’s office is able to provide the three-year histories so it is not necessary for chairs to create these. However, the department should make its best argument, which may include reference to the three-year history.
Dean Skerrett invited the departments to include any information that will make their proposal informative and persuasive. There was a question whether a department could choose the fast track option but realign funds. Dean Skerrett noted that her office had completed a realignment project last year in preparation for program based budgeting. She suggested that if a department continues to find that there is money in a line that isn't being used, then the department chair may reallocate that money to another line. The dean stated that the budget should reflect how the department plans to spend the money. Dean Skerrett suggested that department chairs should reach out to Terri Weaver, director of budget and operations, for further help with realigning budgets.
The dean then reminded everyone of the October deadline for budget requests. This is a real deadline. Once all budget request are in, the Dean's Advisory Council will review them and make recommendations to the dean on what goes forward to Planning and Priorities, as well as how to allocate the $270,000 one-time enhancement rolled over from FY 12 surplus.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
No comments:
Post a Comment