November 7, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall. Julie Laskaris moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from October 9, 2013. Suzanne Jones seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Bill Ross moved approval of Academic Council Actions from November 5.  Con Beausang seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.  Sydney Watts noted that Arts and Sciences faculty will be voting on one of the Academic Council discussion items later in the meeting from the November 5 Academic Council, but that the minutes approval does not approve the upcoming motion.

Associate Dean Libby Gruner reported on the Focus on Teaching initiative.  The Advising Center is partnering with the PETE Committee on several lunchtime programs, such as the November 14 program on study abroad.  Libby also asked faculty to contact her if there is interest in creating conversations or reading a book about pedagogy. She also encouraged faculty to review the Focus on Teaching webpage on the Arts and Sciences website.

Dean Skerrett asked Provost Steve Allred to lead a discussion on the Endowed Chair Draft Policy. Provost Allred stated that he presented the policy to University Faculty Council on November 1 and received several helpful suggestions that he has already incorporated.  The new version was distributed to those in attendance. The primary purpose of the policy is to ensure that the university honors the intentions of donors for endowed positions in a consistent manner and that income from endowed chair funds and other gifts designated for support of faculty and administrative positions are used effectively in supporting the University’s academic mission.

The review has been related to a larger project of reviewing gift agreements across the university. The Provost and others have found various discrepancies, such as changing the name of the chair, where the funding is designated, etc.  He noted that several questions were raised at UFC, such as the role of search committees. The Provost reviewed various aspects of the draft policy, including the formation of search committees, vacancies, requirements for the endowed chair, etc.  Provost Allred pointed out that terms for endowed chairs vary within the different schools, but the process of determining the term is now consistent with this policy.  He noted that this was a challenging paragraph to negotiate with the Deans, but it finally came together to meet the various schools’ needs.

After this review, the Provost asked for questions.  Provost Allred noted that this policy does not affect specific chairs, such as distinguished chairs, in departments.  Those policies and procedure are up to the departments and the Deans. The policy does not address compensation for chairs.

Beth Crawford asked about Paragraph 5, addressing the terms of an endowed chair. She does not understand the need for the change or what is the motivation to make this change.  The Provost replied that he respects how things are done differently in the various schools.  However, he sees the policy as an opportunity to move towards a faculty member holding the chair until retirement. Some schools want to be able to offer an endowed chair with terms to retirement and this policy allows for this provision.

Michelle Hamm raised the question of how this policy would be interpreted in the future.  The Provost pointed out that it is not an absolute statement, but that you need to read the entire paragraph.  Dan Palazzolo, Hugh West and others noted that the word, "normally" is problematic.  Why is it better to use "normally?"   The Provost reiterated that after studying this issue for the past two years, he feels that the policy should move towards holding the chair until retirement.  His thoughts on this have been influenced by other peer school policies and that such a policy may increase the value of the chair.  The Provost is still respectful of rotating chairs.  Dan Palazzolo and Beth Crawford noted that rotating chairs is often a way to reward high-performing faculty. Hugh West also asked about the use of the word "normally" in Paragraph 2 under Terms of Appointment, in regards to a one-semester appointment.

Linda Boland asked if the faculty could propose a language change to the draft. The Provost encouraged direct emails to him in order to propose language changes, but he is also seeking input from all the schools. Hugh West asked if the faculty and UFC will be able to review future changes in the policy.

Sara Pappas asked about specific chairs in departments and the Provost noted that those decisions will be made within the school.
 
Regarding the discussion of language, such as the use of the word “normally”, the Provost asked for a show of hands and the informal vote showed that a majority of faculty in attendance at the meeting are in favor of dropping or changing “normally.”

Con Beausang asked about the second sentence in Paragraph 5 and if there is an opportunity for faculty input in the selection of a chair.  The Provost noted that earlier paragraphs addressed that involvement.

Tom Bonfiglio pointed out a discrepancy regarding "service" between Definition A and Paragraph 3 under Terms of Appointment.

The Provost encouraged faculty to send him suggestions and changes.  He will need to complete his tour of other schools and recognizes that it will not be completed this semester.  He summarized the discussion by stating that the main areas of concern center around wording.

Hugh West also mentioned that negotiations or nominations for endowed chairs are in process now and how will this draft policy affect those nominations.  Dean Skerrett recognized that the process should not have started, but she will meet with the departments to discuss a final policy.

Sydney Watts, chair of the Arts and Sciences Nominating Committee, presented a proposal to amend Arts and Sciences representation on the University Faculty Council.  (See full proposal below.) 

______________

Proposal to Amend A&S Representation on the University Faculty Council
A&S REPRESENTATION ON UNIVERSITY FACULTY COUNCIL
The University Faculty Council (UFC) consists of seventeen members, ten of which are nominated and elected from the faculty of the School of Arts and Sciences. According to the Guide to Faculty Governance, each school determines the election procedures of its representatives. Currently, all A&S members of UFC are elected at-­‐ large. There is no divisional representation on UFC. This form of representation allows for multiple members of a single division or department, and may exclude members of a division or department in A&S.
PROPOSAL #1: To amend the A&S faculty representation on the University Faculty Council to two members nominated and elected from each of the tripartite divisions of A&S and four members nominated and elected at-large from A&S.
All members will be nominated and elected from all eligible voting members of the A&S faculty. The divisional representatives will be nominated and elected by all full‐time faculty in each of the three respective divisions, and colleagues with faculty status including those with continual annual renewable appointments in each of the three respective divisions. At-large members will be nominated and elected by all full-time faculty who have continuing annual renewable appointments or who have been granted faculty status.
_____________

Sydney stated that the proposed change is to take six positions to represent the various tripartite divisions.  Four positions would be at-large. This will result in more evenly distributed representation from Arts and Sciences.   Michelle Hamm proposed an amendment that the representation from within each division should come from different departments. Abigail Cheever seconded this amendment. 

Michelle Hamm’s proposal was accepted as a friendly amendment, stated as the following:

Tripartite representation should not come from the same department.

The Arts and Sciences faculty voted in favor of the proposal, with the inclusion of the friendly amendment.

Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for their participation and the meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley

December 3, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, December 3, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305.  Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the November 19, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

Jewish Studies Minor Revision

Discussion Agenda:



1.  Preliminary Summary of Department Annual Merit Scores--Malcolm Hill
2.  Focus on Teaching-- Libby Gruner
3.  Science Initiative Update and Protocol--Malcolm Hill
4.  Continue Discussion of Curriculum Oversight--Malcolm Hill

November 19, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m.

The minutes for the meeting of November 5, 2013 were approved.

The dean motioned to approve items on the November 19, 2013 consent agenda. The motion was approved.

Discussion Agenda

•Academic Advising- Libby Gruner

Dr. Libby Gruner, associate dean, gave a positive report on the first round of academic advising. During the spring semester, Academic Advising would like to visit each department to discuss the new online advising system with faculty members. Dr. Gruner thanked department chairs for their support and encouraged them to reach out to the Academic Advising office with any questions.

•Endowed chair policy

At the November faculty meeting, the Provost presented a draft policy for endowed chairs to the faculty. After discussion, he invited faculty members to send in their suggestions for the policy by email. The dean explained that the provost invited department chairs to provide any additional feedback but that the policy will not come to Academic Council.  The final version will go before the University Faculty meeting in January. 

Dr. Joan Neff added that the Provost was very pleased with the feedback he received following the faculty meeting. Dean Skerrett will ask the provost to send the updated draft to department chairs for review. The dean asked members to share any suggestions or questions.  A faculty member asked why the provost was creating an endowed chair policy. Dr. Neff responded by explaining that there has been a two-year effort within the President's office and the Provost's office to review all gift agreements. As a result, it was determined that a more formal policy was needed.  A faculty member noted that the original language seemed to diminish the role of the departments. The dean responded by saying the faculty governance process has made the draft more inclusive of the departments’ perspectives and practices across campus.  All comments that are sent in by faculty members do have a bearing on the final document. It was asked how many endowed administrative chairs are currently on campus. Dr. Neff will work on getting an answer.

A faculty member suggested that chairs pay close attention to the paragraph on how to carry out a search for an endowed chair. The dean believes that new language came from University Faculty Council (UFC). The dean asked Dr. David Lefkowitz, as a member of UFC, to recommend the best way to organize responses. The dean asked that suggestions be forwarded to Dr. Lefkowitz for the University Faculty Council.  Dr. Neff suggested getting revisions in as soon as possible as the next University Faculty Council meeting is December 5.

•Discussion of A&S Curriculum Committee, continued

Dr. Malcolm Hill, associate dean, has pulled together documents to create a history of how faculty members have reviewed curricular revisions and decisions in the past. Following the first discussion at Academic Council, it is the dean’s understanding that the A&S Curriculum Committee was put in place to manage dramatic change in the curriculum and not to review program or course review.

The dean would like to revisit two suggestions from the last meeting: It was recommended in the last meeting that new programs and courses should be treated differently in terms of faculty governance because that tends to be where the resource implications are felt. It was also recommended that a blackboard be created for discussion before bringing the course to AC for approval. The dean opened the floor for discussion around these two suggestions.

The dean can ask before approving the consent agenda if anyone would like to remove an item to place on the discussion agenda. It was suggested that the agenda be posted more in advance to allow time for department chairs to review the courses. Dr. Hill explained that the target deadline for submitting course proposals is one week prior to Academic Council meetings but receiving proposals earlier would be ideal. Dean Skerrett acknowledged that the dean’s office must become get the agenda out one week prior to the meeting.

Dr. Hill suggested a charge be created for Academic Council so that there are clear goals. The dean suggested creating bylaws to provide clarity to the duties of Academic Council. A faculty member suggested that the review of courses should be primarily accomplished at the department level instead of in Academic Council.  A response was that there should be another lens besides the department. Dr. Hill raised the question whether the criteria used to evaluate courses should be considered.   Dr. Hill suggested new courses be proposed two semesters in advance. Because the University is very department focused, there isn't much opportunity for discussion.  It was suggested that a solution may be to teach a new course as a special topic course while the proposal goes through the approval process. The dean summarized the conversation and the suggestions of Academic Council members. It was decided that course approvals will continue to move through Academic Council and not the Curriculum Committee. The dean would like to continue the discussion next time.

•Adjunct faculty

 The dean continues to work with department chairs on appropriate funding and scale of our adjunct employment. The dean’s office will model different possibilities and keep Academic Council informed of these ideas. A high priority of the dean is that the School of Arts & Sciences employ tenure track faculty to teach courses in the curriculum unless there is a pedagogical or temporary reason not to do so. The dean's highest budget priority is to turn adjuncts or chronic term appointments, where possible, into tenure line positions. The dean believes Dean’s Advisory Council as well as Academic Council shares these values. 

Since 2011, three chronic term appointments have been turned into tenure line positions. The dean will work with Dean’s Advisory Council and the associate deans to try to identify responses to adjunct reliance. The dean is open to any observations or suggestions from faculty members. It was asked if there has been any discussion on reducing the teaching load for adjuncts. The dean suggested if a department could hire a term appointment at the department level and not weigh them down with a 4:4 teaching load, the dean would have no objection.  The dean stressed that ideally the only time a term faculty should be employed is when a tenure line faculty member is on leave.  There was concern regarding fairness across departments and desire to see consistency across all departments for teaching load. The dean stated that currently the only clear and consistent solution would be to require all term appointments to teach a 4:4 load.

 The meeting adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

November 19, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, November 19, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305.  Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the November 5, 2013 meeting.


Discussion Agenda:

New course proposal: HIST 395

Academic Advising- Libby Gruner

Endowed chair policy

A&S Curriculum Committee, continued

Adjunct faculty, continued 

November 5, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. The minutes of the October 1, 2013 meeting were approved.

A motion was brought to the floor to discuss a proposed philosophy course. Dr. Gruner informed Academic Council of a similar course already being offered. Dr. Gruner stressed the importance of discussing new course proposals because faculty members are often unaware of similar courses that are already being offered. After discussion, the motion was approved.

•University of Richmond Threat Assessment: Steve Bisese and Pete Leviness

Dean Skerrett introduced Dr. Steve Bisese, vice president of student development, and Dr. Peter LeViness, director of CAPS. The dean welcomed them to Academic Council. Dr. Bisese gave a brief history of threat assessment at the University. The purpose of the Threat Assessment Team  (TAT) is to identify and prevent, when possible, situations that pose a threat to the safety and well being of members of the community. The team meets regularly to discuss cases and identify appropriate responses.  Since September of 2008, forty cases have been referred to TAT.  Dr. LeViness stressed the importance of reporting concerns even when they seem small.  They may be small pieces of a larger puzzle.  The TAT addresses threats that concern students, faculty or staff members.  Dr. LeViness offered to speak to individual small groups across the School of Arts and Sciences.

•Nominating Committee and the process of committee elections and appointments: Sydney Watts

Dr. Sydney Watts spoke on behalf of the nominating committee and informed Academic Council of its recent discussions surrounding the elections process. A major concern of the committee is the timing of elections as most elections are held in the spring prior to the submission of committee preference forms.  The nominating committee will look closely at the committee preference forms when making committee appointments.

Dr. Watts presented a proposal to amend A&S representation on the University Faculty Council and asked for discussion.  A faculty member asked why faculty representatives are nominated from tripartite divisions instead of quadripartite divisions. Dr. Watts explained that there is a broader pool from a tripartite division.  It was suggested that all interdisciplinary studies programs should be represented as one unit.   A faculty member asked if all elections could be held in the fall.  Dr. Watts explained the difficulties of finding sabbatical replacements.  Dean Skerrett proposed plans for creating a committee chair workshop analogous to the new department chair training. Dr. Watts will present this proposal during the A&S faculty meeting on Thursday, November 7, 2013.


•Engaging the history of the A&S Curriculum Committee:
The dean stressed her concern about Academic Council engaging course approval through the consent agenda. The dean’s office began to research the history of faculty governance around the curriculum. Associate Dean Malcolm Hill began a discussion on the curricular approval process that is currently in place at the School of Arts and Sciences. For new courses, revised courses, new majors, and revised majors, the directions on the webpage direct faculty to send the proposals to the point of contact in the dean’s office.  Dr. Malcolm Hill outlined the review process and explained the steps prior to a proposal being placed on the consent agenda. Dr. Hill explained the charge of the curriculum committee and his thoughts regarding possible past practices for approving new courses.  Members of Academic Council contributed to reconstruction of the history of faculty involvement in curricular change and approval. It was mentioned that the Curriculum Committee was originally designed to make changes to general education. There was discussion regarding past practices regarding the curricular approval process. It was mentioned by several Academic Council members that in the past, Academic Council approved new course proposals after a short discussion around each proposal. A faculty member suggested that any change to programs might be highlighted for review and discussion.  Another faculty member suggested that courses might be posted to a blackboard site so that interested faculty members could raises questions or contribute ideas.  Only then would the motion come to Academic Council.  The dean would like to bring this issue before the A&S faculty during a spring faculty meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

November 7, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

Our next faculty meeting will be held on November 7, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall.




Our discussion agenda will be:

1. Approval of the A&S faculty meeting minutes from October 9, 2013
2. Approval of Academic Council actions from November 5, 2013 
3. Focus on teaching initiative- Libby Gruner  
4. Endowed chair policy- Steve Allred 
5. Career Services webpage- Andrea Almoite and Diana Burkett
6. FYS- Sydney Watts
7. Nominating Committee and the process of committee elections and appointments- Sydney Watts

October 9, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Associate Dean Malcolm Hill called the meeting to order at 4 pm.

Approval of the A&S faculty April 25, 2013 meeting minutes was requested after no changes were suggested.  So moved by Bill Ross and seconded by Dorothy Holland.  The motion was approved.

Approval of the Academic Council actions from September 17, 2013 and October 1, 2013 was requested.  So moved by Barry Lawson and seconded by Tze Loo.  The motion was approved.

Associate Dean Libby Gruner discussed this year’s focus on teaching within the Dean’s Office.  Libby has been meeting with people across campus regarding pedagogy.  She also reminded faculty the Dean’s Office website has a list of campus events, presentations, etc. on teaching.  Some of these events require RSVP, so the Dean’s Office links to CTLT and PETE offerings for faculty.  Libby asked faculty to let her know of teach events sponsored by departments and these will be added to the website list.  Also, feel free to contact Libby with ideas or suggested topics for events on teaching and pedagogy.

Libby called for interested faculty to sign up for teaching Spring 2014 First Year Seminars as there are still some openings needed to be filled.  Stephen Long asked if the capacity audit would come back regarding the distribution of department responsibilities with teaching FYS.  Libby responded that she and Malcolm are discussing the options and looking at three years of FYS data.  They are trying to determine where future needs will be and this process can be a starting place for logistics.  Malcolm mentioned that a potential looking at three years worth of data could help determine capacity and the future demand for particular courses. This would help chairs align teaching assignments with departmental and university demands.

Susan Breeden, University Registrar, spoke with faculty about student record retention guidelines.  Previously, UR didn’t have retention guidelines for keeping exams and coursework.  The policy that has been developed requires that faculty keep one year’s worth of student work and five years of grades.  The Registrar’s Office will help faculty with shredding/destroying such records after they are no longer needed to protect student privacy.  A question was asked about keeping grades in the gradebook feature within BlackBoard and whether that meets the guidelines.  Susan recommended that faculty should download the gradebook data from BlackBoard to ensure they have a copy.  Fred Hagemeister, from the Center for Teaching & Learning Technology, explained that BlackBoard is not the place to keep such data as the policy is to keep a former BlackBoard course for two years before deleting it.  A faculty member mentioned that some departments work with the company Iron Mountain to maintain their records, so that could be another solution.  Someone asked Susan why the guidelines call for retaining grades for five years when a grade cannot be contested after 90 days.  Susan explained that the guidelines are based off of guidelines developed from the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO).  The retention policy is available on the Registrar’s Office website.

Provost Steve Allred and Associate Provost Joan Neff presented the Draft Policy and Procedure for Creating, Suspending & Eliminating Programs for questions and discussion.  Provost Allred explained that the A&S faculty are the first group to be presented the draft.  Historically, UR has had no fixed guidelines on how academic programs are created.  He explained that compliance requirements are increasing and SACS is requiring a documented process for creating or eliminating programs.  SACS does not prescribe what should be in the policy, rather that institutions have documents articulating guidelines for these procedures that are followed.  Joan explained that SACS wants to see that faculty can teach the courses available and are qualified to do so in response to for-profit university issues.

Steve and Joan will be asking for feedback today and over the next month regarding the draft to make any necessary adjustments.  The final draft of the policy will go forward in the January 2014 University Faculty meeting for a vote.  Provost Allred then opened up for discussion of the draft.

Kathrin Bower asked about the flow chart for the approval/elimination of multiple school programs and whether this process included the Cross-School Curriculum Committee.  Joan responded that it would.  The proposed plan is meant to have lots of discussing going back and forth to decide.  Kathrin asked if the home school and the cross-school groups have to reach agreement to an action before it comes forward to the Provost.  Joan asked yes.  The home school is the responsible party talking with the cross-school committee and will have direct communication with the Dean on recommendations.  Steve mentioned that there could be a potential issue of having enough resources when there is potential overlap in programs.  He stated that fortunately, so far the cross-school plans have worked.

Ernest McGowen asked if there were any changes in this draft policy based of experience with adding/eliminating programs.  Steve answered no.  This draft is more of a codification of the current practices.

There was a comment on the one school flow chart that it doesn’t explain the faculty governance structure for eliminating a program.  Steve responded with a recent example of the School of Professional & Continuing Studies ending the Emergency Management program.  In that instance it went from the department to the school to the Dean of the school to the Provost and then to Academic Council.  Steve went on to state that every school will need to establish a specific policy within this process.

Hugh West asked if this policy reflects the faculty handbook policies.  Steve stated that we was aware of the handbook statement on discontinuing programs, but that focused on the dismissal of tenured faculty. Regardless, the policy created would not be in conflict or change the language of the handbook.  Steve also stated that he expects this policy is more likely to be used for adding programs rather than eliminating them.

Malcolm brought up the process for approving new courses and majors.  He saw the development of this draft policy as an opportunity to converse about the current process of approving new A&S courses and majors.  Currently, such requests go from the department to one Associate Dean who then shepherds the proposals through Academic Council and the A&S faculty. He suggested there may be an opportunity for greater faculty input in these important curricular processes. Malcolm indicated that one existing governing body (the A&S Curriculum Committee) might be a good venue to deliberate these issues.  He felt this idea would give more faculty voice in the process.  It was asked if Academic Council wasn’t the better place for this.  One faculty member from the floor commented that council doesn’t have the time to give thorough review.  Another added that a formal review (before it goes forward to Academic Council) might ensure a better review process for new courses and majors.

Provost Allred asked faculty to please review the draft policy over the next few weeks and provide feedback.  The flow charts will be part of the policy, so feedback on the text as well as the charts is very welcome.  A&S has the largest stake in this policy due to its size, so feedback is essential.

Malcolm called for a motion to adjourn.  Sydney Watts so moved.  The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 pm.

The next A&S faculty meeting with be November 7, 2013 in the Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall.

Meeting minutes respectfully submitted by Laura Horne-Popp.

November 5, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, November 5, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305.  Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the October 1, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

PHIL 265

Discussion Agenda:

1. Threat Assessment - Dr. Pete LeViness 
2. Nominating Committee and the process of committee elections and appointments- Sydney Watts 
3. Engaging the History of the A&S Curriculum Committee- Malcolm Hill

October 9, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

Our next faculty meeting will be held on October 9, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall.




Our discussion agenda will be:

1. Approval of the A&S faculty meeting minutes from April 25, 2013
2. Approval of Academic Council actions from September 17, 2013 and October 1, 2013
3. Focus on teaching- Libby Gruner
4. Student record retention guidelines- Susan Breeden
5. Draft Policy and Procedure for Creating, Suspending, and Eliminating Programs- Steve Allred/Joan Neff

Next A&S Faculty Meeting will be November 7, 2013 in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall.

October 1, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:31 a.m. The minutes of the September 17, 2013 meeting were approved with the following amendment: To reflect the discussion of the Program-based Budget planning process, the following two sentences have been added:

"Department chairs may review their budgets or budget requests with Associate Dean Vincent Wang if they wish to do so.  This is not required. "

Consent Agenda
The dean asked if there were any items on the consent agenda that should be moved to the discussion agenda.  Dr. Suzanne Jones moved that the proposal concerning the Special Program Opportunities--Internships be moved to the discussion agenda.

All other items on the October 1, 2013 consent agenda were approved unanimously.

Hours per Internship Unit
Susan Breeden, University Registrar, moved that 150 hours per unit be required for an internship credit.  This will mean that internship credits mirror the requirements for regular course work.  After discussion, the motion was approved.

Discussion

•Enhanced Sabbaticals
The dean presented a draft statement of the policy for enhanced compensation to support two-semester sabbaticals. This statement of policy is an effort to clarify and simplify the rules so that faculty members know what to expect for each of three options.  The policy does not reflect a change in resource allocation. The dean would like to receive feedback on the draft.  Please note that the new policy no longer requires candidates to submit additional external letters for enhanced sabbatical applications. The dean asked Academic Council members to review the document and contact the dean's office with any questions or suggestions.  After receiving comments or edits, the final version will replace the two documents that are currently posted on the A&S dean's office webpage.

•Calibration of Merit Review Scores
In order to permit the department chairs to talk among peers about the calibration of merit scores for annual performance reviews, the Dean asked members of Academic Council who are not department chairs to withdraw.  The department chairs met in small groups of their choice to talk about criteria for calibrating merit scores across disciplines.

The meeting was adjourned 11:10 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines

October 1, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, October 1, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305.  Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the September 17, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

Proposed changes on Special Program Opportunities – Internships.
The current catalog language about internships under the A&S section can be found here.  

Internships provide students with supervised opportunities to understand by direct experience how skills and theories learned in the classroom are applied in business, industry, community agencies, and government. Each internship must include an academic base, such as an appropriate reading list or other resources, which demonstrates or stresses the interrelatedness of the academic background with the selected workplace.

Any academic department may offer an individual internship under the following general description: 388 Individual Internship. Application of academic skills and theories in a selected work environment, plus related academic work supervised by a member of the faculty. Pass/fail grading may be designated by a department for any or all enrollments. May be repeated; however, no more than 1.5 units in the same department may be counted toward the total number of units required for a degree. Prerequisite: Permission of department concerned. .25-1.5 units. Note: No more than 3.5 units of internship of any kind may count toward the total number of units required for a degree. Student Teaching and Theatre Arts Practica are not included in this policy.

Individual departments may have varying limitations on internships. They may be only available to majors and/or minors in the department. Internships usually are limited to junior or senior students who must have the prior approval of the department concerned.

Further information is available from the chair or coordinator of the appropriate department or program.

Motion: Approve 388 course as available for 0 to 1.5 units (it is currently only approved for .25 to 1.5 units).

ANTH- revisions to major

ANTH- major/minor requirements

ANTH - honors program 

ANTH 401 

ANTH 402

CHEM 343

DANC 301

DANC 312

DANC 322

DANC 330

DANC 340

DANC 350

ENGL 390

LAIS

MLC 211

MLC 227

MUS 226

MUS 255

MSAP 260 - 282

Physics- Honors Program  

Sociology- curriculum changes

Sociology- major and minor requirements 

Theatre and Dance- major

Theatre and Dance- minor


Discussion Agenda:

1. Enhanced sabbaticals
2. Small groups to discuss annual reviews

September 17, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:33 a.m. The minutes of the April 23, 2013 meeting were approved.

All proposals on the September 17, 2013 consent agenda were moved to the October 1, 2013 agenda.

•Introductions

Dean Skerrett introduced the associate deans and distributed the contact information and general areas of responsibility for each dean. Each dean has a concentration of duties and a special project.
Then the dean asked members of Academic Council to introduce themselves to the meeting, as there were new chairs and coordinators who have joined the Council.

•Promoting Courses

Associate Dean Libby Gruner reminded Academic Council that the Academic Advising Center keeps a list of special topic courses that are promoted through the Academic Advising Center. If there are courses that a department would like to promote, please reach out to Dr. Gruner. The Academic Advising Center is still working on the most effective way to promote these types of courses. Dr. Gruner also reminded Academic Council of the FYS deadlines and encouraged every department to submit a seminar if the schedule will allow.

Dean Skerrett explained that in past years, a capacity audit was used to plan allocation of First Year Seminars among departments.  Currently, the dean’s office reaches out to departments directly.
•Department Chair and Program Coordinator Compensation

Dean Skerrett discussed the change in payment of department chair and program coordinator stipends.  Previously, the chairs and coordinators were paid after the year of service.  For the past two years, the dean has been transitioning chair and coordinator compensation into the year of service.  Priority for this budget transition was given to new chairs and program coordinators. At the end of this fiscal year, all chairs and coordinators will be on the new schedule and will be paid in the year of service. The dean thanked the remaining chairs for their patience.

•Program-based Budgeting

Associate Dean Vincent Wang gave an update on the program based budgeting process. Most chairs have reported that they found the process very easy.  Each chair should review their FY14 budget and then decide how to proceed.  If a department chair would like to request an enhancement or new position, she or he must complete the forms. If a department chair is satisfied with their current budget and staff, she or he should check the “fast track” option.  Department chairs may review their budgets or budget requests with Associate Dean Vincent Wang if they wish to do so.  This is not required.

Last year, only requests for tenure stream faculty and staff positions were invited. This year the Dean’s Advisory Council and the dean will also accept requests for faculty of practice/director positions and student workers.  The dean reminded Academic Council that requests for director positions should not be made unless one would be clearly preferable for pedagogical reasons to a tenure-line position.

Dean Skerrett mentioned that the dean’s budget manager will realign department budgets every three years. If a department needs realignment prior to the scheduled review, please notify Terri Weaver.  All forms are due in the dean’s office by October 18, 2013.

•Adjunct Faculty

The School of Arts and Sciences currently has fifty-six adjunct professors, who are paid a standard rate per unit taught.  The dean invited the Academic Council to discuss the question of fair compensation of adjuncts and our use of adjunct teachers in our curriculum.  Some faculty members expressed recruitment concerns because other schools in the area offer more competitive pay for adjuncts; some schools offer less pay. It was suggested that the University stop benchmarking adjunct salaries against other schools. It was recommended that an annual pay increase be given to continuing adjunct faculty to keep those faculty members.  Another suggestion to the dean was to turn adjunct positions into term appointments. 

Dean Skerrett suggested that chairs should talk about this issue and make a proposal to the Dean’s Advisory Council in this budget planning cycle.  This would allow us to seriously consider the issue of adjunct pay and employment in the context of resource allocation for the School.

•Review of Endowments
The dean informed Academic Council that the central administration has been reviewing all endowments and endowment agreements.  She hopes this will enable us to move forward on some initiatives.

•New Visiting Faculty Share Agreement

The dean briefly discussed the new Visiting Faculty Share agreement. Some faculty have heard about this document, and expressed concern that it would hinder negotiations.  The dean said that it does not constrain her in negotiations but provides a uniform template for two institutions to streamline compensation, benefits and indemnifications.  It will assist the budget and operations managers so that they do not have to negotiate these details with each school every time we bring a visiting faculty member to campus.

The dean reminded Academic Council that only the dean’s office can make an offer and discuss terms with a candidate.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:41am

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

September 17, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, September 17, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305. Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the April 23, 2013 meeting.

 Consent Agenda:

CHEM 343

ENGL 390

Discussion Agenda:

1.  Promoting courses and FYS scheduling -- Libby Gruner
2. Chair and Program Coordinator stipends
3. Program based budget announcements
4. Faculty compensation of adjuncts

April 25, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes



Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in Keller Hall reception room.   Sara Pappas moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from March 20, 2013.  Sydney Watts seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.  Gene Anderson moved approval of Academic Council Actions from April 23.  Ted Bunn seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.

The following faculty members were recognized and applauded for 25 years of service:  Maren Reiner, Biology; Roni Kingsley, Biology; Jim Davis, Math and Computer Science; and Michael Kerckhove, Math and Computer Science.  The dean thanked them for their service to the University and to a generation of undergraduate students.

Three faculty members were honored as they make prepare to retire in May, 2013.  Dorothy Holland, Chair of Theatre and Dance, read a commendation for Myra Daleng and recognized her as Director of Dance Emerita. Tanja Softic, Chair of Art and Art History, honored Steve Addis as Professor Emeritus of Art and Humanities, and Hugh West, Chair of History, read the citation for John Gordon as Professor of History Emeritus.  The dean thanked these colleagues for their service to the University and for pursuing their vocations among us.

Vincent Wang, Associate Dean for Arts and Sciences, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the Arts and Sciences Undergraduate Research and 2013 Summer Fellowships.  He announced that 202 fellowships have been awarded for summer research; this is significantly higher than we initially thought possible.  Vincent reiterated that the major goal of the capital campaign is to raise funds for summer fellowships and internships. The dean has allocated all annual funds raised to support the undergraduate research program.  Dean Wang explained the various categories of research grants, travel grants, and summer fellowships.  Over $100,000 has been allocated for research and travel grants in the past year.  The total budget for student research, including faculty mentoring and stipends, is $800K.  The dean thanked Associate Dean Wang for his enterprise and leadership over the program. 

The dean welcomed President Ayers to the A & S faculty meeting.  The president spoke to the faculty about the guaranteed summer experience initiative, and his efforts to raise funds for an unrestricted endowment to support summer fellowships and internships.  He reminded the faculty that these initiatives all build on existing programs. This new initiative is an excellent way to distinguish Richmond from its peer institutions.  On behalf of the A & S faculty, the dean thanked the president for his efforts in support of our students’ opportunities.

Sydney Watts, Chair of the Nominating Committee, announced the following results of the Arts and Sciences committee elections for 2013:

Cross-School Curricular Oversight – David Lefkowitz
First Year Seminar (Division I) - Mavis Brown
First Year Seminar (Division III) - Eric Yellin
Grievance – William Myers
Nominating (Division II) - Kathy Hoke
Nominating (Division IV) - Julie Laskaris
Planning & Priorities (Division I) - Jan French
Tenure & Promotion (At-large) - Paul Achter
Tenure & Promotion (Division I) - Jennifer Cable
Tenure & Promotion (1 year Replacement, Division I) – Gene Anderson
Tenure & Promotion (Division II) - Doug Winiarski
University Faculty Council – David Lefkowitz and Tze Loo
University Faculty Council (one year) - Christine Davis

Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for an excellent year and wished everyone a peaceful and productive summer.  The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley

April 23, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:33 a.m. The minutes of the March 19, 2013 meeting were approved.

All proposals on the April 23, 2013 consent agenda were approved.

 Discussion Agenda

•Notifications of dean’s revision to merit scores; alignment with T&P process—

The dean provided a boilerplate of “a notification of merit score revision” for review by Academic Council. In any case where the dean assigns a merit score different than the score assigned by the department chair to an annual performance review dossier, the dean will send the faculty member the notification.  Academic Council discussed whether the notification should subsequently be included in a candidate’s tenure and promotion dossier. Some Academic Council members expressed concern that this addition would not be consistent with past practice, and that it would add a prejudicial element to the dossier.  Others supported including the letter, as it would provide another level of transparency that would be valuable to the candidate and the members of Tenure and Promotion Committee. After much discussion, it was decided not to include the notifications in the T & P dossiers since the dean’s ultimate annual merit score was not shared with Tenure & Promotion in the past.  The decision continues the current and prior practice.

•Report on undergraduate research fellowships—

Associate Dean Vincent Wang presented a report on the A & S undergraduate research program. At the University, undergraduate research and independent creative arts opportunities are open to all students. The School of Arts & Sciences offers three types of funding: research grants, travel grants, and summer fellowships. Currently, 202 students have been funded to conduct their research under faculty mentors during the 2013 summer. These fellowships were funded through both internal and external resources. The School of Arts & Sciences supported 114 of the summer fellowships, including 20 fellowship that were made possible by gifts to the A & S Dean’s annual fund. Professor Wang explained the various resources deployed for summer fellowships including student stipends, A&S matches, and faculty mentoring stipends.

Professor Wang then compared funding over the last 5 years.  172 students applied for undergraduate research fellowships.  Faculty readers were instructed to grade each proposal on scale of 1 through 5. A&S funded 121 proposals and referred 37 proposals to the Spider Research Fund (SRF). 16 of those 37 proposals were funded by the SRF that offers Richmond Summer Fellowships.  Richmond Summer Fellowships have two components: fellowships and internships. 100 A&S students received internship awards from RSF out of 160 total awards.

Professor Wang briefed Academic Council on the first year experience under SRF. Moving forward, all fellowship students will have uniform contract letters, a centralized housing process, and will be required to enter their time sheets online. The Undergraduate Research Committee will compare departmental funding rates and will aspire to make opportunities to all students, but will particularly focus on non-STEM students. The goal is to expand summer opportunities for students through our ongoing engagement with donors who see the educational and career value of these opportunities.
Dean Skerrett thanked Vincent Wang for his hard work. The dean’s office will focus on tracking student research, as it will help with the University’s campaign efforts. 

•Guidelines for T&P, student evaluations

The dean asked Academic Council to look over the proposed revisions to the T&P guidelines. The most significant change is an added checklist. The dean hopes this will be helpful for the dean’s office, the candidate, as well as the department chair to assist with document management.
Dr. Michelle Hamm briefly spoke about student evaluations. The Tenure & Promotion committee has asked the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) to develop an electronic file for the candidate to access and print evaluations for each course.  In addition, the OIE will also summarize the data for the candidate. The goal is to make the process more consistent and less stressful and time-consuming for the candidates.



The meeting was adjourned at 11:47am

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

April 25, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

Our next faculty meeting will be held on April 25, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room.




Our discussion agenda will be:

1. Approval of the A&S faculty meeting minutes from March 20, 2013
2. Approval of Academic Council Actions from April 23, 2013
3. Summer Experience Initiative and other matters--- President Ed Ayers
4. The honoring of faculty members
5. Undergraduate Research Program report--- Vincent Wang
6. A&S election results 

April 23, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, April 23, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room. Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the March 19, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

At its April 1st meeting, the Music Department voted to reduce the unit credit of MUS 203:  Global Ensemble , which groups them with jazz combo and guitar ensemble, from 0.5 units to 0.25 units.  The reasons for the reduction are the smaller amount of rehearsal time and lower performance expectations for these ensembles compared with those for Orchestra, Band, Jazz Band, Chamber, Schola Cantorum and Women’s Chorale.

MUS129

RELG342

Studio Art Major 

Discussion Agenda:

-Notification of deans revision to merit scores and alignment with T&P process

-Report on undergraduate research fellowships

-Guidelines for T&P, student evaluations

March 20, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in Keller Hall reception room.   John Gupton moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from February 14, 2013. Bill Ross seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. John Gupton moved approval of Academic Council Actions from February 19, March 5 and March 19.  Bill Ross seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.

Dean Skerrett introduced the primary agenda item for the meeting, an overview and discussion of the Annual Merit Review Process. The Dean announced that she recently made her recommendation for merit-based salary increases to the Provost who will discuss it with the President.  If Dr. Ayers approves, it will be brought before the Board of Trustees for consideration.  Dean Skerrett provided a PowerPoint slide review of the process and its outcomes.



The Arts and Sciences faculty approved revisions to the merit review process in April 2012.  Two major goals of the revisions were to reduce the preparation time for dossiers for faculty and department chairs, and to increase transparency of the work in the dean’s office.  The period under review this cycle was academic year 2011-2012.  After department chairs submitted the faculty dossiers, two associate deans each independently read each dossier.  The dean read all dossiers and gave particular attention to cases where there where discrepancies among the chairs’ evaluation, the associate deans’ evaluation and her own.  The dean reported that in 77 percent of the cases there were no discrepancies.  In the remaining 22 percent, the majority were cases where the department chair offered a half grade (like a B+).  Except in two cases, the dean rounded half grades down.

Mari Tonn noted that the Dean’s scores seemed more discerning between the ratings of 4 and 5, but changed with the 3. The Dean replied that 3 was a more elastic category and than the 5. 

Marion McCormick expressed a concern about the different expectations of publishing across disciplines and departments.  The Dean replied that the publishing data does calibrate across disciplines and there are consistent patterns.  She noted that over half of the tenure-line faculty were rated as excellent (4), which we would expect since that is the standard for tenure.

The Dean then returned to her presentation and reviewed the process for merit raises and tenure and promotion "bumps".  After merit increments were applied according to an algorithm, recently tenured or promoted faculty members also received block amount “bumps”.  The amounts were announced.  Bill Ross asked about blocks and percentages used in the merit allocations.  The Dean replied that they differed by rank and by merit category.  The block amounts were used to ameliorate the effects of the percentage increases; however, the goal was to spend all the available money in a systematic way.

The dean reminded faculty that they will receive salary allocation letters for next year no later than May 13, and any notification of revisions that the dean made to the department chair’s evaluation will be included in that letter. The triennial schedule will then be updated.

Dean Skerrett also submitted a benchmarking proposal to the Provost and more than half of the request will apply to the directors with some small adjustments requested for a few professors in the Assistant and Associate ranks.



Julie Laskaris asked about the compressions within the different faculty ranks and how they were addressed. The Dean proposed bench-marking adjustments to address compression issues in the first three years of service at the University.  The dean reiterated that her proposal continues to advance the average percentage for each rank towards the target. 

Stephanie Cobb asked about the excellent rating (4) and if decisions are made based on smaller projects, rather than big projects.  How should faculty interpret this?  The Dean replied that if someone is working on a years-long project, it is important to continue to demonstrate engagement with professional peers who are in a position to assess the promise of the work.  Marion McCormick asked if peer-reviewed publications are the goal?  The answer is yes.  Peer-reviewed publications are the standard way that faculty members demonstrate a scholarly program that makes contributions that are valued and validated by professional peers.

Dean Simpson asked if this approach to merit ratings and increases is a major change over past practice?
 Is this approach too blunt?  Will doors be shut?  Will students suffer?  Dean Skerrett replied that the process rewards those who exemplify the teacher/scholar model.  The approach does not punish people who take other paths, but it gives highest rewards to excellent, innovative teachers who have consistent research programs, and who are actively involved in university citizenship.  There are a great number of faculty members who really “do it all”. 

Libby Gruner stated that it has not been the standard in some disciplines to publish a peer-reviewed article per year.  This would be a change in expectations to state that you cannot achieve an excellent rating (4) without a peer-reviewed publication.   A major concern is disciplinary differences and expectations.  A peer-reviewed article per year is not the norm in several disciplines and that such expectations feel like a change.  The dean reminded the faculty that they would carry their rating for a 3-year period so that this will tend to smooth the publication rates.  

Julie Laskaris noted that she does not recall seeing a book and an article published each year while serving on the tenure and promotion committee.  The dean noted that at tenure reviews, the committee looks for a trajectory and consistent scholarly progress rather than a quantity of outcomes.  Prof. Laskaris asked, How do you manage the big project and the peer-reviewed articles? The Dean observed that nearly all of the faculty members who received an evaluation of excellent or above are indeed meeting regular publishing expectations.  



Sara Pappas asked a question about salary pool increases and if the central administration is considering changing the percentage in light of an improved economy?   The Dean does not believe the central administration is planning to change the salary pool; however, she wants to build simply salary models to demonstrate future needs as one consideration in determining the pool.

Mari Tonn asked further questions regarding quality versus quantity and noted that chairs are in the position to know the publishing trends in their field.  She asked how are other merits (i.e., anthologies, professional service) counted? Brian Henry asked if Dean Skerrett has language comparable to "peer-reviewed journals" for disciplines (art, music, etc.) where the peer-reviewed journal is not the standard.  The dean replied that the department chair provides crucial context for the faculty member’s scholarly achievements.  The dean also noted that there are several disciplines where the highest level of scholarly engagement is not peer-reviewed publication, such as Computer Science or Theater and Dance.



Eugene Wu asked if a bar has been set for those pursuing tenure to publish at least one peer-review publication per year?  The Dean replied that no one can achieve tenure without peer-review publications or other scholarly outcomes appropriate to the field.  However, tenure-track faculty members do not have to achieve an excellent (4) rating each year to be awarded tenure. 





April Hill agreed that we need to continue to evaluate scholarship at a higher level, but she also expressed a desire to improve the deep evaluation of teaching, especially in the liberal arts college setting. Dean Skerrett asked the faculty how they reflect on their teaching?   How do we use teaching evaluations and evaluate mentorships? Brian Henry agreed that if we have peer-reviewed scholarship, we should have peer-reviewed teaching, and not allow anonymous SEI's to be the primary criterion by which our teaching is judged. The Dean reassured faculty that student comments, both formal and informal, are considered in the context of other means of evaluation.



Jennifer Nourse asked how are sole authors and multi-authors publications weighed, particularly with decisions about a 4 or 5 rating?  The dean responded that that depends on the practice of the discipline and the intellectual leadership and contribution made by the faculty member.  Some faculty expressed concern about the lack of conversation or interaction on the ratings. Dean Skerrett further explained that if the dean raises a score, she will call the chair.  If the Dean lowers the score, the chair and the faculty member will be informed of her doing so.  The dean reminded the faculty that transparency of process was one of the two goals of the revisions that the faculty approved last year.  Transparency does not mean that everyone will be more satisfied with the outcomes; it means everyone will know how the outcomes were made and by whom.


The next Arts and Sciences meeting will be held on Thursday, April 25 at 4 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room.  The president Dr. Ed Ayers will join the A & S faculty to discuss the Summer Experience Initiative and faculty-mentored undergraduate research.

 The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 PM



Respectfully submitted,

Lucretia McCulley




March 19, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. The minutes of the March 5, 2013 meeting were approved.

 All proposals on the March 19, 2013 consent agenda were approved.

-Report on annual performance reviews:

The dean presented a report on the annual performance review process that we have just completed.  The period under review was the academic year 2011-2012.  The dean’s proposal for salary enhancements has been submitted to the provost and will be presented to the Board of Trustees at their April meeting. Due to the approved revision in the faculty handbook, the salary letters will be sent out no later than three weeks after the Board of Trustees’ meeting.
Dean Skerrett gave an overview of the annual review process.  After the department chairs submitted the dossier, two associate deans independently reviewed each dossier and then discussed each case to arrive at a merit score. The dean reviewed all annual reports and arrived at a merit score. Finally, merit scores from the chairs, associate deans, and the dean were compared in cases of discrepancy.  The dean is responsible for the final score. 

Kathleen thanked Patty Murphy, director of institutional effectiveness, for building a merit model for A&S. The dean discussed tenure and promotion “bumps” and explained that it is her intention to keep this policy in future.  The dean showed the distribution of merit categories across the faculty, and discussed the elements of the algorithm for distributing merit pay across ranks and merit categories.  Finally the dean reported on the percentage of cases where there was discrepancy between the department chairs’ evaluation and the dean’s.

The triennial schedule for departments will be updated and sent to department chairs. The dean reminded council members that all faculty members must submit an annual review each June.
There was discussion regarding how merit score revisions will effect tenure decisions since a letter from the dean noting the revision may be included in the candidate’s dossier. The dean will bring examples of the dean’s letter to the next Academic Council meeting.

-Honors theses and faculty time: Suzanne Jones

Professor Jones opened discussion on honors seminars and how departments manage honor students. In the past, there was a banking procedure in place after a faculty member directed a high number of theses. Since directing honors seminars requires a lot of work, there is concern that people are now reluctant to take on a student that would like to do an independent study.  Many gave examples of how they handle such situations in their department.  The dean affirmed that independent studies and honors theses must be accommodated within existing faculty resources and time.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:51am

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

March 20, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

Our next faculty meeting will be held on March 20, 2013 at 4:00 p.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room.



Our discussion agenda will be:

1. Approval of the A&S faculty meeting minutes from February 14, 2013
2. Approval of Academic Council Actions from February 19, 2013, March 5, 2013 and March 19, 2013
3. Dean's report on annual merit review process

Announcement:  President Ed Ayers will join us at our next meeting on Thursday, April 25th to discuss the Summer Experience initiative and other matters. This meeting will be in the Keller Hall Reception Room.

February 14, 2013 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall.  Gene Anderson moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from January 16, 2013. Jonathan Dattelbaum seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Stephanie Cobb moved approval of Academic Council Actions from February 5.  Reed West seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.

Dean Skerrett reported that progress continues on developing a new faculty governance process for developing and revising the curriculum.

Dean Skerrett provided a debriefing of the Program-Based Budgeting (PBB) process.  The Dean provided an overview of the process that commenced in September.  Budget requests were received from department chairs and program chairs and forwarded to the Dean’s Advisory Council.  The Council met weekly from late October to early December to determine priorities.  The Dean described the various funding sources, including:  a surplus of $70,000 from FY12, $200,000 from salary surplus from FY12; and $24,000 from the continuing operating budget. The Dean’s Advisory Council reviewed all requests and made recommendations and the Dean made the final decision.  Requests included new budgets and enhanced continuing budgets.   The DAC recommended and the Dean approved seven one-time, non-continuing requests.

Position requests included eight staff positions and five tenure-stream positions.  The only faculty position approved for internal A & S funding was an Assistant Professor of Art.

Five requests were forwarded to Planning and Priorities and three of those were approved:  The approved requests were the GIS technician; Studio Arts Lab Manager; Assistant Professor in Physics.

Yvonne Howell asked about the process to decide what to fund internally and what to send to Planning and Priorities.  The Dean replied that they made strategic decisions with priorities and cost-sharing to make those requests persuasive to Planning  and Priorities.  She also noted that a chronic term position in Physics was converted to partially fund the tenure-stream Physics position.   The Dean is pleased with the outcome of the Planning and Priorities process.

Dean Skerrett reported that faculty mentoring stipends were not approved and she hopes to start building a budget for the stipends.  She does not see these stipends as compensation but as honoring the commitment of faculty to mentoring.

Gene Anderson asked about the amount of money in the plant fund.  Dean Skerrett replied with the amount, and noted that the fund is still designated for plant renovation and equipment.   She hopes that there may be some new policies concerning this use.

Gene Anderson then asked if equipment needs occur during the year, should faculty contact the Dean? The Dean responded that both the Science Initiative and the Arts Initiative are concerned with developing rolling five-year equipment plans for those areas.

Kathrin Bower asked further questions about the plant fund, such as “What is the rationale of the plant fund?”  The Dean does not fully understand the history of its development.  She suggested that we might want to think of other ways to use it, such as developing a quasi-endowment, etc.

Yvonne Howell asked about endowed chair positions that are not filled and the availability of those funds. Dean Skerrett replied that she plans to start reviewing endowments later in the spring, including the unfilled chairs.  Andrea Simpson asked about the Weinstein Fellows funding for interdisciplinary courses.  She stated that funding has vanished. The Dean replied that she does not know immediately about this program.  Dean Skerrett stated that she is working with the central budget office right now and their assistance will be essential in undertaking a review of our endowments.

The Dean said that, after consultation with the DAC, she would like to change the schedule for faculty position requests from the fall to the spring.  Kathrin Bower asked for further clarification on requests for positions and noted the need for ample time in preparing requests, etc.

Yvonne Howell asked if there is any way to produce a document, website, etc. that would provide further information on reviewing the curriculum as a whole, including enrollment, etc.  Is there a way to visualize it? The Dean agreed that this would be very helpful and perhaps options can be explored.

Dean Skerrett ended her discussion on PBB by thanking the faculty, chairs, and Dean's Advisory Council for participating in the new process.

Julie Laskaris encouraged faculty attendance at the upcoming Connecting the Humanities and the Professions, on March 21-22, 2013.

The remaining part of the faculty meeting was devoted to a presentation on Title IX.  Kerry Fankhauser (Associate Dean, Westhampton College) and Dan Fabian (Associate Dean, Richmond College) presented the latest information on Title IX regulations.

Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for their presence at the meeting. The next Arts and Sciences meeting will be held on March 20 at 4 p.m. in Keller Hall Reception Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Lucretia McCulley

March 19, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, March 19, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in the Tyler Haynes Commons Room 305. Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the March 5, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

"Our colleagues in the Business School have made changes to the Economics major that require A&S approval because it will affect the A&S Economics major. The major change involves the statistics requirement. The rationale for the change is included in the first document. Last year the Business School approved a change to replace the two-semester statistics sequence (BUAD 201 & BUAD 301, Statistics for Business and Economics I & II) with a one-semester course (BUAD 202) with the understanding that a department could add a second-level statistics course. The Economics Department decided that their majors needed a second semester course. The ECON310 course (the second document) has been slightly modified and will now focus on trade. A new 300-level ECON course will focus on international monetary aspects of finance." 

ECON Major Changes

ECON 310

Discussion Agenda:

-Report on annual performance reviews 
-Honors theses and faculty time -- Suzanne Jones
 

March 5, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. The minutes of the February 19, 2013 meeting were approved.


 The English Department would like to change the number of English 364 Film Directors to English 379, a number not currently in use. There was no objection. 


Student development:

In the past, department chairs and other faculty members have expressed concern about how to address students’ mental health problems.  Colleagues in Student Life and CAPS offered a presentation on programs at the University of Richmond and recommended best practices.  The goal is to ensure that the lines of communication are open between Student Life and faculty members to help coordinate the timely support for our students in distress. Dr. Joseph Boehman, Dean of Richmond College, reminded faculty members that they are often the first line of defense for a troubled student. Dean Boehman discussed changes in behaviors, such as a drop in class attendance, can be signs of a larger problem.  More students are utilizing CAPS each year.  At the moment, 16% of students at the University of Richmond seek counseling each year. A lower stigma regarding mental illness and treatment, greater availability of medications, and increased academic pressure are a few reasons why there is an increase in students accessing college mental health services.  Currently, the greatest mental health risk at the University relates to over-consumption of alcohol.


AAUP: Tenure and teaching intensive appointments

Dean Skerrett resumed discussion about the demographics of the A&S faculty, particularly the growing proportion of non-tenure-line faculty.  The dean also introduced the AAUP link that was distributed via email, and invited Prof. Julie Laskaris to comment.  The increase in the role of non-tenure-line teachers has occurred across the profession.  The question is how to review, compensate, and ensure academic freedom and faculty citizenship to these teaching-intensive roles. Currently, 44% of the A&S faculty (by head-count) is non-tenure track and the number of director positions has increased over the last 5 years.  Members of Academic Council offered two queries for research:  1) How does the teaching load for directors at the University of Richmond compare to those at other schools, and 2) what proportion of courses are taught by non-tenure-line faculty members.  The dean’s goal is to have tenure-line faculty teach courses at all levels of the curriculum and all areas, including general education courses.  She encourages the faculty to exercise shared governance over the curriculum and educational program so that, as far as possible, the tenured faculty commit to teach the curriculum we collectively design.   The dean also noted that the demographic statistics of the A&S faculty indicate that diversifying the faculty continues to be a priority as we conduct each search. 


Honors Convocation:

This year’s A&S Honors Convocation will be April 9th at 11am in Camp Concert Hall. We have noticed that the event has not been well-attended.  In an attempt to highlight this event, the deans have decided to call it “ Honors Convocation: A Celebration of Student Achievement.”  Dean Skerrett’s longer-term vision is to connect Honors Convocation with the A&S Student Symposium and dinner.  The dean encouraged members to let her office know if there are other student awards that should be recognized at the Honors Convocation this year, or if members have any recommendations for re-designing the ceremony.  Please forward those suggestions to the dean’s office.   Invitations for the Convocation will be sent after the Spring Break.  Please encourage your faculty and students to attend.


The meeting was adjourned at 11:45am

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

March 5, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, March 5, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in the Tyler Haynes Commons Room 305. Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the February 19, 2013 meeting.

Point of Information:

The English Department would like to change the number of English 364 Film Directors to English 379, a number not currently in use. 

Discussion Agenda:

-Student development presentation with Juliette Landphair, Joe Boehman, Lynne Deane, and Pete LeViness
-AAUP: Tenure and teaching-intensive appointments
-Demographics of the faculty: inquiries from Academic Council
-Honors Convocation 2013: A Celebration of Student Achievement  

February 19, 2013 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. The minutes of the February 5, 2013 meeting were approved.

All proposals on the February 19, 2013 consent agenda were approved.


•A&S compliance training with Joan Neff and Shannon Sinclair

The dean welcomed Associate Provost Joan Neff and University Counsel Shannon Sinclair to Academic Council. Joan explained that all faculty and staff members at the University must complete compliance training. The presentation began with situational questions. Members answered how they would respond to the hypothetical situations. Shannon defined compliance and explained why the program is in place at the University. The program is designed to promote a culture of integrity and compliance with regulations. The program will also reinforce the University's commitment to excellence. The key elements of the University's program are board level oversight, code of organization ethics and integrity, clear delegation of compliance responsibilities, confidential reporting mechanism, compliance education, monitoring and auditing, appropriate corrective action, and annual review of the effectiveness of the compliance program.

 Shannon discussed the methods of reporting a compliance issue on campus. In addition to reporting issues to a department chair, dean, or a member of the administration, a person may report concerns through the Ethics and Compliance Helpline. This helpline is completely anonymous.  Please visit the University's compliance webpage with any questions about the compliance program.


•Teaching innovation and classroom master plan

 The dean invited Kevin Creamer to discuss the classroom master plan sessions.  The University is looking ahead to the next 10 years as programs have changed since the first plan was launched in 2005.  The university has contracted consultants to do an analysis of formal and informal teaching spaces and to generate ideas for aligning them with our pedagogies and programs.  The first round of meetings with the consultants took place in early February. The second round of meetings will take place the last week of February. A few sessions will be open to faculty.  You can find more information here.



 •Proposed changes to faculty handbook/faculty practices/directors

Following last year's listening series, the Dean asked the Directors to organize themselves and to advance an agenda of issues for the dean. Joe Essid presented the agenda to Academic Council. The dean and the Directors have worked through some issues.  The Directors have proposed some revisions to the faculty handbook that include eligibility for voting in departments, access to professional development resources, and a paid professional leave each ten years of continuous service.  After some discussion, many council members expressed concern regarding departmental voting, professional leaves, and position-based eligibility for resources.  Hugh West suggested that the issue of Directors' faculty rights be studied by a disinterested faculty committee appointed by regular means or the faculty status subcommittee of the University Faculty Council. It was suggested by the dean that Directors consider these reservations, and begin to prepare a revised proposal for discussion and deliberation in a faculty governance process.



•Distribution of Adjunct and term appointments

The dean asked Academic Council to look over a chart that shows the demographics for the School of Arts and Sciences, including the percentage of full-time faculty (by headcount) who are not in tenure-line positions.  It was suggested that it would be helpful to see the breakdown of how many adjuncts and term appointments teach general education classes. Dean Skerrett is concerned that the proportion of non-tenure-line faculty is increasing relative to tenure-line faculty.  While this is a national trend, she is concerned that we contributing to this situation without making an intentional plan to do so.  She would like to continue this discussion at the next meeting.




The meeting was adjourned at 11:55am

Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

February 19, 2013 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, February 19, 2013 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in the Tyler Haynes Commons Room 305. Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the February 5, 2013 meeting.

Consent Agenda 

Math 396

MTEC

Informational Item

RELG 343 (deactivate)  


Discussion Agenda

1. A&S compliance training with Joan Neff and Shannon Sinclair 
2. Teaching innovation and classroom master plan
3. Proposed changes to faculty handbook/faculty practices/directors  
4. Distribution of Adjunct and term appointments