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.
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.
