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