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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment