Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m.
The minutes from the December 3, 2013 meeting were approved.
University Faculty Council proposal for Senate
The dean opened the meeting by welcoming Dr. Jan French, chair, University Faculty Council (UFC). The dean explained that A&S has been working in tandem with UFC to develop two initiatives in support of faculty governance. Dr. French gave a brief overview of the UFC subcommittee on governance, and of its work thus far. The UFC has begun to develop a proposal for a University Faculty Senate. The subcommittee is chaired by Dr. Eric Yellin and has representatives from all five schools. The proposal under development envisions a Senate with deliberative and legislative power, which UFC does not currently have. Jan named all members of the committee from A&S.
The dean encouraged faculty members who are interested in contributing ideas to this initiative to contact Dr. French. Members of the UFC subcommittee have been invited to present the Senate proposal during an A & S faculty meeting in February. The dean urged Academic Council members to encourage faculty in their departments and programs to engage in discussions and meetings concerning this proposal.
Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) Bylaws
In addition to the proposal for the University Faculty Senate, A & S faculty members will be asked to discuss and eventually approve By-laws for the A & S Dean’s Advisory Council. Dean Skerrett asked Academic Council members who are also members of the DAC to identify themselves. The dean gave a brief history of the creation of the DAC, which was formed in 2010, pursuant to a recommendation made by UFC in 2008. Dr. Michelle Hamm confirmed this history. The dean explained how DAC makes recommendations to the dean concerning decisions about allocation or reallocation of resources.
The current draft of the By-laws reflects the experience of the DAC in its operations. The novel feature of the By-laws is that it provides for the DAC members to elect a chair of the DAC. The chair would work with the dean on agenda, issues, or questions that members have. The position would be analogous to the chair of the Tenure & Promotion Committee.
Dr. Jennifer Nourse asked if a chair was elected to DAC as the chair of their tripartite division, once their term as chair of their tripartite division expires would they remain on the DAC. The dean said she thought yes, but others said that would not fulfill the intention of having department chairs represented on the DAC. The dean said she would redraft in response to comments.
The dean’s office has been working with the Nominating Committee to set out the order of priority for elections. An issue arose as to who the electorate is for the department chairs that represent the three divisions. Is it only department chairs in that division or is it all of Academic Council? Currently, only department chairs in the division serve as the electorate. This opened a discussion of representation and responsibility of members of the DAC. The dean said that she would draft some options for Academic Council to consider.
It was asked about PBB approvals and why departments don’t see the recommendations from the DAC. The dean explained that the DAC recommendation is included in the report to the department. The department is immediately able to see its request, the DAC recommendation, and the Dean’s positive or negative decision, as well as her explanation for the decision.
Dr. West recommended that departments or programs should have a right to present their request to DAC or/and a right of rebuttal or appeal in the case of a negative decision. The dean said that DAC currently makes inquiries and invitations when it requires more information to make its recommendation. The members exercise judgment in determining when to do this. There is no appeal, although a department or program can re-submit a proposal in the next cycle. A member of DAC can be assigned to work with departments or programs to improve or refine proposals where the proposal is promising but not yet compelling.
Summary of PBB process and decisions 2014 (for FY15)
This year, the DAC recommended reallocation of $118,000 surplus from FY13 operating budgets. These are one-time reallocation for next academic year. The DAC recommended $12,250 reallocation of FY14 continuing operating budgets to fund FY15 continuing operating requests. These are continuing reallocations.
The DAC makes recommendations to the dean, and the dean makes final decisions and approvals. In addition, the dean, on the recommendation of DAC, made a request to the Planning & Priorities Committee (P&P).
The dean will send email notices regarding PBB decisions to each department chair or program coordinator who made a request. These will be sent after the presentation to the A & S faculty meeting on the PBB process.
Dean Skerrett opened the floor for questions regarding the PBB report. It was asked how postdoctoral funding works into the PBB process. The dean said term appointments and adjunct requests do not go through the PBB process and postdoctoral funding would go through term faculty hiring process.
Teaching Assignment Projection
Dr. Vincent Wang began the discussion by explaining the new Teaching Assignment Projection (TAP). The Teaching Assignment Projection is a revision of a capacity audit.
The dean’s office would like to make the TAP useful for faculty as well as the dean’s office. Dr. Libby Gruner added that an email was sent only to chairs for the first round to pilot this version. Once all TAP’s are received from departments, the dean’s office will gather information from interdisciplinary program coordinators.
The purpose of TAP is to organize planning for a department’s curriculum and evaluate capacity of the full-time faculty. Once the full-time faculty members have been deployed to cover the department and interdisciplinary curriculum, including FYS and Gen Ed requirements, the department may demonstrate course-based needs for term faculty or adjuncts.
Dr. Gruner added that the dean’s office has included three-year enrollment data with the TAP. This will help department chairs to deploy faculty most effectively and to make good judgments about the need for course taught by adjuncts.
Dr. Hugh West recommended that the dean’s office look at the policies surrounding pre-registration quota for athletes.
The dean is open to advice about the timing of TAP and its uses.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
The minutes from the December 3, 2013 meeting were approved.
University Faculty Council proposal for Senate
The dean opened the meeting by welcoming Dr. Jan French, chair, University Faculty Council (UFC). The dean explained that A&S has been working in tandem with UFC to develop two initiatives in support of faculty governance. Dr. French gave a brief overview of the UFC subcommittee on governance, and of its work thus far. The UFC has begun to develop a proposal for a University Faculty Senate. The subcommittee is chaired by Dr. Eric Yellin and has representatives from all five schools. The proposal under development envisions a Senate with deliberative and legislative power, which UFC does not currently have. Jan named all members of the committee from A&S.
The dean encouraged faculty members who are interested in contributing ideas to this initiative to contact Dr. French. Members of the UFC subcommittee have been invited to present the Senate proposal during an A & S faculty meeting in February. The dean urged Academic Council members to encourage faculty in their departments and programs to engage in discussions and meetings concerning this proposal.
Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) Bylaws
In addition to the proposal for the University Faculty Senate, A & S faculty members will be asked to discuss and eventually approve By-laws for the A & S Dean’s Advisory Council. Dean Skerrett asked Academic Council members who are also members of the DAC to identify themselves. The dean gave a brief history of the creation of the DAC, which was formed in 2010, pursuant to a recommendation made by UFC in 2008. Dr. Michelle Hamm confirmed this history. The dean explained how DAC makes recommendations to the dean concerning decisions about allocation or reallocation of resources.
The current draft of the By-laws reflects the experience of the DAC in its operations. The novel feature of the By-laws is that it provides for the DAC members to elect a chair of the DAC. The chair would work with the dean on agenda, issues, or questions that members have. The position would be analogous to the chair of the Tenure & Promotion Committee.
Dr. Jennifer Nourse asked if a chair was elected to DAC as the chair of their tripartite division, once their term as chair of their tripartite division expires would they remain on the DAC. The dean said she thought yes, but others said that would not fulfill the intention of having department chairs represented on the DAC. The dean said she would redraft in response to comments.
The dean’s office has been working with the Nominating Committee to set out the order of priority for elections. An issue arose as to who the electorate is for the department chairs that represent the three divisions. Is it only department chairs in that division or is it all of Academic Council? Currently, only department chairs in the division serve as the electorate. This opened a discussion of representation and responsibility of members of the DAC. The dean said that she would draft some options for Academic Council to consider.
It was asked about PBB approvals and why departments don’t see the recommendations from the DAC. The dean explained that the DAC recommendation is included in the report to the department. The department is immediately able to see its request, the DAC recommendation, and the Dean’s positive or negative decision, as well as her explanation for the decision.
Dr. West recommended that departments or programs should have a right to present their request to DAC or/and a right of rebuttal or appeal in the case of a negative decision. The dean said that DAC currently makes inquiries and invitations when it requires more information to make its recommendation. The members exercise judgment in determining when to do this. There is no appeal, although a department or program can re-submit a proposal in the next cycle. A member of DAC can be assigned to work with departments or programs to improve or refine proposals where the proposal is promising but not yet compelling.
Summary of PBB process and decisions 2014 (for FY15)
This year, the DAC recommended reallocation of $118,000 surplus from FY13 operating budgets. These are one-time reallocation for next academic year. The DAC recommended $12,250 reallocation of FY14 continuing operating budgets to fund FY15 continuing operating requests. These are continuing reallocations.
The DAC makes recommendations to the dean, and the dean makes final decisions and approvals. In addition, the dean, on the recommendation of DAC, made a request to the Planning & Priorities Committee (P&P).
The dean will send email notices regarding PBB decisions to each department chair or program coordinator who made a request. These will be sent after the presentation to the A & S faculty meeting on the PBB process.
Dean Skerrett opened the floor for questions regarding the PBB report. It was asked how postdoctoral funding works into the PBB process. The dean said term appointments and adjunct requests do not go through the PBB process and postdoctoral funding would go through term faculty hiring process.
Teaching Assignment Projection
Dr. Vincent Wang began the discussion by explaining the new Teaching Assignment Projection (TAP). The Teaching Assignment Projection is a revision of a capacity audit.
The dean’s office would like to make the TAP useful for faculty as well as the dean’s office. Dr. Libby Gruner added that an email was sent only to chairs for the first round to pilot this version. Once all TAP’s are received from departments, the dean’s office will gather information from interdisciplinary program coordinators.
The purpose of TAP is to organize planning for a department’s curriculum and evaluate capacity of the full-time faculty. Once the full-time faculty members have been deployed to cover the department and interdisciplinary curriculum, including FYS and Gen Ed requirements, the department may demonstrate course-based needs for term faculty or adjuncts.
Dr. Gruner added that the dean’s office has included three-year enrollment data with the TAP. This will help department chairs to deploy faculty most effectively and to make good judgments about the need for course taught by adjuncts.
Dr. Hugh West recommended that the dean’s office look at the policies surrounding pre-registration quota for athletes.
The dean is open to advice about the timing of TAP and its uses.
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
No comments:
Post a Comment