February 25, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting

Our next faculty meeting will be held on February 25, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. in the Carole Weinstein International Center Commons.


Our discussion agenda will be:

UFC Faculty Governance Proposal



Our next meeting will be March 19, 2014 in the Tyler Haynes Commons Alice Haynes Room.

February 19, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

Our next faculty meeting will be held on February 19, 2014 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 January 22, 2014
2. Approval of Academic Council actions from January 21, February 4, and February 18
3. River City faculty fellowship program- Dr. Amy Treonis
4. Program based budgeting (PBB) update
5. Contingent Faculty Reform 

Next A&S Faculty Meeting will be February 25, 2014,  in the Carole Weinstein International Center Commons. This will be a special meeting to discuss the University Faculty Senate proposal. The meeting will be at 4 p.m.

January 22, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall. Bill Myers moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from November 7, 2013. Dan Palazzolo seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Reed West moved approval of Academic Council Actions from November 5.  Tze Loo seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.

Career Services:  Arts & Sciences Blueprint
Dean Skerrett introduced Diana Burkett, Communications Manager in the Office of Career Services.  Diana provided a presentation and demonstration of the School of Arts and Sciences Blueprint as a starting-point for linking students’ academic experiences with their career goals and paths.  She explained that a Blueprint has been created for each school at the university in order to meet different needs of the students and the respective disciplines. The BluePrint has two goals: 1) outlining the core competencies for Arts and Sciences students 2) assisting students with how to discuss these competencies as they prepare for future positions.  Competency examples include problem solving, team building, and knowledge of the world.  Career Services seeks faculty input with defining the competencies and illustrating how they are acquired in various disciplines and academic experiences.  Please send your ideas to Diana Burkett at: dburkett@richmond.edu or call her at 289-8547.

The website address for the blueprint is: http://careerservices.richmond.edu/exploration/AS-blueprint/

Dean Skerrett also noted that the Office of Communications seeks input from each department in order to build department versions of competencies, in addition to the overall A&S competencies. Faculty can then explain to students on how they can acquire those capabilities within their programs.

Report from A & S Nominating Committee:  Election Results
Dan Palazzolo, Chair of the A&S Nominating Committee shared the results of the Planning and Priorities election.  The Nominating Committee is committed to educating faculty on the committee’s activities, how elections work, sharing election results, etc.  A&S faculty members elect one member from each of the quadripartite divisions to represent them on the Dean’s Advisory Council. These four members also represent the A&S quadripartite divisions on the Planning and Priorities Committee. Dan reminded faculty that the Planning and Priorities election is unusual because it occurs in the fall, in order to schedule new members for the Dean’s Advisory Council meetings for the next year. Committee members represent the quadripartite divisions within the Dean’s Advisory Council.  Current membership includes Jan French (Division I); Kathy Hoke (Division II); Carol Summers (Division III) and Walt Stevenson (Division IV).

Sydney Watts (former chair of the Nominating  Committee) commented that it is important to inform faculty about the level of participation in elections as well as to publicly validate the election results.  Nicole Sackley asked if it would be better to share percentages, rather than numbers, in election results, to avoid any embarrassment.  Dan also indicated that he will pull together chairs and review their responsibilities and then update the website.

Shared Governance Initiatives:
A.  University Faculty Senate Initiative
Dean Skerrett addressed two faculty governance initiatives that will advance to the faculty this spring.  They include a Faculty Senate proposal from the University Faculty Council and suggested by-laws for the A&S Dean’s Advisory Council. The Dean stated that these two initiatives emerged independently but that A & S faculty should be involved in discussing each of them.  

The dean introduced Jan French and Jennifer Erkulwater (both representing University Faculty Council) to speak about the Faculty Senate proposal that is being prepared for discussion.  Planning for a Senate proposal started in the spring of 2013, with a study of faculty governance at peer institutions.  A draft proposal should be ready for review  and discussion at a February faculty meeting.  In addition, faculty may read about the Council’s work via minutes on the UFC Blackboard website. 

The proposal has important implications for A&S, as the largest school within the university.  The Dean urges A&S faculty to pay attention to the proposal, read it carefully and offer good discussion and support.  Faculty members need to be involved in this initiative.  The goal is develop a proposal that can gain the support of the faculty, the administration and the Board of Trustees.   There will be many questions to discuss, including the character of representation, but the UFC is hoping to move forward with the proposal through active deliberations.

B.  By-laws for the Dean’s Advisory Council
Dean Skerrett then discussed the draft of the Provisions for the Operations of the Dean’s Advisory Council. The Dean reminded everyone of the mandate and membership of the advisory council.  The current document represents bylaws for the group and reflects how process has developed over the past two years. All of the operations described are currently practiced except for the election of a Chair of DAC.  The draft reflects the original mandate, describes the election process, the creation of meetings and the election of the chair.

The dean envisions the Chair of the DAC functioning in similar fashion to the Chair of Tenure & Promotion committee.  She noted that the last two provisions concerning avoidance of impropriety and confidentiality are very important to a culture of shared governance.

Nicole Sackley asked about the role of the chair and does the chair become a liaison to the faculty?  Would faculty members bring other issues to the chair, not just budget concerns?  Dean Skerrett said that has not been proposed and noted that it would be a big change. Nicole suggested that it is important to make the role clear to faculty. The Dean noted that the chair would play a strong role in the Dean’s Advisory Council, but the position would not serve as a chair of the faculty.

Sydney Watts asked about the secret ballot process in Dean’s Advisory Council. Dean Skerrett explained the Dean does not have a vote, just the council members.

Advisory Council members who are elected to represent department chairs would step down if they no longer serve as department chairs.  Michelle Hamm commented that if they continued it would be against the spirit of the Council development. She stated that within the Council you are representing your tripartite divisions, but you are also representing what is best for the school.

It was noted that the Planning and Priorities representatives do not report back to the Dean’s Advisory Council.

A question was raised regarding what recourse do department members on the Council have regarding a departmental proposal?  Dean Skerrett stated that the Council can invite department chairs or program coordinators to offer further information or clarification. Ultimately, the Dean has to make a decision based on recommendations and limited resources. Bill Myers recommended the inclusion of a paragraph that would further describe the expected scope and perspective of the Council Members.

Dan Palalazzo argued that representatives on the Council can speak for their tripartite division by offering shared perspective rather than advocacy.  Those present agreed that sharing a perspective is most important.  The ultimate goal is to serve the School of Arts & Sciences as a whole.

Dean Skerrett expressed the desire to approve the Advisory Council by-laws by the end of the semester, but if this does not occur, the conversation can continue next fall.  However, this is an opportune time to move forward.

The Dean thanked the faculty for their attendance and the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.




Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley

February 18, 2014 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, February 18, 2014 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 February 4, 2014 meeting.

Consent Agenda:

New/Revised Courses

EDUC 356 Elementary Classroom and Behavior Management 

EDUC 357 Secondary Classroom and Behavior Management

JOUR 377 Practicum

Major/Minor Changes

BMB

Education 

Discussion Agenda: 

Academic program review

DAC bylaws

February 4, 2014 Academic Council Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 10:32 am


The minutes of the January 21, 2014 were approved.

Course Proposals and Curricular Revisions
The dean asked if any member of Academic Council wished to move a course proposal from the consent agenda to the discussion agenda.  Dr. Sam Abrash requested that ENVR 325, Global Sustainability, be added to the agenda. The dean added this course to the discussion agenda. Dr. Linda Boland asked that DANC 319 be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the discussion agenda.  Further, the dean moved that the Biology curriculum proposal be moved to the discussion agenda.  Dr. Michelle Hamm asked for removal of the BMB major revisions from the consent agenda to the discussion agenda.

All other new courses on the consent agenda were approved by unanimous consent.

Dr. Linda Boland asked why DANC 319 was only listed as one unit given the time commitment envisioned for students.  Dr. Holland further explained that if DANC 319 were offered at 2 units, a student would have to get permission to take over the maximum 5.5 units. Susan Breeden confirmed the minimum average of credits a student can take per week is 10-12 hours. It was asked if an adjustment could be made to avoid conflict in the future. Dr. Malcolm Hill, associate dean, added DANC 319 it falls within the guidelines of 10-12 hours a week per unit.  After discussion DANCE 319 the members of Academic Council voted to approve DANC 319.

A member asked who would take ENVR 325. Dr. Abrash answered that Environmental studies majors would take this course as an elective. Dr. Abrash explained that this course would be cross-listed with the School of Professional and Continuing Studies.  This would be the only way to make this course available to undergraduates.  The members voted to approve ENVR 325 with the following changes to the proposal:

Effective semester: summer 2014
Professor: David Kitchens

Susan Breeden noted a correction to MLC 312.  MLC 312 will be listed in the catalog as Italian 312.

Dr. Linda Boland gave a brief explanation of Biology’s revised major curriculum proposal. Biology proposal embodies an innovative national agenda for undergraduate science education that has been proposed by the National Science Foundation and HHMI.  The Biology proposal was approved by vote of the members.

Dr. Hamm asked that the proposed revisions to the BMB curriculum be discussed at a later date because the key departments have not approved the.  The proposal was tabled.

All other proposed course revisions were approved by unanimous consent.

Contingent Faculty Reform Initiative
The dean asked Dr. Vincent Wang, associate dean, to present the Dean’s office Contingent Faculty Reform Initiative (CFRI).  This initiative is based on an analysis of our reliance on term and adjunct faculty members; it aims to prioritize reliance on tenure-track faculty to design and teach the academic program at all levels, and to increase compensation for term and adjunct faculty when we do rely on them.

As a starting-point, Dr. Wang noted that the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) recommends that the use of non-tenure track appointments should be limited to instances where specialized expertise is required for a particular course or where there is some contingent event that requires a limited replacement appointment.  Dr. Wang defined tenure stream faculty, faculty of practice (directors at UR) and part-time faculty as stated in the University of Richmond Faculty Handbook.  Dr. Wang defined contingent faculty to include both part-time and full-time non-tenure-stream or non-continuing faculty. 

The dean’s office is working to reduce chronic term positions and replace them with tenure track positions. The dean’s office is confident that over time they can reduce chronic term appointments. Between 2011-2012 and 2014-2015, we will be able to the number of chronic term appointments from 10 to 3, replacing these with tenure-stream positions. 

Dr. Wang stated of the 350 total A&S faculty in 2013, 30% were contingent faculty. These faculty members do not participate in governance and are not expected to have continuing appointments at the university.  Patty Murphy, director of Institutional Effectiveness, added that these numbers exclude applied music instructors.  A few questions were asked from Academic Council members.
The dean clarified the numbers presented in the presentation.

Dr. Wang briefed Academic Council members on contingent faculty eligibility for benefits.  At the University, full-time term faculty members are eligible for health benefits while adjunct faculty members are not.  The Dean’s office will be able to hire term appointments to teach 4-4 or 4-3 with benefits. The dean’s office plans to improve the pay for adjunct faculty while reducing reliance on adjuncts to no more than 140 per year.  The dean’s office will raise the adjunct rate per unit from $4,000 to $5,000 for instructors with terminal degrees and $3,200 to $4,000 without terminal degrees. Adjunct instructors without terminal degrees should be hired in rare circumstances. 

Using the new Teaching Assignment Projection (TAP), the dean’s office will work with department chairs to meet or reconfigure curricular needs based on tenure-steam or continuing faculty resources.  The dean asked department chairs to identify chronic term or adjunct reliance so that the dean’s office can help to address this through faculty planning.

Dr. Wang then explained the guidelines and procedures associated with the CFRI. Before making requests for contingent faculty, department chairs will first complete the Teaching Assignment Projection (TAP). All contingent faculty requests should be submitted to the dean’s office for term faculty by the end of February, and for adjunct faculty by the end of March. Requests can be submitted again at the end of October. Any department that has a leave-proof agreement with the dean’s office (in exchange for a tenure-track position) will not be eligible for term faculty during the term of the agreement. Departments can request adjunct units based on demonstrated needs, including enrollment averages for courses requested.

The dean’s office will continue to report back to faculty on A & S reliance on term and adjunct faculty members.  If anyone would like to see today’s presentation, please send a request for a hard copy to the dean’s office.

The meeting adjourned at 11:48am.


Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines