March 18, 2014 Academic Council Minutes

Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.  The dean informed council members that the A&S Faculty meeting on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 is cancelled in order to encourage faculty to attend the University Faculty meeting on Thursday, March 20 where the proposal for a University Faculty Senate will be presented.  The dean may schedule an additional faculty meeting in April.

The minutes of the March 4, 2014 meeting were approved.

Dr. Nicole Sackley moved to divide the American Studies minor proposal from the consent agenda to the discussion agenda.

Dr. Sackley briefed Academic Council on the American Studies proposal.  Over the last few years, the program has grown and has operated without a minor. The American Studies Advisory board voted to approve the creation of a new minor in American Studies.  The objective of the minor is to provide an opportunity to study American culture, politics, and society.   The motion was approved.


Academic Advising

Dr. Libby Gruner reminded Academic Council that advising begins the week of March 24.  Dr. Gruner shared the schedule of courses that are currently listed in Bannerweb and reminded council members to fill out the form on the website if they would like to promote a course. If a faculty member needs to make a change to a course, one can do so by contacting the Academic Advising office.


Major Integration of Study Abroad

Dr. Joe Hoff, interim dean for International Education, and Kim Cressy, have been working on the major integration project for study abroad.  The Office of International Education(OIE) would like to work with departments to create advising materials for study abroad opportunities. These materials would help students think more about studying abroad within their major as well as inform them how to earn credits abroad toward their major.

Kim Cressy discussed the survey that was sent to faculty members in January and gave a few examples of the survey questions. There were 52 total responses. OIE would like to promote study abroad programs by showcasing student profiles on the website.  
   
Dr. Joe Hoff explained how course credits are applied through study abroad programs and opened the floor for questions.

A question was raised if a policy exists for study abroad approvals. It was confirmed that the department chair or program coordinator approves study abroad proposals. It was suggested that this should be a partnership between the General Education Committee and OIE. 

Tenure and Promotion

The dean will meet with 2014-1015 tenure and promotion candidates at the end of April. The dean reminded council members that the guidelines for preparing the candidates portfolios are revised each year. The Tenure and Promotion Committee is in the process of revising the guidelines for next year. The dean will send a notification once the revisions have been made.

It was asked if an incoming department chair could attend the tenure and promotion candidates’ meeting. Dean Skerrett agreed and suggested that incoming department chairs should attend, where appropriate, if their schedule allow.

It was questioned if the Tenure and Promotion Committee could offer advice regarding the organization of portfolios. The dean stated that there are specific instructions included in the guidelines. It was asked what revisions are being made to the guidelines. The dean responded that the revisions reflect recommendations of the committee from its experience during the course of the review process.

The dean announced that the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) will meet at the end of March to review the final revisions to the proposed DAC bylaws. The dean will bring those revisions before Academic Council and the faculty in April. The dean gave a brief update on PBB requests. Chairs have been notified and have received feedback from the dean on their requests.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:28 a.m.


Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Johnson

April 1, 2014 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, April 1, 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 March 18, 2014 meeting.

Discussion Agenda:

DAC Bylaws 

February 25, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dr. Jan French, University Faculty Council (UFC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the International Commons Room. She welcomed and thanked the Arts and Sciences faculty for attending the special called meeting. She also recognized the members of the UFC sub-committee on faculty governance and encouraged attendance at the full faculty meeting on Thursday, March 20 at 4 p.m.

Dr. French then turned the meeting and discussion over to Dr. Eric Yellin, chair of the subcommittee on faculty governance.  Eric explained that the goal of the meeting is to hear faculty voices.  Eric described the process and history of the UFC initiative to review faculty governance and to explore what would work best at the University of Richmond. In early December, UFC voted to bring the proposal to the faculty for discussion.  Eric noted that the subcommittee also met with various university administrators about the proposal.

Eric outlined the following areas of concern with the current structure:
1- UFC is advisory only.
2- The determining body is university faculty meetings (UFM), but these meetings are not well-attended. When there is good attendance, the body is so large that is unwieldy for discussion and decision-making.
3 – The faculty committee structure is disconnected.
4 -  The Richmond Promise asks the five schools to work closer together and the current structure does not support close collaboration. 

The most important changes with a Faculty Senate model include:
1- Faculty Senate would be the determinant body, except with changes with major curricula changes and no confidence votes.
2- Faculty would have control over faculty meetings and set agendas.
3- University Faculty committees would report on a regular basis and the Senate would provide committee oversight.

Eric then opened up the floor to questions from the faculty.  John Gupton asked about the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the Planning and Priorities (P&P) Committee.  Would a faculty senate representative serve on P&P?  Eric replied that the Faculty Senate President would be an ex-officio member on Planning and Priorities.  John also asked if the Senate President would be a part of the President’s Cabinet and Eric replied that the position would not be a part of this body for a variety of reasons.  However, this could be revisited.

Kathrin Bower asked a follow-up question about P&P regarding the nature of communication from the Faculty Senate President to the faculty when much of the deliberation of P&P is confidential.  Eric replied that most of the communication would not be released until after the Board of Trustees had approved the budget plan.

Claudia Freeman had questions about who is eligible to vote and suggested clarification on the language.  She also asked how the Senate would ensure and elicit feedback and opinions from faculty?  Eric replied that the goal of the Senate is to represent and speak for faculty and that all senate meetings will be open.  Minutes and reports will be distributed to faculty on an ongoing basis.  The Senate may be much more effective with an informed group of faculty.

Con Beausang asked about how the Senate would define a major curricular decision for full faculty vote?  Eric replied that the Senate would make this determination.

Kathrin Bower asked several questions related to service commitment.  Would this model add more labor and time to faculty work lives?  Is having a collective voice worth the work?  Do we need to consider administrative support and possible release time, especially for the Senate President?  Eric replied that these are good questions and they have been discussed with administrators, but no final decisions have been made.  He reiterated that the current administration is very supportive of the Senate model.

Jessie Fillerup followed up with a question about the role of pre-tenured faculty on the Senate.  Would the time commitment prohibit untenured faculty to serve? Eric replied that non-tenured faculty members currently serve on UFC and the time commitment for a Senate model should not increase. He also pointed out that the Senate responsibility covers the entire university, not just Arts and Sciences.

Kathrin Bower asked about the date of June 15 for implementation.  Eric and others had suggested this because it would fall after the faculty and Board of Trustees votes in April and May, but that the date could change.  One advantage is that the new model would be in place as a new Provost arrives at the university. Kathrin also asked about the role of the immediate past President of the Senate.  Eric clarified that the past president is ex-officio and would not have a vote, but would offer continuity. 

Michelle Hamm asked how the meetings are moving forward with the other schools, especially with the issue of representation.  Eric replied that some concerns have been voiced, but the subcommittee is trying to emphasize the positive points of representation and that is important to remember that the Senate would not only represent the various schools, but the university as a whole. A smaller, deliberative group will probably protect the minority more effectively and the minority would have more voice on a Senate, than a large body.

The goal is to have an electronic vote later in the spring, after the full faculty meting.

Hugh West advised the need for a good parliamentarian at the upcoming March 20 faculty meeting to make sure the process flows well. 

Eric Yellin also announced that two additional faculty fora will be scheduled, in addition to the March 20 full faculty meeting.


The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,

Lucretia McCulley

February 19, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room of Weinstein Hall. Reed West moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from January 22, 2014.  Gene Anderson seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Jan French moved approval of Academic Council Actions from January 21, February 4 and February 18.  Vincent Wang seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.


River City Project


Dr. Amy Treonis, Faculty Coordinator for the River City Project, encouraged faculty to apply for the River City Sustainability Faculty Fellowship program for 2014-15.  Faculty (full-time, continuing) from all Schools and disciplines may apply to attend a two-day workshop (May 6-7, 2014). At the workshop, field trips, guest speakers, and group activities will introduce the core concepts of sustainability and provide faculty with pedagogical resources to effectively link these ideas to a course they teach. Participants will receive $1000 upon submission of a revised syllabus for a course to be taught in 2014-15.

Contingent Faculty Reform Initiative (CFRI)


Dean Skerrett stated that the Dean’s office has focused for two years on various elements of its Contingent Faculty Faculty Reform (CFRI) Initiative. We are in a position to move forward this year.  She then turned the meeting over to Associate Dean Vincent Wang to provide an overview, accompanied by PowerPoint slides, on the CFRI. Wang emphasized that the Dean’s Office has used current AAUP guidelines on the use of non tenure-track faculty in developing the CFRI.   Wang also provided information on the definitions of various faculty positions from the UR Faculty Handbook.  This current initiative only addresses adjunct, visiting or part-time faculty.  Detailed information of A&S reliance on contingent faculty, including the numbers/percentages of faculty and their responsibility for instruction were presented. Wang shared that the Dean's office sought input from the chairs on adjunct faculty and that chairs expressed concerns on compensation and teaching load.  It is important to note that the Dean's office proposal focuses mainly on compensation.  Other strategies include reducing "chronic" term appointments and instead creating tenure track positions where warranted, significantly improving the pay for adjunct faculty, offering benefits to term faculty who teach 4-3 loads, and encouraging departments to reconfigure their curricula based on continuing faculty resources.   In order to increase pay for adjunct faculty, it is also necessary to reduce the dependence for adjunct instructors on a continuing basis.  If there are continuing curricular needs, departments should plan for full-time tenure-track faculty to meet them, where possible.  Full-time term faculty will be defined as an instructor who teaches at least seven courses during the academic year.  The pay rate for an adjunct faculty position will be raised to $5,000 per course for faculty with terminal degrees and $4,000 for those without faculty degrees. This reflects a 25% raise. Wang then offered an overview of guidelines and procedures to implement these practices.

Jan French expressed appreciation for the work on the CFRI.  She asked for clarification on classes that enroll fewer than 10 students. Dean Skerrett noted that if a discretionary course has consistently low enrollments, the Dean’s office will talk with a department chair about the continued use of an adjunct instructor.  The dean also expects that tenure-stream faculty will teach in all levels of the curriculum.  The Dean emphasized that sharing information and having conversations will assist with making better decisions about faculty assignments and staffing needs.

Tom Bonfiglio asked how the teaching loads for tenure track and adjunct faculty compare with peer institutions. Vincent Wang replied that he does not have detailed information, but that the 3-2 load is comparable for tenure stream faculty.  The comparable adjunct load is not the best, but not the worst.

Dean Skerrett stated that this achieved important goals:  bringing our practice in line with AAUP recommendations, making term appointments with 4-3 teaching load eligible for benefits, reducing reliance on adjunct instructors to cover general education or introductory courses, increasing the pay of adjunct instructors by 25%, and motivating departments to plan curricula and faculty staffing needs together. The Dean's goal is to reduce reliance on chronic term appointments and adjunct instructors in favour of tenure-stream positions.  In the past three years, A & S has eliminated 4 chronic contingent appointments to replace them with tenure-track positions in the same field.

Program Based Budgeting (PBB)

The Dean then moved into a report on the Program Based Budgeting process to build FY15.  She described the PBB process, including budget requests, the operating budget, documentation for Dean's Advisory Council members, DAC council meetings, and DAC recommendations to the Dean.  The Dean makes final decisions and prepares her request to Planning and Priorities.  Dean Skerrett then reported on various continuing budget and non-continuing budget requests, faculty and staff position requests, student employment requests.  She set out the calendar for debriefing these outcomes to the faculty after the Board has established the FY15 budget.

The Dean remarked that she finds the DAC model and the program based budgeting process very helpful. DAC has become a strong faculty leadership community that works well as a group. This has lead to the development of the DAC by-laws to codify how the Council continues working.

Faculty Senate Draft

Jan French shared that the Faculty Senate Draft has been distributed to all faculty. A special Arts and Sciences faculty meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 25 at 4 p.m. in the International Commons Room to discuss the proposal. Jennifer Erkulwater described the history and process that UFC has taken in the last year to study faculty governance and propose the Senate model. Dean Skerrett noted that this draft reflects a lot of faculty work and reflection, and encouraged A & S faculty to attend.

The Dean thanked the faculty for their attendance and the meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley

March 18, 2014 Academic Council Agenda

Our next meeting will be Tuesday, March 18, 2014 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC- Alice Haynes Room.  Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.

Approval of minutes from the March 4, 2014 meeting.

 Consent Agenda:

American Studies Minor



Discussion Agenda: 

1. Academic Advising- Dr. Libby Gruner
2. Major integration of study abroad project - Dr. Joe Hoff and Kim Cressy
3. Tenure and promotion 

March 4, 2014 Academic Council Minutes

The meeting began at 10:47am.  The minutes from the last meeting were approved with a small amendment to wording.


The consent agenda was approved by unanimous consent.



Course Proposal Process:

Dr. Malcolm Hill continued discussion on the course proposal process for the School of Arts & Sciences.  Dr. Hill briefed Academic Council on the history of the course proposal process.  Since the departmental curricula are so interconnected, the dean’s office suggests there is a need for faculty oversight and discussion of new programs and courses. Dr. Hill presented the current timeline for new course proposals.  The timeline is designed around when courses will appear in the course catalog. These deadlines are not firm, however, they are recommendations made by the dean’s office.  Dr. Hill explained that when curricular changes come to the dean’s office, an associate dean looks for possible staffing implications of the proposals. Afterwards, they are forwarded along for other approvals. The proposals are then placed on the consent agenda for Academic Council and final approval comes from the faculty by vote at the A&S faculty meetings.

Dr. Hill opened the floor for discussion regarding the process and how it could be improved. Dr. Hill posed three questions:  What is the proper scope of Academic Council review in evaluating curricular changes?  Should the current time-line be changed to accommodate the review process?  Should Academic Council periodically review the documents associated with the course proposal submission process. 

If Academic Council adopts a strategy similar to the General Education proposal below, approvals would be made two semesters prior to the course offering. Dr. Hill suggested an online submission process would improve the course proposal process.

General Education Proposal:

Dean Skerrett asked Dr. David Lefkowitz to discuss the General Education proposal. Dr. Lefkowitz explained that the proposal would formalize a process for curricular changes. It would also allow more time for the General Education committee to discuss courses in depth.  The current process only gives the committee two days to review the proposals.  The proposed changes are reflected in the handout except for the idea that submission must be made at least two semesters before the course is offered.

It was suggested that the proposal go before University Faculty Senate for approval rather than Academic Council. Dr. Lefkowitz responded by saying that they are not looking for approval, but for feedback regarding the proposed timeline.  There was discussion around the proposal.

There was concern expressed regarding the feedback given after a negative decision has been made regarding a course proposal.  Having a longer timeline for course approvals would allow for improvement of the feedback process. It was confirmed that the committee meets physically and feedback to proposals are given in a timely way. The dean asked if there were any challenges to the proposal.  A member asked how the proposed timeline would affect junior faculty members.  The dean offered that early career faculty could be instructed on course approval procedures at new faculty orientation and by department chairs.  It was questioned if it would be possible to create an expedited process for new faculty. Dr. Lefkowitz answered that an expedited process would not allow enough time to review the proposal.

It was asked how many proposals come to the committee per semester.  Dr. Lefkowitz estimated that there are about 5-7 proposals per year.
It was asked how resource issues would be addressed for minor and major proposals. Dr. Hill responded that this would be hard to predict. Dr. Hill stated that by having guidelines, there would be an evaluation structure for all courses.

The dean’s office will continue discussion on how Academic Council should handle course proposals or program changes. The dean stated that the current proposal form could be brought before Academic Council for consideration. It was suggested that individual fields of study be considered when reviewing the forms. It was suggested that a small group of faculty review the form. The dean’s office will follow up on this conversation and get feedback on the current form.

Department Merit Rubrics in the Annual Review Process:

The dean’s office would like to bring department rubrics for annual performance review before Academic Council. The dean believes it would be useful for council members to review department rubrics.  If a department is unwilling to share its rubric, please let Dean Skerrett know. 

Update on URC/UR Summer Fellowships:

Dr. Vincent Wang discussed the Undergraduate Research Committee process. This year 166 proposals were submitted to the dean’s office. This number was comparable to last year.  A&S will refer its recommendations to the UR Summer Fellowship Committee along with its unfunded proposals.  The Undergraduate Research Committee (URC) decided to recommend allocations of the same level of funding as last year, and the dean’s office has budgeted for a comparable number of faculty-mentoring stipends.  Dr. Wang explained that three readers review each proposal and the faculty mentor’s opinion is taken into account very seriously as this would be the student’s mentor.

The meeting adjourned at 10:50am.



Respectfully submitted,

Zandria Haines

March 4, 2014 Academic Council Agenda

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

Consent Agenda:

Chemistry 
Physics

Discussion Agenda:

1. Course proposal process:  remaining questions- Malcolm Hill
2. General  Education Proposal- David Lefkowitz
3. Department Merit Rubrics in the Annual Review Process:  preparing for a discussion
4. Update on URC process and UR Summer Fellowships

February 18, 2014 Academic Council Minutes

The meeting was called to order at 10:33am.

The minutes from the February 4, 2014 meeting were approved.

Academic Program Review

The dean reviewed again the Academic Program Review Plan document with the members.  The plan will put all A&S academic programs on an 8-year cycle. Academic Program Review is different from assessment as it an opportunity to look at the overall objective and design of academic programs. Academic Program Review will focus on conversations among faculty and set goals for the programs in the School of Arts and Sciences. The dean encouraged faculty members to pursue opportunities to undertake program reviews in concert with other programs if there are overlapping areas for discussion or planning.  The dean’s office can facilitate requests for data that in support of the program review.  The outcome of Academic Program Review will be a short report to the Dean’ office, Dean’s Advisory Council and Academic Council on the questions discussed with focus on the actions a department plans to take.  With the report, the department or program may request an external review or consultation to assist with follow-up.

A faculty member asked if the registrar’s office has the recorded first and second theses advisors information on file. It was suggested that this material be recorded and accessible as it would be useful knowledge for faculty.

The dean asked Kevin Butterfield, University Librarian, to discuss the UR Scholar Repository where theses are deposited. Mr. Butterfield stated the library has a webpage that lists honors theses.  Currently, around 15,000 honors theses have been downloaded.

It was suggested that “teacher scholar” be added to the language of the Academic Program Review draft in order to reflect the importance of faculty scholarship to academic programs.  The dean agreed and will make the appropriate changes to the draft.

Some faculty members preferred to have external reviewers arrive before the program review discussion and report. There was discussion regarding external reviewers visiting campus before a department discusses its needs. The dean stated that she would like the reviews to have goals. Therefore, she would prefer that the external reviewers be brought into the process when the department has clarified its focus, goals, and questions for the external review.

The dean’s office will assign departments and programs to two-year cohorts over the next eight years.  We are accepting volunteers for the cohort that begins 2014-2016.  The dean encouraged those departments that would like to volunteer for the first round to contact her. The dean’s office will assemble the first cohort in a meeting late this spring.


DAC Bylaws:

Dean Skerrett would like to bring the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) bylaws before the faculty for a vote this semester. The dean handed out a hardcopy of the bylaws that included revisions made by Dr. Nicole Sackley.

The dean opened discussion on how department chair representatives are elected to DAC and explained the composition of the DAC. There are four members that are elected by the faculty to DAC and also become members of Planning and Priorities. The other four members are three department chairs from the tripartite divisions and one representative from the program coordinators.

The issue concerns the appropriate electorate for the divisional chair elections:  Should the Academic Council elect the divisional chair representatives or should the department chairs of the division elect their representative. A faculty member noted that a department chair is there to represent all of A&S, not only an individual department or division. It was suggested that the elections should not be too local and that Academic Council should be the electorate. It was argued that this could be a benefit since the departments know who would be the best representative for their division.  There were others who disagreed.  A straw poll did not show any strong majority for either approach.

The dean would like to bring the Bylaws to the A & S faculty as the next step in strengthening the governance structure of the DAC.

General Education Courses:

Dr. Libby Gruner discussed the proposed timeline from the General Education Committee revising the timeline for approval of field of study courses. Dr. Gruner explained that a course proposal would need to come to the committee two semesters prior to when the course would be taught. This would give faculty members time to discuss the course in detail, as well as receive proper revision before final approval. This would require firm deadlines from Academic Council. Dr. Gruner explained the current process and how approvals go before Academic Council and the A&S faculty meeting before the General Education Committee reviews them.

It was questioned if this proposal would change the proposal process if the UFC Senate proposal is passed. Dr. Crystal Hoyt answered that proposals would go to the Senate instead of the University
Faculty Meeting.  The dean urged that council members review this proposal. The dean will bring this back to a future Academic Council meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:47am.

Respectfully Submitted,
Zandria Haines