Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in Jepson Hall 118. She announced that this is the last business meeting of the faculty for the year. Arts and Sciences faculty will gather on May 1 for an end of the year reception honoring faculty members with 25 years of service to the University. Con Beausang moved approval of the minutes of the Arts and Sciences faculty meeting from February 19 and February 25. Aurora Hermida-Ruiz seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve. Eric Yellin moved approval of Academic Council Actions from March 4, March 18, April 1 and April 15. Aurora Hermida-Ruiz seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.
Nominating Committee Motions Dan Palazzolo, Chair of the Nominating Committee presented the following motions to the faculty for discussion and approval.
Motions from the Nominating Committee to the School of Arts and Sciences:
1. Nominees for the Cross-School Curricular Oversight Committee and First-year seminar committee shall be recommended by Nominating Committee and elected by the Faculty.
2. During the spring semester, the faculty of Undergraduate Research Committee will elect its chair from among the members of the committee returning for the following academic year.
Dan provided a rationale for this change based on the review and study of the survey method. He pointed out that there are around 240 potential faculty, but the same faculty keep getting nominated. It might be better to nominate people based on their preference and that this change would provide greater and broader representation. Faculty will elect the positions, but the Committee would provide nominees. Dan reiterated that the most important criterion is to give opportunity to those who have not had a chance to serve. Hugh West commented that he is supportive, but reminded Dan of an earlier survey nomination method that alleviated some of these problems. Mimi Hanoaka asked if it is possible to limit how many committees that a faculty member can serve on? Con Beausang asked if it would be possible to anonymously keep track of how many votes are placed for nominees or publish statistics that reflect participation. After these various questions and comments were discussed, the faculty voted to approve the first motion.
The second motion focused on the Undergraduate Research Committee and the election of its chair. Bill Myers asked if the same procedure could be used for the Faculty Research Committee and Dan replied that it is already in place. The faculty voted to approve the second motion.
Proposal for new bylaws for the Dean's Advisory Council
Dean Skerrett reminded the group that the proposed bylaws have been discussed previously and recommended for approval by the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) and Academic Council. A draft has been reviewed and discussed previously by the A&S faculty. Dean Skerrett briefly reviewed the proposed version. One new recommendation is for DAC members to elect a chair of the DAC. Suzanne Jones (member of the DAC) moved that we approve the by-laws. Con Beausang seconded the motion.
Bill Myers brought up a minor point about DAC votes. Do votes have to be in person or electronically? Suzanne Jones commented that the DAC always discusses an issue in person, before voting electronically. Dean Skerrett sees the creation of the by-laws as a way to strengthen shared governance.
After discussion ended, the faculty approved the DAC By-laws.
A&S Undergraduate Research Update
Associate Dean Vincent Wang provided an update on A&S Undergraduate Research Fellowships. He shared a snapshot of statistics as of April 15, as well as information on internal and external sources of funding and funding rates for the fellowships. Roughly 204 students will be receiving funding for summer fellowships.
Con Beausang asked how many students repeat the summer fellowship experience. Vincent replied that he does not have those current numbers, but he pointed out that repeating is not looked upon as detrimental in the decision process. Con remarked that it is very important in the sciences to have students return for multiple fellowships.
Suzanne Jones asked about internship funding. Vincent stated that there are more students applying for internships this year, so the funding rate may be lower and that Katybeth Lee (Career Services) keeps those statistics.
Bill Myers asked about comparison statistics between this year and last year. Vincent replied that he presented the information a little differently this year as compared to last year and he would rather wait for comparisons until he has the final numbers.
Annual Merit Review Process
Dean Skerrett reminded those present that in 2012, the faculty passed new guidelines for merit review. She then provided a review and description of the process of how submitted files are handled in the Dean’s Office. Skerrett reported that her ratings converged with department chairs ratings in 85% of instances. Her goal is to have a high rate of convergence.
The Dean also presented the overall distribution of merit scores, including scores for faculty directors, and highlighted the calculation of raises as a percentage that varies by faculty rank and merit score. This information will be included in salary letters. The percentage raises do not include tenure or promotion salary adjustments, which are a consistent dollar amount for each level.
Faculty members should receive salary letters at their homes by May 13.
The dean will begin sending notifications of any discrepant scores to faculty members and their department chairs.
The triennial review schedule will be updated. She reminded faculty that if anyone wants to be considered for a merit raise, she or he must submit an annual review in each year. Tenured faculty members who are represented on their department’s triennial schedule in a B or C year are eligible to submit a short dossier.
Sara Pappas asked about the original benchmarking exercise and the various percentages assigned in the merit process. Will there be efforts to review the benchmarks in the future? Dean Skerrett replied that the faculty salary compensation policy aims at aligning faculty salaries with the benchmarks over time. The current 3% pool is significant because it enables the dean to pursue the benchmark goals over time. The dean is interested in tracking faculty salaries relative to the benchmark over the course of a career so that we do not only track how many faculty members’ salaries exceed 90% of the benchmark in any given year. Therefore, the compensation policy also requires ability to model and forecast salaries relative to projected benchmarks.
Dean Skerrett reiterated that the revised annual performance review process remains a work in progress. There are areas that need to be improved. While the revised process meets the goal of reducing faculty work on the annual performance review process, especially the work of department chairs, there are discrepancies in calibration of merit scores that should be discussed.
Con Beausang remarked that the benchmarking occurred two years ago. He asked if the Dean had any sense when further benchmarking will take place? Eric Yellin stated that benchmarking is completed each year and David Hale will include this information in a presentation to faculty on May 12. The dean concurred that her salary allocation strategy will be developed with reference to the benchmark each year.
Jane Berry asked about the process for the evaluation of department chairs and why the review of department chairs is different across departments. Dean Skerrett concurred that this is an area that needs to be addressed and revised.
Bill Myers asked if salary compression is under review. The Dean replied her office is paying attention to that issue and that the Associate rank continues to have compression especially among long-serving associate professors. Currently, there is rare compression among Assistants and some compression among Full professors.
Carol Summers asked how does the rate of retirement affect ranks, etc. She thought this might affect the average salary statistic. The Dean replied that she does not currently know the rate of retirement but there few retirements each year. Meeting Conclusion Gene Anderson asked if the faculty needed to vote to approve the graduating seniors at the final meeting/reception on Thursday, May 1 at 3 p.m., Gottwald Atrium. The dean confirmed with the Registrar that the A & S faculty meeting is not required to vote to approve the graduating seniors.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
Nominating Committee Motions Dan Palazzolo, Chair of the Nominating Committee presented the following motions to the faculty for discussion and approval.
Motions from the Nominating Committee to the School of Arts and Sciences:
1. Nominees for the Cross-School Curricular Oversight Committee and First-year seminar committee shall be recommended by Nominating Committee and elected by the Faculty.
2. During the spring semester, the faculty of Undergraduate Research Committee will elect its chair from among the members of the committee returning for the following academic year.
Dan provided a rationale for this change based on the review and study of the survey method. He pointed out that there are around 240 potential faculty, but the same faculty keep getting nominated. It might be better to nominate people based on their preference and that this change would provide greater and broader representation. Faculty will elect the positions, but the Committee would provide nominees. Dan reiterated that the most important criterion is to give opportunity to those who have not had a chance to serve. Hugh West commented that he is supportive, but reminded Dan of an earlier survey nomination method that alleviated some of these problems. Mimi Hanoaka asked if it is possible to limit how many committees that a faculty member can serve on? Con Beausang asked if it would be possible to anonymously keep track of how many votes are placed for nominees or publish statistics that reflect participation. After these various questions and comments were discussed, the faculty voted to approve the first motion.
The second motion focused on the Undergraduate Research Committee and the election of its chair. Bill Myers asked if the same procedure could be used for the Faculty Research Committee and Dan replied that it is already in place. The faculty voted to approve the second motion.
Proposal for new bylaws for the Dean's Advisory Council
Dean Skerrett reminded the group that the proposed bylaws have been discussed previously and recommended for approval by the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) and Academic Council. A draft has been reviewed and discussed previously by the A&S faculty. Dean Skerrett briefly reviewed the proposed version. One new recommendation is for DAC members to elect a chair of the DAC. Suzanne Jones (member of the DAC) moved that we approve the by-laws. Con Beausang seconded the motion.
Bill Myers brought up a minor point about DAC votes. Do votes have to be in person or electronically? Suzanne Jones commented that the DAC always discusses an issue in person, before voting electronically. Dean Skerrett sees the creation of the by-laws as a way to strengthen shared governance.
After discussion ended, the faculty approved the DAC By-laws.
A&S Undergraduate Research Update
Associate Dean Vincent Wang provided an update on A&S Undergraduate Research Fellowships. He shared a snapshot of statistics as of April 15, as well as information on internal and external sources of funding and funding rates for the fellowships. Roughly 204 students will be receiving funding for summer fellowships.
Con Beausang asked how many students repeat the summer fellowship experience. Vincent replied that he does not have those current numbers, but he pointed out that repeating is not looked upon as detrimental in the decision process. Con remarked that it is very important in the sciences to have students return for multiple fellowships.
Suzanne Jones asked about internship funding. Vincent stated that there are more students applying for internships this year, so the funding rate may be lower and that Katybeth Lee (Career Services) keeps those statistics.
Bill Myers asked about comparison statistics between this year and last year. Vincent replied that he presented the information a little differently this year as compared to last year and he would rather wait for comparisons until he has the final numbers.
Annual Merit Review Process
Dean Skerrett reminded those present that in 2012, the faculty passed new guidelines for merit review. She then provided a review and description of the process of how submitted files are handled in the Dean’s Office. Skerrett reported that her ratings converged with department chairs ratings in 85% of instances. Her goal is to have a high rate of convergence.
The Dean also presented the overall distribution of merit scores, including scores for faculty directors, and highlighted the calculation of raises as a percentage that varies by faculty rank and merit score. This information will be included in salary letters. The percentage raises do not include tenure or promotion salary adjustments, which are a consistent dollar amount for each level.
Faculty members should receive salary letters at their homes by May 13.
The dean will begin sending notifications of any discrepant scores to faculty members and their department chairs.
The triennial review schedule will be updated. She reminded faculty that if anyone wants to be considered for a merit raise, she or he must submit an annual review in each year. Tenured faculty members who are represented on their department’s triennial schedule in a B or C year are eligible to submit a short dossier.
Sara Pappas asked about the original benchmarking exercise and the various percentages assigned in the merit process. Will there be efforts to review the benchmarks in the future? Dean Skerrett replied that the faculty salary compensation policy aims at aligning faculty salaries with the benchmarks over time. The current 3% pool is significant because it enables the dean to pursue the benchmark goals over time. The dean is interested in tracking faculty salaries relative to the benchmark over the course of a career so that we do not only track how many faculty members’ salaries exceed 90% of the benchmark in any given year. Therefore, the compensation policy also requires ability to model and forecast salaries relative to projected benchmarks.
Dean Skerrett reiterated that the revised annual performance review process remains a work in progress. There are areas that need to be improved. While the revised process meets the goal of reducing faculty work on the annual performance review process, especially the work of department chairs, there are discrepancies in calibration of merit scores that should be discussed.
Con Beausang remarked that the benchmarking occurred two years ago. He asked if the Dean had any sense when further benchmarking will take place? Eric Yellin stated that benchmarking is completed each year and David Hale will include this information in a presentation to faculty on May 12. The dean concurred that her salary allocation strategy will be developed with reference to the benchmark each year.
Jane Berry asked about the process for the evaluation of department chairs and why the review of department chairs is different across departments. Dean Skerrett concurred that this is an area that needs to be addressed and revised.
Bill Myers asked if salary compression is under review. The Dean replied her office is paying attention to that issue and that the Associate rank continues to have compression especially among long-serving associate professors. Currently, there is rare compression among Assistants and some compression among Full professors.
Carol Summers asked how does the rate of retirement affect ranks, etc. She thought this might affect the average salary statistic. The Dean replied that she does not currently know the rate of retirement but there few retirements each year. Meeting Conclusion Gene Anderson asked if the faculty needed to vote to approve the graduating seniors at the final meeting/reception on Thursday, May 1 at 3 p.m., Gottwald Atrium. The dean confirmed with the Registrar that the A & S faculty meeting is not required to vote to approve the graduating seniors.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Lucretia McCulley
