Monday, October 20, 2014

Academic Council Agenda 10.21.14


Academic Council
October 21, 2014, 10-30-11:45AM
Tyler Haynes 305


Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting. 


Agenda

1. Approval of Minutes of AC Meeting October 7, 2014.
2. Update on University Faculty Senate proposal: Eric Yellin.
3. Possibilities for Three-Year Review of Tenured Faculty.

All but department chairs and associate deans are recused from meeting. 

4. As the Guideline for Annual Merit Review provides, department chairs will discuss calibration of Chair's Evaluation for Merit Review and make recommendations to dean for calibration across divisions for 2014-2015.

Our next meeting will be November 4, 2014 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305. 

Continuing Agenda Items:

  • Travel Budgets
  • Restricted funds and Advancement. We will engage Advancement leaders to attend AC meeting in early 2015. 
  • Draft Proposal for an Academic Planning Group. This will be a preliminary draft to solicit reaction and develop options for a more robust Academic Council oversight of curricular development. 
  • Revision to Guideline to provide for three-year merit review for tenured faculty. 

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

October 7, 2014 Academic Council Meeting Minutes


Meeting started 10:31 a.m.

The dean referred the meeting to the “continuing agenda” item, which will roll forward over the course of this academic year.  She attached a 2006 report from the Ad hoc travel budget committee for members to review.  This report describes options for enhancing travel budgets and can form a basis for discussions this year. 

The dean mentioned that a number of the AC committee members asked to speak with Advancement leaders to talk about restricted department funds.  She will invite Tom Gutenberger to a meeting early next semester. 

The dean shared that she is going to bring the AC a draft proposal for an Academic Planning Group, which could be a subcommittee of this body to review course and program revision proposals before their addition to an AC agenda. 

The business of the meeting began.


The minutes of September 16, 2014 were approved by vote.

Libby discussed spring scheduling with AC. She shared that they will get an email from her later today reminding them that they are still looking for FYS courses.  She also reminded department chairs to schedule some Friday classes.  It is in the interests of students to do this and it helps to use space and resources more effectively if we schedule courses on all five days of the week. 

Approval of Course Proposals (proposals are embedded links in the Agenda)

The course proposals are divided into three sections. 

The AC voted to approve all courses listed under 3 A, including proposed title changes, course numbers, or to reactivate or deactivate a course.  The list with embedded links is incorporated in the Agenda

The AC voted to approve all proposed new courses listed under 3 B. 

After discussion, the AC voted to approve revisions to the Chinese Studies major ( 3 C).  This revision permits five of nine required courses to be transferred from another institution.  A student must take at least one 400 level course in Chinese after returning from study abroad.

Kristen Ball moved approval of the list of alternative courses that can satisfy the Com2 requirement.  This approval is required each year.  After discussion, Linda Boland moved to table list pending its redaction in consultation with the department chairs.  The AC voted to table the motion.  Kristen Ball will bring the list back to AC for approval after consultation. 

Dan Palazzolo moved approval of a Visiting Away Program.  The description is in an embedded link in the Agenda under item 3.  The AC voted to approve.

Presentation of Merit Review Divisional Analysis

The dean presented an analysis by division of all merit scores for tenure-stream faculty assigned in 2013-2014.  She also presented a divisional analysis of tenure-stream faculty by rank and gender as well as average merit score by division and gender.  She also presented an analysis of merit scores of associate professors by years in rank.

A member suggested that the data presented did not support any inferences or recommendations.  It was suggested that the conversation focus on process.  The dean offered to consider any queries for analysis, and supported a shift to discuss process if that was agreeable.  With no further discussion of the divisional analysis proposed, the discussion turned to process.

It was asked if a three-year review of tenured faculty would be possible.  The dean said that she had recently asked if this could be considered and received a positive response.  It would be necessary to develop rubrics for a three-year review.  It was suggested that rubrics should be responsive to faculty development in rank.  A member said he preferred the ability to use plus and minus prior to the assignment of a composite merit category.

A member criticized the timing of the dean’s notification to faculty member of divergent scores.  The dean suggested that she could meet with department chairs prior to the salary letters going out to explain divergent scores.  The scores are not in letters.  The dean suggested meeting with the department chairs when there is a divergent score. The dean recommended continuing the discussion with a view to submitting a revision of the Guidelines to Annual Merit Reviews Process [passed April 2012] in Spring 2015.  A member recommended a school-wide rubric on teaching. 

The dean reminded AC that at the next meeting the whole group would convene for any general business.  Then all but the department chairs would be excused.  The department chairs will remain for a meeting to discuss and make recommendations to the dean about calibration of merit scores within and across divisions.

Meeting adjourned 11:48 a.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Cynthia Johnson

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

October 8, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda

October 8, 2014 A&S Faculty Meeting Agenda




                                                               Agenda


1.  Approval of the minutes of the A & S faculty September 18, 2014 faculty meeting.

2.  Approval of the actions of Academic Council meetings of September 16, 2014 and
     October 7, 2014.

3.  For reference:  2006 Report of Ad Hoc Travel Budget Committee

4.  Presentation and Discussion of Annual Merit Review Process


Our next faculty meeting will be held on November 13, 2014, at 4:00 p.m. in the Brown Alley Room, Weinstein Hall.

Thursday, October 2, 2014

October 7, 2014 Academic Council Agenda

Academic Council
October 7, 2014, 10-30-11:45AM
Tyler Haynes 305



Please review the agenda below and the cited materials in advance of the meeting.


                                            Agenda

1.    Approval of Minutes of AC Meeting September 16, 2014

2.    Spring Scheduling
               

3.    Course Proposals

      A.  Proposals for Course Revisions


            Title Changes:

            RUSN 401 - Topics in Advanced Russian I (old title – “Advanced Russian”)
            RUSN 402 -Topics in Advanced Russian II (old title – “Advanced Russian”)
            RELG 244 - Sex and Family in the Greek and Roman Worlds (old title – “Women in 
                                   Judaism, Christianity, and Islam”)
            FREN 320 -The Individual in Society (old title "Literature in Context")
            FREN325 - The Origins of France (old title "Medieval and Early Modern Society")
            CHIN 401 - Topics in Advanced Chinese (old title "Advanced Chinese I")
            CHIN 402 - Topics in Advanced Chinese (old title "Advanced Chinese II")

            Reactivated Courses

            RUSN 101-102
            RUSN 201-202

            Deactivated Courses

            RUSN 121-221

           New Course Numbers

           FREN 415 replaces FREN 481
           FREN 420 replaces FREN 411
           FREN 422 replaces FREN 431
           FREN 423 replaces FREN 441
           FREN 424 replaces FREN 451
           FREN 462 replaces FREN 487

       B.  Proposals for New Courses

            ARAB 315 - Grammar through texts (Topics)
            CHIN 315  - Myths and Parables in Chinese Literature and Film
            FREN 414  - Advanced French Grammar and Culture Studies 
            GEOG 280 - Selected Topics
            ITAL 425   - Love and Family all'italiana
            MUS 304   - Music Entrepreneurship 
            PSYC 337  - Human Cognition   
            RUSN 305 - The Russian Case: (Topics)     
            RUSN 315 - Verbs for Life (Topics)

      
      C.  Changes to Majors:

            Chinese Studies -- Yvonne Howell

      D.  General Approvals

            1)  COM2 - Approval of COM2 alternate course list - Kristen Ball

            2)  Approval of Visiting Away Program - Dan Palazzolo

            For approval guidelines:  Highlight and right click on link below, go to "open link":
            
            http://registrar.richmond.edu/registration/programs/visiting-away/guidelines.html
4.    Presentation of Dean’s office Analysis of Annual Merit Reviews
5.    Discussion of Annual Merit Reviews


Continuing Agenda Items:
 

•Travel Budgets—Attached please find the report from the Ad Hoc Travel Budget Committee from 2006 for reflection as we continue discussion.
•Restricted funds and Advancement—we will engage Advancement leaders to attend AC meeting in early 2015.
•Draft Proposal for an Academic Planning Group—this will be a preliminary draft to solicit reaction and develop options for more robust Academic Council oversight of curricular development.

 


Our next meeting will be Tuesday, October 21, 2014,  from 10:30-11:45 a.m. in THC 305.  A major portion of this meeting will be devoted to the department chairs' discussion of the calibration of merit scores.





Wednesday, October 1, 2014

September 16, 2014 Academic Council Minutes

Meeting started 10:31 a.m.

The minutes of the Sept 2, 2014 were approved

The dean shared with the academic council (AC) that Zandria Haines would be leaving at the end of this week, Friday, 9/19/2014.  Zandria has been with the dean’s office for three years.  She and her husband will be returning to Washington D.C. The dean and the committee applauded Zandria for her service and wished her well.

Consent Agenda

Malcolm discussed the new course proposal process, and indicated that the new electronic submission process was working. He reminded the AC of the timeline for A&S course submissions. FYS and General Education courses follow a different process. The dean asked David Lefkowitz to explain the process for the Gen Ed courses to the council. David shared that there will be a two-semester lag between when faculty propose a course for a field of study and when it could be offered for a field of study.  The other change that will be made is to invite faculty proposing a field of study to come and meet with the Gen Ed committee. He hopes this will increase the transparency of the process. David will try to get all of the information on the website.  He also reminded the council that when they fill out the study abroad course approval forms, and they have the option to count a course for a field of study, they are encouraged to consider whether the course meets the goals of the field of study requirements.  He reminded AC members that they should consider reviewing courses that were approved some time ago to ensure the current syllabi still meet the criteria of the various fields of study.

The dean stated there is a consent agenda with three courses proposed on it.  Questions were raised about staffing implications and resource need for the two proposed film production courses so those were divided from the consent agenda.

The dean recommended considering the Religious Studies course as part of the consent agenda, and asked if anyone had any objections to that course.  A member asked to divide the course from the consent agenda.  The dean asked for a motion to approve the course.  The motion was seconded but not approved, pending further information and discussion.  All three course proposals will be presented as items for discussion at a future meeting.

The dean made a short presentation about endowed and restricted funds.  She stated that this topic has implications for most of the department chairs and many of the programs. The dean clarified the kinds of funds they may see in reports. The dean’s office aims ensure that accurate information about the funds is made available to the department chairs.  Terri Weaver has created a pathway so that when a chair steps down, the report will go to the new department chair.  Terri Weaver has also begun meeting with new department chairs to review any endowed or restricted funds available to benefit the department.

The dean asked Walter Stevenson to lead a discussion of restricted and endowed funds.  He asked how did these discretionary funds come into existence?  Who is involved in the fundraising? One of the responses was that it comes from yearly donations from the university’s alumni.  It was also mentioned that at one point, the institution wanted to increase the percentages of alumni donating to the university so they gave people the chance to give directly to their department.

The dean explained that if someone gives a gift, for the benefit of classical studies, it is required to be spent for that purpose.  Typically, the department should receive a report and should be able to charge permissible expenses against it.  If the department chair charges against a restricted fund, Terri Weaver provides a review to ensure that the charge is permissible.  The University controller is responsible for overseeing the proper expenditure of all restricted funds.

The council discussed sending out thank you notes to the donors and also the issue of not contacting the donors directly.  The council would like clarification about whether or not there are any restrictions on them as chairs thanking people directly for these funds.  The dean said that Academic Council could invite Advancement to talk about their process and how faculty might be involved in that. 

The dean asked the council how many have traditionally received reports about their discretionary accounts. The dean shared that the Dean’s office is working with the central administration to clarify the process by which gifts are recorded for the benefit of the departments.  The deans’ office wants to make sure that departments know what funds they can spend and permissible uses for spending them. Terri shared that the controller’s office is working to define what the permissible uses are for each restricted fund.  They are also conferring back to her to make sure the departments are receiving the correct reports.

Discussion ensued about how files are maintained (e.g., in spreadsheets), and what information is contained in those files (e.g., who the donor is, contact information, etc.). Terri will work with all new chairs and program chairs to make sure they can read the spreadsheets in a way that makes sense to them.

Discussion continued about faculty’s involvement in Advancement. Some indicated they understood why faculty could compromise Advancement’s plans for fund-raising.  The dean shared the potential for a better working partnership between the faculty and Advancement, which she thinks only, has upsides.

The AC came back to the question of whether the chair, dean or provost (or any of those) are authorized to spend these restricted funds. A suggestion was made if Tom Gutenberger and Shannon Sinclair could come to AC meeting to discuss this.  The dean responded that if this is a conversation that the council would like continued, then they could do that.

The council discussed having deficits at the end of the year and pressure coming from central administration to use discretionary funds.  The dean addressed this. She shared that if you have a surplus in your lecture budget, you cannot use it to cover an operating budget deficit.  If you have a surplus in your travel budget, you cannot use it to cover a deficit in your lecture or operating budget.  However, a department chair can use operating surplus or discretionary funds to cover deficits in lecture or travel budgets.  Thus, the dean’s office will set out the options for department chairs to ensure that they do not end the year with budgets in deficit.

It was asked how does the university interpret historical gifts that no longer exist? The dean shared that it would require a legal process to broaden the purposes for which a restricted fund may be used.

The dean explained that at the end of this year, the Dean’s office will do a three year historical analysis of all departments’ budgets, so that the department chairs and the dean’s advisory council will be able to see any historical patterns.

It was noted that these are some of the same issues that faculty are having with travel budgets.  As the dean has allocated funds to summer research or other projects, there are areas that haven’t grown.  The dean noted that the PBB process enables departments to make requests and the primary function of the dean’s advisory is to evaluate them and set priorities through collective recommendations.

A question was raised about the class of ’92 gift and its approved uses. The dean indicated she would explore the appropriate use of this type of restricted fund.

The dean communicated with the AC that she has heard that they want to have a discussion with Advancement about having a better partnership between the departments and the fundraisers.  She will roll this issue forward to the early part of spring semester.  Also the dean’s office is analyzing travel budgets and she will bring back that information to Academic Council.  She also wants to hear from the faculty meeting.

The dean shared that her goal is to support the department chairs as scrupulous stewards of money given to the university by donors.  She wants department chairs to know what the permissible uses of their restricted funds are and how to charge those funds.  She shared that the central administration has worked on this project for many months.

Meeting adjourned at 11:46 p.m.


Respectfully submitted,


Cynthia Johnson