February 12, 2015 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting

Minutes

Thursday, February 12, 2015

4:00 p.m.

Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall. Bill Ross moved approval of the Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting minutes of January 20, 2015. Peter Smallwood seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.  Abigail Cheever moved approval of the February 3, 2015 Arts and Sciences Academic Council minutes. Stephanie Cobb seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.

Humanities Initiative Report

Dean Skerrett offered introductory remarks about the Humanities Initiative. In August of 2014, she asked the nominating committee to create a Humanities Initiative ad-hoc committee, chaired by Dr. Nicole Sackley.  The committee submitted a report in December that has been distributed to the faculty and others in the university community. The Dean asked Nicole to report directly to the Arts and Sciences faculty and elicit feedback.

Nicole thanked the ad-hoc committee members and stated that the process was a result of collaborative thinking and internal discovery.  The committee was intent on gathering ideas from numerous groups of faculty and students.  During the fall semester, they visited 11 departments, organized various student focus groups and talked with a total of 149 faculty/administrators.

Nicole noted the commitment and enthusiasm for the humanities from all those who were interviewed. Goals and priorities emerged from these conversations. The key questions that emerged focused around the need for visibility, identity, and integration of the humanities throughout the departments. Nicole reviewed the specific goals with the faculty and proceeded to describe how these goals are transformed into programmatic ideas, such as a Biennial Faculty Humanities Seminar, a collective of first-year seminars and mentors in the humanities, an Undergraduate Humanities Research Seminar, the development of relationships between UR humanities faculty and community partners to deepen student learning and to collaborate in the creation of new knowledge or projects with partners, the creation of a space for a Humanities center and the creation of a master narrative about the value of the humanities at the university.

Dean Skerrett then asked Abigail Cheever to talk about the undergraduate humanities seminar.  Cheever reported that the seminar will combine summer research experiences with a fall seminar of 10 students.  She noted that a summer research experience often provides little time to produce a presentation or paper and the fall semester will allow a deeper research experience beyond the summer experience and create an undergraduate research community.  At this time, the 2015 seminar is full and more applications were received than spaces available. 

The Dean asked Nicole to talk further about the biennial faculty seminar.

Nicole shared that faculty have asked for time to create an intellectual exchange across departments and to think about what it means to practice the humanities. She would like to see faculty focus on a broad topic and then connect it to the Richmond area, putting the humanities into practice.

Nicole then asked for other questions and comments and reiterated the committee’s desire for faculty input.

April Hill highly complimented the work of the committee and noted that it something that all faculty can aspire to going forward. Dan Palazzolo noted his pleasure with the goals and how the committee connected the goals to the mission of the university.  Con Beausang described the report as beautiful.  He also noted that a physical space for the humanities is missing and he hopes a space can be developed where ideas can cross-fertilize with others in Arts and Sciences. Jesse Fillerup asked how the proposal relates to the current general education plan. Nicole replied that there have been conversations about general education reform, but also noted that two general education reform plans have failed in the last ten years. This plan may relate to general education, but Nicole expressed the desire to first build an interdisciplinary community and then have further conversations about general education. Peter Smallwood asked what that conversation might look like, but Nicole emphasized that the general education conversation was not part of the ad-hoc committee’s purview.

Dean Skerrett thanked Nicole for her presentation. The committee will continue its work on implementing specific goals and folding them into various departments.  She reiterated that it is a very exciting project with many possibilities.

University Faculty Council Report
 

Tze Loo reported on the transition to the Faculty Senate.  The UFC met this past Monday and decided on the following timeline:

-       On February 17—At the University Faculty Meeting, update on    transition to the Senate and information on expectations of Senators

-       By April 15 – All schools complete elections for senators and send names to UFC chair

-       By May 4 – Newly elected group of senators: has Senate 101 meeting with UFC subcommittee, elects officers, and decides classes; Information on officers and classes is sent to UFC chair

-       On May 11 – UFC announces senators and officers at UFM

-       On May 11 – UFC announces senators and officers at UFM

-       On June 15 – SENATE in operation, UFC dissolved

Career Services update

Ashleigh Brock from Career Services reported to the faculty about summer fellowships and the Richmond guarantee program.  Their current goals center around increased quality of alumni engagement, enhancing career development with students, and building a database of student employment that she hopes will be helpful to faculty.   Much of the data will come from the senior survey and Career Services will need the faculty’s assistance with encouraging students to complete the survey.  Ashleigh also reminded the faculty about the various funding options for research fellowships and internships.

Jesse Fillerup asked about the searchable database and how it will be interpreted. She asked what stories will be shared with prospective or current students and suggested that sharing the career choices of students could be a way to promote the Humanities.   

A&S Faculty Merit Guidelines

Dean Skerrett reminded the faculty that there have been ongoing conversations about the Merit Review Guidelines among faculty and the A&S Academic Council, especially since the process is in the first cycle of the current revision.

Through the use of PowerPoint slides, Dean Skerrett outlined the goals of the current revision (2012) which include:

-Reduce work for faculty and Dept. Chairs

-Delimit required materials for submission

-Clarify rubric for 5-point evaluation scale

-Improve transparency of decisions makers

-Clarify connection between score and salary raise.

Now that faculty and administrators have experience with the revised triennial review, it has allowed time for further analysis. The Dean has received feedback that the time-saving components are welcome, especially for department chairs and the Dean’s office. She is proposing several slight revisions to the current version and they include the following:

- Support Year A evaluation in context of individual's momentum.  Provide flexibility to review the dossier without a written review.

- Report dean's divergent scores, if any, to dept. chairs.  Provide the opportunity to address divergent scores between the chair and faculty member.

- Support opportunity for directors to join department's triennial schedule review.

Several faculty comments emerged on the proposed revisions. Nicole Sackley asked if the cycle means the preceding three years. An example might be a book project that is not published yet and that it might make a difference in Year A to have a review.

Art Charlesworth offered a revision to include the forward look, not just a backward look.  It would be focusing on promise of fruition and allow further review.

Peter Smallwood stated that he is more comfortable with the thinking about the review in terms of the preceding cycle and the need to demonstrate momentum.

Stephanie Cobb shared that she is uncomfortable with the language regarding the department chair or dean "may" review.  She is concerned about the three-year implications and what we are incentivizing.  Dean Skerrett noted that this revision is a compromise of the three-year review.

Dean Skerrett stated that you will carry your Year A score in Years B and C and there will be an adjustment of the notification of divergent scores.

The faculty directors’ (33 positions) review will be tailored on their responsibilities and they would have the option to opt into the 3-year review after five years. Dean Skerrett does not think this is controversial, but the logistics could be challenging.   Bill Ross asked if the option would be voluntary and the Dean affirmed that it would be.  Directors can also opt for an annual review and this would allow the faculty director to choose when to join.

Angie Hilliker asked about the continuous phrase in relation to parental leave.  Could we indicate the choice of ten semesters, rather than continuous?  The Dean agreed with that change.

Dean Skerrett will work on revisions for Academic Council and then she will bring back the proposal on March 18 for further faculty review and approval.  Revisions to the merit review are not required, but these revisions may be helpful in addressing some current concerns.

Dean Skerrett also offered a sample triennial schedule to demonstrate how faculty are rolling on the cycle. There is an attempt to stagger the As and coordinate that with sabbaticals.  These schedules are sent to department chairs and can be shared with faculty as well.

Con Beausang noted that there is some concern that the three-year cycle does not fully reflect scholarship that is underway. It might help to remove the preceding cycle. The current evaluation provides discretion, but this option would make it clearer.  Additionally if you have pop-up years, it will offset the benefit of a three-year review.  This might also reduce the need to pop up for an annual review and allow the discretion to forward into the future.

Dean Skerrett thanked the faculty for their discussion and comments.

The meeting adjourned at 5:19 p.m.  

The next faculty meeting will be held on March 18, 2015, at 4:00 p.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room.

Respectfully submitted,

Lucretia McCulley