Arts and Sciences Faculty
Meeting
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
4:00 p.m.
Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:00
p.m. in the Keller Hall Reception Room. She asked for motions to approve the A&S
Faculty meeting minutes of February 12 and the Academic Council actions of
March 17. Michelle Hamm moved approval of the Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting minutes of February
12, 2015. Bill Ross seconded the motion. Tze Loo requested that Nicole
Sackley’s name in the February 12 meeting minutes reflect both her first and
last name throughout the minutes. Dean Skerrett indicated that those changes would
be applied. The faculty voted to approve the minutes. Bill Ross moved approval
of the actions of the meeting on March 17, 2015 of the A&S Academic
Council. Michelle Hamm seconded the motion and the faculty voted to approve.
Revision to Bylaws for the Dean's
Advisory Council
Dean Skerrett
reminded the faculty that the DAC Bylaws were passed by A&S vote last year.
However, now that they have been in use for a year, the members of the Dean’s
Advisory Council have proposed some revisions. Jon Dattelbaum made the motion
to approve the revisions as submitted and Tze Loo seconded. Under Section B (2nd
paragraph), the proposed revision states that the Chair will lead the meetings,
rather than the Dean. This revision reflects mutually agreed practice
implemented this past year.
The Dean does not anticipate annual changes to the Bylaws, but since shared
governance has been an evolving process, she encouraged the DAC to bring these
revisions back to the faculty. Further, Academic Council voted on March 17th
to recommend that the faculty approve the proposed changes.
The Dean also
asked permission to strike one redundant paragraph with Jon Dattelbaum’s
approval. The paragraph is at the end of Section III:
The chair of the Dean’s Advisory Council will
be present during the dean’s reports. The chair will offer an independent
report only if the majority of the DAC votes for this action.
The faculty voted to approve the revisions to the DAC Bylaws.
Revision to Guidelines for Annual Merit
Review Process
Bill Ross
moved that the faculty approve the proposed revision to the Guidelines for
Merit Reviews and Jon Dattelbaum seconded the motion.
Dean Skerrett
briefly summarized previous discussions regarding revisions to the Guidelines
for Merit Reviews. Revisions have been discussed in Academic Council and
faculty meetings throughout this past year. She reported that, at the March 17
meeting of Academic Council, a vote produced a minority recommendation (12 in
favor, 7 opposed, 6 abstentions). She indicated that, from her interpretation,
the major concern focused on the definition or description of “context” in the
Department Chair’s evaluation. The question bears on how to evaluate the
quality of ongoing research projects.
Tze Loo asked
if there has been enough time for the faculty to review and consider the draft
before it. Prof. Loo also asked why there was a minority recommendation and
could the Dean speak to that recommendation further.
Dean Skerrett asked the department chairs who attended the Academic Council
meeting to comment on the minority recommendation. Bill Ross stated that he
voted in favor of the revision and he thought it addressed the context issue. However,
others on the Council desired further language to address the best way to contextualize
projects. Still others were concerned about the vagueness of the language.
Michelle Hamm stated
that she is in favor of a biennial system and she did not see any difference from
the current guideline. For those who want a two or three year review, it is not
a satisfactory revision.
Stephen Long
asked if a three year review is still under discussion. He stated that if we
move to a three year review, it would be similar to a mid-stream review for
tenure-track faculty. This might be a way to strike a compromise between the triennial
review and a three year review.
The dean noted
that this has been part of the conversation this year.
Bill Ross
mentioned that one goal of the Guideline is to reduce the number of reviews for
department chair. Questions remain about if a three-year review would really
save time. A three-year review, similar to a mid-course review, might create
higher stakes and take more time.
Bill Ross also
noted the low attendance at the faculty meeting. Should we take a vote with low
numbers? Will minor issues sort out on this issue? Are others comfortable with the
current Guidelines?
Tze Loo also
expressed concern about the low attendance, along with the minority
recommendation from Academic Council. Do we need more time to read and study
the document before approving?
Dean Skerrett
stated that she this faculty meeting could table the motion to allow time for
more faculty members to carefully read the proposed revision. At the April 16th
meeting, a faculty member could motion to remove the motion from the table for
discussion and vote.
Stephanie Cobb
voiced that she is in favor of more time, allowing the departments to discuss
and to study a final edited document. She also inquired about the plan to drop
out the short dossiers. Dean Skerrett thinks the short dossiers are good for
faculty reflection and that it is fine to continue providing them. She is
anxious that the penalty when a faculty member does not provide them is
disproportionate to the faculty member’s lapse.
Stephanie Cobb
also asked when the pay structure goes into effect. The Dean’s Office
evaluations are for the next fiscal year and salaries start at the beginning of
the academic year. This needs to be noted in the document. Under the section on
the Dean’s Office Evaluations, the last paragraph needs to be changed to the
beginning of the academic year. The dean thanked Stephanie Cobb for this
correction.
Bill Myers
asked if it would be better to use "documentation" rather than
review. Documentation is used to capture faculty work in the years that
activities are generated. He suggested that in the B and C years, it would be
appreciated if one could submit documentation, but it would not be called a
review. Todd Lookingbill added that this might help with the context ambiguity
and allay concerns.
A discussion
ensued about the possibility of receiving credit twice for works completed and
the problems with looking backward versus forward. Elisabeth Gruner noted that
the context allows for a broader view of long projects. Dean Skerrett emphasized
that the Dean’s office evaluation already incorporates attention to context of
achievements.
Jon Dattelbaum
observed that the conversation seems to focus on scholarly activities and not
service and teaching. Dean Skerrett emphasized that context addresses the faculty
members’ entire contribution -- research, teaching and service.
Malcolm Hill
agreed and stated that one concern with the context phrase is how others might
interpret it in the future. However, if you have a broader definition of
context, it is moving toward generous consideration of the work.
Bill Myers
asked why would we open the window to future outcomes that have not been
fulfilled? How should we document work that is in progress? He noted that the
question is, Does the faculty like the current Guideline better than what is
proposed? He is in favor of documenting years 1 and 2.
Stephanie Cobb
asked how the guidelines are affecting faculty who are going up for tenure and
promotion? Dean Skerrett noted that annual reviews, including chair’s
evaluations are part of the evidence submitted in a tenure and review process. Tenure
& Promotion portfolios do not include the dean’s evaluation or the faculty
member’s final merit score.
Faculty Directors and Triennial
Schedules
Dean Skerrett asked
the faculty to have in mind the alternative motion for inclusion of the Faculty
Directors intoTriennial Schedules in the Guidelines for Merit Review. She would
like this revision to go forward, even if the other proposal fails. Bill Ross
noted that the proposal concerning Faculty Directors was not controversial at
all in the Academic Council meeting.
Tze Loo
suggested that the faculty separate the document parts. She made a motion to table
the proposed revision to postpone the vote until the April meeting. Ted Bunn seconded
the motion. The faculty voted to approve. Therefore, the motion concerning the
revision to the Guideline for Merit Reviews is tabled.
Bill Ross moved
that the faculty approve a revision to the current guideline that would certain
Faculty Directors eligible for inclusion on their departments Triennial
Schedules. The proposed revision was included in a paragraph presented to the
A&S faculty meeting. Ted Bunn seconded.
Dean Skerrett clarified
questions about the phrase regarding “consultation”; all faculty directors
report to a department chair. She thinks there should be a low barrier for a
faculty director to initiate his or her inclusion in the department’s triennial
schedule. Stephen Long asked about faculty directors’ contracts. The Dean
replied that faculty directors would prefer multi-year contracts, but at the
present time they are one-year contracts.
After further
discussion, motion was approved.
Dean Skerrett offered
to send to the faculty a copy of the proposed revision to the Guidelines for
Merit Review (as tabled by the faculty) and a copy of the current Guidelines
with the newly approved revision concerning faculty directors. The faculty can
compare them and come prepared for a possible vote at the April 16th
meeting.
B.S. Degree Requirement
Associate Dean
Malcolm Hill announced that various department heads would meet next week to
discuss the requirement for a B.S. degree. Documents are available on the
A&S website that offer information and history. The STEM department chairs will
discuss an option of replacing the current language concerning the path to a
B.S. degree. The group will try to attain a consensus and they hope to bring their
recommendations to the next faculty meeting. Bill Myers also offered comments and
concerns on this issue.
Meeting Conclusion
Bill Ross
asked if the faculty had too many issues to address at the April meeting? Dean
Skerrett replied that she would like to bring all them forward, but if
necessary, some items could be postponed.
The meeting
adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
The next Arts
and Sciences faculty meeting will be held on April 16, 2015 at 4 p.m. in the
Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lucretia
McCulley
