March 18, 2015 A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

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 (2^nd 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 17^th 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 16^th 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 16^th 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