Arts and Sciences Faculty
Meeting
Minutes
Minutes
Thursday, April 16, 2015
4:00 p.m.
Dean Kathleen Skerrett called the meeting to order at 4:00
p.m. in the Brown-Alley Room, Weinstein Hall. She asked for motions to approve the Arts and
Sciences Faculty meeting minutes of March 18 and the Academic Council Actions
of April 7. Abigail Cheever moved
approval of the Arts and
Sciences Faculty Meeting minutes of March 18, 2015. Ted Bunn seconded
the motion. The faculty voted to approve the minutes. Dean Skerrett thanked Lucretia McCulley for
serving as secretary for the Arts and Sciences faculty meetings for the past
three years. Bill Ross then moved approval
of the April 7, 2015 Arts and Sciences Academic Council Actions. Jon Dattelbaum seconded the motion and the
faculty voted to approve.
Report on Merit and Salary Allocations
for FY 16
Dean Skerrett
provided an overview of the FY16 Merit Review Process via a PowerPoint
presentation. She commented on the
Dean’s Office approach to merit reviews and noted that the Dean’s office and
department chairs are moving closer in agreement with merit review
scores. Various other slides covered the distribution of merit
ratings, merit scores across divisions and merit raises. Elena Cavillo asked a
question about scores across the disciplines and the calibration of those
scores. Dean Skerrett agreed that further analysis of the scores would be
helpful.
Other slides
focused on the average salary increase for tenure and tenure track faculty,
promotion bumps and market adjustments. Kathrin Bower asked about benchmarking
and if it is conducted on an annual basis. The Dean replied that it
is an annual review.
Nicole Sackley
asked about the peer median salary by rank. The Dean replied with a PowerPoint
slide that described the distribution of A&S Tenure-stream faculty salaries
as percent of peer median salary by rank. She noted that this information will
be meaningful to the Trustees as well as the faculty. Jon Dattelbaum asked who is included in
benchmarking. Dean Skerrett noted that
it was all professors in a rank.
Kathrin Bower
asked about differences between divisions and are there any plans to address
this? The Dean replied that they are working on different methods to analyze
these differences. Professor Bower also asked if the slides can be widely distributed,
but the Dean said they cannot be shared publicly.
Tze Loo asked
if there is data reporting differences and comparisons with gender. The Dean replied that such data was not
provided, but she will make a note to include it next year. The Dean again encouraged faculty to ask for
the data that they desire. She also acknowledged and thanked Patty Murphy,
Director of Institutional Effectiveness, for compiling the analysis. Dean
Skerrett moved on to a slide that provided information on average increases
with peer median rank. Peter Smallwood
noted that faculty are still below the peer median, even with salary increases.
Elizabeth Schlatter asked about merit increase data for directors. Dean Skerrett shared a slide displaying merit increases for faculty directors. Additional slides provided information on the director benchmarking and the various problems associated with their category. The Dean plans to address those problems going forward.
Elizabeth Schlatter asked about merit increase data for directors. Dean Skerrett shared a slide displaying merit increases for faculty directors. Additional slides provided information on the director benchmarking and the various problems associated with their category. The Dean plans to address those problems going forward.
Dean Skerrett
reviewed the triennial schedule and stated that her office will distribute the
schedule to department chairs by June 1.
She also indicated that she will report back to the faculty in the fall
with additional information once salaries are stabilized for the upcoming year.
Nominating Committee – Report and Actions
- Dr. Kathy Hoke
Kathy Hoke
displayed a document listing the new appointments on A&S committees,
highlighting the Faculty Research Committee, Undergraduate Research Committee
and Curriculum Committee. She also
reviewed the recent results of the Faculty Senate elections.
Dan Palazzolo reiterated the purpose of the nominating committee and the progress that the committee has made with increasing opportunities for faculty committee appointments. He recognized Professor Hoke’s excellent work with the process and the faculty applauded her accomplishments.
Information Concerning First-Year Seminar
Pilot - Dr. Sydney Watts
Sydney Watts,
FYS Coordinator, reminded the faculty that a proposal for a FYS Seminar Pilot
will be presented at the University Faculty meeting on Monday, May 11. This proposal centers around FYS 101-102,
where students and faculty will participate in a continuing FYS throughout the
academic year. The purpose of the pilot
is to study how the new FYS guidelines can be implemented.
Kathrin Bower asked
if both models will run at the same time and Professor Watts replied that they
will. Professor Watts also noted that
she cannot predict the future outcome, but this pilot will allow a way to
measure the effectiveness of the goals of FYS. Jan French asked if the students would be
informed about the pilot and the differences with the other FYS offerings. Students
will be informed about the pilot and what they are choosing. Professor Watts noted that the pilot and
changes in the goals are based on past reports and assessments.
Report on Undergraduate Research
Committee for Summer 2016
Due to the
length of the agenda and discussions, Vincent Wang offered to wait until the
fall for his report on summer fellowships.
Proposal to Review Guidelines for Merit Review
Process
Dean Skerrett summarized
the conversations of the March 18 A&S faculty meeting regarding the
Guidelines for Merit Review. The motion
to approve the guidelines is on the table, but at the March 18 meeting, Tze Loo
made a motion to postpone the vote of approval to the April 16 meeting. Dean Skerrett asked if there were further
questions and discussions before voting to approve the guidelines. With no further comments, the Dean asked for
a faculty vote. Associate Dean Vincent
Wang counted the votes by raise of hands. The results consisted of 15 in favor,
4 opposed and 18 abstentions.
Based on the
results of this vote, the Dean did not feel advised by Academic Council or the
Faculty to approve these revised guidelines. The current version of the
guidelines stands.
LIbby Gruner asked
if the faculty should have an electronic vote, but the Dean stated that she is
comfortable with this outcome. She then
asked Michelle Hamm to speak about the proposal to create an Ad-Hoc Committee
of Promotion.
Proposal to Create an Ad-Hoc Committee on
Promotion
Michelle Hamm
provided a history of the proposal to create an Ad-Hoc Committee on Promotion. She stated that several Associate Professors
had recently shared concerns and problems with the triennial reviews and that
this group of associate professors composed the motion. They have questions on how the triennial
reviews will impact Tenure and Promotion portfolios for promotion. Professor Hamm stated that the motion is now
before the faculty. She also noted that
the faculty may want to add a friendly agreement to include Associate
Professors who have serve on the Promotion and Tenure Committee. Peter Smallwood seconded the motion.
A discussion ensued
on who should be included on the committee.
Sydney Watts expressed concern about how the conversations may go if
Associate Professors are included. Michelle
indicated that it would be important to have at least two faculty members from
each division. Due to the lack of a large pool of Associate Professors who have
served on Promotion and Tenure, it may be possible to use Department Chairs who
are full professors. Nicole Sackley suggested that only past chairs should
serve, not current chairs. Kathrin Bower
then stated that it would be difficult to eliminate current chairs. Professor Sackley
asked that the committee not be weighted with current chairs. Both Michelle Hamm and Sydney Watts noted
that the History Department does not participate in a triennial review, but
they would be included.
Kathy Hoke
asked if this Ad-Hoc Committee would have access to documentation and data from
past tenure and promotion decisions? Collecting this data could be difficult
due to confidentiality policies. Professor Hamm stated that the experience of
Associate and Full Professors will be very valuable in assessing the guidelines
and the review will not necessarily focus on individual cases.
Jane Berry commented
that this discussion is very important, but noted that since the meeting is
over the time limit, several faculty are departing. She asked if the discussion
should be postponed.
Nicole Sackley recommended moving ahead and called the question for the motion. The Dean asked for a voice vote and the faculty approved the motion to form an Ad-Hoc Committee on Promotion.
Nicole Sackley recommended moving ahead and called the question for the motion. The Dean asked for a voice vote and the faculty approved the motion to form an Ad-Hoc Committee on Promotion.
The meeting adjourned
at 5:11 p.m.
The Dean encouraged all faculty to attend the A&S Reception on Thursday, April 23 in the International Commons Room.
The Dean encouraged all faculty to attend the A&S Reception on Thursday, April 23 in the International Commons Room.
Respectfully
submitted,
Lucretia
McCulley
