April 16, 2015 - A&S Faculty Meeting Minutes

Arts and Sciences Faculty Meeting
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.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

Lucretia McCulley