Academic Leadership Council Minutes
(Expanded Deans Council Meeting)
October 26, 2005
Library Rotunda
Item 1: Dean and
Chair Duties and Responsibilities
VPAA Szafran briefly discussed the job responsibilities of the deans and the department chairs and asked if they need clarification. It was brought to the VPAA’s attention that there have been as many as five revisions in the department chair job description since 2000. The VPAA explained that his intent is to clarify the duties between the chairs and the deans and asked how best to make the chairs feel respected and well compensated. Various chairs commented that department chair duties have increased, teaching load has increased, but compensation has not. Many of the chair positions are filled by the only person willing, because no one else wants to do the job.
The chairs agreed that there needs to be a clear job description and that they should be actively involved in the preparation process. Also suggested was that better communication is needed from the bottom up. While responding to feedback, especially from the Deans Council Minutes, and using the WIKI for discussions and communication was good, the chairs agreed face-to-face communication, such as today’s meeting, was better.
The chairs also want a clear idea of what their deans expect from them and that they object to receiving directives without input and policy changes without notice or their input. Most of the chairs only found out about the department chair job description review from the Deans Council Minutes. Changing the signatory authority process has helped empower the chairs by giving them more authority over budgetary issues. The chairs would like to make more decisions instead of just implementing the dean’s decisions. Another issue brought up is that the teaching load for chairs is not consistent from department to department and that there should be an established policy. Lab hours should also be looked at when deciding how many teaching hours should be required for chairs and also for a faculty workload policy.
VPAA Szafran asked the group if they would like to meet once a month and they agreed it is a good idea. Szafran wants the format to be open communication between all parties and not just a “top down” information session from him or the Deans. He asked the chairs to think about agenda items and whether to expand the group to include directors and others. It was agreed that the group should be expanded.
Item 2: Faculty Evaluation Process
Dr. Szafran asked the group for comments about the current faculty evaluation process. The VPAA stated that he is sometimes uncomfortable signing off on some faculty processes, such as consulting, reappointment, promotion and tenure, etc., because he does not have enough information or clear standards that define what is acceptable and wondered if the chairs feel the same way. He asked the chairs how they determine what the standard should be. One chair stated that he did not like the evaluation process because it can’t always just be about what’s on paper – other factors should also be considered. Chairs have to make their own determination about what is considered “noteworthy” and it is difficult to do because there is no clear definition. There should be clear standards, but those standards should provide some flexibility.
The reappointment process was discussed and determined to be less rigorous than the promotion and tenure process. It was presented that measures are in place to address deficiencies with a faculty member’s performance in their pre-tenure review process and that a plan should be worked out with the faculty member to address these issues. The chairs were asked if they have sufficient evidence to make decisions on promotion and tenure. Many answered that they evaluate the best they can without clear definitions. The VPAA expressed his concern that expectations are unclear. If we don’t know, how can we uphold and evaluate them? He stated that there is a need to agree on common standards for all chairs to use in the four areas of evaluation – teaching, scholarship, service, and professional growth and development. A point was brought up that in these four areas, no weight is given to faculty availability, collegiality and advising. The VPAA asked for agreement from the chairs to work to define the standards and then uphold them.
Item 3: Faculty Role and Expectations for Advising
Dr. Szafran stated that SPSU’s expectations for advising are lower than they should be. While exit interviews with students indicate great satisfaction with their education at SPSU, the lowest evaluations are in the area of advising. Good advising includes mentoring, setting goals, getting the students excited about their futures and is much broader than deciding what courses to take next term. He suggested that we need to strengthen advising to help build relationships with our students and that it requires a big investment in time. It was agreed that if we start early with freshmen, and they are expected to participate in advisement, they will come to depend on the advisement process and hopefully engage in the process and develop a relationship with their advisors. Several chairs discussed whether and how faculty should be evaluated on advising. This issue raised some concerns about the workload on faculty in departments with large numbers of majors versus those with lower numbers and how to accommodate those departments with large numbers. Dr. Szafran suggested that some of the solution might require release time, paying adjuncts more who advise, and using technology and resources to help advisors.
Item 4: General Studies Program
Dr. Szafran explained the current state of our budget and stated we are facing a $905,000 shortfall, because of formula-funding due in part to declining graduate enrollment two years ago. The Academic Affairs “share” of the reduction is approximately $550,000 or 60% of the total. Szafran said that tuition increases, as well as other contingencies will likely reduce the shortfall, but that we needed to proceed as if the entire cut would need to be made. He explained that if the cuts needed to be fully implemented, $225,000 would be cut from equipment funds (increased lab fees would offset), $200,000 would be cut from new hires, another $25,000 would be cut from the Library book budget and $20,000 would be cut from each Dean’s operating budget. To avoid implementing these cuts, various initiatives are being developed to increase revenues.
Dr. Szafran suggested several ways to increase revenues, including increasing graduate enrollment with the help of a new graduate director, improving retention, and removing barriers that prevent student success. He then introduced a proposal to increase undergraduate enrollment by utilizing our Associate Degree in General Studies. This idea was discussed in detail at the last deans council meeting and is posted on WIKI. The potential tuition revenue would allow us to hire faculty and develop learning support options, both of which would be needed for such a program. Dr. Szafran asked the chairs to look at their courses to see if learning support could be built into some of their courses instead of creating remedial courses.
Some issues or concerns raised were:
It was agreed that this option would need a lot of discussion but seemed to be worth pursuing further.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.