��������Ƶ

 The Arts and Sciences Council (ASC), December 17, 2019, 3:30-5:00, Old Main Chapel

Representatives present: Stephen Mojzsis, GEOL; Sebastian Casalaina-Martin, MATH; Ramesh Mallipeddi, ENGL; David Stock, EBIO; Barbara Buttenfield, GEOG; Juan Herrero-Senes, SPAN; Daniel Jones, Honors; Andy Cowell, LING; Annje Wiese, HUMN; Michaele Ferguson, PSCI; Patricia Rankin, PHYS; Tania Barham, ECON; Lonni Pearce, PWR; Christina Meyers-Denman, SLHS; Ding Xue, MCDB; Leslie Irvine, SOCY; Gerardo Gutierrez, ANTH; Deborah Whitehead, RLST; Angelica Lawson, ETHN; Francoise Duress-Stimilli, AAH; Evelyn Shh, ALC;

Representatives not present: Daniel Appelo, APPM; Erica Ellingson, APS; Julie Lunquist, ATOC; Robert Kuchta, BCHM; Tanja Cuk, CHEM; Hanna Rose Shell, CINE; Peter Hunt, CLAS; Roger Pielke, ENVS; Masano Yamashita, FRIT; Tim Weston, HIST; Matt McQueen, IPHY; Rebecca Wartell, JWST; Daniel Kaufman, PHIL; Lewis Harvey, PSYC; Karen Auvinen, RAPS; Cecilia Pang, THDN; Alison Jaggar, WMST; Tim Kuhn, CMCI; Robert Ferry, BFA; Sarah Altshuler

Ex-officios present:  Kristy Tiampo, GEOL; Roshanne Ebrahimian, SAC;

Also in attendance:  Jim White, A&S Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz, CINE; Mike Barnett, Music; Dale Miller, ENVS; Jessica Brunecky, ��������ƵAM; Arturo Aldama, Ethnic Studies; Jenny Schwartz, HONR; Hope Saska, ��������ƵAM; Bob Ferry, BFA

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm.

Chair’s remarks, Stephen Mojzsis

Stephen Mojzsis welcomed the ASC members and A&S chairs, directors and staff attending. He reminded attendees that these end of semester meetings are an opportunity to hear the outcomes of the ASC committees. After the committee reports, there will be an open discussion on the direction of the college.

Yesterday, Mojzsis met with Russ Moore and others. At this meeting, Moore explained that the situation with restructuring the college is complicated and asked for patience. Moore is currently going through three reports: college structure, budget, and faculty governance. Mojzsis strongly encourages everyone to read the three documents; they can reach out to Stephen or Marysia for them.

Mojzsis says we should be asking for transparency, inclusiveness, honesty, and involvement in decision making from administrators handling the restructure. The College of Arts & Sciences is the first and largest college on campus, and a major source of revenue for the ��������Ƶ System. How should we evaluate the suggestions made in these documents? How do we enhance faculty governance?

 

Reports from the ASC Standing Committees
 

Budget Committee Report, Patricia Rankin

The Budget Committee has been working to push for transparency in the campus budget and to better understand how the college plays a role in the big picture. If anyone has any data that they think could be useful, please send Rankin an e-mail. Rankin expressed concern over Kelly Fox’s departure and no national search being done. Stephen reminded all that last meeting’s budget presentation was posted to the ASC website.

Curriculum Committee Report, Juan Herrero-Senes

This committee does technical work related to curriculum in the college. This semester, they have reviewed 51 proposals related to curriculum in several categories. Some examples of what they have done: vetted some revisions to majors, new minor in Linguistics, approved two new certificates, discussed interdisciplinary minors, and participated in meetings having to do with the re-accreditation process.

Diversity Committee; Daniel Jones

This committee has been trying to grow its membership. They are currently in need of a new chair and if anyone is interested, they should contact Mojzsis. Jones says the committee has been working on changes to FRPA and currently, there is no policy in place for changing FRPA. They are moving positively towards changes. Teaching activities is the only thing mentioned in FRPA; they would like to add outreach.

The Diversity Committee also drafted a response to the diversity engagement survey, which has recently been presented to President Kennedy.

The committee’s future efforts include working with the BFA, turning attention to FCQs, best practice documents for departments, seeking membership on Council for Community Inclusion and collaborating with the Center for Teaching & Learning. Jones opens the floor up for questions.

Attendee asks about the role of the viewpoint of diversity in these discussions. Jones says that they will be looking into this.

Attendee asks about the issue of students seeing FCQs. Jones says the committee agrees that this is problematic and will look into this also.

Grievance Committee, John Gibert

This committee acts as advisory to the dean. They hear cases only on referral, and the cases are limited to salary and merit grievances. Case load has been small; referred one case back to the department and heard one other case that they are currently wrapping up.

Online Education Committee, Leslie Irvine

Leslie Irvine spoke in place of chair Vilja Hulden. The committee worked on creating a response to the development of online courses at ��������Ƶ; plans are in the works to create an online hub to assist departments in the creation of online courses. The main concern is allowing for faculty to retain control over the curriculum. Because of this, Irvine asks the ASC to endorse the iron clad resolution.

Personnel Committee, Kristy Tiampo

The Personal Committee has heard 48 cases so far. They have completed all comprehensive reviews, heard half of tenure cases, and have about 20 full professor cases to begin in the spring semester. They will get to teaching professor cases at the end of the academic year. This year dossiers are all in one file, which has made things easier. The committee received training on implicit bias at the beginning of the semester.

Planning Committee, David Stock

This committee advises the dean on aspects of planning for the college. The topic they have been focusing on this year is the increasing requests for disability accommodations. Some issues include space and the payment of proctors. They are currently at the stage of evaluating solutions and surveying this practice at other universities.

Faculty Advisory Board (FAB), Dale Miller and Lily Board

Miller explains that this board arose from discussions of the planning committee with Deans Jim White, Daryl Maeda and Lily Board about a survey of interactions between academic advising and departments. Committee was formed in February 2019 and their first meeting was held in September. There are six members representing each division in the college. The presentation is turned over to Board.

Board explains the three pillars of student success: recruit, retain, launch. FAB would like to deepen relationships between faculty and advising in order to work together more intentionally on the “launch” phase. They are currently collaborating on a draft of a strategic plan which asks: how can advising better partner with career services and faculty to give students a meaningful, purposeful life at ��������Ƶ?

Their future goals include finishing the strategic plan in the spring.

Attendee asks if FAB can be used for considering transfer evaluations in the college. Board thinks this would be better suited to a different group and that new infrastructure may be needed.

Dean’s Remarks, Jim White

White explains that Kelly Fox, COO, is departing in February. The COO and Provost work together to manage the campus, so this is an important position. White is interested in how this will move forward. He spoke with the chancellor recently, who told him that they will be moving forward with an interim search in the spring semester.

Mojzsis asks White what might be the plausible options for restructuring and how the college can respond. White explains that he does not have the reports from the three reorganization committees. The last he heard, they are going for an umbrella structure with three deans directly underneath an executive dean. He does not know any details beyond that.

Mojzsis believes this is a great time to segue into the open forum part of the meeting.

Dialogue on the Provost’s plan for college reorganization

Mojzsis asks the room what they would like to see come out of this reorganization. Someone mentions that the college should figure out what resources they need in order to achieve whatever they want to do successfully. If the reorganization costs money, that could mean resources taken away from areas in need.

Mojzsis speaks of the danger of adding another layer of administrative oversight to the college. In his opinion, we should work against layering and the building of silos in order to create well-rounded individuals.

Someone brings up the fact that the college already has staffing issues, which could possibly be worsened by the reorganization.

White says that he would like to see a more united university that makes it easy for students to study various different disciplines.

Someone asks if there is any way the college can get involved in the COO search. How do we ensure greater transparency from the administrative side of the university? White suggests contacting the chancellor and suggesting an internal search committee.

Someone asks White about the supposed tension between BFA and the Provost on the assessment of administrators. White believes the tension stems from the online comments that were made publicly available concerning CMCI’s Dean. While he believes having faculty and staff weigh in on how an administrator is doing is important, he is not sure that public comments are the way to go. He’s also not too clear on where exactly the tension comes from.

 

Vote to form a new ad hoc Faculty Affairs Committee

Lonnie Pearce explains that the intent of this committee is to keep the faculty’s voice strong on important issues such as teaching, structure, and budget.

The motion was called and seconded at the last meeting.
Motion passed.
Yes: 21; No: 0, Abstain: 0

Vote to form a new ad hoc Strategic Implementation Committee

Stephen suggests tabling this motion since we still do not know the Provost’s decision. It is suggested that this be tabled until the February ASC meeting.

The motion is called.
The motion is seconded.
Motion passed.
Yes: 22; No: 0; Abstain: 0

Vote to endorse the BFA ‘Iron-clad’ resolution.

This resolution will re-affirm the faculty’s control over the curriculum as absolute and all-encompassing.

The motion is called.
The motion is seconded.
Motion passed.
Yes: 22, No: 0, Abstain: 0

The ASC has completed three motions: new ad hoc Faculty Affairs Committee, table the ad hoc Strategic Implementation Committee, and endorse the BFA Iron-clad resolution. Between last month’s meeting and this one, electronic votes were taken for the response to the Diversity Engagement Survey, which overwhelmingly passed.

Mojzsis thanks Janice Jeffryes for her service to ASC as coordinator and all applaud.

The meeting is adjourned at 5:01 pm.