SOS Steering Committee Minutes

December 9, 2005

Present: Voting Members: Carl Cowen (Dean), Andy Barth (PRES), Steve Randall (BIOL), Barry Muhoberac (CHEM), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI), Kathy Licht (GEOL), Ray Chin (MATH), Marvin Kemple (PHYS), Jane R. Williams (PSY); Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members: Phil Fastenau (Sec.); Pam Crowell, Andy Gavrin, Jeff X. Watt (Assoc. Deans); Guests: None.

Absent: Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean).

Barth called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.

I. Barth presented the agenda, which was adopted.

II. Fastenau presented the minutes from previous meeting for approval. They were approved without revision; there were no dissenting votes.

III. Review of Progress from Fall Faculty Assembly

There was good attendance at the Fall Faculty Assembly, with more than a quorum. Barth thanked department representatives for “beating the bushes.” All three Bylaws changes were approved. With approval of the new Officer roles, we will need to conduct an election of Secretary and President under the new definitions in the Spring. Barth will contact the SOS Nominations Committee to start soliciting nominations. In addition, faculty at the Assembly voiced no opposition to using a web-based format for administrative reviews.

IV. Administrative Reviews

a. Revised Quantitative Review Form for Assistant Dean Nguyen

Williams presented the form used to evaluate Asst. Dean Nguyen last Spring. She identified items that appeared to be most relevant to Nguyen’s current job description, and she eliminated items for which many faculty responded “Don’t Know” (which would not likely provide much yield upon further faculty review). Watt asked if unique forms would also be developed for the Associate Deans; Williams confirmed, but there would be a core set common across the Dean’s staff. Williams identified 10 items, which she proposed for the common core. Individual items were reviewed and discussed.

Randall questioned the wisdom of Dean’s staff determining how they would be evaluated. Fastenau reminded the committee that the Bylaws encourage the SC to obtain input from the administrators who will be reviewed but also provides for the Subcommittee for Administrative Review (SAR, comprised of the President, Secretary, and department representatives only) to meet without the Dean’s staff to finalize the instruments and process. Barth recommended that the SC review the materials distributed by Jane, together with the job descriptions, and that they meet the 1^st half hour without the Dean’s staff for a portion of the January meeting. He also invited the Dean’s staff to send their input directly to him for the SAR to consider in January.

Williams also reported that she and Fastenau recommend that the SC include a uniform job description and invite each administrator under review to prepare brief statement (with a set word limit) reporting on what they have done in the past year. The SC expressed support for the proposal.

b. Organizational Chart

Fastenau presented the organizational chart (provided by Rosemarie Temple). Crowell corrected it to show that Debbie Allard reports directly to Dean Cowen for Payroll and Personnel and directly to Crowell for Grants and Contracts. Gavrin also added Meredith Stravers, who reports directly to him. Also, Gavrin reported that the “Vacant PT Advisor” search is underway; while he would supervise that person’s work in the SOS, that individual will formally be employed by University College and will report to Cathy Buyarski[PSF1] there. Cowen stated that Rosemarie would edit the chart and send the corrected figure to the SC.

c. Web-Based Survey Procedures

Williams investigated some commercial software packages and identified some good options. One vendor in particular sends out invitations to a pre-selected email distribution list, and the data are dumped into a spreadsheet without any identifying information. The cost is $29.95/month or $200/year for unlimited use. Cowen indicated that this sounded like a bargain. He suggested that we clarify with faculty which email address should be used prior to implementing a web-based process.

V. Course Buyouts and ICR Return

At the November SC meeting, Fastenau, Randall, and Muhoberac were appointed to look into current Course Buyout and ICR Return policies in the SOS and to formulate some recommendations to the SC regarding whether or not there should be SOS-wide policies on these matters and what issues should be considered. Fastenau distributed a summary of the deliberations by the subcommittee. Williams asked why this came about, and Dean Cowen explained that he wanted clarification because there could be problems when an individual changes departments or units.

Fastenau walked the committee through the document, and discussion ensued. With regard to the cost of a replacement instructor, Gavrin mentioned that in the Business School faculty members who teach an extra course are paid $15,000. Barth expressed concern about allowing return of salary savings to the investigator, citing the possible conflict of interest (hiring a cheaper – and perhaps less qualified – instructor to save more money for the investigator). Randall added that buyouts could send a message that research is more important than teaching. Barth reported that students notice when full-time faculty teach fewer courses; Gavrin added his observation that students complain to him when they cannot get hold of part-time instructors because they do not have offices on campus. Gavrin added that we need to build in some assurance that replacement instructors would be of good quality. Chin said that agencies care very much about how salary lines in grants are used and they pay close attention to the amounts and justifications.

With regard to ICR return, Randall added a recommendation of the subcommittee that had been omitted from the distributed draft. The subcommittee discussed the benefit of a SOS bonus/incentive to reward investigators for getting grants, as long as it was not tied to ICRs. Crowell added that there is already an incentive; faculty can use their grant salary to pay summer salary, which adds to base salary.

Cowen commented on the recommendations. With regard to teaching load, there might be good exceptions (e.g., a math grant from NSF limits teaching to one course). Second, any additional funds to the investigator from salary savings would not need to come from ICR; the investigator could be paid a bonus from the salary savings. He would be interested in exploring that possibility in the agency policies.

Randall said that funds may be reallocated from one line to another; Barth and Chin countered that this often requires approval from the agency. Crowell reiterated that we need to obtain clarification on NIH and NSF policies to inform any potential SOS policy and that any policy would undergo review by herself, Dean Cowen, and the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education for the university. Cowen asserted that if the SC does not support funding investigators beyond the 132% of base salary (full-time year-round, with summer salary), he wants that recommendation stated in writing. Williams felt that it was unfair to get more than full-time salary and also expressed concern that there are disparities across granting agencies such that some agencies cap grants. Gavrin replied that by extension of that argument we could eliminate disparities by holding everyone to the least common denominator (i.e., prohibit all investigators from taking any more salary than would be allowed by the most restrictive grant agency), but that did not seem fair either. Cowen reiterated that if the SC does not want bonuses paid beyond 132% of base, then he would like that explicitly stated in our recommendations. Barth proposed that we take this to our departments. Crowell offered to look into major agency policies, but Cowen did not think that was necessary because we understand the general policies and we have sufficient flexibility within our own budget to implement strategies discussed here.

VI. Department-Specific Promotion & Tenure Guidelines/Criteria

Barth asked if there were any other P&T policies/criteria beyond the three that were distributed in the last meeting (Biology, Geology, Psychology). Representatives confirmed that there were no other departments with in-house guidelines/criteria. Due to time restrictions, Barth tabled this item for further discussion until the next meeting, encouraging department representatives to review the guidelines in hand.

VII. Dean’s Office Announcements

Cowen reported that the last campus-wide Deans meeting was spent with the legislative liaison for IUPUI. The liaison emphasized that legislators need things explained in their language. IUPUI wants to be the “life & health sciences university” of Indiana. The liaison said that legislators know “life sciences” and we should not confuse our message by saying “life and health.” Cowen argued that under “life sciences” all departments can be included. Cowen added that there are many deans who are concerned about the Intelligent Design issue, but the liaison recommended keeping that out of the news because it will likely bring out the opposition and might not reflect well on the university in the long run.

Crowell invited faculty to contact her if they have any questions or issues pertaining to construction in the SOS. Cowen added that he expects displaced part-time faculty to be moved over to the library during construction. Contrary to concerns expressed by some faculty, the part-timers will have full computer access in their temporary location.

Gavrin said the university is working on a policy for dealing with students who contact faculty and staff from non-university email accounts. There are two problems resulting from such contacts: First, faculty are unable to verify the identify of the person (especially for conveying confidential information). Second, some students who are attempting to make official contact might get their message screened by a spam filter so that the message is not received. Muhoberac mentioned that it becomes a legal issue. Gavrin would like the SOS to develop a workable/sensible policy before the university imposes a policy on us. He might bring a draft to the SC next month.

Meeting was adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, December 9, 2005.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on ____________ .