SOS Steering Committee Minutes

January 6, 2006

Present:  Voting Members:  Andy Barth (PRES), Steve Randall (BIOL), Stephanie Sen (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 (Assoc. Dean); Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean).  Guests:  None.

Absent:  Carl Cowen (Dean), Andy Gavrin, Jeff X. Watt (Assoc. Deans)

AB called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. with only the SAR present (President, Secretary and department representatives).

I.          Final Format for Assistant Dean Nguyen’s Review

             Williams presented the revised instrument from the previous SC meeting.  The items were discussed taking into consideration input that Dr. Nguyen sent to the SC prior to the meeting.  Grantwriting is 20% of her job description, which is 2^nd largest component in her position; yet, there were no questions on the survey about that activity.  The invitation for deans to provide a summary of their work from the prior year will allow her to inform the faculty of these activities.  Even though there are some items about which few faculty have witnessed her activity (e.g., committee involvement), we can trust faculty who do not have knowledge to use the “Don’t Know” response (which was used freely last year).  We will add a new item (#17) on grantwriting; we will leave #14 & #15 (committee activities) as they are.

             It was agreed at the last SC meeting to use electronic format for the administrative reviews this Spring.  We will ask deans (only Assessment Dean Nguyen this year) to provide a summary of their activities for the previous year.  The format and length is flexible, but the administrators might want to consider organizing their summaries around the job description or tailor them to the survey.

             Fastenau reported that in May the Dean had requested the data from the reviews in time to incorporate those data into his annual evaluation and raises.  We need to ask the Dean how soon he would need the results to be helpful in that regard.

II.         Procedures for Analyzing and Reporting Data

             Last year there were concerns expressed about how the data were summarized and presented to the person who was reviewed, and the Dean received reports of widely varying formats.  It was proposed in a previous meeting that we standardize the feedback and reporting process.  There was discussion about whether verbatim quotes should be reported.  To include the verbatim comments might enable the administrator to recognize the style of writing; on the other hand, to modify or summarize the comments could result in loss or misrepresentation of some information.  There was consensus to include verbatim comments but to emphasize this policy on the review form so that the faculty know in advance that their verbatim remarks would be communicated directly to the administrator.  There was discussion about whether SAR members should add a summary, but this was deemed unnecessary.  Only the numerical data and verbatim remarks will be conveyed in the final reports.

Dean’s staff joined the meeting.  Crowell announced that Cowen and Watt were out of town and that Gavrin had a conflict; all three sent their regrets.

III.        AB presented the agenda, which was adopted.

IV.        PF presented the minutes from December 9 for approval.  They were approved without revision; there were no dissenting votes.

V.         Web-Based Administrative Reviews

             It was decided to use Survey Monkey web-based software for the administrative reviews.  We will set that up for a trial run by the SC representatives.  Barth will contact Dean Cowen for his desired timeline for getting the final results of the administrative reviews.

VI.        Department-Specific P&T Policies/Criteria (Cowen)

             The policies for the three departments that have policies (Psy, Geol, Bio) were circulated to the representatives following the last meeting and with the agenda for today’s meeting.  Barth asked if the departments that do not have specific policies plan to write guidelines.  Chin also asked if we know how such guidelines are viewed and used by the department and unit P&T committees.  Sen proposed that every department should have such a document so that each faculty member knows where she/he stands.  Crowell asked what issues come up with the Unit Committee; Chin replied that the criteria/guidelines for departments vary and must be discussed each year.  Williams suggested that it would be difficult to have a uniform policy given the differences across disciplines; Licht added that there must be some consistency across departments for discussions in the Unit Committee.  Kemple, who serves on the Unit Committee, indicated that it has not yet met this semester and has not discussed this issue.  Barth asked who should evaluate these documents for consistency.  Chin stated that the Unit Committee performs this role informally, and Kemple reported that the Unit Committee typically achieves a clear consensus on individual cases.  Licht added that at campus P&T workshops they always direct faculty to look up their department’s guidelines.  Randall asked whether the Bylaws should prescribe how the document is created.

             Fastenau asked if we need to make any changes if there have been no problems.  He wondered if the SC could simply recommend that each department have guidelines but defer the task of reviewing/approving such guidelines to the Unit Committee, since they have already been considering these issues.   Barth expressed concern that the Unit Committee is not representative of the faculty (it is comprised of only Full Professors, and not all departments all represented).  He also questioned whether it is our role to prescribe department guidelines or whether we should merely keep the discussion going within the departments.  Randall suggested that the Unit Committee role could be to decide whether departmental guidelines are consistent; our role, if needed, could be to make any Bylaws changes that might seem warranted.  Crowell said that there are certainly guidelines in place for each department, even if they are not written down.  These are communicated at least verbally at annual reviews; the degree to which these are communicated in writing varies by department/administrator.  Randall and Chin worried that if you put anything in writing, too little could be detrimental.

             Barth asked representatives to put this on the agenda for their next department meeting and bring back input from the faculty of each department.  This can be presented to Dean Cowen at the next SC meeting. 

VII.      Dean's Office Announcements

             Dean’s Office staff members are moving.  PT instructors from LD 165 moved to UL 1179; LD 165 will house LD 222 staff when the construction starts (anticipated in early-March; they are currently soliciting bids on the project).  Crowell asked representatives to urge their departments to contact Crowell immediately that if there are any concerns during the construction.  Sen raised concerns about changes to the ventilation system, especially for Chemistry lab fume hoods (which are frequently disrupted by construction projects in the building).  Crowell said that the engineers should be taking that into consideration, but that they can review that.  Randall suggested putting fume hoods/labs on their own ventilation system, but Crowell said that would be too expensive and said that our current system is supposed to be more than sufficient to cover our building’s needs.

             On the research front, the SOS will be the new home for two electron microscopes from Dentistry.  Dentistry is no longer interested in maintaining them.  These instruments will add to a growing body of equipment focused on that that level of research and will serve many research interests in the SOS.  They will be located in LD 030/040.

             Nguyen gave updates on enrollment.  As of the end of December, we were slightly ahead of last year in credit hours.  Consequently, we might not experience the projected enrollment decline in Spring.  In addition, Crowell reported that the $500,000 budget shortfall reported in the Fall Faculty Assembly has been reduced to $200,000 due to the discovery of some additional funds.  Thus, the budget picture is looking better.

             Crowell reviewed NIH and NSF guidelines for salary limitations/guidelines after our last meeting.  NSF limits salary to the full-year equivalent of the base salary (132.5% of base).  NIH sets an absolute limit, but it is much higher than salaries earned by most – if not all – SOS faculty, so on NIH grants faculty can earn more than 132.5% of base.

VIII.     New Business

            None.

The next meeting is scheduled for 2/10.  Fastenau will be out of town; Williams agreed to take minutes.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, January 6, 2006.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on February 10, 2006.