SOS Steering Committee Minutes

April 7, 2006

Present: Voting Members: Carl Cowen (Dean), 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, Andy Gavrin; Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean). Guests: None. Regrets: Andy Barth (PRES), Jeff X. Watt (Assoc. Deans)

Fastenau called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

I. Fastenau presented the agenda and proposed modification so that items requiring Dean Cowen’s input could be addressed before he left for another meeting. The revised agenda was adopted.

II. Fastenau presented the minutes from 3/3/06 for approval. They were approved without further revision; there were no dissenting votes.

III. Spring Faculty Assembly

The Bylaws dictate that a Faculty Assembly be convened each semester, and members of the SC agreed that it is necessary to maintain this mechanism of communication. Fastenau presented the standard Order of Business from the Bylaws and added Elections of Officers to the agenda. Randall asked if the Promotion & Tenure Recommendations needed to be discussed with the entire faculty. Dean Cowen clarified that he was merely asking the SC to provide input in their advisory capacity; thus, this does not need to be ratified as a formal SOS document. It was proposed that the SC explain our efforts to incorporate Staff and NTTF input into administrative reviews and to permit the faculty to discuss this issue and to provide suggestions. May 2nd was identified as a good date for the Faculty Assembly (Dean Cowen available from 12:00 – 3:30 that day; 1st day of exams so faculty will be around but will not have their usual class schedule; 25 days away allowing time to schedule a room, prepare ballots, and send out an agenda 10 days in advance). Fastenau will contact Rosemarie Temple and ask her to arrange a room.

IV. Dean’s Announcements

Dean Cowen explained that he needed to leave early because the Biology Department is currently under review and will receive their feedback today at 11:00. The team of reviewers looks interesting.

The budget process was very early this year. The bad news is that we have a significant difference between appropriations and assessments (down 1.2%); SOS was hit especially hard. Cowen is appealing and hoping to get some indirect relief. The budget this year is lower than last year (which is the first time that there was a decline). It will be difficult but we will need to make the money that we have go as far as possible this year. One of the casualties of this speedy process is that Cowen was not able to meet with SC before the budget went in. He would like to meet with SC before the Spring Faculty Assembly. He proposed meeting next Friday at the same time as today’s meeting. All representatives were available to meet at that time.

Cowen reported that there were three very good candidates on the short list for Executive Vice Chancellor. Uday Sukhatme was selected and was in town recently and met with many groups. He asked how we find money for start-ups in the SOS, which was encouraging because it shows that he understands the unique needs of Science. He also asked for 3-5 things that IUPUI is doing well that he should not change and 3-5 things that we often wish we could change. He is trying to get an understanding of what is really happening here before he proposes changes. He has a good track record at U of Illinois-Chicago and SUNY-Buffalo. Cowen was pleased with the short list and believes that we would have been pleased with any of them.

CTE proposals moved from IUPUI to Herbert’s Office. Bantz gave a report on the recommendations, which appear to be the recommendations from the IUPUI Committee. Five from SOS went forward: (1) training for minority women in Science; (2) employing students in Freshman & Sophomore years; (3) math education initiative (modifications recommended); (4) Forensic Science proposal (was considered to be too premature, but W.L. is developing a FS program, and Lugar wants another one in SW IN so Cowen would like to take advantage of our lead and keep the momentum going); and (5) joint Health and SLA proposal to help students figure out alternate majors after being rejected from Nursing (partially supported).

The Chemistry external review team concluded that the SOS administration must make sure that faculty/staff are aware of the SOS priorities and directions. Cowen proposes to arrange a strategic planning session in the Fall. He asked the chairs to start working within the departments to think about the undergraduate curriculum. We need to make sure that we are doing all we can to get our majors through as efficiently as possible. D/F/W rates are still very high, even in Jr-Sr classes. Sen stated that we need better advising because students are signing up for classes for which they are not ready. Gavrin added that students tend to schedule classes when they fit in to their tight schedules, even if it is premature.

Sen asked about new hires in Forensics. Cowen stated that these are special circumstances, supported by CTE money and central administration. If we do not get the CTE grants, then we will be in a bind.

V. Adminstrative Reviews

Williams provided an update on the recent Administrative Reviews using the new web-based format. She reported that participation was nearly double the rate observed in past years, ranging by department from 40% - 80% (M ~ 62%). She received positive feedback from faculty about ease of use of the system and about the rapid compilation and dissemination of feedback. There was a problem with IP addresses off-campus, but that affected very few people and was remedied easily. Jane has put together a document describing the process and use of software to pass on to future SC members. A few minor suggestions were made, which Williams will add to the document for future reviews.

VI. Review of Chairs by Staff and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (NTTF)

Williams modified Tenure-Track Faculty (TTF) form to reflect staff member experiences and sent the document to Kim Burrows for review/comment by the Executive Committee of the Staff Council. Staff members want anonymity but do recognize that aggregated data across the SOS would not be helpful in providing feedback specific to individual chairs. The staff members posed some questions:

1. Could a space be added to each question for open-ended remarks?

2. Who would the Dean's Office staff rank?  Can they rank all chairs if they interact with each of them? 

3. For administrators with only one or two staff members, would they see the results?

4. Could all departmental staff meet with a reviewer from the committee at the same time?

5. Could individualized results for each chair be sent to the Dean only, with only aggregate results shared with the chairs?

Staff members were also wondering how data will be used and whether their input would have any impact.

Sen commented that it is very important to know how the staff members feel about the chair. Openness of the chair to feedback is critical, especially for a focus-group approach. Fear of retaliation is a major issue and is difficult to circumvent. Licht asked if we might ask the chairs if they want to get that feedback and solicit input for those chairs only; Williams replied that it could be awkward to tell staff that their chair does not care about how they feel. Nguyen recommended that input from lecturers be kept separate from staff; Williams replied that this was already in place (Fastenau added that Barth has been working on the NTTF form).

Crowell wondered if it would be helpful to have chairs complete a workshop in feedback processes. Williams stated that Dr. John Hazer in Psychology has expertise in this; also, he has been a past chair, so he might have unique insights into issues that they face. Randall proposed that the SC formally recommend to Dean Cowen that he require chairs and Assoc. Deans to attend workshop on feedback processes and to consult Dr. Hazer. No one was opposed. Fastenau agreed to pass on this recommendation to Dean Cowen.

Fastenau circulated Barth’s draft of a review form, which he developed for NTTFs and shared Barth’s report of feedback from Lecturers. He contacted 10 Lecturers, but only 4 replied. All 4 indicated that they should definitely be included in the review process, but 3 of the 4 indicated that they were concerned about being identified (2 very concerned, 1 somewhat concerned). The respondents proposed two changes to his form: Add a question about how chairs deal with staff, and add a question about support of research for those who have a research commitment. Nguyen proposed reframing some of the items to read from the individual’s perspective (e.g., for #6, “Evaluates me fairly and equitably”), and others proposed that some of the other items could be refined.

Fastenau asked the SC what the action steps should be. It was decided to discuss this with the faculty at the Spring Faculty Assembly and then carry this task over to next year to incorporate it into the next review cycle. Also, Licht recommended meeting with the NTTFs as a group, in parallel with having met with the Staff Council.

VII. P&T Guidelines

Fastenau circulated Barth’s revised draft of the SC Recommendations for SOS Promotion & Tenure Guidelines. The SC was comfortable with the wording of Recommendations A and B. Recommendation C was discussed at length. The following revision was proposed:

“All tenure-track faculty in a given department should be involved in determining whether a department policy is needed. Tenure-track faculty who would be evaluated by the Guidelines should be consulted for their input into those Guidelines. The actual creation and modification of such Guidelines, however, must be consistent with the principles of peer review as defined in the School of Science guidelines for promotion and tenure review (e.g., only faculty holding a rank can participate in drafting/modifying guidelines for obtaining that rank). To ensure timely and adequate mentoring of tenured and tenure track faculty, these decisions should be regularly re-evaluated to ensure consistency with the changing environment of the department and school.”

VIII. Elections

Fastenau reminded the SC that there will be two vacancies in the SOS faculty leadership next year: Secretary and President. He believes that Barth will be willing to continue as Past-President next year. However, Fastenau stated that he will not consider a nomination because he has already served on the SC for 4 consecutive years. Fastenau reported that he contacted Rajeev Raje (Chair of the Awards & Nominations Committee) to initiate the nominations process. Fastenau encouraged SC representatives to consider self-nomination to provide continuity from this year to next year and asked them to identify individuals in their departments who would be available and willing to serve in either of these roles. Crowell emphasized the importance of making face-to-face contact with people rather than just sending an e-mail. Nominations will be needed quickly in order to prepare ballots for the Faculty Assembly meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 a.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, April 7, 2006.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on May 5, 2006.