Steering Committee Minutes – September 19, 2007

Present: Voting Members: Silvia Bigatti (Psych), William Bosron (Dean), William Geller (Math), Kathy Licht (Earth Sciences), Snehasis Mukhopadhyay (CS), Steve Randall (President), Dragu Rao (Phy), Stephanie Sen (Chem), John Watson (Bio). Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members: Ray Chin (Past-President), Pam Crowell (Associate Dean), Andy Gavrin (Associate Dean), Jane Williams (Secretary). Absent: None Visitor: Greg Lindsey, Chair of SOS Dean’s Search Committee.

11:05 President Randall opened the meeting.

1. The meeting agenda was approved. After a few minor changes were suggested, the minutes of the 9-05-07 meeting were approved.

2. The administrative review process was discussed briefly. The process and expectations for the report to faculty were reviewed. JW will get the remaining data out to department reps.

3. Discussion of research retreat. PC reported that last year the focus was on grant development for untenured faculty. The feeWBack was positive and so she is looking to identify a topic of interest for this year. The target date would be in early January before the Spring semester begins. Potential topics: report from the Signature Research Centers, technology transfer, research collaborations, invite in program officers from a funding agency. Suggestions made were internal networking (e.g., research matrix similar to the Cancer Center) and research equipment or technology, and mutual education of our research interests.

4. SR asked that we provide the drafted changes to the Bylaws from the faculty and come back to the next meeting with suggestions so that we can go forward with a vote. First reviewed the NTTF definition and bylaws affecting them. Some new ranks needed to be included, and they are now included in the administrative surveys. We will now be required to include NTTF in the administrative review.

5. Began a discussion with Greg Lindsey regarding the Dean’s search process. GL reported that the committee has worked hard to identify good candidates and currently there are about 20; including both internal and external. Will complete screening by early October and depending upon that outcome, they may start with airport interviews or go directly to on campus interviews. Met with some of the previous search committee to glean ideas for this search process. One significant issue raised was to stress the importance of financial support from central administration to attract a strong candidate. GL noted that Chancellor Bantz is fiscally conservative however there is a potential change coming in how assessments are distributed across the campus. Presented the SC with a set of ideal characteristics for a new Dean created by the search committee. The goal is for the process to be open and there will be an open presentation by candidates re: administrative issues. WB asked that the SC and Chairs be made aware of the process before it happens would be nice, so that feeWBack could be given. WB asked if Cordova has been in contact with the search committee. GL responded that he didn’t believe she had been and wondered if that was consistent with past searchers. GL noted the challenge won’t be identifying good candidates, but attracting them to the School of Science. SR agreed that this was of great concern to him and many faculty. Specifically, that the financial situation is problematic and we will need a good package for the individual. WB suggested that it might be a good idea to have the candidates meet with Bob Martin to help the candidate understand the RCM system and the Schools current financial state. GL stated that the search committee will communicate this concern to the EVC, but will also be prepared to address this with the candidates in a positive way. GL suggested that the faculty need to put themselves forward as a positive, hard-working group that will work hard to address the issues because the financial issues are systemic. PC suggested the Characteristics of Dean under the research mission was missing some of the faculty expectations and an area that the school needs to grow and receive strong leadership. The school needs someone to advance the research mission of the school. GL asked for suggestions and feeWBack on the document and suggested that this issue be posed to the candidates during their visit. SM asked how the committee will seek out information about the candidates; seeking information beyond the references. GL responded that the committee will seek out information through many contact points. JW asked for suggestions in the upcoming meeting with the EVC. GL suggested we ask for what his interaction with the candidates will be, if he believes that the Chancellor won’t add money, how is he going to attract a candidate, an how will he engage the candidate. It’s our opportunity to inform and educate him about our School of Science. EVC wants the engagement, wants to learn, and he’s still learning the nuances of the School and IUPUI. John Watson asked about the pre-screening process. GL responded that there was a sub-committee to review candidates that were clearly not competitive, which seemed appropriate when the number of candidates was not yet known. GL stated that all candidates, both internal and external will be given full and equal consideration. AG suggested that the three names be delivered to higher administration in person, so that specific nuances, concerns or sentiments of the committee may be communicated clearly and strongly. The goal is to have the first candidates on campus in late Oct and/or early Nov and to complete the process by the end of the semester. John Watson brought up a faculty concern that internal candidates could tailor their applications based on information known about the existing candidates. SM asked if failure was an option, and GL responded that it was a potential. SS asked about the details of the process and GL responded that it hasn’t been finalized at this time, but will be partly determined by the pool. WB noted the School’s appreciation for Greg Lindsey’s time and careful work in this process.

6. Back to Bylaws. PC introduced the changes to the Bylaws specific to a research committee and splitting of the Ed Policies committee. Making the research committee a standing rather than ad hoc committee came out of the strategic planning initiatives within the school. The research committee has increasing responsibilities; reviewing proposals and reviewed signature center proposals. The graduate education committee has also been an ad hoc committee that meets fairly regularly. Their focus is on recruitment, new graduate program proposals, and review of graduate courses and programs. The committee membership has typically been the graduate head or coordinator of each department. The undergraduate and graduate courses get reviewed via different paths, so splitting the duties into different committees appears to make sense. The rest of the Bylaw changes will be discussed at the next meeting.

7. SR closed the meeting at 1:05.