SOS Steering Committee Minutes
November 17, 2006
Present: Voting
members: William Bosron (DEAN), Ray Chin (PRESIDENT), John Watson (BIOL),
Robert Minto (for Stephanie Sen) (Chem and Chem Biol), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI),
Kathy Licht (EARTH), Michal Misiurewicz (MATH), Durgu Rao (PHYSICS), Silvia
Bigatti PSYC). Non-Voting Ex-Officio
Members: Andy Barth (PAST PRESIDENT), Steve Randall (SECRETARY), Pam
Crowell, Andy Gavrin (ASSOCIATE DEANS), Regrets:
Jeff Watt, Guests:
Vice-Chancellor Uday Sukhatme
9:05 Chin opened
meeting
Minutes of 10-20-06
were approved with minor revision.
Meeting time for the
SAR was agreed to be in the first hour of the Dec 15 Steering Committee.
The Agenda for the
Faculty Assembly meeting on Nov the 28th was briefly discussed. The following were proposed for the
agenda. The By-laws revised, as in the
appendix I, will be presented to the faculty for discussion. The Dean and
Associate Deans will make announcements
and summarize activities. Dean Sukhatme
is invited for the 2nd hour of the meeting (from 12-1). [Secretaries note: The other standard
components as required by the by-laws, e.g., Reports of the various school
committees will also be placed on the agenda].
By-Law changes:
Section III. Administration Subsection 4. Evaluation
of Administration was discussed; Watson suggested a modification for
clarification, which was agreed upon (Appendix I.)
SAR: The administrative review was discussed: It was thought important that explanations
addressing how the review data would be treated be placed both in the minutes
of this meeting and in the text and directions for completing the evaluations.
1)
WRITTEN
COMMENTS MADE BY THE EVALUATORS WILL BE COMMUNICATED VERBATIM TO THE EVALUEE
AND TO THE DEAN.
2)
A SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE SAR (WITH NO VERBATIM STATEMENTS) WILL BE COMMUNICATED TO THE
FACULTY.
Deans Announcements:
The move from Waterway back to the
School is now complete. The move is into
the SL Building, in space vacated by of the
Diversity
Issues: The actions Campus is taking in
response to recent grievances are outlined on the Diversity Planning &
Improvement Web site (release date, 11-15-06).
The Dean mentioned that a CTE proposal (already supported) will support
new faculty in African-American Studies Program. This is an example of some
issues that are already begun to be addressed (though the student body is not
yet aware). The school will likely form a diversity committee (diversity
planning expected). The Dean sent an
email to SOS students describing diversity support and providing guidance for
action. Andy Barth mentioned part of
School support should (could?) include sensitivity training and systematic
responses. Rao suggested publicizing information for students regarding
mechanisms for filing grievances. Misiurewicz asked how to address diversity in
the classroom. Andy Barth gave some
examples such as discussing of contributions by diverse contributors, also
curricular development/modification can be considered (e.g., for severe
physical handicapped).
Signature
Centers: The Dean discussed ranking of
the proposals.
Related to the
mathematical BioSciences proposal, a new Ph.D. in Biostatistics involving Math
and the division of Biostatistics in the
Randall asked why it
was (with collaboration being a critical aspect of the proposals) that all of
the SOS proposals had outside of the school participants while only about 1/2
of the IUSM proposals did. Crowell indicated
that this might not be an accurate number. Bosron suggested that this is an
issue of Medicine being aware of what we do and we should make our attributes
better known. It was remarked that the
Deans unique connections with IUSM might make this more fruitful.
10:00, Arrival of
Uday Sukhatme .
Discussion continued about Signature centers. Sukhatme discussed certain aspects such as
bringing into the of Signature Centers those centers which are preexisting that
meet criteria, and evaluation and weeding out of centers that are not
performing. Discussion was raised about
the extremely low 6 years graduation rate at IUPUI. A subgroup of applicants (30%), of which only
10% returned the next semester is a significant factor
in our 6-year graduation rate. The Vice–Chancellor discussed several aspects of
a plan to remediate which include more accurate counting and strategies to
identify (before admission into IUPUI) applicants who are not prepared to do
college level work. Randall asked a
question about the Indianapolis Star article of this past summer which seemed
to inaccurately depict the $ spent on undergraduate education because it lumped
in expenditures to the professional schools.
Sukhatme suggested that this is important to look into and proposed
checking the numbers.
The remainder of the
time was spent discussing aspects of the SOS Deans Search that is proposed to
begin Spring 07. Highlights of this discussion are listed below
1)
The search
should begin ideally in March
2)
The
advertisement must be ready by the end of the semester at latest
3)
Departments
will be asked for several suggested names to serve on search committee.
4)
Several
individuals on the steering committee suggested that the search committee be
smaller than it was last time preferably no larger than 11 members.
5)
Regarding
qualifications, Sukhatme indicated the candidate must have impeccable academic
credentials, be the equivalent of the top quadrant of full professors at a
major research university. Have some
experience in administration. The
preference would be someone with a running research laboratory, wants something
in addition to “just” being a Dean.
6)
An
understanding by Sukhatme that the above expectation (#5) would also require
many $, which the school does not have at its disposal.
7)
Expectations
for the job interview include a research talk/seminar (directed to a diverse
audience), and a second talk which would deal more in plans and ideas for
administration of the school
8)
Sukhatme
suggested that the Steering committee should put together expectations for
search committee and procedures.
Meeting was adjourned
at 11:03
Appendix I. Proposed By-law
changes
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATION
Assistant Deans, Associate Deans, and Department Chairs will
be reviewed in the subjected to a full review in the
same years as the Dean's (internal and campus-level) reviews, but no sooner
than 2 years 1 year after assumption of the position under review. In the
event that this exception would result in a period longer than three two
years without review, the SAR may schedule an interim review for an Assistant
Dean, Associate Dean, or Department Chair.
The full internal SOS reviews will consist of both a
quantitative component and a qualitative component. In addition to these
reviews, a brief review that consists essentially of the quantitative component
of the full review will be applied annually for the Dean and for each Assistant
Dean, Associate Dean, and Department Chair, but no sooner than one year after
assumption of the position under review. The quantitative component will
invite faculty to provide feedback by use of a numerical rating scale. The qualitative component will invite faculty
to provide written comments in response to specific questions posed or issues raised
in the review instrument and to volunteer additional comments if they so
desire.
In addition to these reviews, a brief review that consists
essentially of the quantitative component of the full review will be applied
annually for the Dean and for each Assistant Dean, Associate Dean, and
Department Chair, but no sooner than one year after assumption of the position
under review. This brief review will invite
faculty to provide feedback by use of the quantitative (numerical) rating
scale. Faculty may add written comments
if they so desire.
a) The Steering Committee
1. Membership. The
voting members of this committee shall consist of the President, the Dean or
the Dean's designee, and one representative from each Department in the
Minutes approved 12-15-06