SOS Steering Committee Minutes

 

February 11, 2005

 

Present:  Voting Members:  Carl Cowen (Dean), Andy Barth (PRES & GEOL), Steve Randall (BIOL), David Malik (CHEM), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI), Owen Burkinshaw (MATH), Ricardo Decca (PHYS), Jane Williams (PSY); Non-Voting Ex-Officio Members:  Phil Fastenau (Sec.); Pam Crowell, Andy Gavrin, Jeff Watt (Assoc. Deans); Kim Nguyen (Asst. Dean).  Guests:  None.

 

AB called the meeting to order at 10:06 a.m.

 

I.          Subcommittee for Administrative Review

             (President, Secretary, and Department Representatives only were present at this time.)

 

             JW presented a sample review instrument from San Jose State University.  That review instrument contained 61 items.  It was agreed that instrument needed to be kept to no more than 20 items in order to elicit a good response rate.  Those items were reviewed to identify a subset of items that seemed especially suitable for our instrument.  PF will circulate the revised instrument to the SAR by email for review and comment.

 

II.         Dean and Assoc./Asst. Deans (CC, KN, JW, AG, PC) joined the SC meeting at 11:05.

             The agenda was adopted.

 

III.        PF presented the minutes from 01/14/05 meeting for approval.  They were approved with revision; there were no dissenting votes.

 

IV.        PC and AB have been working with Pres. Herbert to schedule a meeting but he is not available during any of our regular meeting times.  JW reported that Bart Ng is working on getting him to campus also, so we might want to coordinate with Bart to arrange a full-day visit with multiple entities on campus.

 

V.         CC indicated that the first concrete steps for space would take place next week.

 

             Department of Economics is not happy in SLA and requested to move to SOS because of the better fit with other departments that have strong research programs.  Their external review documented that they have a strong research program and that they should seek to develop a Ph.D. program.  Of 300+ Econ departments in the nation with research programs, only 6 are housed in Schools of Science.  Economics already discussed this with School of Business; IUB has two Econ programs (one in School of Business and another in Arts & Sciences).  Bob White (Dean of SLA) said that the move would be budget-neutral (others have suggested that it might be less than neutral).  CC polled the SC regarding whether we viewed Econ as an 8th science.  SR asked about the department’s statistics; CC reported that they have 14 faculty but he did not known off-hand what % are funded.  AB said that if this were a personality issue (between their chair and dean), which does not seem like a good rationale; also, how would IUB perceive this move and to what degree would they be able to collaborate with IUB to develop degree programs.  In addition, JW wondered how many faculty in Math would be interested in collaborating with the Econ faculty.  SR added the issue of geography (not being located proximal to the rest of the SOS).  OB said that they consider themselves the strongest departments in SLA but they would be one of the weakest in SOS, and they would have new problems to deal with if they came to SOS.  There is a rating system for Econ departments across the U.S.; IUPUI was ranked 30th based on published papers, but the majority of those papers were OB’s publications (i.e., from the Department of Math rather than from Econ).  DM has concerns about dealing with an administration that is not willing to let them go; this is a bit of turf war.  We need the support of central administration (Plater & Bantz) before we consider it further, and CC and AB echoed that sentiment.  PF noted that there were no strong endorsements expressed in favor and wondered if anyone in SOS SC would champion this cause.  DM said that we could foster more joint programs with Econ, similar to the joint MBA programs that we have with Business.  KN shared her husband’s experience of cross-disciplinary research in his own studies; there could be a whole host of interdisciplinary connections with Econ.  PC pointed out that those collaborations are still available without a move and that she is concerned that they are running away from something rather than initiating the move based on the importance of being in SOS.  The consensus was to not pursue this; CC reported that the Chairs came to the same conclusion.

 

VI.        Bylaws Revisions

 

             A.        P&T

 

             DM wondered what happened to the Bylaws revision regarding P&T.  After discussion, DM agreed to recirculate the last draft (which was discussed in the December, 2004 meeting).  Then he will send it back out to the subcommittee and bring this item to the next meeting for feedback.

 

             B.        Technology Committee

 

             SR reported that the Bylaws do not specify how to select a chair for this the Technology Committee (TC).  This is an administrative committee rather than a faculty committee, but the Bylaws do apply to the TC.  AG would initiate a series of discussions in the Tech Committee to work specifically on rewriting the bylaws.

 

             C.        Teaching & Learning Committee

 

             AG said that TLC has been an ad hoc committee.  The recommendation is that it becomes a standing faculty committee called the “Assessment Committee” with an annual goal of producing the Annual SOS Assessment Report at the Spring SOS Faculty Assembly.  They would create a mission statement and language for the Bylaws, which would go through the SC. 

 

             PC reminded the SC that we need to schedule the Spring Faculty Assembly.  AB will coordinate with Rosemarie Temple can help find a room.

 

VII.      AB reminded representatives that they need to identify a fellow faculty member in their department to assist with review.

            

VIII.     The next meeting is scheduled for 03/04/05 in Psychology Conference Room (LD 124). 

 

Meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

P. Fastenau, 02/11/05.

Minutes were approved by the SOS SC on 03/04/05.

 

Administrative Review Instrument 2005 (02/11/05 rev.)

 

Scale:  1=Strongly Disagree  to  5=Strongly Agree

Numbers in parentheses represent item numbers from San Jose State Univ. (Appendix D2).

 

1.            Works effectively to promote the department’s needs and welfare at the school and campus levels.  (6-7)

2.            Listens and responds effectively to individual or collective faculty concerns. (15-16)

3.            Fosters a positive unit atmosphere.  (8)

4.            Seeks consultation with faculty when appropriate.  (13)

5.            Works with faculty to provide needed resources. (19)

6.            Evaluates all faculty fairly and equitably.  (21)

7.            Is aware of the value and volume of my work.  (Original-modified)

8.            Collaborates with faculty to formulate effective strategic plans to achieve goals. (2)

9.            Has developed a sound short-term plan for the department. (Original-modified)

10.        Has developed a sound long-term plan for the department. (Original-modified)

11.        Manages the unit’s budget and resources effectively.  (52)

12.        Manages the unit’s budget and resources efficiently.  (53)

13.        Keeps faculty and staff informed of the unit’s financial status.  (55)

14.        Effectively manages the operation of his/her office.  (Original-modified)

15.        Ensures that student recruitment and retention are a priority.  (32-modified)

16.        Mediates objectively in conflicts between faculty and students.  (37)

17.        Encourages curriculum improvements and updates.  (41)

18.        Supports grant writing and fundraising, as appropriate.  (61)

19.        Promotes unit to relevant local and regional entities.  (59)

20.        Overall rating of the Chair