�鶹ӰԺ

The Arts and Sciences Council, March 12, 2015, UMC 382/386

Meeting Minutes

Representatives present: Fred Anderson, HIST; Michela Ardizzoni, FRIT; Reece Auguiste, FILM; Julio Baena, SPAN; Daniel Barth, PSYC; Andrew Cain, CLAS; Brian Catlos, RLST; Cathy Comstock, RAPS; Bert Covert, ANTH; Vanja Dukic, APPM; Amma Ghartey-Tagoe Kootin, THDN; Weiqing Han, ATOC; Ruth Heisler, IPHY; David Jonas, CHEM; Moonhawk Kim, PSCI; Catherine Labio, ENGL; Andrew Martin, EBIO; Greg Odorizzi, MCDB; Lonni Pearce, PWR; Matthias Richter, ALC; Elizabeth Root, GEOG; Rob Rupert, PHIL; Neeraja Sadagopan, SLHS

Representatives not present: Paul Beale, PHYS; Giulia Bernardini, HUMN; Robert Buffington, WGST; Erica Ellingson, APS; Mike Haffey, SOCY; Daniel Kaffine, ECON; E. Christian Kopff, HNRS; Bhuvana Narasimhan, LING; Markus Pflaum, MATH; Artemi Romanov, GSLL; Greg Tucker, GEOL; Bianca Williams, ETHN; Joo Woo, AAH

Also in attendance: Steven Leigh

Catherine Labio called the meeting to order at 3:36 PM.

Approval of minutes of the February meeting

The minutes were approved unanimously.

Chair’s Remarks

Catherine Labio’s second consecutive term—the maximum allowed by the ASC bylaws—will end on June 30, 2015. The election of a new chair will take place at the April 16 meeting of the ASC. The Executive Committee has appointed Catherine Labio to preside over the election. ASC representatives should send nominations to Catherine Labio before the April 16 meeting. Self-nominations are acceptable. Any representative who will be serving in 2015-16 is eligible. Per the ASC bylaws, “Prior to the vote candidates will present themselves and describe their qualifications to the membership. The vote will be held by secret ballot.”

Letters recognizing representatives for their service and end of term letters have been sent out.

If a representative is going on leave, they should let Catherine Labio or Janice Jeffryes know as soon as possible so that they can contact the department/unit chair concerning the election of a temporary or permanent replacement.

Dean’s Report

As mentioned in the February meeting, the campus has adopted a new funding system. Last year the college had 16,291 students at the fall census. If the new funding had been in place at that time and all these students had taken all their classes in A&S, the College would get 16,291 x $5,750.

The new model will be monitored closely. Question marks include: Is $5750 the right amount? Should the CAS grow? How? (The focus, the dean argued, should be on improving retention.) Might the new budget model encourage Colleges to develop courses that should be taught in another college?

The universities of Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington have recently switched to this new funding model and preliminary reports are positive. The University of Oregon has switched as well, but with less success, apparently because of political issues.

The entire Department of Communications will be moving to CMCI. Some $2 million will be moving with them. Of course, CAS expenses will be reduced proportionately. Moreover, under the new funding model, CAS will get an additional $2 million to support the teaching of engineering students who take A&S classes.

Vanja Dukic (APPM), chair of the Budget Committee, reported that Kelly Fox gave the committee a good overview of the new budget model. Paul Beale (PHYS) noted that he had done a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how the new model would affect his department and believes there will be a surplus. This bodes well for the College as a whole since Physics courses tend to cost more.

Steve Leigh invited any faculty member who thinks that retention is not the right focus for growth in the CAS to contact him with any concern or suggestion.

Any money from the state will go to new buildings and infrastructure. The College of Arts and Sciences is ready for this new campus policy.

Kelly Fox is working on creating an “esteemed scholars” program designed to attract top arts and humanities students.

Bylaws Revision

The Executive Committee has drafted bylaws revision. The proposed revision, with tracked changes (Appendix I), and a sheet summarizing the key changes were distributed at the meeting.

Changes to the bylaws require a 2/3 majority vote by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The ASC could vote at the April 16 meeting whether it wishes to bring to a vote of the entire FAS.

Before going over the key changes, Catherine Labio  noted that in the course of its deliberations, the Executive Committee has come to the realization that a couple of issues will need to be taken up by the ASC and the dean’s office in the coming year.

First, the ASC should formalize procedures for selecting administrators, one of its obligations under the ASC bylaws: “The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences at the �鶹ӰԺ, recognizing that faculty governance is imperative, affirms its right and responsibility to participate fully in the governance of the College in consonance with the Laws of the Regents, including all matters of educational policy, academic ethics, faculty appointments, promotion and tenure, budgetary review, the selection of administrators, and other policies concerning the general academic welfare.” (Preamble)

Second, the ASC should form an ad hoc committee to draft College bylaws. This would help clarify, for instance, the status of the core curriculum.

Catherine Labio reminded representatives that the current bylaws were adopted in 2006 and need to be updated. The key changes approved by the Executive Committee are as follows:

Art. II:

The definition of “voting members” is the temporary definition adopted by the ASC on 4/17/2015.

Art. IV.7:

The approval of minutes procedure has been formalized to allow for electronic voting.  Any one ASC representative can request that a vote be held at an ASC meeting instead.

Art. V:  Clarification re. appointment of the Budget and Personnel Committee Chairs

A clause has been added to the following sentence (the addition is in bold): “The Chairs of the Budget and Personnel Committees are appointed by the Dean in consultation with the ASC Chair.” (p. 5)

Art. V: Standing Committees (addition of a new committee; description modifications)

1) Addition of a new standing committee on online education and information technology

“This committee represents the views and the interests of the FAS in all A&S and Campus matters pertaining to online education and information technology. It works in concert with the Curriculum Committee to craft A&S policies regarding online education.”  (p. 6)

2) Personnel Committee (description modification):

The following statement has been added to the description: “This committee is also habilitated to consider appeals filed with the dean in cases of non-reappointment recommendations for instructor rank faculty.” (This reflects new procedures that have been in place since a motion to this effect was approved unanimously at the February 17, 2011 meeting.)

3) Planning Committee (description modification):

The following sentence has been removed: “A committee member attends all Information Technology Council meetings and �鶹ӰԺ Campus Planning Committee meetings to be in touch with campus planning that may impact the College.” (There is no ITC; the ASC chair traditionally helps staff the BCPC.)

Art. V (p. 7): New section on Ad Hoc Committees of the ASC

• Adoption of formal procedures for the creation of ad hoc committees.
• Includes statement re. periodic revision of the core (every ten years).

Art. VI: New separate article for Student Affairs Committees

• Since Student Affairs Committees are not ASC committees, they are now featured in a separate article.
• Procedures for liaison appointments have been simplified.
• ACARP liaisons need not be ASC representatives. We can’t spare many ASC reps.  (In other colleges ACARP members are appointed by the dean.)
• The reference to the Honors Council has been dropped since all departments and most programs are already represented. There is no need for an ASC representative.

Cathy Comstock (RAPS) expressed concern that the proposed definition of “voting members” privileges departmental autonomy over equity, especially when it comes to instructors. Catherine Labio said any representative could propose amendment to the document submitted by the Executive Committee.

Dan Barth (PSYC) asked why the ASC chair can’t send the minutes out to everyone directly. Catherine Labio explained that per the bylaws, one of responsibilities of ASC representatives is to disseminate minutes to their respective departments/units.

Amma Ghartey-Tagoe Kootin (THDN) suggested that an ASSETT representative sit on the proposed new Standing Committee on Online Education and Information Technology. Catherine Labio noted that, per our bylaws “Each committee establishes and publishes its rules of procedure. […]  The standing committees may invite members of the administration as non-voting members to consult on specific issues.”

Amma Ghartey-Tagoe Kootin asked about the reference to Robert’s Rules. Catherine Labio explained this was standard language and that Robert’s Rules were useful in those instances not covered by the bylaws.

The distribution of the proposed changes to the bylaws constitutes a notice of motion by the Executive committee that it wishes to bring the revised bylaws document to a vote at the next meeting of the ASC. Representatives are invited to submit amendments by April 3. These will then be distributed to all representatives by April 6, i.e., 10 days before the April 16 meeting.

Representatives are invited to circulate the proposed revision to the bylaws to their department/unit.

Concluding remarks

The April 16 meeting will be the last meeting of the year. It will be a joint ASC/FAS meeting. Standing Committee chairs will report on the work done by their committee in 2014-15. The chairs of the ad hoc Core Revision Committee will either give a brief report at the April 16 meeting or, if sufficient progress has been made, will hold a town hall on the core on April 23, 2015 at 3:30 pm. The decision to hold a first town hall meeting on the core in April or in the fall will be made some time in April.

The meeting was adjourned at  4:28 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Catherine Labio

Janice Jeffryes

Appendix:

Bylaws Revision drafted by the Executive Committee