Minutes for the Meeting of March 4, 2005

Attending: Peter Hlebowitsh (Chair), John Northup, and Chris Ogren.  C & I DEO Gary Sasso attended the first part of the meeting.

New Member: John Northup is the new P & Q representative.

Program coordinators:

A. Follow-up with one more DEO: Gary Sasso reported on efforts within C & I to respond to the concerns raised last year by the FAC regarding the position of program coordinator.  In fall 2004 he appointed a TA to assist the program coordinators.  A semester-and-a-half later, his assessment is that this experiment has met with “mixed success,” in part because other commitments have kept him from providing much oversight.  He will try this again next year.  In addition, several changes within C & I have affected or will soon affect the work of program coordinators.  First, the department is reducing the number of undergraduate admissions by ¼ in order to re-establish a better balance between undergraduate and doctoral work within the department.  Second, the department will add a secondary-teaching advising office for undergraduates; it has had an elementary-teaching advising office for years.  Third, the department is taking a look at its selection of program coordinators, and in some cases assigning duties to others in order to protect recently-promoted associate professors.  When Peter asked what the FAC could do regarding program coordinators, Gary pointed out that in C & I each program makes its own decisions regarding coordinators.  One issue is that some coordinators want to shift “scut work” to the secretaries and oversee who gets TA appointments.  He would be open to the FAC doing something, but is unsure that it would be possible to regulate program coordination and still grant autonomy to programs when possible.  Gary is not sure that FAC involvement would make much difference. (Gary Sasso then left the meeting.)

B. Follow-up to Rahima program coordinator’s report: Peter summarized the recommendations from her report:

• Each program (or division) should develop written policies about how program coordinators are chosen, how the position is rotated (or why it isn’t), and what the associated responsibilities are.
• Program coordinators should receive staff support to assist with their tasks.  For example, a division secretary could be assigned to handle all program inquiries and mailings to prospective students. 
• Program coordinators should receive “flexible” resources to assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities as teachers and scholars.  Possible resource support could be: a research assistant, a teaching assistant, a course release, or the option to teach a required course during the summer for additional pay instead of during the school year.
• We will consider whether the FAC can do anything to encourage these things, or whether we are satisfied that they are being done.  The DEO reports to us have reflected progress in these areas.  Are we satisfied with the progress, or should we take further action?

Minutes of the last meeting were approved.

Update on course duplication guidelines: Peter went to the Administrative Council meeting.  Course approval happened to be on their agenda, with no word about duplication.  After Peter shared with them the FAC’s concerns and suggestions in this area, they said they will try to integrate guidelines on duplication into the formal course-approval process, or at least make duplication part of discussions of course approval.

Standing Curriculum Committee: Peter raised the question, Does the past policy of the Curriculum Committee tell us anything about a standing Curriculum Committee today? 

The official mission statement for the Committee is:

The purpose of this committee shall be to facilitate communication among divisions and programs about curricular issues in the College and to advise the dean and dean’s staff on matters related to curriculum, especially about issues that concern multiple programs or have a more college-wide impact. 

Peter suggested that we work on crystallizing and expanding this statement; we need to discuss this and work on a more specific mandate.

Other business: Exit interview data:  Peter reported that exit interviews are conducted by Associate Provost L. Clark, and are not for public consumption.  We discussed whether we can get any information on these interviews; we wondered whether the provost’s office issues reports on them.  We also discussed possibly suggesting a protocol for the Dean to follow in the case of faculty departures from the College, so that she can learn the reasons why faculty choose to leave.

New meeting times: We agreed upon the following times for our remaining meetings this semester:  Friday, April 1, 10:00-11:30; Wednesday, May 4, 1:00-2:30.