Long Range Planning Committee
Minutes
4-23-14
S.Shepler 636
2 pm
Meeting Facilitator: Jeff Metzger, Chair
In attendance: Emily Brown, Tahzeeba Frisby, Mike Husak, Jawad Drissi, Sarah Janda, Kirsten
Underwood, Ronna Vanderslice
Absent: John Masters, Lynda Robinson
Item 1: Review of past meeting
Jeff passed out minutes from 10-25-13 for the committee to review. Sarah made a motion to
approve the minutes. The committee approved. Jeff summarized that at the last meeting, the
purpose of this committee was nebulous; proposed that current focus could be efforts toward
faculty recruitment and retention.
Item 2: Proposal of exit interview for departing faculty
Jeff asked Ronna if we currently perform exit interviews with departing faculty. Ronna indicated
that she was not aware of any formal process in place aside from the chair completing a form and
the faculty member turning in keys. Ronna asked what sort of data we are interested in
collecting. Jeff did not have a list but suggested the primary interest would be in why the faculty
member is leaving. Sarah suggested it could be similar to what we do with students when they
graduate; shared that two years ago this committee set three goals, two of which were faculty
recruitment and retention, yet these goals seemed to have been lost. Ronna asked if we are only
interested in tenured faculty and Jeff clarified that full-time may be best. Ronna asked if the
interview would be face to face or online and Jeff agreed that face to face would be nice but
conceded that online may be better to acquire honest feedback. Ronna asked who would
conduct/collect the data. Jeff suggested perhaps HR and Tahzeeba agreed with this suggestion
based on HR’s practice of confidentiality. Ronna countered that HR does share information with
administration. Sarah asked how the process would work. Ronna replied that currently the chair
of the department administers the exit sheet. Given the limited staff of HR, and given that faculty
do include reasons for leaving in their resignation letters, she would want us to be thoughtful
about what work we add and be sure to get out of this what we are wanting. She also pointed out
that if the interviews were face to face, then the interviewer would need to ask the same
questions to each departing faculty member. Sarah agreed that HR does seem to be a small
operation and wonders how many people leave in any given year? Ronna did not know these
figures. Jawad proposed that it may be best to first determine what we want to know and then
decide who should ask those questions. The group agreed with this and Sarah furthered that we
would need to be careful to avoid loaded questions. Ronna suggested that online would be best
as there would be reduced fear of retribution/retaliation, recommended someone compile the
questions for this purpose. Sarah recommended that only faculty who are leaving would receive
the link. Emily agreed that the link may be automatically sent when the resignation letter is
processed. Tahzeeba shared that at her previous university it was the vice president who
conducted the exit interview, but she understands that it is a lot of work. Sarah desires it to be
part of a larger package of information and suggested Chase might know. Jeff pointed out that
fear of retribution may not necessarily be the issue, but also possibly an obligation felt by the
faculty member to only say positive things to the department or perhaps filtering on the part of
the department chair. Ronna does not have any experience with this nor has she heard any
rumors to suggest that is the case, but encouraged us to pursue the proposal with the faculty
senate if it is important to us. Jeff asked if this seems to be an issue to the administration and
Ronna did not have a sense that it was. Kirsten posited that HR would likely have a bank of
questions. Ronna countered that it is not so much an issue of what to ask but how. Jawad
reiterated that online is preferable and argued that if we really want to improve we need to talk to
high turnover temporary faculty. Sarah asked if this is data that HLC will be looking at next
week and Ronna clarified that HLC is only coming in to examine student data. Emily suggested
that HLC may have experience and assessment measures that might be applicable to the issue of
faculty retention. Ronna reiterated that HLC is here to figure out which students are leaving and
where they are going but perhaps this is an issue we need to improve for both students and
faculty. Sarah asked if the first step will be to talk to Chase. Ronna suggested we first look at our
peer institutions. Emily shared that she has submitted her resignation letter and may be able to
report about any information or questions she is asked as she undergoes the exiting process. Jeff
shared that it is an issue in his department and Ronna suggested we look around the table to get a
sense of how prevalent this is in other departments. Emily suggested it may be an issue in her
department because so many in the department are new. Ronna cautioned that we should not just
look at number of recent hires because the psychology department for example is growing. Mike
recommended we find out from Chase which positions have been leaving in the past 5 years, and
how our turnover rate compares to the national rate – if our rate is lower than the national rate
then this may not be a fruitful effort. Ronna agreed and suggested fact finding be our first step.
Mike shared that, until about ten years ago, many of the faculty in his department had been there
since the 70’s, but in contrast others in his graduate school cohort have changed jobs 3-4 times.
Ronna pointed out that Cameron does do a lot of work on the front end to recruit and hire faculty
and get them settled, so it may be useful to have data on the back end; shared that in her
experience common reasons that faculty leave include not having a spouse in the area and being
fresh out of graduate school. Mike suggested that knowing the context like these might help us
better phrase the questions in the interview. Jeff pointed out that the quality of the faculty
member matters too – it is very different if the department wanted to retain the faculty versus
not. Group agreed Jeff will ask Chase for all data he has on departing faculty.
Item 3: Proposal of timeline for hiring process
Jeff asked Ronna if there is a timetable for discussing searches/new hires. Ronna said that we can
always talk about it, can talk about it now; explained that this year is hard because enrollment is
down and we always wait to make hiring decisions based on enrollment estimates for the
following semester. Technically our number of faculty is the same as when we had over 6000
students so we are a little overstaffed. Regarding the timetable, we are within a week or so of
where we were last year and we have to be careful about whether we say yes/no because we
cannot easily change the decision. At the recent meeting with other schools Ronna learned that
only USAO releases positions before us in October and the remaining schools release positions
in December-Janaruay and ours are released in January. Sarah asked for clarification about
existence of “rounds” of no’s/yes’s. Ronna confirmed that they did the first round of yes’s and
had some no’s in January; they held off on staff and made a statement to wait and monitor
enrollment; they waited until second round to think about maybe’s. She knows it seems late but
Southwest hasn’t even posted their positions yet. One of the universities follows the guideline
that if the hire comes after January then the university is obligated to make it a temporary
position. Sarah pointed out that this guideline almost requires two rounds of hiring. Ronna
agreed that it isn’t an ideal practice but pointed out that we would be having a different
conversation if we weren’t in a position of reducing faculty. Ronna reiterated that she is open to
talking about it…ideally we would release in January and later stragglers would be much more
difficult. Sarah asked if it would be impossible to have faculty to resign earlier. Ronna pointed
out at that the majority of new hires this year came in the summer. Sarah suggested perhaps a
magic date could be November, such that those submitted by the deadline would be considered
in the first round in January. Sarah suggested that another issue is the mystery surrounding the
process that causes faculty to feel uncertain and to apply pressure on the chairs – perhaps it is a
lack of transparency about the process. Ronna explained that it is about budget, enrollment, and
the total number of requests from across the university…these cuts of 1% have to come from
people since we already don’t offer much for travel, research, etc. Sarah suggested maybe there
could be a cheat sheet for the dean or chair that gives a timeline to faculty, for example, to wait 4
weeks. Ronna shared that at East Central, they have made clear that when someone leaves a
department, the position goes back to the university and the department has no expectation of a
replacement. Kirsten asked Sarah what she is speaking of because her department is actively
hiring two people. Ronna suggested maybe Kirsten’s department was early in submitting their
requests. Sarah explained that her department has had three recent resignations. Jeff summarized
that if the resignation comes in the fall or earlier, we can hire in January but if it is later then it
could take anywhere from a week to months. Tahzeeba suggested maybe we table the discussion
until enrollment gets better. Ronna disagreed, said we could talk about it now and that she would
take responsibility and talk to chairs this year. Jeff clarified that this was an agenda from faculty
senate and he understands that it can be hard to have set deadlines. Ronna shared that one option
that she does not like is to authorize advertising a position but then waiting to authorize hiring
for the position. Jeff agreed that this is the worst of both worlds and would result in losing a good
candidate during the wait. Ronna agrees and said that we do not currently do that but Cameron
has done that in the past and it is a common practice at other universities. She would prefer that
we only advertise positions we intend to fill and hire those who fill the positions…she can think
about it and work on it this year and talk more about it next year. She recommends us to make a
formal proposal to senate if we want to. Jeff clarified that there is no formal proposal, just a
request for a date, but he understands that we wouldn’t want to say “no” to everyone who
requests after a certain date. Ronna suggested hiring temporary positions after a certain date but
also doesn’t think this solution fits for all departments and believes the department needs should
weigh in. Sarah suggested it could help a lot to have some sound bites from admin about this
process for faculty to be told repeatedly until it sticks.
Item 4: Agenda for next year
Jeff shared that Sarah will be chair next year and we need to submit an agenda so that the
committee next year can get started right away. Jeff reminded the group that Kirsten suggested
child care last year and recommended we speak up if we feel strongly about it or any other topic.
Sarah reminded us that the rules committee approved the two year terms of elected positions. Jeff
jokingly suggested bringing back football, said he would come up with something for the
agenda. Mike recommends the exit survey and Ronna agreed.
Item 5: Conclusion
Regarding item 2, Jeff will contact Chase to ask what data he has on departing faculty and the
exit interview will be added to next year’s agenda. Regarding item 3, Ronna will speak to deans
and chairs about the hiring process to help improve transparency and we will talk more about the
hiring process next year. Regarding item 4, Jeff will write the agenda based on this discussion.
Item 6: Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 3 pm without setting a future date for meeting.
Emily Brown, substitute secretary