Council of Deans
Unapproved Minutes
December 3, 2001
Members:
Sullivan
Buckley
Burgess
Dawe
Goode (Absent)
Harrison
Neale
Soelle
Young
Also Present:
Tony Pokorny
Dr. Linda Dzialo
Dr. Lance Janda
Jennifer Elbert
1. Agenda Item 1 - Update - Festival V (Dr. Lance Janda)
Janda presented an update on the status of the planning for Festival V.
2. Agenda Item 2 - Department of Labor Grant (Tony Pokorny)
a. Sullivan distributed a memorandum regarding the Department of Labor Grant and
asked Pokorny to inform the group about this grant.
b. Pokorny stated that this is a 9 million dollar grant being put together by ASCOG.
Primarily it is for the South Central Oklahoma Work Force Investment Board that looks at the work
force to find out its needs and what they can do about those needs. Harrison is a member of that
board. This is an alert to the fact that they are suggesting that here at Fort Sill a new type of center a Career Advancement Center - be established. Basically what it does is provide scholarships for
soldiers who are leaving the Army and want to get into fields that require more knowledge than they
may have accumulated in the military. This will provide a pool ofpeople in our area with a degrees
in something that interests them that can be correlated with the military training they had. It is a new
way ofusing Department ofLabor money to assist soldiers leaving the military and encourage them
to become more skilled by obtaining a degree at a university oftheir choice. Ofcourse, ifthis Center
is placed at Fort Sill, it will be great for Cameron University because through this Center the soldiers
can be directed straight to the university. This is a competition so we don't know whether it will go
or not go, but Fort Sill is talking about establishing such a center even if we don't get this grant.
c. Sullivan stated that the reason he asked that this be brought before the deans today is
that as he understands this proposal, we would be offering courses in timeframes and intensity levels
that are different than our normal semesters. It really is a labor training focus rather than a higher
education focus. We could be offering courses to the cohorts in this program that have really have
nothing to do with our traditional semester arrangements. Part of the money that we would be
getting would be used to hire additional faculty that would teach in a non-standard block. Pokorny
stated that there would also be standard courses.
3. Sullivan asked that Dzialo talk with the group about an activity she talked about with the
Executive Council this morning.
a. Dzialo stated that there is a huge push in higher education in the State of Oklahoma
right now in recruitment and retention. Student Affairs has been working on this. They are reading
intensely everything they can put their hands on to put together the best program they can. It is the
philosophy of Cameron University that we are all recruiters and that we are a team working on this
together.
b. Dzialo mentioned that Sullivan had suggested that her recruiters might put together
some information that would help the departments in writing their recruitment and retention plans.
Dzialo distributed a memo her recruiting people put together which will be useful to the deans and
chairs as they prepare their plans.
c. Dzialo also mentioned that they are having preliminary discussions about scheduling
a major recruitment event in the Spring. This is in the very beginning stages. They are looking at
the advantages and disadvantages ofhaving the event during a week day as opposed to having it on
Saturday. This morning in the Executive Council there was conversation about maybe having a
Friday-Saturday type event. The conversations have included student leaders and activity leaders
who are very interested in taking part in this. As it is beginning to evolve, it is looking like this
would be a day where juniors and seniors from allover the state would be invited to campus to
participate in a variety of events. This would be a festive day with tents and food and music and
activities with parents coming with their students to look the campus over and see what we have to
offer. She wants it to be very upbeat. That is about as extensive as the planning is at this point. If
we are going to do this there needs to be a committee that has professors, students, and Student
Affairs personnel on it so that we bring everybody's perspective to the planning. Also if we are
going to do it we need to get a date selected. We don't want to conflict with Arts for All and that
is in May so our event would obviously have to be in April. That would give us the best chance of
having nice weather. Dzialo asked for input from the deans about having the event, what part they
might play, when it might be, whether it should be Friday, Saturday or Friday and Saturday and any
ideas they may have for its success. Lengthy discussion followed.
4. Items from the Executive Council meeting:
a. Sullivan stated that on travel requests where a van is requested, we have been asked
to put the number ofpassengers in the appropriate blank so Physical Facilities can see what size van
is required.
2
b. Sullivan stated that there is wording in the Faculty Handbook that talks about letting
faculty know what the salary recommendation will be for them and then if they do not agree with
their salary recommendation, they have an opportunity to provide additional information prior to
leaving campus. That would not be a badprocess except normally we make decisions about salaries
within a two or three day turnaround in June or July when most faculty are not on campus.
Obviously it is not possible to follow the exact process that is outlined in the Faculty Handbook.
This was an issue that came from the Faculty Council. They would"like to know if there is a way
that we can make the expected salary recommendation a part of the normal evaluation process that
they go through in the spring. Sullivan would like the deans thoughts on that issue. It sounds like
a fair way to do it but we would need to change the wording in the Faculty Handbook. After a very
lengthy discussion Sullivan stated that whatever process the departments use, just make sure the
faculty member understands what the recommendation for merit pay would before they leave
campus so they can rebut it if they want to. Sullivan will draft a memo and let the deans look at it.
Lengthy discussion followed.
5. Agenda Item 3 - Review of Draft Memos Circulated During Nov 26 Meeting
a. First draft memo to be discussed is the one on a couple of ideas for summer school.
Sullivan asked if the deans had any feedback. During the lengthy discussion the following
comments were made by various deans:
(l) Asked faculty about the 4 day week and was told that back in the 80's they had
a 4 day week during summer school and it only lasted one year. The feedback he received was that
there was some concern from the administration that faculty weren't on campus the fifth day; they
were taking that day off.
(2) Faculty don't like the idea ofgetting less money. For the most part, even ifthey
get a 3% raise they are still going backwards with the rate of inflation and it isn't a raise at all and
this will take even more away. They would not be terribly interested in teaching because they can
go adjunct for other schools and make more.
(3) Was asked by faculty whether the deans and administration would be taking a
cut in the summer or if the faculty were the only ones that would be taking a decrease in pay.
(4) There was not very much discussion about the reduction in the schedule. Faculty
seemed okay with doing that ifthere is a reason to do so. It was not clear to the faculty whether they
would come onto campus the fifth day.
(5) No problem with the four day schedule. Some concern about pay. Looking at
it from an educator's point ofview, our beginning salary is $34,000 and public school teachers are
almost there. Faculty feel that the little bit ofmoney they make in the summer elevates that salary
and they psychologically say we make more than the public school even though they are working
3
'
..
12 months. It is a thing with educators - they are resentful that they have spent so much time earning
their degrees and working, and then have public school teachers paid more.
(6) Sullivan stated that he feels he has received the feedback he needs and it appears
our faculty are comfortable with five days but would at least think about a four day week depending
on what happens with the fifth day but they are adamantly opposed to the 8/8 approach. He has not
surveyed the students for their opinion. He wanted to get input from the deans first. Sullivan stated
that his inclination is that he probably will not recommend any changes this summer.
b. Next memo is about service learning.
(1) Sullivan asked Neale, since she has the expertise on this subject, to give the
group her input. Neale stated that she took the letter and she and the Chair sat down and made a list
ofthings that the coordinator must do in order to meet the requirements specified in the letter. They
have narrowed down the participants to those who are admitted to teacher education simply because
they will have gone through a screening process. They must have faculty recommendation, they
must go through an interview process and have a good GPA. Students who are just thinking about
education would not be out there in the schools. They would have to have a firm commitment and
they are going to limit their placements to the public schools. She has made a list ofall these things.
Some of them will not apply to everyone.
(2) Soelle mentioned that her chairs had asked that she speak with Neale, assuming
that the standards have been established already. Her school would be less likely to be dealing with
children. This is something they have not explored very much and they will have to talk about it.
(3) Sullivan stated that he still thinks a screening process and a selection process are
needed before anyone goes out into the community. They will be representing Cameron University.
Neale knows where the public schools are because she has been dealing with them for years but
when you put somebody out in a situation that you have never seen before, you may have to go out
and physically look at it and see if there are any risks involved that you need to know about.
Sullivan mentioned that he is not trying to impose the program on the scho~ls and departments. It
should be their call_as to whether they participate or not but ifthey do, they must meet the standards.
(4) Harrison stated that public schools are a controlled environment with a history
of academic university participation so there is not going to be a problem there; it just takes care of
itselfas it has been doing for a long time. It is everybody else who is the problem. There is risk and
there is liability. For every department that has a faculty representative that is the supervisor of
record their window ofvulnerability needs to be assessed for their liability as a supervisor for either
misdeeds or mistakes that their students make. That is a tough issue - what protection does the
faculty supervisor of record have and the student too. Consideration might need to be given to
asking students to buy a student liability policy. Those are available at a nominal fee. Harrison feels
that across all departments there needs to be a standardized contract form that departments and site
fill out so that there is a uniformity ofservice learning placement paradigms community-wide rather
4
than having each department writing a contract on their own. It could be a form in our university
forms. There needs to be a detailedjob description with obligations, duties, responsibilities and the
aspects ofthe relationship that the site provides with regard to supervision, or feedback or training
and the obligations of the student regarding punctuality, promptness, responsiveness and issues of
confidentiality and things like that. All ofthat needs to be in that one document and everybody signs
and then it goes in the file.
(5) Sullivan stated that he would like Neale to continue to take the lead and put
together a package that we can implement next fall. Discussion followed.
c. Recruitment and Retention plans - any feedback on this?
(1) Sullivan stated that he does not want the plan to be a big, multipage document just something real simple that says, here is what we plan to do. Soelle mentioned that in the
discipline ofCriminal Justice where they have 500 majors, they don't really want to recruit but they
certainly would need the dollars to retain more than to recruit. They might ask for an exception to
policy with respect to a situation like that one. Soelle also mentioned that the timeline was also an
issue. Sullivan stated that the thing that is driving what he is looking at here is that in the department
meetings most everybody has asked him to tell them what their allocation is early. For planning
purposes the deans can go ahead and take the figures shown in the memo and begin their planning.
Sullivan asked for thoughts on the date to submit the plans. February was the date selected for the
plans to be submitted.
(2) Buckley asked if all tuition waivers were to be for recruitment rather than
retention. Sullivan replied that the focus should be on recruitment. Buckley stated that in the past
they have used them all for retention purposes. They have had students who financially are having
trouble continuing on and they have used fee waivers to support and encourage them because they
are a known quantity.
(3) Young stated that she has read that retention is more important than recruitment.
Sullivan replied that it depends on who is measuring what. The President's guidance is that he
wanted to commit these primarily to recruiting new students this year. Ifa dean has a good argument
that they need to have some ofthis money for retention, that is fme. Sullivan has observed iIi years
past that we tend to find a good student and then stack waivers and scholarships on top of them so
you have some students coming to school the second year with a $4,000 stack of scholarships.
Buckley stated that he believes a $250 award is more important for retention purposes than for
someone coming here. A $250 award isn't going to draw anybody to come here instead of going
some place else, but in many cases we have students who may not be able to continue on without
financial help and that is where fee waivers have been helpful.
(4) Dawe mentioned that at the graduate level, they have always had the graduate
coordinator sit on the scholarship committee and they examine as their principle criteria financial
need followed by the GPA and how well the students have done. It is primarily for retention rather
5
"
..
than recruitment. There are some different pressures on graduate students. They don't have the
same access to financial aid that undergraduates do.
(5) Soelle asked if the deans could allow the chairs just a little bit more flexibility
in terms ofasking them to focus greater attention on recruitment but letting them make an argument
if they want to. Sullivan replied that is what he was trying to get to but he doesn't want all of it
going to retention; he wants some part of it going to recruiting new students. As the deans look at
the department plans, try to get some balance on that.
(6) Dawe asked - with respect to how the fees are allocated to the different schools,
the graduate programs are integrated into the academic schools. Is there any specification of how
much of that is going to graduate programs or is that up to the individual deans and department
chairs? Sullivan stated that he does not know the answer to that; he took what was done last year.
In the case of CAMSTEP it is in a designated amount. Sullivan will check with John Sterling on
that.
d. Joint Faculty Appointments memo.
(1) Since there are really only two deans involved, Sullivan asked them to stay after
the meeting and talk about it now or at a later time. Dawe mentioned that some of the issues here
might be relevant for consideration of providing funds in support of research or other scholarly
activities. Short discussion followed.
(2) Harrison stated that ajoint appointment has to be an uneven appointment. They
have to have a home of record. They either have to be a Center for Excellence staff member to
whom they are accountable and then they have a j oint appointment working in Business or wherever
to teach classes. Ifthey just have a down-the-middle joint appointment then they are an orphan and
are likely not to be well taken care of. Sullivan stated that decision probably breaks down to whether
we ever plan to grant them tenure. Ifthey are ever going to be tenured you need to have that home
of record be in a department. Short discussion followed.
(3) Sullivan stated that ifthe deans have any other feedback on any ofthese memos,
to send comments to him and he will consider them.
5. Sullivan asked the deans to remain after the meeting. He has some hiring issues he wants
to talk about and distribute.
Adjourned 12:12 p.m.
6