College of Arts and Sciences
Council of Chairs
November 5, 2003
2:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
AS-122
Present: S. Alam, J. Altarriba, I. Berger, J. Carson, S. Chaiken, B. Daniel, K. Doolen, P. Ferlo,
S. Fessler, E. Gaffney, T. Gage, S. Galime, G. Griffiths, T. Harrison, R. Hoyt, V. Idone,
J. Mainwaring (for T. Lance), M. Messitt, A. Millis, N. Murray, D. Parker, M. Pryse, M. Raider,
L. Slade, B. Steinbock, G. Stevens, R. Stump, R. Ward, J. Welch, J. Wick-Pelletier, D. Wills,
E. Wulfert
Guests: L. Allen, P. Bloniarz, W. Hedberg
Recorder: R. Greenhouse
Minutes: The Dean asked for comments regarding the October 22 minutes. The fourth sentence in the
Peoplesoft section of the minutes was noted to be inaccurate. Teaching assistants can post grades only if
he or she is the instructor of record and cannot be listed as such solely for the purpose of grading.
Steven Galime will check on this point to clarify and confirm. Leonard Slade then made a motion to
accept, Elga Wulfert seconded the motion, and the minutes were unanimously accepted.
Announcements:
College Travel Funds Application Deadline -- November 13, 2003
Applications to the CAS Release-Time Award Program Deadline – November 15, 2003
SEFA Volunteers – United Way Campaign is still on – only 38 contributions so far.
Joshua Smith, Undergraduate Studies – Assessment Workshop (last one) on November 12, 2003
ElgaWulfert and Marjorie – Senate Bylaws Revision vote date is December 8th. A 40% turn out of the
faculty is required for a quorum. They asked permission from Chairs to attend a department meeting
prior to the vote date to address the importance of this work, and a sign-up sheet passed around.
Jeanette Altarriba conducted the first CAS Honors Open House on November 4 and it went well. The
2nd one is scheduled for November 19th.
Business Arising:
Several Chairs expressed concern regarding added responsibilities and expectations required of
department secretaries involving course scheduling. Departments have always worked with the
Registrar’s office to schedule classes; however, due to Peoplesoft, the Registrar no longer uses the same
process. Hours of work are now being added on to department secretary’s responsibilities. If
scheduling is their priority, then other obligations may have to be reduced. If they will be obligated to
do this scheduling, concerns should be taken to a higher level. Several Chairs agreed that Peoplesoft is
creating workload problems. It was noted that with Peoplesoft, seniors have been able to register for
100-level courses—this is a new concern.
Bill Hedberg—Promotion & Tenure Presentation:
The Administrative Procedures for the Preparation of Recommendations for Promotion and Continuing
Appointment were revised in September 2002 and though this edition does not make any major changes,
there are a few nuances to be aware of (copy of the guidelines handed out to all Chairs). The first
seventeen pages are administrative procedures provided by the Provost’s office–the “how to” prepare
the file. It should be noted that the primary expectations are now teaching and research followed by
service. The changes also recognize the different kinds of research evidence (for example: electronic as
well as published research.) The department must certify that they have at least four solicited
evaluations of scholarship. In order to receive an objective opinion, evaluators cannot have a close
relationship with the candidate. Teaching performance review criteria includes a variety of sources
including grade distributions, course syllabi, sample tests, study guides, and evaluations. Service
contributions are no longer limited to University work – it can be community service as well. When
departments solicit letters for teaching and service, there is an obligation to the writer to ask if the letter
is submitted as confidential or not--this option is not limited to solicited letters of research. Former
students may write in support, but not current students. Candidates may not know the list of reviewers
but can name evaluators they do not want contacted. Several Chairs asked why candidates are not
permitted to suggest their reviewers’ names. The response--there’s no known reason—only that it is
tradition. There was a great deal of discussion about how to change the rules regarding solicitation. The
Faculty Council is the first step toward change. From there the Council should communicate with the
Chair of the Senate Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointments, Glenna Spitze. Questions
were raised regarding joint appointments and the role of the secondary unit. Typically the secondary
unit chair has provided a statement regarding the candidate’s contributions to the unit. Sometimes, but
not always, the secondary unit takes a vote–this is a decision made by each department. The matter of
how to handle promotion and tenure cases for faculty appointed jointly will be reviewed and possibly
the College will formulate a policy that could be a model for the University.
Laurel Allen, Hiring Guidelines:
Laurel Allen attended the meeting to talk about search-related policies and procedures. She spoke about
ranked versus unranked recommendations and referred to a handout she provided titled, “Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.” At the conclusion of the conversation, it was
understood that the chairs could list the strengths and weaknesses of the acceptable candidates based on
the criteria set forth for the search, and furthermore, could indicate the preferred choices.
Peter Bloniarz, IT Commons:
Dean Bloniarz gave a brief history of the School of Information Science & Policy. In addition to his
duties as Dean he is charged with building up the IT side of his school. Information Technology is an
important part of every discipline. A hand-out was given to all Chairs. The “slide” copies show the
main discipline would be IT issues and the emphasis would depend on a particular area – database
applications, GIS, web development, media, data analysis, modeling and simulation, and computer
programming. IT Commons is a curriculum taught by faculty involved in interdisciplinary fields. In
addition to IT people, hires could be made to benefit the University as a whole, not just a particular
department. On the last page of the handout hiring priorities are listed. Deans will be asked to name
representatives to serve on a committee to identify candidates for interdisciplinary positions. Concern
was expressed that humanities might excluded, but Dr. Bloniarz assured chairs that humanities will be
included. Many questions were asked about application and inclusion. Dr. Bloniarz pointed out that
this hiring plan is in draft form-- the mechanism has to be developed to figure out how lines will be
used/allotted.
Other Business:
Concern was expressed regarding new fees charged by the UA Foundation. One chair stated the need
for a serious discussion of what it means for us to be dealing with these fees. This may have a serious
impact on donations. Assistant Dean Michael Messitt will act as a liaison on this subject.
The Affirmative Action procedure was again briefly discussed. It was suggested that a memorandum be
sent to Laurel Allen thanking her for taking the time to attend the Chairs meeting. At the same time
Chairs’ concerns should be mentioned including the need for an actual step-by-step process to follow.
There is a need for further discussion and clarification on this topic.
Adjourned at 4:30