Chairs Wisdom Collaborative
Meeting Notes
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Attendees:
Guests:
See attached list.
Provost Malhotra, Lisa Foss
All remarks, questions and responses have been summarized.
Provost’s opening remarks: He stated that this meeting was held in response to an invitation from the
Chairs Wisdom Collaborative to him to have a discussion about academic reorganization. He said he was
present mainly to have a conversation. However, since the word had got out that such a meeting was
being held, Tom Hergert, President of FA had requested to be present at the meeting, a request which
he had approved. The Provost then fielded questions from the Chairs and responded to them.
Q1. During the reorganization junior faculty are completing PDPs and PDRs. They are concerned that
after reorganization there should be a clear mechanism by which they will be evaluated by peers who
are familiar with and have expertise in the body of knowledge which informs their plans and reports.
How is the process of reorganization addressing such a concern?
Response: The Provost recognized the need for addressing such a concern. He stated that he had
identified a group of 3 administrators (John Palmer, Lisa Foss, and Judith Siminoe) who would in the next
two weeks be developing (1) a flowchart and guide, a conceptual framework of how the faculty
evaluation process could be conducted in each of the models presented – the model with departments
and colleges, the one with larger departments within fewer colleges, and the models in which there may
not be units named departments, and (2) a rough estimate of the savings that will arise from each model
compared with the existing structure. The group will take into account differences in the cost of
delivery depending upon discipline and with regard to staff and technical staff needed.
Q2. Will the cost analysis done on the models take into account and be based upon the SPA (Strategic
Program Appraisal, Phases 1 and 2) recommendations that the Provost presented to campus?
Response: The Provost said that the cost analysis would be based upon current programs and would not
be related to the SPA recommendations.
Q3. Chairs serve in their positions for a maximum of ___ years; staff serve much longer than chairs in
departments. How will the reorganization affect the work of staff and/or chairs?
Response: The Provost said that as we move forward we would need to look carefully into issues such
as this. However, he reiterated that just because we perceive barriers to new thinking, we cannot afford
to stop. We need to work jointly to come up with a solution to such problems. The Provost said he
foresaw that the work of reorganization might take up to 3 years even to be implemented satisfactorily.
Q4. Can you please explain the exact role of SPA in reorganization and its relation to retrenchment?
Response: There seem to be two different sides to our efforts to serve our students. We seem to move
on each of them sometimes simultaneously, at other times sequentially. One aspect, informed by SPA,
is related to program consolidation and re-evaluation around objectives for flexibility and choice for
students. The other, structural reorganization, is additionally informed by resource constraints and
budget. But both have to be done.
Q. 5. Just as there is concern among junior faculty, staff in departments slated for consolidation are
concerned. After faculty BESI is completed and the results known, is it possible that incentives may be
given to staff in other unions to retire as well?
Response: The Provost said it would be difficult to say until BESI was done. According to the Provost, all
of the efforts to cut the budget themselves cost the university in the short run. For instance, BESI itself is
not fully funded by the Board. In general, the budget problem is going to result in disruptions in some
areas in the short run because some reallocation will be necessary. But budget allocation or reallocation
is not just a question of availability of funds, it is also a question of how we align our strategic
plan/thrust and identity with the budget.
Q. 6. There seems to have been some confusion about the BESI letters. Why were there two sets of
letters sent out?
Response: That was a mistake. It was a result of a communication breakdown with Human Resources.
Q. 7. There have been some questions about the functionality of the models. What was the size
measure used to define a group of programs or a department?
Response: The Provost stated that a minimum of 15 or 16 faculty was used in grouping programs into a
department or unit. However, the models should be seen as approaches; they are not etched in stone.
Q8. This is more of a suggestion: Perhaps other criteria should also be used when deciding the size of a
“unit” or department should be the number of students in a major, whether a major is interdisciplinary
or not, etc.
Response: The Provost agreed that in this instance the number of faculty is being used as a proxy for
the scale of operations in a unit. A more complex and realistic view would be to create a vector of
various measures. He suggested that it may be expedient to take the simple way out, but as we move
forward, we should examine the complexity and perhaps make further adjustments.
Q9. Whom should suggestions about the models be given to, and what is the process going to be?
Response: The Strategic Planning Committee has been charged with monitoring, collecting, aggregating,
and consolidating input from various sources. Conversations are encouraged among any or all faculty or
staff. Once the conversations result in shared understanding among the members of the group having
the conversation, they can convey their ideas to Lisa Foss and Judy Kilborn, co-chairs of SPC.
Q10. Chairs are concerned, there is confusion among faculty. What plans are in place to help us and
how is the administration going to work with students?
Response: The Provost talks regularly with representatives of student government. The Strategic
Planning Committee has two student representatives on it. SOC is also working with student
government on having open sessions for students, informational and for gathering input.
Q11. How can we serve more students and make ourselves attractive to students with fewer
resources?
Response: It appears that programs were started, new programs were added during the times when
budgets were somewhat better. No one reviewed what we can do less, or how we can do things
differently. Now we need to be more intentional.
Q12. This is a huge undertaking; we all know. While all this is going on, how can we maintain what we
are doing well? How do we balance what we currently do with all the change that is occurring?
Response: We may not do it very easily; we may not do it very well. Change is messy, cumbersome.
During transitions, we may need extra time and resources. However, it is not the first time higher
education has faced these problems. Even during times when regional comprehensive universities were
being asked to do more and recognized they needed to add new programs and services, and when
resources were available to the states, there was no augmentation of university budgets.
Q13. We will need to rethink our approach to how we admit students and rethink our approaches. We
will need careful enrolment management.
Response: The Provost agreed with this comment and stated that as he thought aloud about the issue, it
seemed that thinking about the optimal size of an institution (not from a deficit perspective, but a
strategic one) will need to be part of the discussion.
Q14. What were the specific criteria used to identify departments for BESI?
Response: We used some qualitative measures and some quantitative criteria. We also looked into
contractual criteria such as how many faculty from a department could accept BESI, how we could make
choices within a department (such as drawing lots) we could make and what the probability of these
criteria leading us to the number we needed (i.e. 40).
Q15.