COE Assembly
September 25, 2009
COE Assembly
September 25, 2009
(0220 Benjamin 11:00-4:00)
Moderator: Bob Lent
11:00 – 12:30
Rationale for Reorganization (Donna Wiseman, Dean)







President & Provost mandated reorganization
o Request colleges to articulate broad, comprehensive mission
o University must be an organization scaled up & flexible to compete in 21st century
o Small departments/programs may be eliminated if they cannot leverage existing resources
& secure external sources of funding/support
o Colleges need to be more visible in external community
Provost’s observations of COE reorganization planning to date: College has engaged in process
more than most of the University’s colleges
Issues before the COE at present
o How to reduce COE budget
o Develop COE academic/fiscal structure enhancing scholarship
o Reorganize in ways consistent with university’s emphasis on innovation, policy, diversity,
& international education
o Select a model that best facilitates:
 Interdisciplinary & collaborative research activities
 Support & flexibility to pursue new activities rapidly & efficiently
 Opportunities for graduate students to participate in such research activities
 Co-teaching of innovative courses
 Assigning credit to departments/programs offering innovative courses
College rationale for reorganizing now
o Most recent reorganization: 1980s
o External environment has changed considerably, but College has lagged behind in
adjusting to be competitive in evolving external environments
o Town hall meetings of past year—faculty expressed strong desire to collaborate within a
reorganized college
o College must be nimble, flexible, & responsive to demands of changing environment
Consequences of “doing nothing”
o College loses credibility within University of Maryland
o Provost will claw ??? back state allocations to college, if college fails to demonstrate
potential cost-savings accruing from reorganization
o 15% reduction in state allocation to U of Maryland system forces reconsideration of unit
structures & fiscal viability of departments & programs
Faculty/Staff input into reorganization proposals
o Although advisory, Dean prefers submitting model to Provost that reflects broad
faculty/staff consensus
o Dean has relied on COE Senate to gather input on models, develop voting system
o Ultimate decisions will be made by Provost/President: dean serves in advisory role to them
Reorganization & Impact on APT decision-making process
o Existing faculty lines assigned to current departments will be transferred to new units
1
COE Assembly
September 25, 2009
o If a faculty member objects to reassignment after reorganization, especially if his/her
departments/programs are eliminated, then faculty requests for transfer of his/her faculty
line will require approval from new unit
o If Dean knows that many faculty will object to reassignment, then any model submitted to
Provost may therefore be problematic
o APT rules controlling faculty lines will have to be investigated at level of Associate
Provost (Ellen Skolnick)
Dean’s Advisory Committee on Reorganization (DACR)/Council of Chairs Activities to Date (Pat
Alexander)




Advisory role only
Membership-1 faculty member from each department, 1 staff member, 1 student, Dean ex officio
Time-line of activities:
o Feb – May 2009: Held community forums, reviewed UMD & COE documents, including
strategic plans
o Summer meetings with Council of Chairs
o College Forum participation
o Met with Provost
o Developed draft models for consideration of college & dean
o Voted to recommend 4-Dept Model for full College consideration
Guidelines for Reorganization—Model requires
o Scholarly synergy
o Balance in size of 4 units (e.g., number of faculty)
o Financial viability: achieve cost-savings/efficiencies
o Cross-unit collaborations (“intellectual spaces”)
o Preserve existing programs to extent that they would advance mission of reorganized
college
o Consistent with COE strategic plan
o Schematic of 4-Unit Model presented
Presentations of Models





Narrative Descriptions & Schematics of the “Original Models” provided to all individuals present
at the Assembly & are available on the College’s website. They address the following issues:
o Rationale & Assumptions
o Consistency with COE Strategic Plan priorities
o Challenges to implementing & sustaining model structure & functions over time
o Roles of potential Institutes, Centers, other Groups, & Cross-Departmental Structures
o List of faculty (tenure & non-tenure stream) assigned to each department
2-Department Models (original & amended)
o Original 2-Department Model: ): Presented by Steve Koziol
o Amended 2-Department Model proposed by EDPS: Presented by Francine Hultgren
3-Department Model: Presented by Linda Valli
4-Deparment Original Model: Presented by Pat Alexander
4-Deparment Amended Model proposed by EDSP: Presented by Sherril Moon
2
COE Assembly
September 25, 2009

Institute for Measurement, Statistics, & Evaluation (to be housed within an EDHD/EDMS
department in a 3- or 4-Department Model): Presented by Greg Hancock

Financial Analysis of Proposed Models (2-, 3-, & 4-Department Models)—April Patty


Preliminary cost-saving estimates for each model
Formula for estimates of each model considers a variety of factors, including number (& salaries)
of faculty, staff, administrators
12:30 pm – Break for Lunch
1:15 – 4:00 pm
Open Discussion (Q&A) between Panel of Faculty who presented summaries of proposed Models
(original & amended) and Audience
Summary of concerns raised by audience members regarding:










Accuracy of Model cost estimates throughout years of reorganized college
Preservation of departments and/or programs with national rankings in the reorganization
Impact of eliminating ranked programs on ability to recruit new highly-talented students,
preparing them for certification and/or licensure in their chosen fields
Placing “nested” models (e.g., original & amended 4-Dept) to college vote—possibly confuse
voters & distort distribution of yes/no voting patterns across models
Extent of student participation in developing these models
Fit of Minority Urban Education (MUE) and ESOL in proposed models
Fairness re APT process for pre-tenure faculty who may be reassigned out of their current
departments & evaluated by faculty unfamiliar with a candidate’s professional discipline
Will break down 1st and 2nd stage voting results by tenure- & non-tenure faculty and staff and by
departments
Faculty buy-in for final model needs to be reasonably strong
Staff redeployment in reorganized college
Rock Creek Picnic on October 17 – opportunity to meet possible new colleagues & plan for possible
future activities as reorganization process moves forward
Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm
3