College of Arts and Sciences
Council of Chairs
April 13, 2011
2:30 p.m., AS 122
Meeting Minutes
Present: J. Altarriba, L. Bickmore (for Broadwell), J. Brière, S. Cohen, A. DeBlasi, E. Gaffney, S. Galime, K. Gersowitz
(recorder), D. Goodwin, R. Hamm, C. Henck, M. Hill, R. Hoyt, T. Kinal, R. Lachmann, J. Large, C. Lawson, M. Lifchitz,
A. Lyons, C. MacDonald, J. Mandle, M. Messitt, J. Pipkin, R. Rosellini, G. Stevens, M. Sutherland, C. Thorncroft, P.
Toscano, C. Wagner, E. Wulfert, K. Zhu, R. Zitomer.
Introductory Remarks: Dean Wulfert called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Minutes of March 2, 2011: A motion to approve the minutes was made by A. Lyons, seconded by R. Hoyt. The meeting
minutes for March 2, 2011 were unanimously approved with the suggestion that the names of the Chairs be identified in
the minutes whenever possible.
Announcements
 Distinguished Dissertation & MFA Project Awards nominations (2010-11) are due 4/13/11 (to Greg Stevens, AS217)
 Online Course Development Opportunity (Blackboard 9) begins 5/18/11. See handout and contact Darlene Scalera at
dscalera@albany.edu by 4/22/11.
 Department, faculty and/or student highlights for May Senate Meeting due 4/29/11 (to Dona Parker at
dparker@albany.edu)
 CAS Ice Cream Social is Thursday, 5/19/11 from 2:30-4:00 p.m. in the Campus Center Terrace Lounge
 Save the Date: Fall 2011 Council of Chairs Retreat is Wednesday, 8/24/11 from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
Faculty/Staff Participation Requested at these Events:
 Thank you to all who participated in the Open House Events for Accepted Students!
 Campus Clean-Up Day is 4/26/11. Please volunteer by signing up at: www.albany.edu/cleanup/signup. (Rain date is
4/28/11.)
 Commencement Weekend is 5/14-5/15/11. Please send list of faculty names by 4/29/11 to Dona Parker at
dparker@albany.edu
Old Business: Update on General Education
Associate Dean Pipkin provided a brief update on the status of the General Education proposal. He noted that the General
Education Committee has provided a report on the General Education Task Force; a copy was distributed to the Chairs.
Little progress has been made on resolving the issues surrounding the freshman writing seminar. Dean Wulfert noted that
all students do not necessarily need the same level of writing instruction as some arrive with the appropriate level of
proficiency. R. Lachmann commented that many institutions require incoming freshmen to take writing tests to determine
the level of proficiency and C. MacDonald noted that Stony Brook uses a student’s score on the writing portion of the
SAT to make this determination.
M Hill commented that the Writing Center does not provide writing instruction. It is currently staffed by peer tutors, a
lecturer, and grad student support. He is concerned that there may be an expectation that the writing intensive courses be
delivered through the Writing Center. J. Pipkin noted that he believes the requirement that the writing intensive seminars
be taught by full-time faculty has been removed from the proposal. Additionally, there is now a requirement for a course
in American History and the Arts and Humanities have been separated into different categories.
R. Zitomer commented that some compromises were necessary given the financial situation but questioned whether we
should be putting into place a new plan at all at this time. We need to be sure a new plan is driven by what is best for the
students. The proposed plan is not an improvement on what we currently have in place and is not based on what is
pedagogically sound.
R. Hamm commented that we need to determine what is essential (e.g., foreign language requirement). A. DeBlasi noted
that the proposal as it now reads might encourage students to find a way around language study; comprising the general
education experience. Dean Wulfert noted we need to clarify what purpose we are trying to accomplish with the foreign
language requirement. Are we looking simply to expose all students to a foreign language to give them a taste of a
2
foreign culture? In that case 1 or 2 language courses or 1 language and 1 culture course would be sufficient. Or is
proficiency in a language the goal? In that case, 4 courses would not be sufficient and much more would have to be
offered. R. Zitomer said that he was swayed by the argument that exposure to a language is also exposure to the culture.
New Business:
Major in Urban Studies and Planning
K. Lawson provided a handout to the Chairs updating them on the progress of moving the faculty-initiated major in Urban
Studies and Planning to an official major with its own HEGIS code. She noted that the she would welcome a meeting
with any undergraduate director to gain a better understanding of other majors within the College and how they might
dovetail with this new major. The program is committed to remaining innovative and would like to include new courses
as appropriate. She noted that Professor David Lewis from Geography and Planning is the point person on this effort and
undergraduate directors should contact him about the major.
Online Course Development
Dean Wulfert noted that ITLAL is offering an opportunity for faculty to participate in an online course development
training during the summer months. A handout was provided.
Teaching Awards
Associate Dean Pipkin noted that the call for the CAS Dean’s Awards for Excellence in Teaching will go out early in the
fall semester and will use the same rubric as last year. If you have any suggestions for improvement please contact him.
We hope to introduce the winners at the CAS Faculty Meeting in the fall.
Term Renewals
Dean Wulfert noted that this year the College has seen a large number of term renewals that have been problematic. She
will be asking the Chairs to meet with her to discuss these difficult situations and noted that she may recommend one-year
term renewal in instances where the department has recommended two years. We want to be sure that junior faculty
understand that these recommendations are not driven by the budget situation but are made to provide another opportunity
for feedback to avoid tenure cases going forward with thin records.
Dean Wulfert noted that she understood that Chairs might be concerned about losing a line if a faculty member is not
renewed but she reminded them that in the long run retaining weak candidates is not an optimal strategy for maintaining
or building a strong department. No one will be well served if we do not maintain high standards.
A. DeBlasi noted that losing lines is also a pathway to mediocrity.
R. Zitomer commented that he believes departments do uphold standards but he is concerned that it will hurt our
reputation if we become known for non-renewing faculty. Junior faculty should be given the full time to tenure before a
decision is made about their future. We can use the term renewals as a warning however. Non renewals also raise other
problems, such as what to do with a non-renewed faculty member’s students.
M. Hill noted that he believed we had more term renewals than other institutions and noted that the financial situation
can’t help but factor into the discussion. M. Lifchitz commented that some institutions don’t put a faculty member into a
tenure track line until after the first term renewal.
Dean Wulfert pointed out that the University seven years ago changed from a 3:3:1 to a 3:2:2 term renewal system,
completely independently of any economic challenges. The term renewal process is designed to recognize and address
performance deficiencies early on and to provide constructive feedback to give junior faculty a chance to succeed.
R. Lachmann agreed that junior faculty welcome feedback but also noted that they join the University with the
expectation that they will have six years before the tenure process begins to establish themselves.
C. MacDonald noted that the criterion in her Department is good research, regardless of whether or not it is well funded or
done on a shoestring budget. Junior faculty should be given sufficient time to get their instrumentation working.
3
S. Galime noted that under certain circumstances there is the option of stopping the tenure clock by putting junior faculty
in qualified rank if there is justifiable reason to do so.
Graduate Student Progress
Dean Wulfert asked the Chairs for their feedback on how programs track the progress of their graduate students.
Specifically we are interested in learning how those students with W, I, and E on their transcripts are handled.
R. Lachmann noted that in Sociology at the end of the spring semester the graduate committee meets and reviews all
students, providing written feedback and if there are problems, stating expectations and if necessary, informing students
that funding may be withdrawn.
R. Rosellini noted that in Psychology feedback is provided to every student in writing.
M. Hill commented that in English graduate students are tracked using a spreadsheet that includes information about
funding, partline funding, dissertation director, etc. The spreadsheet will be modified and sent to graduate directors by K.
Gersowitz this summer. It will take the place of the deployment worksheet and will also capture additional information
useful to both the Department and the Dean’s Office.
D. Goodwin noted that in Art they have moved from providing a form that simply states pass or fail to individual
meetings with mentors to provide feedback.
J. Mandle noted that Philosophy students are reviewed each spring and receive a letter from the Department informing
them that they are doing well, need to focus on meeting specific expectations, or warning them that they are in danger of
being dismissed from the program.
R. Hamm noted that the lack of a graduate level DARS to assist departments in tracking their students is problematic.
There is no easy mechanism for determining exactly what students have taken and what they still need. Dean Wulfert
noted that she supports the development of such a tool as does Graduate Dean K. Williams.
Dean Wulfert emphasized the importance of providing written feedback and putting a remediation plan in place to assist a
student in addressing any deficiencies. This is particularly important if it becomes necessary to dismiss a student. Dean
Wulfert noted the problem with “automatic” extensions of the statute of limitations and recommended that when an
extension is approved a written plan be put in place that delineates specific steps to be accomplished within the extension
time frame to ensure that students graduate. Students understanding that the time limit will be enforced can serve as a
powerful motivator for them to finish.
The Dean’s Office will be reviewing the status of its graduate students over the summer; departments are being asked to
identify students who have received multiple extensions and/or have Ws, Is, and Es on their transcripts and to develop
plans on how to address such issues. K Gersowitz will be in contact with graduate directors during this process.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00.
Handouts:
Minutes of March 2, 2011 meeting
Agenda
Proposed Degree Requirements for the Major in Urban Studies and Planning
Report from the General Education Committee (version 5.0)
Outline Course Development Opportunity (Blackboard 9)
A Community Partner – Local to Global brochure