The Arts & Sciences Council (ASC) meets regularly every academic year, including eleven times during the 2001 to 2002 academic year. The notes from said meetings are found below:
May 2, 2002
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ron Bernier (FA), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), Bob Craig (COM), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Lew Harvey (PSYC), Faye Kleeman (EALC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Christian Kopff (HONR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Diane Sieber (SPAN)
Members absent: Joanne Belknap (WMST), David Budd (GEOL), Nada Diachenko (THDN), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), John Gibert (CLAS), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Artemi Romanov (GSSL), Don Roper (ECON), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the March 21 meeting of the ASC. The motion was approved unanimously.
Martha Gimenez (SOCY), chair of the Grievance Committee, reported that, during the course of the academic year, the grievance committee advised the Dean regarding a total of four cases. As a result of problems that arose in connection with one of these cases, the committee developed a new set of Procedures, to be considered by the full ASC for adoption, as put forth in the following Motion from the Executive Committee:
Revised Grievance Committee Rules of Procedure
WHEREAS, the ASC Grievance Committee is charged with advising the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences regarding faculty grievances of salaries, merit evaluations, and related matters; and
WHEREAS, it is important for the Grievance Committee to have well-defined and equitable procedures for consulting with both the grievant and the other parties involved in a grievance, and for developing its recommendations regarding the cases brought to it; therefore let it be
MOVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council adopts the draft Grievance Committee Rules of Procedure dated 1 May 2002 to replace the existing procedures as adopted by the Arts and Sciences Council on 8 May 1997; and that the new Rules of Procedure shall take effect immediately.
Following the motion, the members briefly discussed the revised Grievance Committee Rules of Procedure:
Grievance Committee Rules of Procedure
Revised Procedures of May 1, 2002
- All grievance cases must first go to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences for consideration and will be heard by the ASC grievance committee only at the request of the dean. In regard to cases forwarded to it, the ASC Grievance Committee serves exclusively in an advisory and consultative capacity to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the final decision regarding their disposition rests with the Dean.
- In formulating its recommendations, the ASC Grievance Committee shall avail itself of any existing evidence pertaining to the case. All documentation supplied by the grievant shall be provided to the other parties involved in the grievance, and they shall be provided with an opportunity to respond in writingâin a reasonable and explicitly stated amount of timeâto the grievance before the Committee considers the case. If necessary, the ASC Grievance Committee may request additional information (e.g., the departmentâs criteria for merit evaluation, written reports from the departmentâs own grievance committee, etc.) from all the parties involved in the grievance.
- Grievance cases involving alleged research misconduct, sexual harassment, unprofessional conduct (as defined by the Boulder Campus Professional Standards document), or other conducts for which separate specialized procedures are provided are deemed outside the purview of the ASC grievance committee.
- In salary and non-salary grievance cases (i.e., when the issue at stake is the adequacy of the salary committeeâs evaluation of a faculty memberâs research, teaching, or service), the ASC Grievance Committee may collect additional information, from such sources as it may think relevant, to further its ability to judge the merits of the case.
- The ASC Grievance Committee may, at its discretion or the request of the Dean, meet separately with both sides involved in the grievance case. Afterwards, the ASC Grievance Committee will discuss the matter by themselves. The ASC Grievance Committee reserves the right to conduct these meetings sequentially during the same day, or at its convenience.
- The ASC Grievance Committee shall provide a written report to the Dean as soon as possible. The report will include a recommendation regarding what action should be taken in response to the grievance, the substance of any dissenting opinions, a list of the sources of evidence reviewed, and the reasoning used by the committee to reach its recommendation. The ASC Grievance Committee will vote on its recommendations for the record. Both the recommendations and the vote tally will become part of the public record and available to all parties.
- The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences will render a final decision within two weeks of the receipt of the ASC Grievance Committeeâs recommendations. A copy of the Deanâs decision will be sent to the grievant, the department chair, and the ASC Grievance Committee members who participated in the deliberations for their information.
- As part of its professional responsibilities, members of the ASC Grievance Committee will maintain a policy of strict confidentiality before, during, and after its deliberations on grievance cases. They are also required to decline requests from participants involved in grievance cases to discuss the substance of the grievance cases.
No suggestions for modification were made and all 19 members voted to adopt the revised Rules of Procedure, which took effect immediately.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH) reported that four nominations for the election of a new ASC Chair for AY 2002-03 had been received. All nominations were in favor of the present chair. All 18 members present voted again in favor of Prof. Barker of Physics continuing as ASC Chair for a second one-year term.
The finalists for the position of Associate Dean of Arts and Humanities were then interviewed, the first one being Professor Graham Oddie (PHIL). Prof. Oddie mentioned that he has been Chair of the Philosophy Department at UCB for the last five years. He described his interest in and qualifications for the Associate Dean job, and answered questions from members of the ASC.
When Dennis McGilvray asked whether he would promote personal interaction by divisional meetings or social event, Prof. Oddie replied that there is no central meeting place around, and maybe because of lack of time there is little interaction.
Lew Harvey (PSYC) mentioned that the associate dean has to be an advocate for his division and also needs to be able to work together with the other Associate Deans.
Rolf Norgaard (PWR) followed up on the question of advocacy and remarked that there is a need for a public voice and questioned how Prof. Oddie would create a public voice within the university and beyond. Prof. Oddie replied that Dean Gleeson intends to engage the new associate dean in fundraising. The Center for Humanities and the Arts has been quite successful.
The Chair asked Prof. Oddie about the process the Personnel Committee uses to handle its cases, and if there was anything about the process that he would like to change. His response was that in his opinion personnel cases should be handled primarily within the departments.
Prof. William Wei (HIST) was interviewed next and he pointed out that the position of associate dean is important since it is essential to the mission of the college. Arts and Humanities are not recognized for its contributions and the associate dean would be able to act as interpreter inside and outside the community.
Chris Braider (FRIT) pointed out that the College faculty authored no fewer than 106 books last year and there is a need to publicize the commendable productivity of his colleagues. Prof. Wei agreed and remarked that this could be achieved by sharing what is being produced and by going beyond the campus.
Dennis McGilvray asked how he would promote intellectual communications, and Prof. Wei replied that he believes that more departments will have to collaborate in more meaningful ways. He made reference to the Center for Humanities and the Arts and its success in creating opportunities of various departments to come together and share interests. The Associate Dean has to find out what people are interested in.
Terry Kleeman (RLST) mentioned that there is a limited representation of disciplines focusing on non-western cultures on this campus and questioned what could be done about this shortcoming. Prof. Wei replied that it is important to point out to others how many good candidates there are in the area and to begin a dialog.
When the interviews were completed, the Chair asked the assembled members to send any comments regarding the Associate Dean search or the two candidates interviewed to him by e-mail. The Chair promised to collect and forward these responses to the Dean for his consideration.
The Chair thanked the members for their participation in the ASC during the academic year coming to a close, after which the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
April 18, 2002
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Faculty Meeting
Members present: Margaret Asirvatham (CHEM), Tony Barker (PHYS), Chair, Bob Boswell (MCDB), Greg Carey (PSYC), Andrew Cowell (FRIT), Robert Craig (COM), John Cumalat (PHYS), Mel Cundiff (EPOB), Richard Devin (THDN), John Gibert (CLAS), Todd Gleeson (Dean A&S), Lew Harvey (PSYC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Dennis Maloney (ITS), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Uriel Nauenberg (PHYS), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Mike Preston (ENG), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Bobby Schnabel (Assoc VC), Diane Sieber (SPAN)
Members absent: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Jerry Bebernes (APPM, Joanne Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Nada Diachenko (THDN), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Faye Kleeman (EALC), Christian Kopff (HONR), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Don Roper (ECON), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the previous meeting of the Arts and Sciences Faculty, held on 13 December 2001.
Congratulations were extended to the newly appointed Dean of Arts & Sciences, Todd Gleeson. The Dean remarked that he is looking forward to continue working with great colleagues. The College is going through a difficult period in which resources are hard to come by; this makes it difficult to implement major new initiatives. For the next six months or so the Dean is planning to work with faculty and staff on a budgetary restructuring system. The Leaves and Replacements budget needs more flexibility and this is high on the list of priorities. The Deanâs office also has to get a better handle on discretionary money. Continuing deficits run by the College also require attention. Finally, a search is underway for an Associate Dean for Arts and Humanities to replace Merrill Lessley; the Dean welcomes ASC involvement in this process.
The Chair remarked that most of the Councilâs work during the semester has been done by its standing committee members and asked the chairs of these committees to report on last yearâs activities.
The chair of the Grievance Committee, Martha Gimenez (SOCY), was not able to attend this meeting, but the Chair remarked on her behalf that the committee has modified the existing Grievance Rules and Procedures. The revised rules and procedures will be presented to the ASC at the next meeting on May 2nd for adoption.
Robert Boswell (MCDB), Chair of the Personnel Committee, reported that the committee has considered 22 comprehensive reviews for reappointment of Assistant Professors, as well as about 30 promotion and tenure cases.
The chair of the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity, Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), was not able to attend the meeting. The Chair reported that this committee had organized a forum on "Globalization in the Arab and Islamic World: Implications of post 9-11" which turned out to be very successful, with attendance was far greater than was expected.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Chair of the Curriculum Committee, reported that the committee has forwarded a proposal for revising Residency Requirements to the ASC. Continuing Education had asked the committee to develop general guidelines for degrees awarded through distance learning programs. The committee is also involved in reviewing credit-transfer requirements in the College. Rolf Norgaard (PWR) commented that the CCHE wants to ensure that it is easy to transfer credits from one state institution to another one. This could end up forcing the College to modify its core curriculum.
John Gibert (CLAS), Chair of the Budget Committee, reported that the committee has been engaged in discussions regarding how faculty retention cases are handled, and in particular how money in the Special Merit pool is used for these cases. Final raise pool numbers for 2002 are still not available; as always decisions will have to be made very quickly when the numbers are released. On the subject of Special Merit and the 2X Rule, a frequent topic in meetings of the Budget Committee, Dennis McGilvray (ANTH) noted that his department voted recently not to participate in the 2X system, because of its divisive effects. The Chair noted that this decision will result in lower average raises for faculty in Anthropology.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), Chair of the Planning Committee, reported that all state-funded capital construction on the Boulder campus has been halted due to the ongoing budget crisis. This includes the Law School and ATLAS projects. Cash-funded construction, notably the Williams Village expansion and the Folsom Field skyboxes, is proceeding without interruption. The Boulder Campus Planning Commission is still requesting funding for the addition and renovation of the Business School, the Law School and the construction of the ATLAS building, but prospects are poor. The Planning Committee has also been involved in the ongoing Strategic Planning exercise at ITS.
The Chair summarized the activities of the ASC during the Spring semester. The full A&S faculty voted on the honor code proposed by the students, which required modification to the Arts and Sciences Faculty Bylaws to eliminate the Committee on Academic Ethics (which would be replaced by the Honor Council and Honor Code Hearing Panels). The result was overwhelmingly in support of adopting the Honor Code, with 214 in favor and 15 opposed. Under the adopted bylaws, the ASC will select one member to serve as the College of A&S representative on the Campus Ethics Committee according to the Honor Code constitution. The ASC also voted on the change to the residency requirements of the College to eliminate some anomalies, particularly the onerous requirement that a studentâs final 30 credit hours be received while in residence at Boulder.
Bobby Schnabel, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Computing and Technology, briefly mentioned the ongoing discussions with the Faculty Advisory Committee regarding capital funding for IT improvements on campus. Dennis Maloney, Director of Information Technology continued with this topic. He also remarked that the faculty computer program is fully funded. However, there is some dissatisfaction with how FCP purchasing is set up, in particular because the new centralized purchasing plan severely limits hardware choices. Some faculty members pointed out that it is cheaper to order directly from Dell on-line, at the current price of that day, and with a short delivery time. Dennis mentioned that he plans to restructure the program to provide more flexibility and delivery on a more timely basis. To improve communications with A&S, Dennis would like to attend future ASC meetings on a regular basis. This suggestion was welcomed by the Chair.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM and was followed by a reception.
March 21, 2002
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Robert Craig (COM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Faye Kleeman (EALC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Artemi Romanov (GSLL)
Members absent: Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Joanne Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), Nada Diachenko (THDN), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Christian Kopff (HONR), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Don Roper (ECON), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
Motions were made and seconded to approve the minutes of the January 17 and February 28 meetings of the ASC. The motions were approved unanimously.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Chair of the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity, reported that his committee has organized a presentation entitled: Globalization in the Arab and Islamic World: Implications of 9-11. This lecture, scheduled for April 3, will be given by Dr. Mohammed Akacem, Professor of Economics at Metropolitan State College in Denver.
The Chair then began a discussion of merit raise and special merit procedures in the College. In recent years, the College has reserved part of the merit raise pool (the âskimâ) to provide raises in special cases, which include promotions, career merit inequities, and retention offers. Departments nominate their faculty for consideration for special merit raises, and the nominating department must first allocate to those put up for special merit a raise equal to twice the percentage raise given to the remainder of the faculty in that department â this is the (modified) 2X rule. This procedure has been reasonably successful in responding to outside offers, but it diverts a sizeable fraction of the raise pool to those with special merit, at the expense of faculty with âordinaryâ merit. Last yearâs Report from the Budget Committee recognized the need to ensure an appropriate balance between these competing demands. This is difficult to achieve because the raise pool, even at inflation plus one percent, is too small to satisfy all the legitimate needs. This issue has been discussed at length both in the Budget Committee and in the full ASC. Other concerns that have come up include the increasing size of retention offers, and whether departments are making an adequate financial contribution in retention cases.
Dean Gleeson responded that all the money retained for the skim actually goes back into the raise pool, so the skim is not really a âskimâ as much as it is a re-distribution from the faculty at large to those with special merit. Retentions are about 4% of the A&S faculty pool each year. The Dean showed a transparency summarizing the amount of special merit money used for each of the three categories of retention, promotion, and career merit since the 2X rule has been in effect. The total amount in special merit pool in recent years has been about 0.6% of the total A&S salary. For example, last year the merit raise pool was about 6%. Of that, roughly 0.8% was skimmed at the campus level for unit merit and gender inequity, and 0.6% was skimmed for the special merit pool, leaving 4.6% to be returned to departments. The 0.6% college skim amounted to about $280,000. Of that, $ 60,000 went to promotion raises, $104,000 was used for retention offers, and $118,000 went to career merit increases awarded to 51 individuals.
Carl Koval (CHEM) expressed agreement with the Chairâs summary of the situation, except he said that it is not accurate to characterize the number of people getting special merit raises as a small group of outstanding faculty. In fact, over the years the system has been in effect, over two hundred A&S faculty have received special merit raises. Prof. Koval also noted that it is extremely important to understand what happens to the so-called Blue Book return: this is the differential between the salary of retiring faculty and that of newly hired faculty. These monies should be returned to the salary pool, where they would allow for larger average raises than just the increase in the size of the pool. The need to return at least some of the Blue Book to the salary pool was recognized in the Report of the Provostâs Task Force on Faculty Recruitment and Retention, released earlier this year.
The Chair noted that the previous Dean had used Blue Book money over several years to replenish salaries allocated to vacant faculty lines. That salary money had been taken to cover a $ 3.4 million budget cut made about five years ago. Since that money might otherwise have been returned to the merit raise pool, this in effect represented a $ 3.4 million cut in faculty salaries, taken over a number of years.
Dean Gleeson also noted that although these salaries had been replenished, there was in fact no positive Blue Book in the current year. Apparently naive guesses about the differential between the salaries of retiring and newly hired faculty are not necessarily correct.
David Budd (GEOL) commented that the size of the pie is the cause of the frustration. He suggested that the ASC plan to make recommendations for the fall, before it is too late to influence the merit process.
Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING) remarked that when a department hires a new faculty, then existing faculty members that are equally meritorious should be rewarded equally.
Dean Gleeson remarked that the career merit portion of the special merit pool is intended to help to accomplish this goal.
Rodger Kram (KAPH) mentioned that the College is doing very well by bring in external money, but is not doing so well by bringing in raises. Salaries are low in comparison to our peers.
John Gibert (CLAS), Chair of the Budget Committee, reported that discussions are going on in the Budget committee regarding the modified 2X rule with no strong recommendation to change it. He remarked that there is âinformed grudging satisfactionâ with the present merit raise system. The committee is considering the possibility of tinkering with retention offers. Their recommendation is to restrict the number of retention cases. The department contribution under the modified 2X Rule may be too in retention cases.
The Chair pointed out that for some members the three-year term of membership on the ASC will end in May. According to the revised Bylaws, members can be re-elected for a second term. The Chair reminded the members to let their departments know if a new representative has to be elected. The Chair himself can be re-elected as Chair if he is re-elected by the Physics Department for a second term.
The Chair mentioned that the Search Committee for the election of a new Dean of A&S has forwarded their recommendation to Provost Phil DiStefano. On April 4, the ASC will have an opportunity to meet with the finalists at a special ASC meeting scheduled for 3:30 PM in Conference Rooms 3 & 4 of the CU Recreation Center. All A&S faculty are invited to that meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
February 28, 2002
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS), Chair, Joanne Belknap (WMST), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), John-John Cord (Honor Code), Robert Craig (COM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), Antonia Gaona (ASSG Executive), Christian Gardner-Wood (Honor Code), Oliver Gerland (THDN), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Elizabeth Guertin (A&S), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Richard Nishikawa (A&S), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Don Roper (ECON), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Joann Wardrip (ASSG Executive)
Members absent: Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Robert Boswell (MCDB), David Budd (GEOL), Nada Diachenko (THDN), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Faye Kleeman (EALC), Christian Kopff (HONR), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Artemi Romanov (GSSL), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
The Chair noted that due to his having been remiss in his duties, the minutes of the 17 January Meeting were not yet available for review.
The Chair welcomed several guests present at the meeting. These included two representatives of the Honor Council, John-John Cord and Christian Gardner-Wood, as well as the two Executives of the Arts & Sciences Student Government (ASSG), Antonia Gaona and Joann Wardrip.
The Chair announced the result of the faculty vote on the adoption of the proposed Honor Code and associated amendments to the A&S Faculty Governance Bylaws, which was conducted by mail ballot during February. ŽșËźÌĂÊÓÆ” 30% of the 786 ballots were returned; of these, 214 were in favor of the motion and 15 were opposed. This being well in excess of the 2/3 majority required for passage, the Honor Code Bylaws and Constitution are adopted and the Bylaws amended as proposed, effective in Fall 2002. John-John Cord expressed his appreciation to the members for their support during the entire process. The Chair in turn thanked the student representatives of the Honor Council for their responsiveness to the concerns of the faculty during the process of drafting the Honor Code documents.
John-John Cord had prepared a statement on the occasion of the adoption of the Honor Code by the College of Arts and Sciences, which follows:
âThe commitment the College of Arts and Sciences has made to its students and to the fundamental principles behind education by approving the Honor Code is a milestone both for the College and for the University as a whole. Faculty here have affirmatively acknowledged the need for enhancing academic integrity. The efforts of this College cannot be allowed to end with this vote, however. The momentum leading to this vote must be harnessed and invigorated the Honor Code is not a self-executing mechanism. It requires that faculty take responsibility not only for teaching, but also for communicating the value of academic integrity.
The resources at the disposal of faculty under the Honor Code are significant. The Honor Code web site features a plethora of information designed to assist both faculty and students in perpetuating the ideals of the Honor Code. The Campus Ethics Committee, including representatives from the faculty and student body, meet monthly to discuss current issues of academic integrity. The members of the Honor Code Council will do whatever is needed to assist faculty in their efforts.
This is a great commitment, and one with responsibilities. I firmly believe that we are up to the challenge.â
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Chair of the Curriculum Committee, reported that the committee was bringing forward a proposal to revise College residency requirements.
Oliver Gerland (THDN) commented that the primary purpose for the change is to strengthen the requirements and to give them more flexibility. Current rules require that students complete that last 30 hours of the degree studies while in residence on the Boulder campus. The Curriculum Committee is proposing that this be replaced by language stating that:
âArts and Sciences students must complete a minimum of 45 credit hours in University of Colorado courses on the Boulder campus. Of these 45 credits, a minimum of 30 credits must be in Arts & Sciences upper-division credit hours completed as a matriculated student in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and at least 12 of these upper-division hours must be in the major.â
This requirement will better serve the students of the College, and will reduce the number of appeals for exceptions to the rules that have to be considered. The proposed change was supported by Elizabeth Guertin, Director of Academic Advising, and by Richard Nishikawa, Assistant Dean for Curricular Affairs. Both remarked that the current requirement that the last 30 hours be completed on the Boulder campus is unreasonable. For example, a student lacking only once course is not allowed to complete that course at a different institution. Indeed, if she does so, she must then come back to Boulder and take another 30 hours of coursework in order to fulfill the present requirement.
The full text of the proposed motion regarding Residence Rules can be found on the web at , under Motions.
The members present voted on this motion and all were in favor, without abstention.
Dennis McGilvray reported on the topic of distance learning and external degrees. The Curriculum Committee is going to review the program as presented by Continuing Education. Subsequently, the committee will draft guidelines regarding distance-learning degrees and will present them to the ASC for approval.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), Chair of the Planning Committee, reported that he had a recent meeting with Dennis Maloney, Director of IT Operations and Jim Marshall, Director of IT User Support. The Faculty Computer Purchase Plan was discussed. It was mentioned that the faculty are not happy with the limitations and choices set up by ITS. Other subjects discussed included new alliance network charges and a proposed drop in support for Apple talk. Both the Chair and Terry Kleeman agreed to organize a visit by Dennis Maloney at a future ASC meeting to discuss these matters in more detail.
John Gibert (CLAS), Chair of the Budget Committee, gave an introduction to the so-called 2X special merit raise procedure. It was established by the former Dean Peter Spear. John Gibert also made reference to the Report of the Budget Subcommittee on Faculty Raises of last year. The Budget Committee suggests that no major alteration of the 2X rule is desirable this year. The Chair noted that there would be a full discussion of the special merit and of the proposed size of the special merit skim at the next ASC meeting on March 21st.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Chair of the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity, reported that his committee is setting up a forum for discussions relating to the September 11th attacks. They are trying to include speakers representing the Muslim world.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
January 17, 2002
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), David Budd (GEOL), Robert Craig (COM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), John Gibert (CLAS), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Terry Kleeman (RLST & EALL), Christian Kopff (HONR), Rodger Kram (KAPH), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Rolf Norgaard (RWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Don Roper (ECON)
Members absent: Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Nada Diachenko (THDN), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Carl Koval (CHEM), John Martin (FARR), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the November 29th meeting of the ASC. The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair introduced the new members and recent changes to the council:
Zygmunt Frajzyngier (LING), one of the first ASC members when the Council was established, is returning as the representative of Linguistics. He is replacing Dan Jurafsky (LING). Nada Diachenko (THDN) will be replacing Toby Hankin (THDN). Continuing member John Gibert of Classics was recently elected chair of the Budget committee. David Budd (GEOL) has returned from a sabbatical leave.
Dean Gleeson remarked on the topic of restricted majors. The A&S Curriculum Committee has been working on a proposal for a new policy that would allow departments to propose that their majors be restricted by imposing new âpre-majorâ requirements. Such a policy has been urgently requested by a number of departments which have seen large increases in the number of majors without corresponding increases in faculty lines; two particularly severe cases are Communications and Fine Arts.
Robert Craig (COM) responded that in the last five years his department has seen a dramatic increase in the number of majors, to over 1000 now. The Communications faculty is not growing. Consequently, students have difficultly meeting graduation requirements in four years. The problem is reaching a crisis point, where either resources will have to be shifted from lower-demand to higher-demand programs, or else new controls will have to be imposed to limit the number of majors in departments like Communications.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Chair of the Curriculum department, mentioned that this topic has been discussed at the curriculum committee meetings and all members agreed that a new policy is needed. He asked the Dean if the new policy would have uniform standards should it be established. The Dean responded with a definite âyesâ and mentioned that he will soon send out a note to get the process started.
The Dean reported that Merrill Lessley, Associate Dean for Arts & Humanities, would soon return to faculty. Nominations for the Associate Dean position will be solicited and an announcement of the vacancy will be published in the Silver & Gold Record.
He further mentioned that at this time he has no concrete news regarding the campus budget. To date, the state has imposed a 1% cut on general fund allocations to higher education. This cut is permanent in the sense that next yearâs budget base will be reduced by 1%. Additional cuts are possible, but the good news is that so far there is no hiring freeze and the budget cuts made so far can be taken at the campus level, and so will not directly impact the College budget.
The Dean reported that at a recent meeting of campus Deans the projected increase in enrollment was discussed. Due to a significant increase in applications received over last year, it is expected that there will be an increase of 200 or 300 in the size of the incoming freshman class. Although this will bring in additional tuition revenue, there may also be a shift toward resident students, which will negatively impact total tuition income for the Boulder campus.
The Chair noted that voting on the proposed Honor Code and associated A&S Faculty Governance Bylaw amendments would begin shortly, and asked members to read over the cover letter that would accompany the written ballots. Ballots will be due back by 17 February. The Chair reminded the members present to remind faculty in their departments to vote on this important issue. A 2/3 majority is required for passage of the motion.
The Chair finally remarked that he and Chris Braider (FRIT), Co-Chair of A&S Personnel Committee, plan to draft a document explaining the current standards and procedures of the Personnel Committee in order to clarify the workings of the A&S Personnel Committee to department chairs and to candidates for reappointment, promotion, and tenure. The intention would be that this document be discussed and adopted by the ASC.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
December 13, 2001
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Faculty Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Dave Armstrong (EPOB), Tony Barker (PHYS) chair, Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Emilio Bejel (SPAN), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), Gordon Brown (MATH), Robert Craig (COM), Mel Cundiff (EPOB), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Toby Hankin (THDN), Dan Jurafsky (LING), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Rodger Kram (KAPH), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Uriel Nauenberg (PHYS), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Mike Preston (ENG), Steve Snyder (EALC)
Representing the Honor Code: Ronald Stump, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, John-John Cord, Christian Gardner-Wood, and Emily Kyler
Members absent: Joanne Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Christian Kopff (HONR), Carl Koval (CHEM), John Martin (FARR), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 and mentioned that the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss and to vote on the Honor Code, or in the absence of a quorum to refer the Honor Code and the associated amendments to the Arts and Sciences Faculty Governance Bylaws to a written ballot.
The Chairs of the ASC Standing Committees gave brief reports on their activities during the fall 2001 semester.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), Chair of the Planning Committee, mentioned discussions with ITS about computing and networking issues. The Planning Committee has also been involved in discussions of ongoing planning for new buildings on campus, and has reviewed the report on the Blue Ribbon Panel on the state of the Library.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Chair of the Curriculum Committee, reported that a number of issues were discussed and then passed on to the ASC, including the proposed Ethnic Studies-American Studies merger and the proposed policy to limit access to some majors that are overcrowded. Other issues under consideration, besides the usual review of core courses, include a proposal to allow student to have two minors, and possible proposals to modify campus-residency requirements.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Chair of the Committee on Diversity and Academic Community, mentioned that the committee was renamed last year when the ASC Bylaws were amended; the addition of âAcademic Communityâ had caused some controversy within the Committee, because of concerns that it might distract attention from traditional diversity issues. One non-ASC member of the Committee resigned over this issue. The Committee had considered the question of how to improve the support of Instructors in the College, and had passed a resolution supporting the extension of $1000 College Accounts to Senior Instructors (of whom there are about 50 in Arts and Sciences). Also included in the resolution, which was adopted by the ASC, was a recommendation the each academic unit develop of procedure by which Instructors could request consideration for a promotion to Senior Instructor.
Robert Boswell (MCDB), Chair of the Personnel Committee, reported that the Personnel Committee was following its usual procedures, and had nearly completed consideration of about 20 fourth-year reappointment cases. Cases for promotion and tenure will be considered in the Spring semester. The Committee makes recommendations to the Dean, who in turn makes a recommendation to VCAC.
Dan Jurafsky (LING), Chair of the Budget Committee, reported that numerous discussions have been held regarding the 2X rule and merit raises. As usual, no information will be available about the size of the merit raise pool until late in the Spring semester. The lagging state of the state economy has caused concerns about potential budget cuts.
Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Chair of the Grievance Committee, reported that three grievance cases have been dealt with and recommendations sent to the Dean; theses cases relate to merit evaluation. There will be at least one more case to discuss in the Spring semester.
The Chair reported on the activities of the last semester and mentioned the search for a permanent dean. The ASC had asked to participate in the process and the chair himself is representing the ASC on the search committee. Applications for the position are currently being accepted.
A Resolution in support of Quality for Colorado Initiative was voted on and adopted by ASC. Another motion was approved by the council that the ASC invites the executives of the Arts & Sciences Student Government to attend all ASC meetings as non-voting guests of the Council. In addition, a resolution regarding Priority for Faculty Raise Pool was approved supporting Recommendation #4 of the Boulder Campus Faculty Recruitment and Retention Task Force.
A motion supporting adoption of the proposed student Honor Code was adopted; the motion further called for the Honor Code documents to be voted on by the full Arts and Sciences faculty, which is on the agenda for todayâs meeting. At the ASC meeting on Nov 29, another motion was adopted supporting a proposed merger between the Ethnic Studies Department and the American Studies Program. This merger has been discussed at the Deans and Directors meetings. Another resolution supporting extension of College Accounts to Instructors was adopted based on a recommendation by the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity.
Interim Dean Todd Gleeson gave an overview of the state of the College. He mentioned that because of the excellent cooperation received from colleagues at Old Main, such as the associate deans and senior staff, his transition into the job of Interim Dean has been made easier. He gave a brief overview of the budget, saying that each college makes a pitch to the Campus Advisory Committee regarding where new money should be allocated. Input from the ASC Budget Committee is taken into consideration in formulating the Collegeâs requests. The biggest request made this year was for 12 new tenure-track faculty lines for each of the next five years. Other concerns are obtaining adequate funding for the Library (as discussed in the Blue Ribbon Panel Report), and obtaining continuing funding to build the Program in Writing and Rhetoric, and to pay for the academic advising center. He has also requested funds to increase the minimum salary for Instructors from $30,000 to $35,000.
The Chair called the attention of the faculty present to the following Faculty Motion, referred to the full Arts and Sciences faculty by the ASC:
Faculty Motion regarding the Proposed Honor Code and Amendment to the Faculty Governance Bylaws
WHEREAS the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences is responsible under the Laws of the Regents for maintaining high standards for academic ethics in the College; and
WHEREAS the Faculty supports the student-initiated proposal to implement an Honor Code in the College in order to increase awareness of and respect for the principles of academic ethics; therefore
The Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences hereby adopts the Honor Code Constitution and Honor Code Bylaws dated 6 November 2001 as integral parts of its policy on academic ethics, effective beginning in the fall semester of 2002.
In order to implement the Honor Code, the Faculty Governance Bylaws of the College of Arts & Sciences shall be amended as follows:
Article V, Section F, Subsection 1 currently reads:
1. Academic Ethics
This committee considers student ethics cases and meets as the need arises. It is to continue under its 1995 rules. At least six faculty members of this committee are selected by the ASC from the faculty at large.
The above text shall be replaced by:
1. Academic Ethics
The ASC will select one member to serve as the College of Arts & Sciences representative to the Campus Ethics Committee in accordance with Section G of the Honor Code Constitution. Individual academic ethics cases will be considered in accordance with the Honor Code Bylaws.
The Chair introduced the Honor Council representatives: Ron Stump, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Christian Gardner-Wood, John-John Cord and Emily Kyler. John-John Cord mentioned that initial steps for the Honor Code were taken about three and a half years ago. Since that time the document has gone through many revisions but essential content has not changed. Many other colleges on the Boulder campus have already approved the Honor Code, including the Schools of Business, Journalism, Education, and Engineering. The BFA recently passed a motion calling for its adoption campus-wide.
Uriel Nauenberg (PHYS), chair of the BFA, spoke in favor of the Honor Code, noting that we should support the initiative by students to take greater responsibility for maintaining high standards of academic ethics.
The Chair noted that only 26 members of the faculty were present at the meeting, about 3% of the roughly 750 voting faculty. Taking a vote at the meeting requires the presence of a quorum of 10% of voting members. Therefore the motion regarding the Honor Code will be referred to a written ballot during the first half of the Spring 2002 semester. The results should be determined by the February ASC meeting.
The faculty meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM and was followed by a reception.
November 29, 2001
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Joanne Belknap (WMST), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), Robert Craig (COM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Erika Doss (American Studies Program), Robert Eaton (EPOB), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Toby Hankin (THDN), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Evelyn Hu-DeHart (Ethnic Studies) Terry Kleeman (RLST), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), Alex Lubin (American Studies Program), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Jennifer Roark (American Studies Program), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Steve Snyder (EALC), Irina Sokolik (PAOS)
Members absent: Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Gary Gaile (GEOG), John Gibert (CLAS), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Christian Kopff (HONR), John Martin (FARR), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of November 8, 2001. The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair introduced a discussion of a proposal to merge the American Studies Program with the Ethnic Studies Department, which has been discussed in the Curriculum Committee.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), chair of the Curriculum Committee, mentioned that his committee felt that this proposal had merit. The only concern expressed was the name to be given to the new department. The committee had passed the issue on to Dean Gleeson.
The Chair introduced Professor Evelyn Hu-DeHart, Chair of the Department of Ethnic Studies and Erika Doss, Director of the American Studies Program. Alex Lubin, Instructor of the American Studies Program and Jennifer Roark, senior student in the American Studies Program, were also present.
Erika Doss, Director of American Studies Program, mentioned that the Program has been in existence since 1968. The program has a single instructor and no tenure track lines. She said that in recent years the program has reached a crisis point due to a persistent and chronic lack of resources. As a result the administration recommended that the American Studies Program be merged with an existing academic department. At that time the Dean had recommended a merger with either the English or History departments, but that did not work out. She also pointed out that American Studies has changed over the years, so that now it is strongly focused on issues of ethnicity and national identity, making a merger with Ethnic Studies a natural option. There are between 25 and 40 students majoring in American Studies each year.
Alex Lubin, Instructor of AMSP, added that administrative matters are now handled by the Women Studies. A merger would move these functions to the Ethnic Studies department. Many of their courses are already affiliated with Ethnic Studies and a merger would further expand the curriculum.
Jennifer Roark, Senior Student, pointed out that there is no permanent advising or mentoring available in the program. When a professor leaves the university for a tenured position, a student loses a valuable connection. She thinks that a merger would make it possible for students to get a higher-quality education.
Evelyn Hu-DeHart, Chair of the Dept. of Ethnic Studies, noted that students who declare Ethnic Studies as their major will be able to select a focus in Comparative American Cultures. Prof. Hu-DeHart also pointed out that combined programs in American Ethnic Studies are already in place at Brown University, at the University of Michigan and others. Letters in support of a merger at CU have been received from Prof. Sumida, University of Washington, and Prof. Roediger, University of Illinois, who believe that a merger would be beneficial.
Paul Gordon (CLHM) asked if the merger would result in any changes to traditional American studies coursework. Erika Doss replied that this field increasingly focuses on ethnicity and is moving away from the traditional coursework anyway.
The Chair mentioned that he has become aware of some concerns that American studies might lose visibility if the merger should occur and asked Evelyn Hu-DeHart about a new name for the department that would reflect the addition of American studies. She replied that the members of her department have not as yet approved a name change at this time, although they are willing to consider such a proposal if the merger moves forward.
Dean Todd Gleeson pointed out that Sewall Residential Academic Program has ties to American studies and recommended that Sewall be consulted about the merger. He expressed his concern that some American studies students might want to keep the term American Studies on their diplomas.
Alex Lubin replied that he talked with many students about the merger and found out that they want more faculty support and more space on campus. Introductory courses look like Ethnic Studies courses already and American Studies is effectively already about race and ethnicity.
The Chair talked about a Resolution regarding the American Studies Program, which had been reviewed at the recent Executive Committee meeting. It was decided to bring it before the ASC members to vote on.
Resolution regarding the American Studies Program
WHEREAS the Arts and Sciences Council recognizes the valuable educational opportunities provided to students in the College by the American Studies Program; and
WHEREAS the Council understands that the limited financial resources available to the College have made it difficult to adequately support the American Studies Program, or to increase the number of faculty teaching in the Program; and
WHEREAS the Council believes that the course of action holding the greatest promise of providing increased support and expanded academic opportunities for students in the Program is to merge American Studies with an established academic department in the College; and
WHEREAS the focus of scholarly work in the area of American Studies shares much in common with areas of research conducted by faculty in the Department of Ethnic Studies; and
WHEREAS the Ethnic Studies Department has expressed willingness to merge with the American Studies Program and to create an academic track suitable for American Studies students; therefore let it be
RESOLVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council supports the creation of a merged academic unit to offer courses and other academic programs in the areas of American and Ethnic Studies.
All 22 members voted in favor of the resolution.
The discussion then turned to consideration of a resolution proposed by the Committee on Diversity and Academic Community regarding benefits and promotions for Instructors in the College.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Chair of the Committee on Diversity and Academic Community, pointed out that the key points of the resolution are a recommendation that the $1000 College accounts available now to tenure-track faculty be given also to Senior Instructors; and that each department and program establish a definite procedure whereby instructors may be eligible for promotion to Senior Instructor after seven years. At the present time some departments do not have such a procedure in place.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH) asked the Dean for his opinion and he replied that he does not disagree with the goals. The procedure for review after seven years is already required by the Instructorsâ Bill of Rights. As for the College Accounts, there would be a cost of about $ 35,000 that must be balanced against other requests for scarce funding. Also, research and creative work are not part of Instructorsâ job responsibilities, so it is not clear whether College Accounts are needed for Instructors.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz said that instructors are not asking for research money, but need more money for courses, teaching materials, and being able to attend conferences. Joanne Belknap (WMST) agreed and added that there are excellent instructors on campus that need to go to conferences to remain current in the subjects they teach.
Rolf Norgaard (PWR) remarked that the College is relying more on instructors and it is increasingly important that they be included in the larger academic community.
The ASC members voted on the following resolution:
Resolution of the Committee on Diversity and Academic Community in support of the Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community
WHEREAS the faculty of the College and Sciences of the University of Colorado at Boulder acknowledges the vital contributions to teaching, research, and service made by Instructors and Senior Instructors in most departments of the College, and
WHEREAS the faculty is committed to building and strengthening academic community and diversity at all levels of the College, and
WHEREAS the faculty recognizes the need for incentives to facilitate the professional development of Instructors and Senior Instructors, and the need to establish a review and promotion process for Instructors; thereby let it be
RESOLVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council recommends that the Dean extend the $1000 College accounts to Senior Instructors, and that each department and program establish a procedure whereby Instructors will be eligible for promotion to Senior Instructor after seven years of service. We believe that these measures are necessary to acknowledge the importance of Instructors to the College and the University, to enhance the pursuit of excellence in teaching, research, and service, and to strengthen our academic community.
All 22 members were in favor, none opposed.
The members applauded Ernesto for his efforts.
Regarding the voting on the Honor Code, the Chair reminded the members of the procedure for the A&S faculty to vote on December 13th. He also reminded ASC members to discuss the issue with faculty in the departments they represent. The text of the faculty motion for 13 December was briefly discussed and approved by the members present.
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned; the vote was unanimously in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
November 8, 2001
Minutes: A&S Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), John-John Cord (Honor Council), Robert Craig (COM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Robert Eaton (EPOB), John Gibert (CLAS), Toby Hankin (THDN), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Christian Kopff (HONR), Carl Koval (CHEM), John Martin (FARR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Steve Snyder (EALC)
Members absent: Joann Belknap (WMST), Ronald Bernier (FA), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Rodger Kram (KAPH), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Horst Mewes (PSCI), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M.
It was moved and seconded that the draft minutes of October 11 ASC meeting be approved; this motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair reported on a proposed campus policy that would prohibit undergraduate students from teaching labs or recitations, and from doing grading, under the supervision of graduate students. Vice-Chancellor for Undergraduate Education Michael Grant is promoting this policy. Although this is technically already the policy of the College of Arts and Sciences, it is not enforced, and a number of departments including Chemistry, Math, EPOB, and Psychology apparently do not follow it. Enforcing the policy will be difficult, since it will cost money, and in some cases there are not enough graduate students and faculty to pick up the teaching load. The BFA and the A&S Chairs and Directors have both postponed approval of the policy pending further review of its financial implications.
The Chair further reported that the Search Committee for the new Dean for Arts & Sciences has been formed. The committee has met once and will meet again on Friday, Nov 9. The Chair will be representing the ASC. The members of the search committee include Chris Braider (FRIT), Cathy Comstock (FARR), Barbara Butterfield (GEOG), Alphonse Keasely (Minority, A&S Program), Norman Pace (MCDB), Jerry Rudy (PSYC), as well as student and staff representatives. The Committee is chaired by Interim Graduate School Dean Rodney Taylor.
At the next ASC meeting the Chair hopes to hold an open discussion on how members feel about the 2X (Special Merit Raise) rule. The future of the American Studies Program will also be discussed, in particular a possible merger with the Ethnic Studies Department. Erika Doss, Director of the American Studies Program, will attend the next ASC meeting to explain the background of this proposal.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), chair of the Planning Committee, reported on a call by his committee for a deferred maintenance requests. He also discussed concerns about relations with ITS. A meeting with two heads of ITS has been planned to discuss issues such as faculty computer purchase programs, support for Apple Computers and ASC input into ITS policy. The Planning Committee has also discussed the Library Blue Ribbon Panel report, but as yet no decision has been made as yet on how to proceed on this issue. Terry mentioned that he would welcome any ideas to be emailed to him.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), chair of the Committee on Academic Community and Diversity, reported that on the recent activities of that Committee. Last year the ASC voted to give a new, expanded charge to the Committee, which was reflected in its new name, including âAcademic Communityâ. The number of ASC members on the Committee was also expanded from one to four. It was intended that the Committee would develop ideas to address the issues raised in last yearâs Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community. However, some members of the Committee are displeased with the change in the Committeeâs mission, believing that the change will dilute attention paid to issues of Diversity.
The Chair asked whether the members of the ASC would like to reaffirm the new charge to the Committee, or whether they would prefer that the Committee return to its previous mission. Carl Koval (CHEM) mentioned that he would hate to see the report of the Ad-Hoc committee put on a shelf.
Rolf Norgaard (PWR), who was also a member of the Ad-Hoc committee, said that the issues raised in last yearâs report are important; moreover, many of the issues are directly connected to Diversity. He recommended that A&S should implement what is doable by the College, rather than focusing on major issues that have to be addressed at the campus or system level.
The Chair asked Prof. Acevedo-Munoz to report the sense of the ASC discussion to his Committee and to discuss what actions might be taken.
The Chair reported that the Arts & Sciences Student Government (ASSG) had asked Dean Gleeson if they could be made ex-officio members of the ASC. This would involve a change in the bylaws. Instead, the following motion was introduced, which would set up a standing invitation to the ASSG executives to attend all ASC meetings as non-voting guests of the council.
Motion regarding Invitation to ASSG Executives
WHEREAS the Arts and Sciences Council recognizes that communication between students and faculty is of the utmost importance; and
WHEREAS the Council values the opinions and unique viewpoints of students in the College; and
WHEREAS the Council wants to further student awareness of issues affecting both faculty and students in the College; therefore let it be
MOVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council invites the Executives of the Arts and Sciences Student Government to attend all ASC meetings as non-voting guests of the Council.
It was moved and seconded that this motion be adopted. The vote on this motion was 21-0 in favor.
Once more, the Honor Code was discussed, in particular Section I, Reporting Violations, 2. Faculty. Student John-John Cord, representing the Honor Code proponents, pointed out that the new version is clearer regarding the two classes of sanctions. Academic sanctions, defined as assignment and course grades, remain under the sole control of the faculty and the Dean of the College. Non-academic sanctions, ranging from ethics courses and community service to suspension and expulsion, will be under the control of the Honor Council and its Hearing Panels.
Carl Koval (CHEM) remarked that the principles and purpose of the code reads better now and the effort put into its revision is appreciated.
John-John Cord noted that there will still be a College Academic Ethics Committee under the Code.
For the adoption of the Honor Code by the faculty, the members voted on the following motion:
Motion regarding the Proposed Honor Code
WHEREAS the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences is responsible under the Laws of the Regents for maintaining high standards for academic ethics in the College; and
WHEREAS the Arts and Sciences Council strongly supports the efforts of the student Honor Council to develop a student-administered Honor Code to educate and enforce academic ethics in the College; therefore let it be
MOVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council refers the draft Honor Code Constitution and Honor Code Bylaws dated 6 November 2001 to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences for adoption as the official policy of the College; and let it also be
MOVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council endorses the draft Honor Code and recommends its adoption by the Faculty.
Twenty members voted in favor of the motion, and one member was opposed, so the motion was adopted.
The Chair talked about the Faculty Recruitment and Retention Task Force Report saying that the Provost is asking for some feedback from faculty which of the 24 recommendations should have priority. All members concluded that Recommendation #4, regarding the size of the faculty merit raise pool, should have the highest priority.
After some friendly amendments making the motion more specific were accepted by the Chair, the members voted on the following motion:
Resolution regarding Priority for Faculty Merit Raise Pool
WHEREAS the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences earn salaries that are significantly below those prevailing at our peer institutions; and
WHEREAS the Arts and Sciences Council recognizes that the financial resources available to the Boulder campus and to the College are limited; and
WHEREAS the Council further recognizes that there are many competing demands on these resources, including startup and matching funds, the libraries, graduate part-time instructor salaries, and information technology upgrades; as well as faculty salaries; and
WHEREAS the Council believes that attracting and retaining a high-quality, dedicated faculty is fundamental to the success of the College in both scholarly work and teaching; and
WHEREAS this cannot be done without competitive market-level salaries and without appropriately rewarding meritorious job performance; therefore let it be
RESOLVED, that the Arts and Sciences Council believes that realizing competitive faculty salaries by fully funding merit-based raises in accordance with Recommendation #4 of the Faculty Recruitment and Retention Task Force Report (a merit raise pool of approximately inflation plus 2.5%) should be the highest priority of the College, Campus, and University administration. We further affirm that merit raises should be awarded on the basis of the Regentsâ Compensation principles, and that a continuing effort must be made to achieve a fair balance between ordinary and extraordinary merit. In particular, we believe that every faculty member whose performance meets normal expectations should receive an annual raise at least equal to the increase in the cost of living.
All 21 members voted in favor of this motion. The Chair promised to send the Resolution to Dean Gleeson and Provost DiStefano so that they would be aware of faculty opinions regarding this matter.
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned; the vote was unanimous in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
October 11, 2001
Minutes: A&S Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Joann Belknap (WMST), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Chris Braider (FRIT), Robert Craig (COMM), Robert Eaton (EPOB), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Toby Hankin (THDN), Dan Jurafsky (LING), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Irina Sokolik (PAOS)
Members absent: Ronald Bernier (FA), Gary Gail (GEOG), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Christian Kopff (HONR), Carl Koval (CHEM), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of Sep 20, 2001.
The motion was approved unanimously.
Regarding the Search for the new Dean of Arts & Sciences, the Chair reported that Provost DiStefano agreed to the requests made by the ASC. The Chair will represent the ASC and the ASC will be able to meet with the finalists in the spring. Rodney Taylor, Interim Dean of the Graduate School, is the chair of the search committee.
The Chair further reported that he attended a BFA Executive Committee meeting at which Tim Foster, Chair of the CCHE, discussed the core curriculum and the legislation that was passed for greater conformity in general education requirements between the various state institutions of higher education. It is hoped that the state requirements can be met without having to overhaul the Arts and Sciences core extensively.
The Chair also had a discussion with Todd Gleeson and Bill Kaempfer concerning faculty raises, unit merit and special merit. A number of BFA members are opposed to the Arts and Sciences 2X rule, claiming that it leads to salary instability.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), chair of the Planning Committee, reported on the activities of the BCPC. Several capital construction projects on campus will be delayed due to the stateâs budgetary problems. The buildings affected include the Business School, the Law School, and the ATLAS building. The Williams Village Housing project for 900 students is on schedule, as is the construction of skyboxes at Folsom Field.
Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), chair of the Curriculum Committee, reported that the committee has met once this semester and there is no new business to report. A draft has been approved to set the guidelines for a procedure for those departments that want to limit the number of majors. Some departments have asked to institute pre-major requirements before students are admitted to a specific major. This procedure is unprecedented since the number of majors has never been limited before.
Robert Craig (COMM) mentioned that his department was one of those requesting this change in College rules. Communication has seen an increase of majors from 450 to 900 but has only 10 tenure-track faculty.
Rolf Norgaard (PWR) indicated that this procedure may have a ripple effect and could impact the four-year guaranteed graduation. Changing requirements to reduce majors may affect other departments that students would choose instead of limited majors, such as Spanish, Fine Arts, and Film Studies. This subject needs further discussion; and if adopted, pre-major requirements should be implemented on a trial basis. He noted that this is really a system problem, not a department problem.
Diane Sieber (SPAN) questioned whether a GPA requirement could be established in order to limit the number of majors. Right now this is allowed only for specific tracks within some majors, not for whole departments.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM) commented that his department has two tracks with 500 majors and just nine tenure track faculty. In addition, they suffer from a lack of space, which creates further problems. In response to this comment, Rolf Norgaard mentioned that students can manipulate the system; for example, they may declare double majors, which can lead to other problems.
The Chair asked the members to examine at the newest version of the proposed Honor Code. Recently, the students had approached Interim Dean Todd Gleeson, asking him to endorse the Honor Code. Considering that the final vote was supposed to go to the faculty, Dean Gleeson is now asking to ASC for input concerning the endorsement. The main issue is whether the Honor Code as proposed interferes with the prerogative of the faculty to assign grades.
The Chair made reference to the Honor Constitution, Section I. Reporting of Violations, 2. Faculty. He said that items a.) thru i.) are not clear, in particular g.) which reads: âFaculty have the option of submitting the alleged violation to the Honor Code for determination of violation or no violation upon which they may base their academic sanction.â
Discussion about this issue followed. It was generally agreed that the language of the most recent Honor Code Constitution was unclear to the ASC members. The Chair will communicate the specific points of concern to Ron Stump and the students on the Honor Council in the hope that they will revise the documents.
The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of concerns about the impact of the state budget shortfall on faculty salaries. It was suggested that a resolution be written in which the ASC could emphasize its belief that merit raises should have a high priority in the College budget.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
September 20, 2001
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Joann Belknap (WMST), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Robert Craig (COMM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Robert Eaton (EPOB), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Todd Gleeson (Dean, A&S), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Christian Kopff (HONR), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Uriel Nauenberg (Chair, BFA), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Irena Sokolik (PAOS)
Presenting the Honor Code proposal: Ronald Stump, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Christian Gardner-Wood, Judicial Affairs Liaison and Director of Adjudication-Honor Code, and Eric Lentell, Student Liaison to Faculty
Members absent: Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Christopher Braider (FRIT), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Paul Gordon (CLHM), Toby Hankin (THDN), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Diane Sieber (SPAN), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Sue Zemka (ENG)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:30 PM.
It was moved and seconded that the draft minutes for the 30 August ASC meeting be approved; this motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair reported that he had communicated with Provost DiStefano regarding the requests the ASC had regarding the search for the new Dean of Arts and Sciences. The Provost has agreed with the requests for A&S faculty representation and for ASC meetings with finalists; he also indicated that there would be ASC representation on the Search Committee.
The ASC members welcomed the newly appointed Interim Dean of Arts and Sciences, Todd Gleeson, with applause.
Terry Kleeman (RLST), chair of the Planning Committee, mentioned that the Boulder Campus Planning Committee has approved the Grandview Research Building as well the luxury Sky Boxes to be built above the east stands of Folsom Stadium. The Boulder Campus Planning Committee meets regularly on the second Thursday of each month. He will convey major issues to the ASC. A new charge consists of dealing with technology, such as the faculty computer purchase program.
The Chair introduced a Draft Resolution in support of Chancellor Byynyâs Quality for Colorado initiative. The resolution had been approved by the ASC Executive Committee, which was referring it to the full ASC. After a short discussion, the resolution was adopted unanimously.
The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a lengthy discussion of the proposed Honor Code. Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Ron Stump and student proponents Eric Lentell and Christian Gardner-Wood were present for the discussion. The students reminded the ASC of the purpose and general concept of the Honor Code proposal, and explained that a major component of the Honor Code proposal involved putting much more emphasis on efforts to educate incoming students about issues related to academic ethics, including plagiarism and cheating.
Carl Koval (CHEM) told the ASC that he had recently met with the proponents to discuss his concerns regarding the Honor Code. He mentioned that the draft of the Honor Code Bylaws is sometimes unclear and appears to contradict itself in places. He added that there has been confusion regarding whether faculty would retain complete control over the assignment of grades. He also advised the ASC that the process of considering the Honor Code should be cooperative, rather than adversarial.
Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM) remarked that the Honor Code Bylaws are intimidating. He suggested that the documents be simplified so that students would be more likely to read and understand them. Gardner-Wood replied that there is a brochure that summarizes the Honor Code for this purpose. The longer and more legalistic documents are intended to set down exact policies and rules, which accounts for their complexity.
John Martin (FARR) noted that different policies are applied in the various colleges on campus. Also, he reminded the ASC that in a dispute over academic ethics there are two people whose honor is at stake, the faculty member as well as the accused student. Christian Gardner-Wood replied that the process for adjudicating Honor Code disputes is not meant to be adversarial, or to accuse the faculty member in any way. The process should focus on fact-finding.
Rolf Norgaard (PWR) said that he is excited by the educational opportunities provided by the Honor Code proposal. He added that some faculty involvement in the process is important to make the most of these opportunities. Cark Koval responded that a key aspect of the proposal is student ownership of the process: for this reason it is important that the hearing panels consist entirely of students.
Uriel Nauenberg, Chair of the BFA, remarked that students were in favor of an honor code system when he taught at Princeton University. Other universities, including the University of Virginia, Cal Tech, and Georgia Tech have had good experiences with student-run honor codes.
Lewis Harvey (PSYC) asked the student proponents to review the judicial process followed under the proposed code. Christian Gardner-Wood responded, explaining the steps to be followed after an accusation, including (when disputed) the formation of a hearing panel, and the possible subsequent appeal to the Honor Council.
Luc Bovens (PHIL) said he had concerns about privacy issues. Other concerns he has include whether students would tend to be loyal to other students and therefore to exonerate cheaters; whether students on the hearing panel would feel a duty to do justice; and whether hearing panel members might be subject to threats. Eric Lentell responded that students on the panels would be volunteers with a commitment to serving the principles of the Honor Code. He also pointed out that someone who violates the Honor Code would already have shown a lack of loyalty. With regard to privacy issues, Christian Gardner-Wood reminded the ASC that students already hear sensitive disciplinary cases in the residence halls. Threats have not been a problem there, but if any threats are made, they will be dealt with harshly.
Terry Kleeman (RLST) asked about academic sanctions as opposed to non-academic sanctions. Would the Honor Code judicial bodies have authority to demand that a grade be changed? The students responded that an assignment of a course grade would still be exclusively up to the faculty member. Carl Koval noted that this point is unclear in the documents.
A short discussion followed regarding whether the Dean has the authority to modify grades. The Interim Dean didnât know offhand. The Chair pointed out that the Dean could approve âretroactive dropsâ from a class a student has failed. Dean Gleeson remarked that he would not be comfortable changing a grade based on a decision from the Honor Code hearing panel without hearing directly from the faculty member involved.
Additional discussion concerned whether Honor Code decisions might be factors in faculty personnel decisions. It was agreed that this was possible, for example if proceedings were mentioned in student letters for promotion or tenure cases. The students were asked why the Honor Code does not require students to report violations; they responded that âmodifiedâ honor codes lacking this requirement are generally more acceptable to students, who donât want to be tattletales. The Chair noted that he hoped that students would be encouraged to endorse the principles of the Honor Code, so that it would not be considered tattling to report a violation.
In response to a question by Mark Pittinger (HIST), the proponents noted that the Honor Council or hearing panels could only recommend sanctions of suspension or expulsion; the final decision on these most severe sanctions is up to the Provost.
The Chair pointed out that the honor code would go into effect once the A&S faculty has voted to approve it. Approval from the Regents might be required, but they seem supportive of the idea so far.
Carl Koval questioned if the ASC members can vote instead of the full faculty, who might not be well-informed. Finally, there was a discussion of whether another student vote would be needed. The proponents thought that the student vote taken some time ago to endorse the concept of an Honor Code was all that is needed. The student Honor Code proponents thanked the ASC members for their input, and requested that comments on the draft documents be sent to Vice Chancellor Stumpâs office at UCB 31.
With the conclusion of this discussion, it was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned; this motion received unanimous support, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC
August 30, 2001
Minutes: Arts & Sciences Council Meeting
Members present: Ernesto Acevedo-Munoz (FILM), Kathryn Arehart (SLHS), Tony Barker (PHYS) Chair, Jerry Bebernes (APPM), Ronald Bernier (FA), Luc Bovens (PHIL), Christopher Braider (FRIT), Robert Craig (COM), Jeff Dodge (S&G Record), Robert Eaton (EPOB), John Gibert (CLAS), Martha Gimenez (SOCY), Toby Hankin (THDN), Lewis Harvey (PSYC), Christian Kopff (HONR), Carl Koval (CHEM), Rodger Kram (KAPH), John Martin (FARR), Dennis McGilvray (ANTH), Peter Molnar (GEOL), Rolf Norgaard (PWR), Mark Pittenger (HIST), Stephen Snyder (EALC), Peter Spear (Dean, A&S)
Members absent: Paul Gordon (CLHM), Sue Zemka (ENG), Gary Gaile (GEOG), Artemi Romanov (GSLL), Daniel Jurafsky (LING), Robert Boswell (MCDB), Irina Sokolik (PAOS), Terry Kleeman (RLST), Diane Sieber (SPAN)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the draft minutes of the last three ASC meetings of Spring 2001. The motion was approved unanimously.
The Chair, citing the requirement of the ASC Bylaws for an election of six members to the Committee on Committees, asked for nominees to that Committee. Six nominations were made, as follows:
It was moved and seconded that the slate of six nominees be elected to the committee; this motion was adopted unanimously. The Chair reported that the outgoing Committee on Committees had assigned all ASC members to standing committees, and that meetings of the various standing committees were being organized for the purpose of selecting Chairs, who would also form the ASC Executive Committee. Susan Phillips in the Deanâs office will organize meetings of the Personnel and Diversity Committees; Robin Cantor in the Deanâs office will organize meetings of the Curriculum Committee. Terry Kleeman, Gail Ramsberger, and Sue Zemka have agreed to organize meetings of the Planning, Budget, and Grievance Committees, respectively.
The Chair next introduced the outgoing Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Peter Spear. He remarked that Dean Spearâs support for shared governance, and for the ASC in particular, had been steadfast, and had been critically important to the success of the ASC. The Chair asked for a round of applause for Dean Spear, which was enthusiastically given by all the members present.
Dean Spear thanked the ASC for their support. He noted that this is his last ASC meeting; he has been involved with the ASC since its inception five years ago. The Dean remarked on his commitment to the principles of shared governance, and expressed hope that the ASC would continue to grow and to become an integral part of the College in the years to come.
The Chair mentioned that the previous chair of the BFA, Frank Beer, had attended one of the ASC meetings last year and had pointed out that CU has a weak system of faculty governance, having mainly a consultative function with little actual authority. The influence of the ASC on the College is therefore almost entirely dependent on the Dean and the College administration participating in ASC meetings and involving the ASC in decision-making whenever possible.
The Chair reminded the ASC of last yearâs Report on Retention, Career Management, and Academic Community and of the Report of the Budget Subcommittee on Faculty Raises. He pointed out the issues of concern and noted that it is up to the current ASC to follow up on the recommendations in the two Reports. The Chair then briefly reviewed some of the other issues the ASC and its standing committees may wish to consider during the coming year. The Planning Committee should review the new Blue Ribbon Panel Report on the Libraries; and it would also be useful for to consider how to improve communication and coordination between the College and ITS. The Curriculum Committee should formulate a faculty response to the new legislative and CCHE mandates for a common Core Curriculum. The Budget Committee should continue to monitor the status of faculty salaries relative to our peer institutions, and it should further consider the difficult question of how to divide the merit salary pool between âordinaryâ and âspecialâ merit, as well as the increasing financial demands for retention cases. The Personnel Committee will review proposed reappointment, tenure, and promotion cases as always, but the Chair suggested that it may also be useful for it to prepare an ASC Report on the de facto standards the Committee uses to evaluating dossiers, as an aid to department chairs and candidates, and to reduce the number of disagreements between the departments and the Personnel Committee.
The Chair also mentioned that the ASC may wish to consider a Resolution supporting Chancellor Byynyâs new Quality for Colorado initiative, which has the potential to substantially increase the resources the College can draw upon, while at the same time increasing the quality of the educational experience for our students.
The Chair then opened the floor for discussion:
Carl Koval, CHEM, asked the question: Do we have enough courses for students to take? Maybe not. He has heard that registration is a nightmare. He noted that it is difficult for students to satisfy the core curriculum requirements because many courses are full. Dean Spear responded to Prof. Koval, noting that the University has a four-year graduation guarantee, and that no students have yet collected on this guarantee. However, he agreed that the lack of availability of seats in some courses is a serious concern. He added that this is a budgetary problem and that is poses a major challenge for the College. Provost Phil DiStephano, and VC Rick Porreca met with the Dean recently, and this was a topic of discussion. Students frequently must take classes that are not their first, second or third choices.
Ernesto Acevedo, FILM, mentioned that every year we have had a record-breaking number of students attending the university. The Dean agreed with this, and noted that funding for the campus is tied to enrollment, creating pressure to increase the class size.
Ron Bernier, FA, remarked that it seems that computers determine whether students get into a class or not; faculty have no role in these decisions. Dean Spear noted that faculty can sometimes override the computers, but that the computers are set up to determine which students have the most urgent need to get into a class. This can result in students moving down on the waitlist when higher-priority students are moved ahead of them. The Dean remarked again that the reason we cannot offer more sections is budgetary; classroom space is available, especially at off-peak times.
Robert Eaton, EPOB, reminded the ASC that tuition income generated by Arts and Sciences is used to subsidize other colleges. If it were retained in Arts and Sciences, this money could be used to provide more class sections. The Chair noted that Vice Chancellor Porreca and Dean Spear had told the ASC last year that this funding model is intentional, and is a matter of campus policy. Dean Spear added that CU does not use the âeach tub on its own bottomâ model, and that different colleges have intrinsically different funding needs. As an analogy within the College, he said that the departments of Physics and Theater and Dance would probably both go bankrupt if each A&S department had to support itself.
The Chair next introduced the topic of the Search for a new Dean of Arts and Sciences to replace Dean Spear. The Provost has indicated that there will be a national search, and that he intends to form a search committee during September. The Chair noted that he thinks that it is very important for the credibility of the ASC that it has an official role in the search. He asked for membersâ input regarding how the ASC should communicate with the Provost.
Carl Koval (CHEM) said that he was not so concerned about representation on the committee; but that it would be important for the ASC to have an opportunity to meet with candidates. He suggested that the ASC could provide the Provost with a list of distinguished A&S faculty who could represent the faculty on the search committee. Chris Braider (FRIT) agreed that it will be important for the ASC to speak with finalists for the position. Dean Spear recommended that the Chair of ASC talk to Phil DiStefano, and that they work together to come up with a committee. He noted that the committee would likely consist of 10 to 20 people, including administrators and students, as well as faculty. He also mentioned that the A&S Development Office has asked to be represented.
Christian Kopff, HONR, noted that he strongly prefers internal candidates as opposed to external candidates. He added that even someone on the faculty who does not want the post could be the best choice.
The Chair gave his sense of the discussion: namely, that the ASC Chair should make three requests of the Provost regarding the search process: first, that there be substantial representation of A&S faculty on the search committee; second, that there be some official representative of the ASC on the committee; and finally, that the ASC be provided with an opportunity to meet with any finalists for the position. There was general agreement with this plan.
The final topic of discussion was the proposed Honor Code. The Chair said that Ron Stump, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, has been working with the student-proponents over the summer, and that there is a new version of the Honor Code documents for the ASC to review. The documents were distributed to the members present, and the Chair said that a discussion of concerns about the Honor Code proposal would be the main item on the agenda for the next ASC meeting on 20 September.
It was moved and seconded that the meeting be adjourned; this motion passed without dissent, and the meeting was concluded at 4:55 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Tony Barker, Chair, ASC