Minutes for the Meeting of the Faculty Assembly

February 6, 2003 - Revised

 

  1. L. Brown called the meeting to order at 3:09pm and turned the floor over to VP of Academic Affairs, L. Rodrigues-Fisher.

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated she would give history of the current proposal.  Prior to the current proposal, the Dept. of Education submitted a proposal to move to a college status while D. Moeller was serving as the VP of Academic Affairs.  When L. Rodrigues-Fisher joined the SAU faculty, she set the proposal aside.  The lack of success with the search to hire a new dean for the College of Human Services then lead L. Rodrigues-Fisher to re-examine the initial proposal submitted by the Dept. of Education and consider possible changes in the University structure.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher then asked R. Ristow to explain the Dept. of Education’s steps in this process.

 

  1. R. Ristow explained that 2 years ago D. Bozik came to him and asked him to study the idea of the Dept. of Education moving to a college status.  A team made up of 3 dept. members and 2 members outside of the dept. was formed to study the idea and make a proposal to the dept. to be voted upon.  In the process, R. Serianz and J. Roller interviewed chairs and officers of SAU, creating a list of the pros and cons associate with a possible move.  A rationale and draft budget were then added to this list and voted on by the Dept. of Education.  The proposal was supported.  The proposal was then forwarded on to D. Bozik and then D. Moeller.  D. Moeller then passed the proposal on to the new VP of Academic Affairs, L. Rodrigues-Fisher. 

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher further explained that she and the officers noticed that the College of Human Services was a “mis-match” of departments and thus made it difficult to find a new dean.  She had originally proposed a school system based of pervious experience, but was given feedback that did not support the idea of schools.  Feedback supported a college system instead.

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher then explained the current proposal concerning the 54th Street ACCEL building.  The proposal calls for a change in name, but not in the organization of the building.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher suggests calling it the College of Professional Studies based on investigations into Drake University and Washington. 

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher noted that cost is a major concern with the proposed changes.  She reminded the assembly, however, that money to replace D. Bozik as Dean will be available to pay 2 interim deans and then some.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that she wanted it made clear that the closing of the Athletic Training program was not done to help fund the proposed changes.  It was a separate issue.  One reason behind the academic structure proposal was the failure to find more than one acceptable dean candidate and the proposal made by the Education Dept. to move to a college status over one year ago.  Another reason was to allow for better communication, program development, grant writing, and collaborative programming to occur. 

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher reinforced the idea that this was not a done deal and she wants feedback.  Her management styles are different from previous VP of Academic Affairs, and she is open to feedback.  The purpose of today’s meeting was to hear what people are saying, both the advantages and disadvantages, and then take the information back to the Officers Board.

 

  1. L. Brown opened the discussion up to the assembly for questions. 

 

  1. B. Wiese asked that on behalf of new faculty that L. Brown state the name and department of individuals before speaking.  L. Brown agreed with the idea, but suggested each individual be responsible for stating his or her own name and dept.

 

  1. M. Hustedde asked L. Rodrigues-Fisher for clarification on the main reason for the proposal.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher sated that the restructuring would produce a mixture better suited for faculty collaboration, help in the accreditation process, and give the 54th street building a name. 

 

  1. R. Legg asked what of the present structure does not allow for such collaboration.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher responded by stating that the fact that such collaboration hasn’t happened already serves as evidence that it does not allow collaboration.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher then asked why and suggested that the structure is too cumbersome to do so making it difficult for current Deans to support the diversity of departments within their colleges. 

 

  1. Fr. Grant suggested hearing from the departments most affected by the proposed changes.  K. Grenier K. Green stated that Computer and Information Sciences was in favor of the move and has often felt displaced under the College of Human Services.  M. Orfitelli stated that HPESS needs more time to talk, but would most likely prefer a move to the College of Health Sciences.

 

  1. R. Ristow noted that all issues currently discussed were excellent.  He has a list of the pros and cons that he can handout.  The advantages for the Dept. of Education off set many of the disadvantages.  Concerns over resources and governance as a result of the proposal put forth by L. Rodrigues-Fisher are however valid and need further consideration.  R. Ristow explained that a College of Education holds a different status than Departments and this impacts both federal and state dollars.  The College status provides the current department with structure that allows for a dean at the table.  It allows the individual departments to move forward more efficiently with growth and new ideas.  The current Dept. of education is in favor of these changes.  R. Ristow reminds the assembly that he was asked to investigate this topic and his dept. did so. 

 

  1. Fr. McDaniel asked for clarification regarding salary costs.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that new money is only needed next year if a dean from outside of SAU is hired.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that internal appointments would not be replaced.  If new faculty is needed, then requests will have to go through planning and a need will have to be shown as it is currently done. 

 

  1. L. Marx again raised the issue of additional salary funding.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher reminded him of her push for a reconciliation of budgets.  She stated that the University is in a pinch financially, but not as bad as some think.  Had it not been for the reconciliation, the university would not be aware of the pinch and continue to function with 2 million dollars to fund plans submitted in planning Had it not been for the reconciliation, then the University would not be aware of the pinch and continue to function on a 2 million dollar deficit. 

 

  1. D. Bozik asked if there was salary set-aside for the new dean and if so, where?  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that such money has been set aside and is not in the $500,000 defects described by the President’s budget.  R. Wastyn asked if this was part of new money allocation.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher explained that no matter what decision is made about the proposal, new funds must be available to hire a new dean.  No matter what, a new dean has to be hired.  R. Wastyn stated that D. Bozik’s salary would be returned to his dept.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher agreed and stated that new money for the Dean’s position was written in the new budget. 

 

  1. T. Burns commented on the difficulties of scheduling committee meetings and added that adding more members to such committees could further complicate this process.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher reminded assembly that this was a proposal of governance.  She is open to feedback concerning committee membership.  T. Burns requested that the VP of Academic Affairs could require that meeting be held on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the blocked out time on the schedule. 

 

  1. K. Farrell recognized that the movement of the Dept. of Education is viewed as a positive change for that particular department, but asked if it was positive for the University.  He then asked others to speak up.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher commented those who have shared have been in support of the move and there are others who have shared who have not been in support of the move that feedback to her from those who have shared have been in support of the move.

 

  1. R. Anderson stated that growth for the university is fine, but it currently closed two programs.  She then asked if the proposed changes would take away from struggling departments.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that she was not trying to cut budgets.  She has instructed deans not to take away any more money.  R. Anderson asked to consider looking beyond not taking away, but supporting or adding to struggling departments.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher explained that an outcome of the budget reconciliation should add money back to programs.  She reminded the assembly that the current budget is attempting to balance things out, not hurt departments. 

 

  1. A. Swift stated that he thought it was strange to have a college with only 13 full-time faculty.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher asked A. Swift how many he thought it would take.  A. Swift stated that he did not know. 

 

  1. T. Schlabach asked how many students the Dept. of Education currently has.  R. Ristow stated 450.  K. Kelley asked for clarification of who an education student is.  He explained that he advised secondary education biology majors.  He asked R. Ristow if he was counting these students in the 450.  R. Ristow explained that every secondary education major is advised in their area of study, but is also advised by an education dept. member for all education classes.  In essence these students are dual advised.  D. Marple explained Bobbie Muenster, Cathy Daters, Suzanne Seeber, and himself all advise secondary ed students.  They each work with some of the majors such as history ed, business ed, etc.  that he tracks all of the secondary education majors, the classes they need, and the requirements for the program.  R. Ristow states that all 450 students are not the department’s alone.  He does explain that there are, however, over 250 elementary education majors advised solely by 6 elementary education faculty.  A. Swift asked how a dean could help facilitate advising and dealing with students.  R. Ristow stated that having a dean gives them someone on the Dean’s Council to represent the students and secure resources.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher reminds assembly that the college represents more than 13 faculty.  It represents 450 students, and we should be looking at need, not only numbers.  M. Orfitelli asked for consideration of the housing of the student success center in the College of Education.  R. Ristow stated that the current department had not discussed this issue, but it is a possibility. 

 

  1. R. Legg asked again for clarity on the motivation behind the university to accept this proposal.  He stated that the motivation from the Dept. of Education was clear, but what about the University.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that the proposed changes put people together who need to be together.  Programs that are currently mis-matched need to be put in a proper place.  This will allow people to function in their roles more effectively.  It’s simply too difficult for current deans to move forward with such a mis-match of departments under them. 

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher reminds the assembly that if there is no good reason to make the proposed changes, then they will not be made.  The current proposal is only a draft. 

 

  1. A. Ambrose states that no one has seen anything in writing.  She asked, what are the benefits and costs that have been proposed?  She then stated R. Ristow talked about a proposal but no one has seen it.  A. Ambrose stated that it would be helpful to see it, at least to her.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher explained that she and R. Ristow worked closely on constructing a budget and she will try to get out a copy of that as soon as possible. 

 

  1. M. Legg stated that R. Ristow spoke with the chairs in the College of Arts and Sciences.  In addition to the benefits noted by the Dept. of Education, M. Legg stated that she would like a similar response from the Health Sciences.

 

  1. A. Swift stated that he’d heard the proposed changes could go into effect this fall.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated yes, either that or they must reopen the dean search.

 

  1. A. Swift asked L. Rodrigues-Fisher if her intent was to come back to the assembly again.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher was uncertain.  She had not thought about that possibility.  R. Jerz asked if the proposal was an all or nothing deal.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher stated that she had not considered that possibility yet.  

 

  1.  A. Swift comments that he thinks L. Rodrigues-Fisher should come back to the assembly to talk again.  K. Kelley wants it made sure that the Board knows what the assembly has said.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher assured him they would. 

 

  1. K. Colwell states that representation on faculty committees has traditionally been done in proportion to full-time faculty.  He suggests that it remain the same.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher reminds K. Colwell that there are many possibilities to how we can best fill faculty committees. 

 

  1. D. Holden stated that she found it a good idea to talk more about the proposed moves.  From her observations, those who are apt to be moved don’t seem to have a problem with the proposed changes.  In addition to making their reasoning for the proposed changes clear, she then asked those who were against the move to clearly share their reasoning as well. 

 

  1. R. Wastyn asked how the academic core relates to the proposed academic structure in light of the President’s recent comments in The Buzz.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher told R. Wastyn that he’d have to ask the President that question. 

 

  1. L. Rodrigues-Fisher appointed an advisory council consisting of A. Swift, L. Marx, R Jerz and M. Forrett. 

 

  1. P. Wenthe reminded the assembly that Health Sciences did not propose the current changes, thus they do not have a proposal to share with the assembly. 

 

  1. 4:09 L. Brown calls for more questions or comments.

 

  1. Fr. McDaniel states that he wants to see the costs and benefits that the departments are talking about.  B. Peters asked that a proposal be submitted that would show the amount of money that would be brought into the college as a result of restructuring.  L. Rodrigues-Fisher states that she can give numbers but they’re going to be “funny” considering the potential for grant money.  T. Schlabach suggested someone enlisting help from the Managerial Studies Program.

 

  1. Meeting adjourned at 4:13pm.  L. Brown reminded faculty of meeting next week at 3:05pm in Galvin 161. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

T. Schuster