UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

Kingston, Rhode Island

FACULTY SENATE

MINUTES

Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting #17

January 20, 2003

1. The meeting was called to order at 11:20 a.m. on Tuesday, January 20, 2003 in the third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson Beckman presiding. All members were present.

2. Announcements/Correspondence:

a. Senator Rosen reported on the Board of Governors Facilities/Finance & Management Committee meeting on January 14, which he had attended on behalf of the Executive Committee. He said that much of the Agenda had pertained to RIC and CCRI but there were some informational items of interest to URI.

He said that the Commissioner reported that the Governor has recommended some rescissions in higher education budgets for FY 04, which the Commissioner had agreed to with the concurrence of the Presidents. These revisions mainly deal with capital funding. URI will defer until FY '05 $734,000 in capital outlays as follows: $534,000 in Asset Protection funding and $200,000 in Planning funds for the Biotechnology Building.

Senator Rosen informed the Executive Committee that commissioner Warner had announced that the Governor had also asked higher education to defer some debt during the FY '05 budget year to future years. He noted that the details were not provided and the Board had not yet agreed.

b. Chairperson Beckman shared with the Executive Committee copies of a memorandum regarding reorganization, which she had recently received from President Carothers. Time was provided for them to review the memo, after which discussion ensued.

After discussion, it was agreed to invite the President to their next meeting, which was already scheduled for January 27, to discuss the memorandum. Ms. Grubman said that she would contact the President's Office that afternoon to see if it would be possible to meet with him the following Tuesday morning.

c. Chairperson Beckman reported that she had the opportunity to talk to the Commissioner that morning about his presentation to the Faculty Senate on January 29. She said that Commissioner Warner said that one issue he especially wanted to address was K-16 outcomes assessment.

Ms. Grubman reported that the Senate had spent some time in the mid 90's discussing outcomes assessment. She agreed to provide the Executive Committee with some background information before the next meeting.

3. The Executive Committee reviewed a draft Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #5, January 29, 2004, and approved it in final form. It was agreed that the additional committee appointments for the spring semester would be added before or at the meeting but would not be included in the printed Agenda.

4. The Executive Committee discussed the following matters of continuing concern:

a. Providence Campus Committee: The Executive Committee agreed to the completed list of potential members of the Committee. Ms. Grubman said that she would try to get the full committee appointed and, hopefully, schedule a preliminary meeting before the end of the month.

b. URI Transportation Center: Senator Boudreaux-Bartels reported that she had spoken to Vice Provost Trubatch about the Council for Research's reconsideration of the proposal to establish the URI Transportation Center on a continuing basis. She said that Vice Provost Trubatch had agreed that the concerned faculty members would have the opportunity to express their concerns directly to the Council. She said that Vice Provost Trubatch had assured her that she would notify interested faculty members about the meeting at which the Council for Research reconsiders the Proposal.

Ms. Grubman said that the schedule of Council for Research meetings is available on the web at http://www.uri.edu/facsen/Commtgs_03-04.html#CfR. The Council meets on Monday afternoons from 3:00-4:30 in Library Conference A. The next meeting is scheduled for February 2.

c. Preparation for JSPC Meeting on January 22: The Executive Committee discussed their statement on simultaneous review of cost-quality measures, which was to be the basis for dialogue at the next JSPC meeting. This statement was drafted by Vice Chairperson Hollinshead based on their discussions on January 13. The draft was modified and approved in final form. Ms. Grubman agreed to send the revised document to the JSPC that afternoon to give everyone the opportunity to read it before the JSPC Meeting. (The statement is attached to the Minutes of this meeting.)

The meeting was adjourned at 1:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Sheila Black Grubman

 

 

Faculty Senate Executive Committee's Comments on Simultaneous Review of Cost-Quality Measures (Revised January 20, 2004)

JSPC Discussion of January 22, 2004: Item #3 Academic Program Quality Review

What is the purpose of the proposed evaluation mechanism?

What do we want to know?

COSTS: which programs/departments are cost efficient? Which are expensive?

QUALITY: teaching, research, citizenship (within the University and outside it)

Overall, the desire is for a maximally COST EFFECTIVE University.

In those areas that display weakness in either cost efficiency or quality, we want to be aware of the situation and

1) Have a plan for REMEDIATION

2) Consider the situation INTENTIONAL (i.e. other values are served, benefits accrue)

Present mechanisms, the Program Cost Analysis (PCA) and the Program Quality Review (PQR) need simplification.

PCA is so dense and complex that all but a few rely on summaries

PQR is so unwieldy that it is years behind

Concurrent timing and equivalence of both categories is essential

Not all data are or should be numerical

Additional comments:

Cost efficiency as measured by the PCA reflects economy. It is only when factors of economy and quality are combined that cost effectiveness can be achieved.

The PCA, is understood by very few, but used often in crucial decision-making. The PCA does not include research money brought in, needs to express cost efficiency in terms of departments, not just programs. PCA also promotes "balkanization" (separate programs running own courses so as to look more efficient e.g. engineering math)

Quality factors at present are often added anecdotally. Some measure of teaching effectiveness is appropriate. Research activities are not fully recorded at present. There are many examples of grants and awards that do not appear in any official record. Citizenship can reflect a department's habit of participation in University governance or activities, or community outreach as well as professional leadership.

A few examples of resources not usually reported in any comprehensive way: