UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

Kingston, Rhode Island

FACULTY SENATE

MINUTES


Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting #10 – October 26, 2004


1.    The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 in the third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels presiding.  All members were present except Senator Martin.


2.    Announcements/Correspondence:

a.    The Executive Committee discussed Vice President Weygand’s request to postpone until November 18 the State of the Budget Address, and to include bond issue ramifications and the capital improvement plan in the report.  

After discussion, it was agreed to postpone the Budget Address until the November meeting as requested.  It was further agreed to suggest to Vice President Weygand that he report to the Senate in two parts: 1) the State of the Budget Address would be under the President’s Report as has been past practice and 2) the Capital Improvement Plan, including the ramifications of the bond referendum, would be listed as item 6, Special Report.

Ms. Grubman was directed to ask the Vice President to provide a hardcopy of any additional information so that it could be posted on the Senate web site in advance of the November meeting.

b.    The Executive Committee discussed e-mail correspondence between Vice Provost McCray and Associate Dean Ferszt on a change in Dean Ferszt’s responsibilities with regard to admissions to the Providence Campus.

Following discussion, Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels was asked to write to Vice Provost McCray requesting clarification of his memorandums.  She was also asked to inform the Vice Provost that the Faculty Senate was the appropriate body to change the membership of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Providence Campus, but he was welcome to propose nominees.  

c.    Correspondence between Dean Cohen and University Ombud Rose and between Dean Cohen and the Student Rights and Responsibilities Committee about academic integrity was distributed.  The Executive Committee was asked to review the package of materials in preparation for a discussion at the next meeting.

d.    The Agenda for the Board of Governors Academic and Student Affairs Committee’s meeting on Friday, October 29, 2004 was circulated.  It was noted that one item of particular interest to the Executive Committee was “Approval of Institutional Charge to revise Mission Statements.” Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels said that she planned to attend the meeting and would report to the Executive Committee at their next meeting.

e. The official schedule of Board of Governors meetings for 2005 was circulated for information.

f.    Ms. Grubman made the following announcements:

g.    The Executive Committee discussed additional information on the NSF change in cost-sharing, which had been forwarded by Vice Chairperson Rosen.  Vice Chairperson Rosen said that the policy did not seem to have much of an effect on URI and agreed to keep the Executive Committee informed of the policy as further clarifications are made.

3.    The Executive Committee reviewed the Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting #2, October 28, 2004 in preparation for the upcoming meeting.

4.    The Executive Committee met with Provost Swan from 1:30 to 2:30 p.m. Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels thanked Provost Swan for sponsoring the reception that followed the September 23 meeting of the Faculty Senate.

The following matters were discussed:

a.    Update on Office of Information Services:  In response to the Executive Committee’s request, Provost Swan reported on the status of the position(s) of Vice Provost for Information Services and Dean of University Libraries.  She said that she had completed her meetings with the Library faculty and staff and with the Office of Information Services department heads and staff.  The Provost discussed her thoughts about interim appointment(s) to the Vice Provost and Dean position(s). The Provost said that she would conduct the upcoming tenure and promotion review in consultation with Vice Provost and Dean Gandel, who would remain in contact after he moves to Syracuse University.

Provost Swan said that it was her understanding that the existing committees under the Vice Provost for Information Services, most notably the Information Resources Council (IRC) and the Web Advisory Committee, would continue to function as they had in the past and no changes should be expected until a new Vice Provost has reviewed the division. She said that she would discuss those committees and the Instructional Space Advisory Group (ISAG) with Vice Provost Gandel and would provide any additional information to the Executive Committee.

b.    The Murphy Factor Analysis Model:  Provost Swan said that she thought the Model had a great deal of potential because of the inclusion of qualitative factors along with cost factors.  She noted that the analysis, like the PCA and accreditation reports, would serve as only one of many tools in making decisions.  She said the value of the model would be whether it would be possible to identify programs for investment and possible consolidation.

Provost Swan said that she hoped the faculty would have more confidence in this model than most had in the PCA.  She said that hopefully, much of the time and energy that had been spent in correcting errors in the PCA and providing counter arguments could be channeled into more productive activity.  She said that if the model was able to produce success stories early on, there might be more willingness to accept the information it provides.

The Provost and the Executive Committee discussed ways to familiarize Senators and other faculty members with the model.  The Executive Committee indicated that they planned to have at least two more informational meetings once a number of items were worked out.  Among these issues would be clarifying the questions, deciding whether departments or programs or both should be evaluated, determining who the evaluators should be as well as how they would be conducted.

c.    Facilitating interdisciplinary efforts: The Executive Committee and Provost Swan discussed the difficulties faced by faculty members when they tried to do interdisciplinary work.  They asked the Provost what might be done to bridge and cross college and department lines.  Provost Swan said that one bar to interdisciplinary efforts had been the reliance on the PCA.  In order for departments to appear successful they concentrated on numbers of students within the department’s courses.  She said that the way research funds have been distributed to colleges has been another impediment to interdisciplinary efforts.  

Provost Swan said that there had been progress in the way Honors Program courses are counted and noted that the administration had approved three new interdisciplinary Partnerships the previous spring.  She indicated that she would continue to encourage deans to support interdisciplinary efforts and might consider developing rewards for departments and colleges that pursue interdisciplinary courses, programs and research projects.

Provost Swan suggested that if a faculty member was finding it difficult to pursue interdisciplinary research, they might ask Vice Provost Trubatch for assistance.  She said that with regard to courses and programs, she and Vice Provost Swift might be able to intervene on the faculty member’s behalf.

Also discussed were the upcoming Bond Issue, Vice Provost McCray’s correspondence about admissions to the Providence Campus, Provost Swan’s efforts to increase participation in Summer Session, her decision to provide support for workshops on Web CT and Halloween Costume choices.

When Provost Swan left the meeting, the Executive Committee continued with their agenda.

5.    The Executive Committee reviewed a list of upcoming meetings and discussed potential items for discussion:

a.    November 9 - Vice Provost Trubatch:  The Executive Committee agreed that among the issues they wanted to raise were the status of the Research Corporation and efforts to promote graduate education and research at URI;

b.    November 10 - Academic Assessment Model:  It was agreed to discuss the model further with Ms. Morrissey at that time and to speak with Mr. Murphy by telephone if clarifications were needed.

c.    November 16 - Vice President Weygand:  The Executive Committee noted that this meeting was scheduled just prior to the Senate meeting at which the Vice President would make presentations on budget and Capital Improvement Projects.  The Executive Committee agreed to spend time at their next meeting discussing topics for their meeting with the Vice President.

d.    November 23 - Professor Ramstad and Mr. McElroy:  Ms. Grubman reported that when Professor Ramstad requested the meeting, she had asked him to provide additional information in advance of the meeting.  She said that she had informed Professor Ramstad that members of the Executive Committee were aware of the recent article from the September-October 2004 issue of Academe. The Executive Committee agreed to discuss the article, “The Faculty’s Role in Reforming College Sports” prior to that meeting.

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

a.    Survey of faculty issues:  The Executive Committee was brought up-to-date on the responses to the surveys. Ms. Grubman noted that no one who returned the survey had identified himself/herself as an administrator. In addition, concerns were raised as to whether all academic departments had received the surveys.

Following discussion, it was agreed that additional surveys would be made available at the Senate meeting. Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels said that as part of her announcements, she would encourage faculty members who hadn’t received the surveys to bring copies back to their departments. She asked ex officio members of the Senate to share the surveys with associate and assistant members of their administration.

b.    Ombud for Administrative issues:  The Executive Committee discussed their concern about the complexities of the University’s bureaucracy. There have been numerous instances when faculty members, staff and students are unable to find someone who could guide them through a given process; instead, they end up being transferred from one office to another without achieving their goals. It was agreed to consider the possibility of asking each administrative unit to appoint someone, e.g. the “Unit Ombud”, who could answer questions pertaining to procedures and problems arising in that unit; if the problem arose outside the Ombud’s unit, it would be up to him/her to find a similar Ombud in a different unit who would be able to help.  

It was agreed to postpone the remaining items of business until the next meeting.


The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

                                    

                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                    

                                    Sheila Black Grubman