UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
Kingston, Rhode Island
FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES
Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting #11
November 9, 2004 and November 10, 2004
1. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
November 9, 2004 in the third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson
Boudreaux-Bartels presiding. All members were present.
2. The Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting #9, October
19, 2004 were approved.
3. Announcements/Correspondence:
a. Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels reported on the
meeting of the Board of Governors Academic and Student Affairs Committee,
which was held on Friday, October 29, 2004. She said that a key item
listed on the agenda, which charged the three institutions to revise their
mission statements, had been postponed due to a lack of a quorum.
She said that Professors Reynolds and Pakula reported on two committees
looking at common expectations and goals for writing and mathematics, respectively,
for grades 9-13, focusing on the transition year from high school to college.
They reported that the committees were comprised of high school teachers
as well as representatives from the three public institutions of higher education.
There was good agreement among all three of the higher education institutions
regarding mathematics expectations, but that several high schools differed
on what they expected of students. With regard to writing, there was
common agreement about good writing outcomes at the high school level, but
that the Community College differed somewhat from Rhode Island College and
URI about what they expect from students. Both committees were optimistic
about future progress in identifying common goals.
Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels said that the University had presented
data on enrollments at URI and that graduate enrollments had declined over
the past decade. She had forwarded the data to the Graduate Education
and Research Committee. Vice Chairperson Rosen indicated that recently published
data in several forums had noted a decline in the number of international
graduate students applying to US colleges and universities.
It was agreed to discuss this matter with Vice Provost Trubatch when
she arrived.
b. Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels reported that a
faculty member had contacted her directly in response to the Executive Committee’s
survey with a question about processes for decision-making within individual
departments. After discussion, it was agreed to refer the faculty member
to the relevant sections of the University Manual (4.60.10 - 4.60.15)
and to suggest some possible actions to be taken within the processes outlined
in those sections.
4. The Executive Committee discussed the previous Faculty Senate
meeting, which had been held on October 28, 2004. They agreed that some of
the issues that had been identified during New Business were relevant to
their earlier discussion of the need within each administrative unit for
(1) a flowchart or procedures manual describing the process of paperwork
approval and (2) a Unit Ombud to help faculty, staff and students navigate
the various bureaucratic steps, not only for travel, but also for other processes.
They agreed to bring this matter up in some form before the JSPC at their
December 2 meeting.
The Executive Committee discussed requesting clarification of comments
the President had made during the last Faculty Senate meeting on Mr. Murphy’s
Program Assessment Model.
5. The Executive Committee reviewed a draft Agenda
for Faculty Senate Meeting #3, November 18, 2004 and approved it in final
form.
6. The Executive Committee met with Vice Provost Trubatch
from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The following matters
were considered:
a. The status of the Research Corporation proposal:
Vice Provost Trubatch reported that President Carothers had followed up on
the Senate’s action to establish a Research Corporation by approving the
legislation (Senate Bill #03-04--38) and forwarding the proposal to the Board
of Governors for Higher Education. She said that Vice President Weygand
had agreed to take the lead in efforts to obtain the legislative approval
for the establishment of the Research Corporation.
b. Promoting graduate education and research:
Vice Provost Trubatch shared with the Executive Committee an action plan
to improve the Graduate School and URI graduate programs; she mentioned that
some assistance would be provided by the Office of Research. Among
the activities already undertaken to improve recruitment were the following:
an improved graduate school website, the development of a brochure and greater
participation at graduate fairs. Also identified were efforts to train
and monitor Teaching Assistants, develop graduate certificate programs, and
expand training in integrity in research for all graduate students.
She provided the members of the Executive Committee with copies of
a brochure on research, graduate studies and outreach that was illustrated
with photographs of students and faculty engaged in research. The brochure
also included graphs on research awards and graduate enrollments.
c. Decline in the number of graduate students
at URI: The Executive Committee and Vice Provost Trubatch discussed
data that the University had provided to the Board of Governors Academic
and Student Affairs Committee that showed a decline in the number of graduate
students at URI over the past decade. Vice Chairperson Rosen noted that a
recent article had identified a decline in international graduate students
throughout the US. Vice Provost Trubatch also provided the Executive Committee
with information on the number of students who are registered for URI Masters
and Doctoral Programs, broken down by degree and program. She explained
that the Graduate School was working with departments to develop graduate
certificate programs that they hoped would attract more students to the University,
some of whom would remain to obtain graduate degrees as well.
d. Technology Transfer: Vice Provost Trubatch
said that the purposes of Technology Transfer were to enhance research opportunities,
provide products and services for people to use at reasonable cost and to
provide for economic development in the state via start up companies based
on URI Intellectual Property. She said that increasing the number of URI
patents licensed to existing or start-up RI businesses would bring resources
into the University for research as well as increased business and personal
tax income to the state. Vice Provost Trubatch encouraged the Executive
Committee to help in attempts to have the URI Foundation move further along
in this direction.
e. Travel: The Executive Committee discussed with Vice Provost
Trubatch the travel issues raised at the last Faculty Senate meeting, specifically
with regard to bureaucratic hurdles and inadequate funding.
When Vice Provost Trubatch left the meeting, the Executive Committee
continued with their agenda.
7. The Executive Committee discussed their upcoming
meeting with Ms. Morrissey and identified issues related to the Murphy Model
that they believed needed further attention and improvement. They also agreed
to suggest to Ms. Morrissey that the issue of establishing a unit Ombud in
each administrative unit could be included as an agenda item for the December
2 Meeting of the JSPC.
8. The Executive Committee considered the following
matters that were of continuing concern:
a. JSPC: Executive Committee
discussed the October 21 meeting of the JSPC. It was noted that while
the term “Responsibility Centered Management” or “RCM” had been used several
times at the meeting, most members of the Executive Committee did not have
a clear picture of the concept. They agreed to seek clarification of
this term, which had been applied most often to the administration of the
University of New Hampshire.
b. Committees: Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels
reported that she had received an e-mail message from Provost Swan following
up with regard to three committees they had discussed previously. The Provost
had forwarded a message from Vice Provost and Dean Gandel in which he reported
on the Web Advisory Committee, the Instructional Space Advisory Group (ISAG)
and the Information Resources Council (IRC). He said that two of the committees,
the Web Advisory Committee, chaired by Ms. Chen, the University Webmaster,
and the ISAG, chaired by Dr. Batson, the Director of Informational and Technical
Services, were active; he suggested that these chairs be contacted for details
about their committees’ activities. With regard to the IRC, Vice Provost
Gandel reported that the committee had not met in a while because it was
formed to create a strategic plan, which had been completed.
The meeting recessed at 3:15 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 in the
third floor conference room in Green Hall, Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels
presiding. All members were present.
9. The Executive Committee met with Ms. Morrissey from
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. They discussed the current version of Mr. Murphy’s
Factor Model for analyzing programs from both financial and quality perspectives;
they also discussed ways to develop the model further to suit the needs of
URI’s faculty and administration.
Chairperson Boudreaux-Bartels reminded the Executive Committee that although
the proposal to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative factors had been
initiated by the 2003-04 Executive Committee, it was President Carothers
who had selected Mr. Murphy and his model for use at the University. She
said that the JSPC's Ad Hoc Task Force on Program Assessment, which was charged
with adapting the model, had been comprised of Provost Swan, Assistant Provost
Katz, Ms. Morrissey and the Chair of the Faculty Senate. President Carothers,
Mr. Murphy and Mr. Bakr have attended some meetings as well. She was pleased
to note that Ms. Morrissey had recently responded positively to including
additional faculty members from the Executive Committee on the task force.
Ms. Morrissey noted that the use of a portfolio model, which maps programs
against a given set of criteria encompassing both qualitative and quantitative
factors, is referenced in the Society for College and University Planning’s
recent publication on current benchmarks for academic program design.
She suggested that the Executive Committee read the recent publication from
the Futures Project of the American Council for Education, titled “Rewriting
the Rules of the Game: State Funding, Accountability and Autonomy in Public
Higher Education” which was available at the PSPD website <http://www.uri.edu/pspd/planserv.html>.
The Executive Committee made a number of suggestions for improving
the model and the process for gathering data. They proposed that a
small group of faculty members continue to refine the wording of the survey
questions and possible responses and that they develop a manual containing
a series of guidelines for selecting responses to improve objectivity of
answers. They supported the idea that all of the faculty in a department
should be invited to answer the survey.
Also discussed were the nature and composition of a program accreditation
group that would also complete the survey together in a group meeting, as
well as the relative weight that should be given to the accreditation group’s
response in comparison to the department faculty members’ responses.
The Executive Committee agreed that it would be advisable to conduct another
beta test using revised questions and written guidelines as a means to develop
the model further before applying it university wide to all academic departments.
Ms. Morrissey noted that the University had purchased the model from Mr.
Murphy with the intention of modifying it to suit better the needs of URI
and would continue to welcome the guidance of the Faculty Senate Executive
members in this endeavor.
The Executive Committee encouraged Ms. Morrissey to ask for the
help of an information technology person who could be trained to update the
questionnaire and provide other technical support on a continuous basis.
When Ms. Morrissey left the meeting, the Executive Committee agreed to
ask Mr. Murphy for the latest version of the survey so that they could review
language used in the survey questions and possible responses. They then returned
to the Agenda they had begun on the previous afternoon.
10. The Executive Committee discussed possible topics
for their meeting with Vice President Weygand and agreed to the following
list:
a. Update on efforts to repair university buildings:
i) Independence Hall - mold problem
ii) The University Library – falling exterior granite
iii) The Chafee Building - “cancer cluster” studies
b. Capital Improvements
c. The possibility of creating flowcharts for procedures
and establishing an “Ombud” for each administrative unit.
It was agreed to postpone any remaining items of business until the next
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sheila Black Grubman