1. The meeting with Provost De Hayes and Vice Provost Beauvais was called to order at 1:10pm on Tuesday, August 20, 2013, in the President's Conference Room, Green Hall, Chairperson Byrd presiding. Senators Brady, Cerbo, and Nassersharif were present. Senator Davis and Senator Rice were absent.
2. The Provost addressed the status of Resolution #12-13 -- 4, Endorsement of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of South Kingstown and the University of Rhode Island and its Land Grant Programs on the Healthy Place by Design Project (approved by the Faculty Senate on March 21, 2013). He expressed concern that, although well intentioned, the agreement may be implying a commitment of resources from the Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station (RIAES) and the Rhode Island Cooperative Extension (RICE) to the Town of South Kingstown. By signing, the President would be committing funds from the College of Environment and Life Sciences (CELS). On behalf of the President, the Provost will refer the matter to the Dean of CELS for his comment and consideration (attachment).
3. The Provost will finalize the 2012-13 Administrator Evaluation reviews. Because the process was not completed by the end of the academic year, and because the faculty is not available during the summer, it was held over and will be resumed in the fall. The Provost will meet with the four deans who were reviewed last year (Higgins, Kirby, Maslyn, McCray) and their staff and faculty and present general overviews of the results.
The list of names of administrators scheduled for review 2013-14 was discussed.
Chief Information Officer (Bozylinsky)
Dean of Arts and Sciences (Brownell)
Dean of the Graduate School (Zawia)
Dean, University College (Richmond)
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs (DeHayes)
Vice Provost for Academic Finances and Academic Personnel (Katz)
Vice Provost for Enrollment Management (Libutti)
Because the review of Vice Provost Katz in 2011 extended late into that year, it was decided that his review would take place next year, in 2014-15.
The question of whether reviews could be accomplished in one semester was discussed. Senator Nassersharif, AE Coordinator, indicated that assembling review committees could take several weeks. The selection process will likely will not be complete until the end of October or early November. Review of the instrument follows the formation of the committees. In summary, the fall is spent preparing and the spring is spent executing the review. Identifying constituent groups for the non-traditional administrators will take time, too.
Other models of review were discussed. Some institutions use external reviewers. Some models require the review committee to establish the instrument. The Provost’s review of deans includes staff, "internal peers" (e.g., deans and vice presidents), and external contstituents of the college. The FSEC suggested that they should be in receipt of the final product for review and to file. The Provost suggested that the FSEC consider assigning one of its members to act as the chair of each review committee and then report back to the whole committee.
Some colleges were confused last year about the distinction between the Provost's survey and the Senate survey and what was to be done with their report. It should be made clear to the search committees how the Provost's survey is intended to coordinate with the Senate process.
The FSEC suggested that review of other administrators (Vice President of Administration and Finance; Dean of Admission; Associate Vice President, Community, Equity, and Diversity) be considered. The Provost indicated that it may be difficult to craft manual language to cover different types of administrators, especially those with roles that are largely peripheral to the work of the faculty. Senate leadership and the Provost's Office could customize the appropriate constituency group or convene the review committee and permit the group to define the constituency.
4. The position description and duties of the University Ombud were reviewed. The merits of appointing an emeritus faculty member or tenured full professor were discussed. Some of the Manual language is outdated and should be updated this year.
5. Although there was no movement in HR over the summer regarding the search for Faculty Senate Specialist, an email was received during the meeting indicating that a salary grade for the position was finally determined. HR has asked for a letter of justification for the Specialist position. The Personnel Review Committee must approve the position.
6. Discussions with the Graduate School need to continue regarding the definition of Graduate Faculty Status to provide proper meaning and a substantive renewal process.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:35PM.