ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Arizona Faculties Council Meeting Minutes
Date: Friday, August 24, 2007
Place: Ventana Room, UA Student Union
Time: 7:45 a.m.
Present:
George Watson, Arizona Faculties’ Council President (2007-2008) and President,
Governance Council, ASU Downtown Phoenix
William (Bill) Verdini, President, Academic Senate, ASU Tempe
Linda Vaughan, President, Academic Senate, ASU Polytechnic
Richard Gitelson, President, Academic Senate, ASU West
Richard Lei, NAU Vice President, Faculty Senate
Marsha Yowell, NAU Past President, Faculty Senate
Wanda H. Howell, UA Chair of the Faculty
Robert Mitchell, UA Vice-Chair of the Faculty and Presiding Officer of the
Senate
Barbara Citera, UA South Faculty Forum President
J.C. Mutchler, UA South Faculty Forum Past President
Betty Capaldi, Provost ASU
Liz Grobsmith, Provost NAU
Eugene Sander, Provost UA
Jerry Hogle, Vice Provost for Instruction UA
Juan Garcia, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs UA
Jacqueline Mok, Vice Provost for Academic Programs and Initiatives UA
Stephanie Jacobson, ABOR Associate Executive Director for Academic and Student
Affairs
Mark Denke, ABOR Assistant Executive Director for Academic and Student Affairs
Call to Order:
AFC Chair Watson called the meeting
to order at 8:05 a.m. Members and guests introduced themselves.
Topic: Critical Issues discussion: Student preparedness
AFC President Watson thanked UA Chair of the Faculty W. Howell for sharing the
list of Faculty Senate-generated “critical issues facing the UA.” Chair Howell
explained that the list was generated after some senators observed that Senate
meetings were largely consumed by reports with very little opportunity for
debate or dialogue. Senate meetings now include at least 30 minutes or more
devoted to active discussion. The issue of the dual (some would say dueling)
missions of being a land grant/Research I institution produces the wide range of
academic preparedness that faculty must adapt to teaching. Students’ lack of
preparedness affects success, retention and graduation rates. This dichotomy of
purpose has attracted the attention of the UA’s “Committee of Eleven (C11),” a
faculty governance group of highly committed and strong-willed faculty that
predates the UA’s Faculty Senate. The C11 is unique in higher education
governance structures in that it does not have a prescribed agenda, is defined
constitutionally, and its membership is determined by faculty-wide election.
As a result of this dichotomy of purpose, the C11 looked seriously at the
concerns and generated a White Paper, “Reconfiguring Higher Education at the
University of Arizona.” The proposal calls for multiple “tracks” for
undergraduates based on student preparedness and achievements. UA’s Faculty
Senate will begin considering the recommendations at the September meeting, with
the assistance of Vice Provost for Instruction Jerry Hogle and other key members
of the faculty/staff involved in undergraduate education. Vice Provost Hogle
concurred that the range of student preparedness is enormous causing UA faculty
to be pulled in different directions and he looks forward to working with the
C11 and the Senate.
Topic: Critical Issues discussion:
Administrative evaluation/accountability
AFC President Watson turned to an
issue of common interest among all campuses, administrative evaluation and
accountability. Some campuses report that in dean-led schools or colleges, there
is not much emphasis on shared governance structures and in particular for
methods of evaluating deans. UA Faculty Chair Howell reported that UA deans and
vice presidents are required to have regular five-year “360” reviews, and that
the University Handbook for Appointed Personnel also allows for an
“extraordinary review” procedure in an off-year. Admittedly, faculty need to be
proactive about making certain these reviews take place on time, she said. While
the review of some of the administrative vice presidents may not fall within the
purview of the faculty, the institution’s academic mission pervades all others
and so faculty should be included in all such reviews when they occur.
NAU Past President M. Yowell explained that NAU administrators evaluate
themselves. Faculty are evaluated every year by peers and supervising
administrators, and every semester by students, therefore the faculty believe
they should have input into administrators’ evaluations and that such
evaluations should be conducted annually. Interim administrators should also be
evaluated. Provost Grobsmith shared that she and other NAU administrators are,
in fact, evaluated annually by President Haeger; that the review isn’t
comprehensive but does involve self-evaluation and goal-setting, and that the
results of these reviews are not broadly shared. She noted that most other
institutions include an avenue for faculty input, however. NAU evaluates deans
every three years; these evaluations are tailored to target areas and input from
faculty, academic professionals staff and external reviewers is solicited.
Provost Grobsmith also commented that the faculty may not be aware of or
understand that she has different masters in that she serves the faculty but
works for the President; therefore, his agenda becomes her agenda.
ASU Provost Capaldi shared that ASU evaluates deans every four years, and the
deans evaluate the department chairs. She believes that faculty should have
input. ASU has a large number of vice presidents who are evaluated by the
President. She added that the faculty don’t have to wait for a formal evaluation
process to tell her what they want.
UA Vice Provost J. Mok explained that the previous President chose to conduct
360 reviews of top administrators with “selected” participants. President
Shelton has instituted a more open process in which some clearly-constituted
groups are invited to provide input. President Crow also does annual reviews of
administrators.
AFC President Watson asked whether some sort of annual faculty survey might be
useful. UA Provost Sander commented that a regular survey of the faculty might
be good for understanding the campus climate, but it is important to consider
what the survey is designed to do: give constructive criticism/suggestions or
simply provide a means to feel involved? He also commented that, although deans
and vice presidents all serve on year-to-year contracts, recruiting excellent
deans would become much more difficult if they believe the term is for only five
years. A fifty-year old dean who moves to the UA should be treated and valued as
an asset. Provost Sander does concede, however, that evaluations need to take
place and be concluded in a much more timely manner.
Provost Grobsmith cautioned against any grassroots-type faculty review of
administrators that might end up on the front page of the local newspaper. Such
actions can be damaging to the institution in the public’s eyes. It is better to
preserve each individual’s dignity. She suggests that deans should be asked to
share their goals with the faculty—this instrument should be communicated
clearly. R. Gitelson commented that the more transparent a process is, the fewer
disgruntled people there will be.
ABOR Academic Affairs Subcommittee
Turning to the role of faculty on ABOR’s recently announced “academic
affairs” subcommittee, G. Watson described that Regent Stuart believes that ABOR
does not pay enough attention to academics. He is also interested in examining
policies or procedures that are impediments to the institutions. Provost
Grobsmith explained this group may consist of three provosts and two Regents,
all with voting rights, but that Regent Stuart’s vision does not include a
structure with a voting AFC member, since faculty have a role in proposing and
approving curricular changes from the point of inception. The three provosts are
working well together at this point. President Watson assured her that the AFC
is not interested in being a voting member of the committee, but does want to
assure that faculty receive information and be kept informed and have the
opportunity to provide timely input, perhaps with an ex officio nonvoting status
S. Jacobson of ABOR staff advised the AFC that the meetings of this subcommittee
will be public and that faculty will be encouraged to attend and participate at
that time, but Provost Grobsmith cautioned that debate before the full Board of
Regents is never appropriate. Since the university system in now truly
competitive and everything is enrollment-driven, institutions no longer have to
honor geographical boundaries or worry about duplication of programs; therefore
some proposals may receive greater scrutiny. Faculty contact could provide the
context that is missing in a proposal, no matter how much information is
forwarded.
UA’s Vice Chair of the Faculty R. Mitchell suggested that the AFC can continue
to stay involved at the local level by participating in the CAO calls. He added
that when topics such as the course syllabus policy or the attack on academic
freedom arise, ABOR should always allow for a faculty voice.
Learner-centered education
W. Howell asked about the AFC’s oversight of the Learner-centered education
and whether this program will continue to be funded. S. Jacobson explained that
the Regents approved TRIF funds in a five-year increment. She will provide the
AFC with the 2005-06 LCE grant reports.
Increasing faculty/AFC visibility
J.C. Mutchler commented that the faculty are really invisible to the Regents
unless they are in an adversarial role. Increasing Regents understanding of what
faculty do is best accomplished in an informal setting. It would be helpful if
the AFC President were invited to ABOR social occasions. Even students are
invited to such affairs, whereas the AFC is always overlooked. S. Jacobson will
try to assist with this effort.
Arizona Students Association
G. Watson suggested that faculty leaders make contact with the Arizona
Students Association representatives on their campuses, since partnering with
the ASA has been effective for both groups in the past.
This meeting concluded at 9:20 a.m.
Recorded by Pam Bridgmon
Program Coordinator – UA Faculty Center
AFC/2007-08/afc minutes 8-24-07