FACULTY GOVERNANCE | Back to King's College | Back to Faculty Governance | Back to Minutes List
Friday, October 3, 2003
The meeting commenced at 3:05 PM.
In attendance: Dr. Sauls (Chair), Ms. Tierney, Drs. Boucher, Bower, Brooks, Pavlac, Rose, Sterling, Wallace
I. Brian Pavlac, Chairperson of the Academic and Professional Affairs Committee reported:
A.
A. The committee changed the language for quotas on professors and will submit it for the next meeting.
B. There is still ambiguity about the procedure to convert faculty members from Professional Status classification to Tenure Track. Although presently moot because of the current tenure percentages, most faculty members would like to see a clearly articulated policy for conversion, rather than the current handling of each case ad hoc.
C. The Committee will look into how they can contribute to the discussion of faculty governance.
II. Derrick Boucher, Chairperson of the Curriculum and Teaching Committee reported:
A. The proposal to accept HNRS 123 (Economic Dimensions of Contemporary Issues) as satisfying the Core 15x requirement was approved.
B. The committee is continuing to gather material for review of the Core Curriculum.
C. Likewise, the committee is gathering information to review the adequacy of personal interaction between students and faculty members, and among students, in distance learning courses.
D. Dan Ghezzi will evaluate the current Course Evaluation forms from the perspective of determining how much, if any, meaningful information is gleaned from the way statistics are presently reported.
III. The Academic and Professional Affairs Committee will examine how teaching “hours” are defined across all departments and courses. The Faculty Handbook is incomplete on this point.
IV. In response to the proposal for a new interdisciplinary minor in Forensic Science, the Curriculum and Teaching Committee will consider again the question of the appropriateness of requiring specific Core courses for a minor (or major) program.
V. The Academic Program Review (attached) was approved by a unanimous vote.
VI. The Chair reported on his conversation with the Vice President for Academic Affairs, concerning the elimination of support staff (attached).
VII. A vote on the Confidentiality Policy was tabled, pending further revision. Council members suggested:
providing a link (in the web version of the Faculty Handbook) to the Responsible Use of Technology Policy, referenced in the Confidentiality Policy;
making reference to sexual assault and other mandatory reporting situations, perhaps in the information section of the Handbook, in order to alert faculty to situations in which it is necessary to share personal information about a student.
The meeting adjourned at 4:07 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
Margarita M. Rose
Approved by Faculty Council Oct 9, 2003
Academic Program Review
Purpose:
“The College will ENSURE THAT ALL ACADEMIC PROGRAMS ARE EFFECTIVE in ‘preparing students for purposeful lives’ by implementing systematic program reviews.” [Strategic Plan for King’s College 2003-2008, Envisioning Statement IV].
The Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2002) emphasized regular assessment of “educational effectiveness”, including the review of “. . . academic content, rigor, and coherence that are appropriate to [the institution’s] higher education mission.”
The academic program review is a confidential, structured conversation between the VPAA and those responsible for an academic program. Its purpose is to help the program enhance its contribution to the College mission.
Broadly speaking, it addresses the questions: what does the VPAA need to know about the program? and what does the program want to be sure the VPAA understands? It concludes with what are we going to do to improve?
Process:
Reviews will occur at least once every 7 years or, in unusual circumstances, at the instigation of the VPAA. No reviews will occur during the year preceding a Middle States reaccreditation.
The VPAA will provide the statistical information from the Office of Institutional Research, Alumni Office, Career Planning & Placement, and other available sources. The program may request any other relevant information available to help in its response. Using that information and other data at the department’s disposal, the department chair will answer the questions below. Programs subject to regular review by an external government or accrediting agency will first discuss their most recent report with the VPAA. Points adequately covered by that document need not be repeated.
a. Regarding the students:
Who is the program serving and in what ways?
How do we know that the students are performing at appropriate levels?
How do students view the program?
How do graduates fare?
b. How do we know the academic content and structure are current and appropriate?
c. Regarding the faculty:
Do we have the right number?
Do they have the right and current expertise?
Are they meeting the 3 criteria (teaching, professional development, service)?
Has the program leadership been adequate?
d. Available resources:
Is the budget adequate?
Are the facilities adequate? How can they be improved?
Is the equipment adequate? What else is needed?
e. Enrollment:
What are current enrollments and their trends?
How can this be improved?
f. Plans:
What opportunities exist for enhanced contribution to the mission?
How can we take advantage of them?
What resources will be required?
g. Responses to any particular concerns about the program expressed by the VPAA.
h. What other problems should be addressed? How?
i. Any other points that should be brought to the VPAA’s attention.
Outcome:
The program chair and the faculty will then meet with the VPAA to discuss the report and draw appropriate conclusions.
The VPAA will then respond in writing, indicating how the problems and opportunities will be addressed, and what resources the program can reasonably expect for these purposes.
The Department and VPAA will prepare a summary to be made available to the College community.
Report to Faculty Council:
Hafey secretarial staff changes
Frederick C. Sauls, Chairman
September 23, 2003
I discussed the changes in the secretarial office in Hafey-Marian Hall with Fr. Grimes; several interesting points arose:
1. The College is fully committed to providing the necessary support to faculty. As part of that resolve, the administration is examining ways to make the delivery of those services more “efficient and effective”.
2. These particular changes arose in response to concerns expressed by faculty regarding the way the office was run and the way staff were treated. Erin Savitski and Ed Napieralski reviewed the office - its operation, workload, skill set required . . . As part of this, 8 faculty (a representative range) were interviewed.
3. They concluded that (a) during the academic year, 2-3 people were required to meet the workload (fewer in summer); (b) the reporting structure should be reconsidered.
4. The following changes were made:
a. The personnel now report to Terry Mech, who can give them better attention.
b. The apparent supervisory position within the office was eliminated.
c. Some of the jobs formerly done there have been transferred to Sue Urbanas, to whom they should have gone in the first place.
d. The secretary’s transfer to admissions was in response to a pressing need in that office. All involved appear happy with the result.
e. A replacement for the Hafey office is being sought as we speak.
f. Terry will closely monitor the workload and skills required in that office and make necessary adjustments.
It is clear that this was not a “from the hip” decision, as it first appeared. However, a little better communication from the administration to the affected faculty might have reduced our level of concern.
Previous Minutes | BACK TO MINUTES LIST | Next Minutes