EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Present: Bryant,
DiMagno, Fuller, Prochaska-Cue,
Sawyer, Siekman, Spann, Whitt
Absent: King,
Logan-Peters, Miller, Scheideler, Wolf
Date:
Location: 201 Canfield Administration Building
1.0 Call to
Order
Byrant called the meeting to order at
2.0 Announcements
2.1 Meeting on
Budget Cuts
Bryant reminded the committee that they have
been invited by Chancellor Perlman to attend the
meeting on February 5th at
2.2 First Candidate for Dean of the
Bryant reported that the committee will be
meeting on February 4th at
2.3 Meeting with Dean Giesecke,
Libraries
Bryant reported that he and President-Elect
Miller will be meeting with Dean Giesecke to discuss
the impacts the budget cuts will have on the Libraries. Bryant stated that he will discuss
coordination between the campus libraries with the Dean. VC Owens pointed out that the library is already
making budget cuts, prior to the University’s cuts, because of the increased
cost of obtaining materials.
3.0 SVCAA
Edwards/VC Owens
3.1 Quality Indicators
SVCAA Edwards stated that he hopes that there will be discussions at the
department and college levels regarding the quality indicators and whether they
are feasible. He stated that he hopes they
will also discuss whether the information required for the indicators can be
collected. He reported that the Academic
Planning Committee has been given a copy of the indicators and that he hopes to
receive comments from the committee. He
pointed out that he hopes to have further discussions with the Senate Executive
Committee and the full Senate regarding the indicators. Sawyer asked if there is an established time
line for getting the information on the indicators. SVCAA Edwards stated that he would like to
have information gathered by the end of the semester although he pointed out
that this is not a set deadline.
VC Owens stated that he is conducting similar steps for IANR. He noted that the IANR Liaison Committee is
working to help organize discussions on the indicators with the deans, unit
heads, and chairs. Bryant stated that
one of the concerns he has is the lack of input indicators. He stated that the number of faculty, the
number of adjunct faculty, students’ access to courses and programs, and
available resources are some of the things that need to be considered. Siekman stated that
most faculty members have not had the opportunity to look at the indicators and
that many could be waiting to see what data are required. SVCAA Edwards stated that he would like to
get the report out this spring to help foster discussion on it. He pointed out that this is a work in
progress and that adjustments can be made after an initial report is issued.
Fuller asked what the report means if just outputs are listed. She pointed out that inputs have a lot to do
with measuring quality. SVCAA Edwards
stated that outputs should reflect the quality of what we do. Fuller pointed out that the output indicators
do not necessarily give an accurate picture because they do not take into
account the quality of students who are enrolled here. As an example, she stated that if the
university were getting the top 10% of students in the nation, one would expect
much higher outputs than if we were getting students who receive mostly
C’s. SVCAA Edwards agreed and stated
that some people feel that we should be measuring value added, not the quality
of the output. SVCAA Edwards pointed out
that institutions are not ranked in this way and that the indicators are an
attempt to make comparisons with ourselves over time. He pointed out institutions are measured on
rank of output values rather than input values.
Sawyer suggested that quality should be defined in the beginning of the
report. He noted that in measuring our own
institution there should be improvements, but these could peak out over time
because of such impacts as budget cuts. SVCAA Edwards stated that he is not
opposed to having a definition of quality, although he thinks it would be
difficult to write. He stated that the
indicators that have been selected represent quality. DiMagno pointed out
that some of the information being requested is not readily available to
departments. SVCAA Edwards stated that
this is why he wants to have discussions on the indicators to see if they are
feasible. He noted that some of the
information can be gathered but the task is quite burdensome while other
information would be costly to obtain.
He pointed out that some measures do not apply to all areas of the
campus.
Bryant asked if the indicators would be used to measure more than just
the campus or whether they would be used to compare colleges and
departments. SVCAA Edwards stated that
administration does not have any plans to compare colleges and departments. He stated that some colleges might want to
compare how they are faring in regards to the same colleges at other institutions.
Bryant noted that some of the information required for some of the
indicators pertaining to IANR would be difficult to determine. VC Owens noted that probably few of the
indicators would work for the entire campus.
He stated that while the narrative vignettes are not well defined, they
are used by institutions across the country.
He pointed out that determining some of the indicators for IANR have
been frustrating because there are indicators that do not necessarily deal with
numbers or scores yet are an integral part of the university. Bryant asked how the economic impact from
direct faculty-private sector interactions can be determined. VC Owens stated that this can be measured in
part by looking at economic activity that is tied to faculty discoveries,
faculty patents, inventions, or might be tied to one of the technology
centers. SVCAA Edwards stated that
information on some of the indicators should be obtained not only because they
are quality indicators but because they are accomplishments of people at the
university. He noted that this would
provide public relations with information that could help promote the
university. Byrant
pointed out that the value of agricultural research is often not
recognized. He asked if the indicators
help to address this. VC Owens stated
that they will help in addressing this and he pointed out that we look fine in
AAU accomplishments in comparison to other universities.
Spann asked if there are any documents that reflect inputs. He pointed out that there needs to be a
document that indicates inputs such as the number of classes being offered, the
faculty-student ratio, number of full-time versus part time faculty, and
condition of the classrooms. Whitt
stated that both inputs and outputs should be measured. SVCAA Edwards stated that administration is
just trying to determine how well the university is doing and whether progress
is being made. DiMagno
pointed out that if the indicators are to be used as a basis for comparison, inputs
need to be taken into account. SVCAA
Edwards stated that administration hopes to use the quality indicators to
offset rankings which do not provide much nuance. Bryant pointed out that a discussion on
inputs is valuable and that it would be a good companion to the outputs.
3.2 Sample Letters for Tenure Track Positions
Bryant pointed out that the committee felt that the sample letter
available on the web for hiring a tenure track faculty member is sterile and
bureaucratic. SVCAA Edwards stated that
he hopes chairs, directors, and unit heads personalize the letter before they
send it out. He stated that he could
include a suggestion that the writer of the letter should make it more
personalized.
3.3 Issues on the Horizon
SVCAA Edwards reminded the committee that the budget cuts will be
announced on February 5th. He
noted that it is very difficult to cut $5.5 million from the budget. He stated that the Academic Planning
Committee will be holding hearings during the month of February on the
cuts. He pointed out that the APC will
have a tremendous work load during the month of February and that they should
be commended for the work they will be doing.
Byrant asked if the administration has gathered any information on peer
institution salaries and whether we are at the mid-point of them yet. VC Owens stated that he believed Provost
Jones was collecting information. SVCAA
Edwards stated that he will check to see if John Benson, Director of
Institutional Research & Planning, has any information collected and whether
it can be available for Tuesday’s meeting.
SVCAA Edwards stated that a five year review needs to be conducted on
Vice Chancellor Griesen. He noted that a co-coordinator of the review
needs to come from the Executive Committee since VC Griesen
does not supervise any faculty. He
stated that the co-coordinator would assist in reviewing the input gathered on
VC Griesen and will assist in writing up the
assessment summary. Bryant stated that
the Executive Committee would discuss this at their meeting next week.
Bryant asked for clarification on the open positions recently announced
by IANR. VC Owens stated that these
positions are for the Rural Initiative.
He pointed out that the Board of Regents approved investing in the Rural
Initiative and that some of the funds used to support it will come from
academic enhancement money. He pointed
out that the positions would not be available until the beginning of the next
fiscal year. Siekman
asked if retirement enhancements were being used to encourage people to retire
early. VC Owens stated that he is
unaware of any. Bryant stated that there
was some concern over the luncheon for IANR Senators before Senate
meetings. VC Owens stated that the
luncheons are a way for him to meet with extension people whom he normally does
not get the opportunity to meet with very often. He stated that there are no agendas for the
meetings and that discussions can be on any topic of interest to those people
in attendance. Siekman
pointed out that there was some concern that the luncheons might be a way of
creating a political block in the Senate.
He noted that this was not the case and that often there are
considerable disagreements on various subjects.
4.0 Approval
of
Whitt moved and Prochaska Cue seconded approval
of the minutes as amended. Motion
approved.
5.0 Unfinished
Business
5.1 Grading
DiMagno reported that the committee met last week with Dr. Hawkey,
Director of Registration and Records, regarding the new grading system. He stated that he obtained additional
information on GPA distribution by some departments. He distributed the information and pointed
out that no filtering had been done on the grades. He noted that a concern from the student
perspective is that it is more difficult to obtain higher GPA’s in some
departments and programs than others and that this can lead to hard feelings
among students in different disciplines.
The committee discussed whether faculty evaluations related to grade
inflation. SVCAA Edwards pointed out
that there is a standard GPA required for honors and also probation but it is
based on the notion that everyone grades or evaluates on the same basis. He pointed out that informing faculty of
grade distributions within departments or colleges would allow faculty to
compare how they are grading in comparison to other professors but many people
are opposed to releasing this information.
Fuller asked whether grade distribution has any link to the quality
indicators and the expectations of the university. SVCAA Edwards stated that assessment of
student learning is currently based on the grading system but grades alone are
often not viewed as a valid assessment.
He stated that a grade should represent a certain standard of student. He pointed out that faculty need to keep in
mind that one of their goals should be to help students improve and achieve a
higher standard. Fuller suggested that a
discussion should be held on teaching and standards. DiMagno stated that
he would like to have some kind of normalization when it comes time to
calculate GPA for honors and awards so that students who are taking more
rigorously graded courses are rewarded, rather than punished. Siekman noted that
the university has created an environment where everything hangs on the student’s
GPA. Bryant stated that there may be
further discussion on the topic.
6.0 New Business
No new business was discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at