Ad hoc 9/3/04Ad Hoc University-Wide Governance Committee
September 3, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, J. Bartow, B. Carlson,
P.
Eppard, M. Fogelman, R. Geer, T. Hoff, J. Pipkin, G. Singh,
J.
Wyckoff, B. Via
Guest: Professor Carolyn MacDonald, 2004-05 Senate Chair
Professor Acker introduced Senate Chair MacDonald, who was at the meeting
to
discuss the Committee’s Senate charge. Professor MacDonald discussed the
timing
of the Committee’s report to the Senate, noting that the first Senate
Executive
Committee meeting is scheduled for September 27, 2004 and the first full
Senate
meeting is scheduled for October 4, 2004. She would like to have
something in
writing from the Committee by the first Executive Committee meeting if
possible,
even if it is not the final product. She discussed the possibility of
posting
the Committee report to the Senate web site following Senate Executive
Committee
review in order to expedite distributing the report to the faculty.
Professor
MacDonald stated that it would be useful for the Committee to present to
the
Senate and faculty at large an intermediate report indicating the
progress of
the Committee thus far. Committee members indicated they were
uncomfortable
with releasing a document prematurely, as the issues involved are complex
and
even a preliminary report would likely assume significance in shaping
future
discussions. Questions were raised regarding the possibility of delaying
the
release of a draft report a month later than the target deadline.
Professor
MacDonald thought that a month delay might be acceptable if necessary.
However,
she noted that other delays were built into the timeline, such as the
requirement of three weeks’ notice of Charter changes prior to a vote.
Committee members agreed about the advisability of distributing a
preliminary or
draft report for review and comment, with the caveat that such a report
should
not be construed as final.
Professor MacDonald distributed copies of a document entitled An
Introduction to
the Proposed Revision of the Faculty Bylaws that had been circulated
before the
recent Bylaws revision, along with excerpts from the newly revised
Faculty
Bylaws, including sections pertaining to the Rights and Responsibilities
of the
Faculty and the Powers and Responsibilities of the Senate. She explained
that
the an understanding of the general governance framework is important,
including
an appreciation of what kinds of recommendations and decisions are made
by
faculty, as opposed to purely administrative decisions, noting that the
areas of
faculty involvement are quite broad.
A Committee member asked Professor MacDonald about the apparent urgency
for the
Committee to make recommendations to the Senate. Professor MacDonald
responded
that the timing is important in part because of governance-related issues
involving the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering (CNSE), which
may be
influenced by Senate action on issues being considered by the Committee.
She
agreed with the sentiment that while it is better that the Committee does
its
business right, rather than fast, it was important that a timely response
be
made to President Ryan’s request. It was noted that in a previous
Committee
meeting, President Ryan conveyed a sense that the Committee does not have
to
rush. Professor Geer reported that the CNSE Bylaws have been drafted and
they
are ready for formal delivery to the President. A Committee member
suggested
that it would be helpful for the group to review the CNSE Bylaws and thus
gain
additional details about the College’s proposed autonomy as the Committee
develops recommendations for the rest of the University.
Discussion continued on the charge of the Committee and expectations
concerning
whether the Committee should recommend specific changes to the Charter
and
Bylaws, or be less specific, giving models or examples and leaving it to
the
Senate to address specific Charter and Bylaw changes. Professor
MacDonald
responded that the form of the Committee’s recommendations is likely to
depend
on the specific issues being considered. She suggested that the sooner
alternative models are offered, the sooner they will be able to be
discussed so
that proposed changes can be made in the form of legislation. Professor
Acker
suggested that the Committee has been working in a manner consistent with
Professor MacDonald’s discussion.
Professor MacDonald excused herself from the meeting
Minutes: The minutes of August 18, 2004 and August 25, 2004 were
approved.
At the last meeting it was agreed that any members who had reservations
about
posting Committee minutes on the Senate website should advise others on
the
Committee. No one expressed reservations, so steps will be taken to have
the
minutes reviewed for accuracy by invited guests whose discussions are
summarized
in them. Thereafter, the minutes will be posted on the Senate website.
Research Subcommittee: The Research Subcommittee report was distributed.
It
will be discussed when time permits.
Graduate Academic Subcommittee Report: A draft report has been prepared
but not
yet reviewed by all members of the subcommittee. It is anticipated that
the
report will be circulated in advance of the next Committee meeting.
Tenure and Promotion Subcommittee Report Discussion: The subcommittee’s
initial
report was circulated in early August. The revised subcommittee report
was
prepared following discussion with the full Committee. Initial
discussion
focused on whether the subcommittee report accurately interpreted
governance
provisions including the CPCA Guidelines Concerning Promotion and
Continuing
Appointment. The interpretation offered was that under present
regulations,
CPCA is required to review all cases for compliance with the procedures
specified in the Guidelines. However, substantive review by CPCA is
required
only in cases that have not undergone two earlier levels of review by a
faculty
committee. Following discussion, other Committee members agreed with
that
interpretation of present governance regulations.
Professor Acker distributed information about the number and rank of
tenure-track faculty in the various Schools and Colleges and in the
Library.
The information was provided by Wendell Lorang of the Office of
Institutional
Research and acquired by him on Sept. 2, 2004 from the Office of Human
Resources. It reflected the following:
College/School Prof. Assoc. Asst.
Total
Business 7 16 8
31
CAS 140 114
81
335
Criminal Justice 6 4 2
12
Education 19 14 23
56
ISP 2 1
5
8
Library 3 18
16
37*
Nano 4 3 9
16
Public Health 4 8
12
24**
Rockefeller 15 14 5
34
Social Welfare 8 3
10
21
TOTALS 208 195 171
574
*3 Librarians, 18 Associate Librarians, 16 Senior Assistant Librarians
**Note: request was made for “tenure track” faculty; does not include
Dept. of
Public Health faculty/others not on UAlbany payroll (who also do not
receive
continuing appointment (tenure))
Professor Hoff noted that there are about 155 additional faculty with
voting
rights in the School of Public Health on the State/DOH payroll. He
explained
that those faculty go through the same levels of review as University
employees
for promotional consideration, although they are not considered for
permanent
appointment (tenure). He also explained that those SPH faculty who are
not
hired on University lines do participate in promotion and tenure
decisions
involving SPH faculty who are on University lines, and vice versa.
The subcommittee report assumed that candidates from all schools will
undergo a
minimum of two levels of review. The report identified different models
of
review. Based on prior discussions, it was suggested that two dominant
models
had emerged. One reflects current University practice, which is a
mandatory
centralized review committee that makes comprehensive review of all
cases. The
other allows academic units in which cases undergo two levels of internal
review
to have the option of referring cases to a University-wide committee for
additional review, or instead referring cases directly to the Provost
following
the second level review.
There was discussion about the nature of the report including whether the
report
captured an appropriate blend of recommendations and empirical
information.
Following that discussion, members agreed that they would discuss the
different
approaches and take a straw vote to ascertain committee members’ initial
views.
First vote: for a required mandatory university-wide faculty review that
would
be comprehensive (substantive and procedural issues) in all cases. Four
members
voted yes.
Second vote: in support of mandatory procedural review (only) by a
university-wide committee in all cases. Two members voted yes.
Third vote: the option of deciding at the school/college level (where
cases
undergo at least two levels of “internal” review) whether to refer cases
to a
University-wide committee for subsequent review or instead refer cases
directly
to the Provost for consideration. Six members voted yes.
Discussion ensued about the fact that the College of Nanoscale Science
and
Engineering already has been granted autonomy by the Board of Trustees,
and
questions were raised about the significance of this grant of autonomy
for
faculty in other schools/colleges. Some members were of the opinion that
faculty in academic units without comparable autonomy would be aggrieved
by the
apparent inequity. Others were of the view that it may be improvident to
allow
the rights granted one unit to determine the rights that presumptively
should be
enjoyed by all units throughout the University.
Support was offered for mandatory centralized review of all cases for
several
reasons. Such an approach arguably helps ensure consistent adherence to
procedures and substantive standards throughout the University. It
ensures that
faculty independent of a candidate’s immediate faculty colleagues as well
as a
candidate’s dean will make recommendations about cases. It enables
different
disciplinary perspectives to be brought to cases, which might be
especially
important in cases involving candidates whose work is interdisciplinary.
Because of the volume of cases considered, such a committee is likely to
gain
valuable experience and perspective about tenure and promotion decisions.
Such
a committee may help inspire greater rigor at prior levels of review—the
so-called “watchdog” function—and also help promote the perception
throughout
the University that cases are being judged consistently. Tenure and
promotion
cases affect the entire University and transcend individual academic
units.
More effective checks and balances are achieved in a system that is
structured
so that decisions made by faculty and deans within discrete schools and
colleges
are reviewed by faculty from other units. Such a system also ensures
that a
faculty committee’s recommendations will intervene between a dean’s
recommendations and action taken by the Provost.
Support was offered for the “optional” University-wide committee review
approach
based on several reasons. There may be reason to be skeptical about a
CPCA-like
body being able to provide the theoretical checks and balances supposedly
making
such a committee advantageous. There are other ways of addressing the
problem
of “rogue deans,” including intervention by a strong President. Faculty
arguably provide a check against aberrant conduct by deans, as well. The
fact
that the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering has been granted
autonomy
not enjoyed by other units is likely to be perceived as inequitable by
some
faculty and have a negative impact on morale. Faculty are likely to feel
more
involved in governance if they believe their recommendations are not
subject to
later review by another faculty body. Substantively, the members of a
University-wide committee are not likely to know as much about a
candidate’s
scholarship or prevailing scholarly norms as a committee comprised of
faculty
from the same academic unit as the candidate. University standards
governing
promotion and tenure have to be applied differently to different cases,
making
the promise of consistency offered through a University-wide committee
somewhat
false. Under present practice, candidates from some academic units must
go
through three levels of review, while candidates from other units undergo
only
two levels of review. Candidates whose cases endure three levels of
review may
perceive that they have additional burdens compared to candidates whose
cases
undergo only two levels of review.
The opinion was offered that units whose candidates undergo a third level
of
review could simply eliminate the College-wide or School-wide review
committee
and thus have only two levels of review. Another opinion was offered
that a
third level of review could be more protective of candidates, rather than
represent an additional burden or hardship.
Discussion turned to the meaning of “procedural” review of cases. One
view
suggested that “procedural” refers to the policies included within the
Guidelines Concerning Promotion and Continuing Appointment, including
whether
appropriate weight was given to a candidate’s contributions in
scholarship,
teaching, and service. It was suggested that the greater heterogeneity
of views
likely to be represented by a University-wide committee about such issues
would
bring a different perspective to them than if such judgments are made by
faculty
from individual academic units, and that such checks and balances could
be
important. Another view considered “procedural” issues to involve less
discretionary judgments, including the number of external letters,
inclusion of
teaching evaluations, and similar matters. It was suggested that if a
committee
is required to vote on an issue, the issue is not likely to be strictly
procedural. Some members considered the distinction between issues of
substance
and procedure to be sufficiently blurred as to be problematic.
One member suggested that a sample of cases from different academic units
could
be reviewed or monitored by a University-wide committee as a quality-
control
mechanism. It also was suggested that there might be reason to require
cases
involving promotion to Full Professor to be reviewed by a University-wide
committee, while allowing cases involving tenure and promotion to
Associate
Professor to undergo final faculty review by a committee from the
candidate’s
school or college.
One member outlined his idea for an approach that varied from the two
dominant
approaches under consideration. Under this approach, all cases would be
required to undergo review by a committee comprised of faculty who are
not
supervised by the dean who oversees the candidate, and subsequent to the
recommendation made by the candidate’s dean. This approach does not
presume a
single, University-wide committee. It emphasizes the importance of
faculty
review that is independent of the dean of the candidate’s academic unit.
Meeting Conclusion:
The tenure and promotion subcommittee will produce another report for the
next
meeting. As time permits at the next meeting, there will be discussion
on the
Research subcommittee report. The Graduate Academic issues will be
discussed in
the future.
