June 16, 2004Ad hoc University-wide Governance Committee
June 16, 2004
Minutes
Present: J. Acker, R. Bangert-Drowns, J. Bartow, M. Carpenter
(substituting for R. Geer), B. Carlson, P. Eppard, T. Hoff, J. Pipkin, L.
Schell, G. Singh, D. Smith (substituting for M. Fogelman), J. Wyckoff, B.
Via
Guests: Interim Vice President for Research Lynn Videka
Minutes: The minutes of June 7, 2004 were approved.
Discussion with Lynn Videka, outgoing Chair, Council on Research, Interim
Vice
President for Research:
Vice President Videka handed out a packet of material pertaining to the
Council
on Research and research activities at the University. The material
included a
list of Council members for 2004-05, a copy of Senate Charter provisions
pertaining to the Council, a summary of Council actions for the 2003-04
year,
various research policies, and information about the committees
associated with
the Council. Vice President Videka noted the importance of the work
performed by
the Council on Research and she called attention to how current
governance
policies define the role of faculty as it pertains to research
activities.
Among other areas of importance to faculty governance in the area of
research,
she highlighted:
a. Review, approval, and evaluation of research centers,
institutes, and
specialized research laboratories.
b. Priority setting for research activities, including
recommendations for
the allocation of resources.
c. Research oversight, in areas including formulating and
implementing
policies governing human and animal research.
d. Ensuring interdisciplinary perspectives and helping to promote
interdisciplinary research activities.
e. Efficient administration of activities important to research,
including
grant management.
The Council on Research reviews research activities and the allocation of
research funds within the University. It makes policy recommendations to
the
Senate and is advisory to the Vice President for Research. Current
UAlbany
governance policies call for a strong faculty role in conducting ongoing
review
and evaluation of research centers and institutes, which will be
important for
initiatives anticipated in the upcoming year. The Senate Charter includes
a new
step regarding major research initiatives and commitments that might
significantly affect University organization and resource allocation.
Specifically, Council on Research recommendations must go to the
University
Planning and Policy Council (UPC) before going to the full Senate.
Although some
have questioned whether this new step will be cumbersome, others are of
the
opinion that it is necessary because of the connection between resources
and
research in some areas. If every school/college became autonomous, and
developed their own bylaws, this opportunity for centralized review would
be
more difficult and the University Senate Charter would have to be
rewritten.
The Research Council’s committees include:
§ The Committee on Centers, Institutes and Specialized Research
Laboratories, which considers matters related to the establishment and
continuance of research centers, institutes and laboratories. The
Committee is
responsible for guiding Council on Research actions related to organized
research units.
§ The Researchers’ Liaison Committee, which includes staff people
from
Sponsored Funds and investigators from across the campus. Its purpose is
to
streamline operating procedures for grants and research projects.
In addition, an ad hoc committee focused on faculty oversight on human
and
animal research.
Vice President Videka reported that interdisciplinary presence on the
Research
Council is a benefit and thinks it would be undesirable to have less
communication across units about research initiatives. She noted that
interdisciplinary research is of major importance in building knowledge
for the
future. Vice President Videka has reservations that increased autonomy
could
result in too much separateness within the research enterprise.
Resources: Vice President Videka noted that many issues concerning
resources
would have to be confronted with greater research autonomy within
individual
units, even though most of the resources already have been distributed to
the
units.
Faculty Oversight: Faculty governance input on research was minimal or
nonexistent until last year. Vice President Videka would like to see
more
faculty governance involvement in IRB and related issues.
Following further discussion, the committee members thanked Vice
President
Videka for her comments.
Feedback from respective units regarding Tenure and Promotion governance
issues:
§ Professor Schell, College of Arts and Sciences (CAS):
Professor
Schell reported that he spoke to Assistant Deans Gregory Stevens and Dona
Parker. Assistant Dean Parker handles all tenure and promotion cases for
CAS.
According to the Administrative Procedures for the Preparation of
Recommendations for Promotions and Continuing Appointment (dated 2002-
03), it
appears that CAS and other units already have the authority to be
autonomous in
promotion and tenure matters under existing guidelines, but do not take
advantage of it. The current procedure is that the Dean’s recommendation
goes
to the Provost and the Provost reviews the case with CPCA. According to
existing guidelines, the CAS tenure and promotion committee could serve
as the
exclusive second level of review. The CAS Deans do not presently
anticipate any
change on their end if additional autonomy is granted for tenure and
promotion
decisions.
§ Professor Hoff, School of Public Health (SPH): Professor Hoff
met with
Dean Levin and Associate Dean Persily and reported that the SPH
encountered
problems with the review process at the University level with some of its
faculty this past year, particularly with the NYS Department of Health
(DOH)
faculty. The SPH tenure and promotion council members were concerned
that some
CPCA members may not fully understand the role of NYSDOH faculty,
including
their normal teaching obligations. Because of the uniqueness of the SPH
faculty, the tenure and promotion cases go through two levels of reviews
before
they go to the University level review. SPH representatives raised
questions
about whether CPCA members might rotate too quickly, thus losing
accumulated
experience about SPH’s somewhat unique issues with DOH faculty.
Possibly, the
CPCA membership should be stabilized, or have clusters for University
review
that deal with similar schools, to achieve a fuller understanding of
non-traditional faculty, etc.
Professor Acker wondered whether other units in addition to the School of
Public
Health, perhaps including the College of Nanoscale Science and
Engineering and
the Library, might present special challenges within the context of
promotion
and tenure decisions because of the specialized nature of faculty
activities,
nontraditional criteria for evaluation, or other unique factors. He
inquired
whether other units might have similar claims to uniqueness that raise
questions
about having tenure and promotion recommendations made about a
centralized
review council.
§ Professor Bangert-Drowns responded for the School of Education,
reporting that their internal two-tier process is rigorous. There is a
feeling
that their cases thereafter are sent to a group of people at the
University
level who are relatively uninformed about their work. When they get
negative
feedback or when questions are raised, the issues tend to concern matters
that
are considered secondary or somewhat trivial to the School of Education
internal
review board. The School of Education representatives in certain
respects feel
that the School could do without the University level review, although,
on the
other hand, they feel there is a need because faculty are promoted and
granted
tenure at the University level. Tenure and promotion decisions clearly
affect
the entire University and promoting cross-university awareness is
desirable,
because it gives other departments the chance to learn about each other
as well
as about prevailing University norms. School of Education personnel
discuss
what the University level committee might think about their tenure and
promotion
cases and supporting materials; it forces the school level committee to
think
more critically when assessing and preparing cases.
§ Professor Smith, School of Business, reported that Professor
Fogelman
discussed tenure and promotion with Interim Dean Leonard and there really
are no
major issues with CPCA. Dean Leonard reported that various issues
existed in
the 1980’s, but the school took great effort to try to educate each
successive
level of review and work toward educating people in the standards in
their own
field.
§ Professor Wyckoff, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and
Policy
reported that Dean Thompson noted that the old Rockefeller College,
consisting
of the Schools at the Downtown Campus, used to have a second level
review, but
it has been done away with. From the Rockefeller College perspective,
either a
Downtown Campus second-level review or a similar mechanism, or keeping a
University Council for a second level of review in tenure and promotion
cases
could be acceptable. Professor Wyckoff agreed that tenure and promotion
cases
might be more thoroughly scrutinized and better prepared because of the
prospect
that the cases will be progressing to CPCA for additional review.
§ Professor Carlson, School of Social Welfare (SSW), reported
that
although she has yet to have engaged in discussion of these issues, it is
her
impression that SSW does not have any issues with the University level
review.
SSW faculty cases go directly to CPCA and the process appears to work
well.
General discussion of promotion and continuing appointment included:
a. The challenge of finding a good measure of the effectiveness of
centralized review, or the “value added” of a centralized second-level
review
process
b. The prospect that the existence of a centralized review body
encouraged
more rigorous scrutiny and preparation of cases at lower levels because
of the
anticipated later review
c. That special challenges would be presented for evaluating truly
interdisciplinary faculty research and teaching without a broadly
representative
reviewing body
d. That a centralized review body may help serve an important
educational
function and in establishing a uniform normative framework at the
university
e. That the composition and turnover rate among members of a
centralized
review board should be carefully considered
f. That consideration should be given to cases arising from units
that
may be somewhat idiosyncratic in terms of faculty duties or evaluation
standards
(e.g., the School of Public Health, the Library)
Feedback from respective units regarding Graduate Academic Curriculum
governance
issues:
§ Professor Carlson, SSW, reported that SSW is quite autonomous
because
accreditation programs largely help determine its graduate curriculum.
§ Professor Hoff, SPH, reported that the SPH feels autonomous,
but
wonders why certain minor changes have to go through the University level
review
of GAC, such as course name changes. The concern is that it could move
faster
and would benefit from not having to put minor things through GAC, but
larger
things, like curriculum change would benefit from a GAC overview.
§ Professor Schell, CAS, reported that Assistant Dean Stevens’
main
point was when other units delete courses or change a course number, such
actions could have an impact on other programs that include those
courses. GAC
is necessary in identifying what changes might impact other units or
departments.
§ Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies Bartow noted that there is
some
standard for curricular changes that informs others and that the State
Education
Department and SUNY System Administration need to be advised of changes
too.
There will be thorough discussion on the Graduate Academic Council at the
next
meeting. General questions raised focused on:
a. Identifying the “value added” from the work performed by a body
like
GAC
b. In particular, discriminating between issues related to graduate
curriculum that are likely to benefit from a centralized governance body,
and
relatively minor or individualized issues that are not.
New Business:
1. Professor Acker handed out copies of correspondence that he had
received
from UAlbany colleagues Professors R. Michael Range, Sung-Bok Kim, and
Eric
Block discussing their perspectives about the committee’s charge.
2. Peer institutions: Professor Acker distributed a list supplied by
Bruce
Szelest of UAlbany peer institutions and aspirational peer institutions
that has
been used in other contexts. He proposed that each person on the
committee take
responsibility for contacting one or two institutions and collecting
information
about how those institutions conduct business on matters relevant to the
committee’s charge. It was suggested that contacting other institutions
would
be premature pending further consideration of what institutions should be
consulted, what questions should be posed, and to whom those questions
should be
directed. Committee members considered it preferable to engage in
further
discussion of issues before attempting to identify or contact peer
institutions.
3. Interim Provost Mumpower contacted Professor Acker to offer
assistance
by having himself or a representative of the Provost’s Office either
regularly
participate in committee meetings or else appear as requested for
specific
questions and discussion. The premise of the offer is that there are
many
regulatory matters and practical operational issues that revolve around
the
issues being discussed and that the Provost’s Office might be able to
offer
insights about such matters. The committee members were appreciative of
the
Provost’s offer, and agreed that having a representative of the Provost’s
Office
available on an “as needed” basis would be preferable.
4. Additional guest speakers: Professor Acker asked for suggestions
about
inviting additional guests to future meetings. Various names were
discussed,
including:
§ Professor Wulfert, in her capacity as outgoing Chair of EPC,
who might
offer information about EPC’s role with respect to graduate curriculum
and
related matters.
§ A representative of the Senate Governance Council (consistent
with the
committee’s charge).
§ Interim President Ryan, to elaborate on matters presented in
his April
28, 2004 memorandum to Edelgard Wulfert, Chair of EPC, and to discuss his
general views about autonomy in faculty governance.
§ Representatives from the University at Stony Brook and/or other
schools that make use of different governance models.
§ Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer Kaloyeros,
College of
Nanoscale Science and Engineering and/or the deans or academic leaders
from
other units at UAlbany.
The consensus of the committee was that Interim President Ryan should be
invited
to appear at his earliest convenience. Decisions about additional guests
were
deferred pending further discussion.
Attachment: Report from Professor Barbara Via.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jayne VanDenburgh
Attachment to the June 16, 2004 minutes of the Ad hoc University-wide
Governance
Committee from Barbara Via:
I would like to clarify my comments at yesterday's meeting, regarding
CPCA. It
occurred to me as I left the meeting that I should have made it very
clear in
discussing CPCA, that I was speaking for myself, as a former member of
CPCA
for two years, and not for my Dean's view of CPCA. As the discussion
around
the table ensued regarding functioning of CPCA, I failed to get to the
point of
reporting my own Dean's views on CPCA.
For the record, I did meet with Dean Butler prior to the meeting and her
view is
that CPCA review has functioned very well for library cases. The Univ
Libraries
faculty have no second level of review other than CPCA. Many years ago
CPCA
expressed some concerns raised specific to Librarians as faculty and the
dossiers that are typically presented for library faculty. Meredith met
with
CPCA at that time, and was able to satisfy their concerns and explain
the
unique contributions of librarians as academic faculty. Since that time,
Meredith says CPCA has reviewed nearly every case from the library very
positively.
As was stated by others at yesterday's meeting, one important positive
result of
CPCA review is the opportunity to demonstrate to faculty from various
disciplines the contributions: teaching, research, and service- that are
made by
faculty from varying academic areas.
Barbara Via
