FACULTY MEETING
April 4, 2008
Gannett Auditorium
MINUTES
President Glotzbach called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m.
Minutes from the February 29, 2008 meeting, having been previously distributed, were approved with no emendations.
PRESIDENT’S REPORT:
President Glotzbach opened this meeting by recognizing the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968). A moment of silence was observed.
- The Creative Thought, Bold Promise campaign contributions as of the date of this meeting total $147,210,770.03.
- The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has awarded Skidmore College a five-year grant of $1.7 million in support of efforts to enhance interdisciplinary teaching and learning at the Frances Young Tang Teaching Museum and Art Gallery, the largest foundation grant ever awarded to Skidmore. Five hundred thousand dollars is immediately allocated for operating expenses. The remaining $1.2 million is subject to a 3:1 Skidmore match to be raised over 5 years, thus generating a total addition to the endowment of $4.8 million. President Glotzbach thanked John Weber, Barry Pritzker, and Ian Berry for the work that led to our obtaining this outstanding grant.
- The AAUP faculty salary data has been compiled and will soon be released publicly. Skidmore’s goal was to move faculty salaries to the median of our peer group. President Glotzbach presented the data in a PowerPoint slide show (see attachment). Skidmore’s position in relation to its peer institutions does indeed place us at or above our target for each of the three ranks. This progress illustrates the effect of the approximately $2.5 million additional funds put into faculty salaries over the past two years. The enhancement of faculty salaries has moved Skidmore to a very competitive position, but remaining at this position will continue to be challenging.
- Skidmore’s endowment now stands at approximately $287 million, placing us in the middle of our peer comparison group. More importantly, however, Skidmore’s figure for endowment-dollars-spent-per-student is $109,000 per student, which continues to place us considerably lower than the median of our peer institutions.
Mary Lou Bates, Dean of Admissions gave an update on the current enrollment figures:
- Approximately 7,100 regular decision letters were mailed last week. There were about 600 more applications this year; however, for regular decision, Skidmore admitted about 350 fewer students. A 1.5 percent increase in yield is anticipated. The target is to enroll 605-610 students with 36 students in the London program. Thirty-nine percent of the total class including those in the London program have been enrolled through early decision. Spring regular decision acceptance rate was 24 percent. Overall acceptance rate is 28 percent. Thirty percent of the spring admits are self-identified students of color. Mary Lou encouraged faculty to participate in the next three scheduled Accepted Candidates Days to be held April 11, April 14, and April 21. Porter Presidential Scholars have been notified of their awards. New this year is the S3M (Skidmore Scholars in Science and Math) program, and 16 students were selected. Four Filene Scholars were chosen last weekend.
VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS REPORT:
Vice President Susan Kress congratulated those involved with the Mellon/Tang grant.
- The Library reappointments of Linda Hofmann and Elizabeth Putnam were announced.
- The working group for the Center to support the work of faculty has been assembled: Terry Diggory, Chair; Beau Breslin; Ruth Copans; Mary Ann Foley; Ann Henderson; Rik Scarce. The charge is being developed.
- The working group for the Zankel Center has been assembled: Tom Denny, Chuck Joseph, Lary Opitz, Mary DiSanto-Rose, Paul Sattler, Kate Berheide, John Weber, Jeff Segrave, Justin Sipher, Lori Eastman, Mike Hall, Michael Lewis Parker '10, and Susan Kress. The charge is being developed. VP Kress thanked all those who were willing to serve as members of this group.
- In early March, VP Kress made a recommendation to close the UWW (University Without Walls) program. The March 7 report to the faculty outlines the steps that were taken that led to the recommendation, beginning with the charge to the Special Programs Study Group (SPSG) in January 2007. Since then, a faculty caucus was convened by FEC (Faculty Executive Committee); and two electronic message boards were created by the college (one for UWW students and staff only—and the other for students’ interactions with college administrators as well). Interim Dean Jeff Segrave presided over an open meeting for UWW alums and local students; in addition, email, regular mail, and phone communications have been received. All of these messages will be communicated to the appropriate committee. The administration has met with UWW staff and will meet with them again next week. FEC and CEPP (Committee on Educational Policies and Planning) have met and they will report their recommendation later in the meeting, after which there will be an opportunity for discussion and questions.
OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS:
- FEC – MOTION – CEPP Faculty Handbook, Part Two, Article II, Section F, number 3 revisions
- On behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee, Dan Curley, as Chair, moved that the membership statement of the Committee on Educational Policies and Planning in the Faculty Handbook be amended (see link to attachment above). Informational discussion ensued. The motion, having come from the committee, required no second. Motions on matters of policy are required to lie over one meeting; therefore, this motion will lie over until the April 25, 2008 meeting.
- Use of faculty-list. Mehmet Odekon gave a summary of events leading up to questions regarding the use and ownership of information contained in faculty-list emails. An April 1 Times Union article (see attachment) quoted from a message from Professor Odekon to the faculty-list without his permission. Discussion ensued regarding questions of ethics, proprietary rights, and professionalism.
- The intent of the IT policy regarding emails was discussed. The policy states that email communication is privileged communication conducted between two parties. It was noted that there are no formal restrictions on the use of email communication; like speech, such communications can be disseminated, and technology is only the vehicle in this case. The expectation that such communications are private is not valid.
- Concerns were raised regarding regulating or restricting the use of email communication; it would not be in the best interests of the faculty. Combining caution and good sense might be the best policy.
- Ownership of information contained in emails was discussed. When an email is sent to someone, does it then become their property? What about other forms of written communication?
- The question of the lack of fact checking by the Times Union was noted; however it was mentioned that contacting the Times Union might trigger further unwanted articles.
- A suggestion was made that the Information Resources Committee (IRC) take up this issue as it doesn’t affect just the faculty-list but all email lists.
- MOTION, proposed by Sarah Goodwin:
- “Resolved, the faculty regrets that recent faculty-list emails were forwarded to a student and goes on record as making a collective commitment not to forward any faculty email beyond the faculty-list without consulting the author of the email. This resolution shall be conveyed to the student in question and to the faculty as a whole.” The motion received a second. Parliamentarian Opitz advised that that the motion was a “sense of the faculty” and therefore did not need to lay over to the next meeting.
- A friendly amendment was offered to forward the resolution to the Times Union. The friendly amendment was not accepted.
- A friendly amendment was offered to state, “author or authors of the email,” as many emails are embedded.
- A friendly amendment was offered to include all internal email lists at Skidmore, not just the faculty-list.
- VP Kress recommended that the motion be referred to FEC and that they deliberate about next steps.
- MOTION, to commit the issue to FEC. The motion received a second. Discussion ensued. The motion received a unanimous affirmative vote and was passed. Motions to commit need not lie over; therefore, FEC is required to come back to the Faculty floor with this issue at the April 25, 2008 meeting.
REPORTS:
Committee on Educational Policies and Planning (CEPP), Deb Hall, as Chair and on behalf of the committee, gave a report regarding CEPP’s receipt of a proposal for the closing of the University Without Walls program.
- CEPP, in consultation with FEC, agreed to take up the proposal to close UWW. Although there is no precedent to follow for this circumstance, CEPP will use Part 1, Section 17 of the Faculty Handbook, “establishment or elimination of a department” as a guide in the process. CEPP intends to bring the proposal to the faculty floor as a motion at the April 25 faculty meeting, anticipating that the motion will be voted on at the May 14 faculty meeting. CEPP will host at least one open meeting. It was noted that UWW at present is not accepting new students and CEPP believes the faculty have a responsibility to address the issue in a timely manner.
- Jim Kennelly, Acting Director of UWW, stated his concerns with the timing of the process since the formal recommendation to close the program was made in the first week of March. He also noted that there are many issues that have yet to be discussed, such as academic rigor, faculty engagement, pared-down programs, etc. He stated that he can accept a decision to close the door of UWW, but only after a full review of all of the data—and it may be overly optimistic to expect that information to be available in the next three weeks.
- Deb Hall reassured everyone that it is CEPP’s intention to continue with a transparent, equitable, and reasonable process. CEPP has invited Jim Kennelly to its next meeting to discuss this process. The proposed motion will outline very clearly what a vote to close or to continue UWW would entail—so that faculty are very clear when they vote as to what the concrete results and implications of that vote will be.
- VP Kress stated that the administration intends to listen to the faculty. The administration wants to understand the faculty’s commitment to the program; therefore, the outcome of this process will indicate the level of faculty commitment. In the event the faculty recommends continuation of the UWW program, faculty will be indicating their willingness to understand and accept the impact on institutional resources and faculty workload.
- Jim Kennelly explained his vision of a more appropriate timetable. It is his desire to have the opportunity to prepare plans that would provide information from quantitative data perhaps by the end of May, and then to work on analyzing that data over the summer, and then bring a motion for a vote to the September or October faculty meetings. The Board of Trustees will be on campus in October and then whatever is decided will be final. Regardless of whether the vote occurs in May or October, UWW will continue to operate, attend to students, and offer classes. Jim Kennelly will leave UWW at the end of May.
- A question regarding the impact of a later vote on enrollment was raised. If the program is no longer accepting new students, will future enrollments be at risk if we decide to continue the program? Jim Kennelly stated that he has returned some student payments, but other students have been willing to wait until the final decision.
- FEC is aware of the concerns regarding timing and equity. John Brueggemann, on behalf of FEC, also noted that as long as the program remains in limbo there will be negative impacts on the program; therefore, FEC did feel that there was a sufficient amount of time to come to a conclusion by the end of this semester. But FEC also acknowledges that there may not be enough time to properly facilitate the process, in which case the timetable should be adjusted.
- A motion will be brought to the faculty floor by CEPP at the April 25 meeting.
President Glotzbach recognized Jennifer Burden, Director of Health Promotion who was on the meeting agenda to give a report on Health and Wellness of students at Skidmore. Due to time constraints it was decided that Jennifer will give her report at a later meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
- For Faculty Development Committee (FDC), Mary Ann Foley, as chair, announced the 2008-09 Edwin M. Moseley Faculty Lecturer will be Denise Smith, Professor of Exercise Science.
- For Vice President for Advancement Review Committee, John Brueggemann, announced the formation of the review committee consisting of Sue Layden, Justin Sipher, Carol Schnitzer, Pat Fehling, and John Brueggemann as chair. It is hoped that the work of the committee will be completed by the end of the semester. Faculty will be given an opportunity to provide input.
- Dean Pat Oles extended an invitation to the Faculty Meeting Reception to be held in the Sports Recreation Center, Hall of Fame, hosted by the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs.
The meeting was concluded at 5:25 p.m.
Minutes submitted by:
Colleen M. Kelly,
Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs