Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 1, 2019
Gannett Auditorium
MINUTES
Michael Orr, Dean of the Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs, called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m..
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
DOF/VPAA Orr asked if there were any corrections to, or comments regarding, the minutes of the Faculty Meeting held December 7, 2018. Hearing none, he announced the minutes were approved.
OLD BUSINESS
On behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC), Associate Professor Casey Schofield
led a discussion concerning the results of the faculty service poll conducted during
the December, 2018 faculty meeting. Professor Schofield stated that the survey indicated
that some degree of dissatisfaction with the current system was relatively widespread,
with the highest levels of dissatisfaction being found among associate professors
and the lowest among full professors. The results also showed great variability in
the amount of service being performed across the ranks. FEC noted that about half
of those reporting high levels of service received some form of compensation. Approximately
20 percent of respondents (predominately those at the associate rank) considered their
service burden too high. The survey indicated that there was interest in exploring
a change to our service system; however, opinion was divided between switching to
a credit-bearing system or shifting some of the service responsibilities to the administration.
Professor Schofield reported that an encouraging number of faculty members had expressed
a willingness to serve on a task force to examine our service system.
Professor Schofield stated that FEC is now considering whether it should spend a significant
amount of time trying to develop an alternative to the current service system and
invited input from the faculty regarding the results of the survey. Among the points
raised during the ensuing discussion were the following:
- Surprise at the number of faculty who indicated that they felt their service is unvalued.
- A reminder that we are only in the third year of our new service system and concern about “reinventing the wheel” only to find the same level of dissatisfaction.
- The original proposal called for the new governance system to be evaluated in 5-7 years.
- Concern that the current system makes it hard for non-tenure-track faculty to participate in service and that non-tenure-track faculty feel disconnected from college governance.
- FEC’s findings about dissatisfaction with service may be related to earlier research regarding associate professors and the ways in which they may find themselves stalled in their progress toward promotion.
- Might the results of a survey about service conducted during a faculty meeting be biased—faculty who attend faculty meetings may tend to do more service than those who don’t attend faculty meetings.
- Rather than thinking about completely overhauling the system, FEC might want to consider a more targeted approach, focusing on those faculty members doing a lot of service and who felt overwhelmed.
- Since just over one-quarter of the faculty are non-tenure-track, should we require more service of non-tenure-track faculty or, perhaps, increase the proportion of tenure-track faculty.
- One of the challenges with our current governance system is getting enough faculty to indicate a strong preference for serving on the major governance committees that require a large amount of time (i.e., ATC, PC, FEC, etc.). Could FEC find a way to persuade more faculty to be willing to serve on these committees, given that the work that they do is the responsibility of the faculty.
- Because there is severe inequity across the faculty in service levels, it would be worth FEC’s time to work on this issue. The service issue encompasses not only governance committees, but also service as department chairs and other types of service.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
REPORTS
On behalf of FEC, Associate Professor Katie Hauser led a discussion of the Committee
of Committees (CoC) report previously distributed. Professor Hauser indicated that
most of the committees had reported good working relationships with the administration.
However, the principal exception was IPPC, which reported less than satisfactory relations
with the administration, largely due to two meetings having been cancelled in the
Fall. Professor Hauser pointed out that the CoC report also acknowledged that the
faculty members of IPPC are partly responsible for setting the agenda for IPPC. Thereafter,
the faculty members on IPPC were asked if they could clarify their dissatisfaction
with relations with the administration. Associate Professor Greg Gerbi responded
by stating that the sentiments summarized in the CoC were accurate but that those
sentiments may have been expressed more harshly than warranted. The CoC had met soon
after the two meetings had been cancelled, and the IPPC faculty representatives were
feeling frustrated. Since the CoC meeting, the faculty representatives had acknowledged
that they shared responsibility for setting the agenda for IPPC, and they had begun
doing that. Professor Gerbi stated that he is optimistic and hopeful that things
will continue to improve. Nevertheless, he pointed out that there is long-standing
criticism of IPPC for being something of a “rubber-stamp” committee that serves to
approve proposals. In response to a further question about the role of IPPC, Professor
Hauser indicated that the role of IPPC could be a topic of discussion at the forthcoming
faculty-only meeting. Professor Hauser noted that this is her first year serving on
IPPC but that she understood that the charge to the committee indicates that IPPC
should be a consultative decision-making committee rather than an informational committee.
She indicated that she would prefer either to ensure that IPPC operated as a truly
consultative committee or to change the charge to the committee so better reflect
practice.
Associate Professor Linda Hall stated that she was pleased when the announcement was
made last year that the campus was going to be smoke free. She indicated that she
had wanted to thank the IPPC subcommittee members for their work but had been unable
to do so because the IPPC website was so out of date. She then asked if an IPPC subcommittee
had reviewed the smoking policy last year and, if so, who were the members of the
committee. A lengthy discussion then ensued regarding the processes followed in developing
and approving the smoke-free policy. During the course of the discussion, Professor
Hall requested clarification several times regarding the role of the IPPC subcommittee,
the membership of the subcommittee, and whether or not the subcommittee had carried
out a review of the proposed policy. Cerri Banks, Dean of Students and Vice President
of Student Affairs, described the process followed in developing the new smoking policy.
She noted that when she came on board it appeared that the biggest challenge concerned
enforcement. She recalled that after consulting with IPPC, a decision was made not
to redo all the work that had been done to date; rather, a decision was made to move
forward with the policy that had already been agreed upon. To that end, an implementation
committee was formed to implement the policy. Several faculty members then recalled
the development of an earlier smoking policy that had formed the basis for the recently
implemented smoke-free policy. At one point during the discussion, in response to
back-and-forth discussions occurring between attendees, a point of order was called
regarding the proper role of the chair in recognizing speakers. President Glotzbach
stated that the college had been looking at implementing a smoking policy for many
years and that the issue had been brought back periodically to IPPC. He recalled that,
about two years ago, the decision was made to move forward with the no-smoking policy.
President Glotzbach stated that he didn’t believe that a major review had happened
last year as the focus of the work had been on implementation. In response to a request
for the IPPC website to be updated, Professor Hauser recognized that there was an
issue with duplication of websites and that FEC is planning to address this issue.
Discussion then returned to the role of IPPC and it was noted that the membership
of IPPC and FEC had changed around 2012/13. Previously, there had been 9 faculty representatives
on FEC. Since that time, that membership had diminished to 4. In addition, previously
the chair of FEC did not sit on IPPC. As a result, there was an expectation that
the FEC chair would be asked to respond on behalf of the faculty when IPPC discussed
matters involving faculty. With the chair of FEC now serving on IPPC, it may not
be realistic to expect the FEC chair to put matters on hold so that the faculty can
be consulted. Next, the faculty were reminded that there used to be a faculty committee
called the Financial Planning and Policy Committee (FPPC) that was involved in the
development of the budget. Ultimately, FPPC was disbanded after committee members
grew frustrated with feeling that their time was being wasted. However, the members
of FPPC had hoped that the faculty representatives on IPPC would carry on the tradition
of faculty members being involved in developing the budget. Professor Denise Smith
then stated that the discussion had reminded her how many times the governance structure
had been changed in an effort to get the right balance of faculty participation.
IPPC has the potential to provide faculty with the opportunity to be more involved
in decision making, but such work would require more time, energy, and participation
on the part of the faculty. She recalled that she had spent two years on IPPC and
remembered the discussions relating to the smoking policy; she stated that faculty
had been consulted and they had time to contribute more if they wanted to. Implementation
had been difficult because it involved not only faculty and staff but also students
and union employees. Professor Hauser brought the discussion to a close by stating
that the faculty-only meeting scheduled for February 15 would be a good place to continue
these discussions.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Glotzbach then acknowledged that Professor Emeritus Ralph Ciancio had recently passed away. He stated that DOF/VPAA Orr had contacted all holders of the Ciancio teaching award to ask them to contribute reflections for inclusion in a booklet to be provided to his family. There will be a memorial service on February 9, 2019 at the Surrey Williamson Inn. Professor Emeritus Ciancio contributed to the Skidmore community for more than 35 years as a respected faculty member and for many years afterward as a professor emeritus.
Next, President Glotzbach called everyone’s attention to conference being sponsored by Salmagundi, Sharing the Wealth – Six Leading Black Intellectuals Talk about their Work and the Culture.
President Glotzbach then announced that Skidmore had joined the New York Six schools and a second group of 24 leading liberal arts colleges in signing two letters to Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, expressing concerns regarding proposed new Title IX regulations. Skidmore has also joined with more than 3,000 other colleges and universities and other organizations expressing its commitment to continue to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.
President Glotzbach then opened the floor for questions. Associate Professor Michael Arnush asked President Glotzbach to provide a sense of the financial health of the college. President Glotzbach stated that the college’s financial health is very strong; we still maintain our A1 Moody’s rating, at a time when Moody’s has downgraded higher education as a whole. While our financial health is currently strong, we do face some challenges. Along with our record high applications, the percentage of applicants seeking financial aid continues to grow. In this year’s pool, 77 percent of applicants are seeking financial aid, while our business model requires us to have no more than 50 percent of our students on financial aid. In addition, salaries, wages, health insurance, and the comprehensive fee continues to escalate. In the past, our five-year budget model has often projected deficits in the realm of $1-$2 million; however, we now are seeing projected deficits in the $5-$6 million range, and that is not sustainable. The bulk of our revenue (77%) comes from tuition and fees with a smaller percentage from the endowment and annual fund. On the expense side, over 60 percent of our costs are attributable to salaries, wages, and benefits. After that comes financial aid, capital expenses, and everything else. The principal challenge is that financial aid is increasing at a faster rate than the increase in our comprehensive fee. As a result, our net tuition revenue is being squeezed.
Thereafter, President Glotzbach discussed the demographics of our students. A large proportion of our students still come from the northeast, and that is an area where we are seeing a decrease in the college age demographic. The largest increase in college age demographics is in the southeast, and those students tend not to come north to go to college. We are working hard to increase our applications from selected areas in the south; we are making some headway but the numbers remain relatively small. In addition, the pool of international students not seeking financial aid continues to decline, and we can only accept a small fraction of students that need financial aid; in fact, while our applications are up 2-3 percent this year, our international applications are down. The decline in our international applications is probably largely due to the current political climate and fear about gun violence widely reported in the media.
President Glotzbach concluded by stating that we have a large applicant pool to select the new class, with the hope of enrolling 50 percent through early decision. We are in a strong position right now, and our reputation is continuing to grow.
DEAN OF THE FACULTY AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS' REPORT
In anticipation of the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting in February, DOF/VPAA Orr stated that the Trustees would like the opportunity to socialize with faculty and that they had extended an invitation to faculty to join them for dinner and a special dance performance to be held on February 21, 2019. DOF/VPAA Orr indicated that he will send an email with further details soon. Unfortunately, because of space constraints, attendance is limited to the first 30 faculty members to respond to the invitation.
DOF/VPAA Orr announced that we are moving forward with administering the Higher Education Data Sharing (HEDS) consortium campus climate survey. This initiative is being coordinated by the Committee on Intercultural and Global Understanding, in conjunction with the Subcommittee on Institutional Effectiveness. The survey is an online survey and will be administered to faculty, staff, and students across the entire college community. The initial invitation will first come from President Glotzbach, and thereafter, periodic email reminders will come from HEDS until the survey is completed; all responses will go directly to HEDS. One of the reasons we want to do the survey this particular year is because St. Lawrence did this survey last year, and the rest of the NY6 schools have committed to doing it this year. We will have the opportunity to compare our results with those at the other NY6 schools. DOF/VPAA Orr stated that we want to have as high a response rate as possible and encouraged everyone to urge their students to complete the survey. DOF/VPAA Orr noted that when St. Lawrence completed the survey, the hardest challenge was getting students to complete the survey. It is anticipated that HEDS will compile the results and provide us with the aggregated results in the early fall. We will then study the results and decide what changes we can make or policies we can implement in response to the results of the survey.
DOF/VPAA Orr then provided an update on the CIS project, noting that the project remains on track, with the north wing scheduled for completion in summer 2020 and the greenhouse scheduled for completion this summer. He stated that we are taking another look at the phasing of the project to see if we can complete the project sooner and eliminate some of cost escalation built into the phased project. Since Donna Ng’s arrival, we have been looking at the cost structure of the project to see if we can realize cost savings through value engineering, and simultaneously, reevaluating the funding sources for the project. DOF/VPAA Orr reported that the process has been carried out in close consultation with the Board. Several discussions have also been held with IPPC. DOF/VPAA Orr stressed that no decisions have yet been made and that a meeting had been scheduled with all science faculty in the next week to provide more information to those most directly affected by a revision in the phasing of the building. He reported that there will be further conversations with the Board later this month and that he anticipated holding a community forum following the Board meeting.
DOF/VPAA Orr shared that we have been hosting a visiting team of faculty and administrators from Hobart and William Smith Colleges for the past few days. The team is interested in significantly improving and enhancing their assessment of student learning outcomes; they did a scan of similar colleges and they were very impressed with what they saw on our website about what we have been doing here, so they sent a team here to learn more about what we have been doing. They came to campus and were enormously impressed with what they discovered and found here. They met with a number of people, including Professor Sarah Goodwin who was so instrumental in getting our assessment structures and program established, Professor Peter von Allmen, the current Director of Faculty Assessment, Associate Dean of the Faculty Crystal Moore, who helped coordinate the visit, a number of other faculty, the staff in Institutional Research, and members of student affairs. They were really impressed with the staffing structure we have developed, the dedication of faculty to the assessment process, and the variety of ways academic departments engage in assessment. He noted that the entire faculty deserves tremendous praise for creating a culture of meaningful assessment that is being seen by other institutions as a model.
DOF/VPAA Orr then reminded everyone that the March faculty meeting had been cancelled last year due to snow. He noted that, since 2000, the March faculty meeting had been cancelled three times (2000, 2007, and 2018). As there is a potential for weather to affect the timing or holding of our March faculty meeting, he and FEC had worked together to schedule a backup meeting date in the event the March faculty meeting was cancelled. The backup faculty meeting date would be Friday, March 22, 2019. A follow-up email will be sent shortly.
In concluding his report, DOF/VPAA Orr thanked everybody who had submitted nominations for the position of Associate Dean of the Faculty for Faculty Affairs and Diversity. He stated that he has been impressed by how many nominations had been received. The next step will be to review the nominations, identify finalists, speak with a subset of those nominees, and then, ultimately, consult with the Appointments and Tenure Committee before making an appointment. He hopes to be able to make the appointment by March 1.
Thereafter, on behalf of the Office of Special Programs, Auden Thomas, Interim Executive Director, invited everyone to a reception at Pine Cottage immediately following the faculty meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Academic Affairs Coordinator