Faculty Meeting Minutes

February 3, 2023

Michael Orr, Dean of the Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs, called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.  He welcomed everyone to the first faculty meeting of the spring semester and noted some improvements that Media Services have made to the technology for the hybrid format of the meeting since the last Faculty Meeting was held in December. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

DOF/VPAA Orr asked if there were any corrections to, or comments regarding, the minutes of the Faculty Meeting held December 2, 2022.  Hearing none, he announced the minutes were approved.

OLD BUSINESS

There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS

On behalf of the Committee on Academic Standing (CAS), Senior Teaching Professor Maryuri Roca presented some Powerpoint slides and introduced the first of two Motions (see attached):

            Motion: require all students to maintain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.000.

Professor Roca explained the rationale for bringing this Motion to the floor and pointed out that currently a small group of first-year students are put on probation after their first or second semester but are not subject to Academic Review.  Discussion of the Motion ensued regarding whether students coming under academic review after their first or second semester would now receive more leniency or be more likely to be disqualified, how many students this proposal would affect, and what the process would be should a student in the first or second semester come under academic review.  It was noted that this proposal would result in approximately six additional students coming under academic review and that it was very unlikely that a student would be disqualified after the first semester

Next, Professor Roca introduced the second Motion:

Motion: remove semester hours completed from the standards for continuation and reframe the criteria as an expectation rather than a requirement to continue their studies.

Professor Roca then explained the rationale for bringing this Motion to the floor, noting that at present a student with a strong GPA who is one credit hour behind is treated as if they were at risk of failing. Discussion of the Motion was held regarding outreach to students whose progress toward completion is in jeopardy and the steps that the Office of Academic Advising takes to reach out to students to assist students in completing the requirements for their degrees.  It was noted that the catalog uses both “semester hours” and “credit hours,” which can be confusing. Registrar DeConno agreed to review the catalog and clarify this issue.

Further discussion was held regarding the number of times a student can be on academic probation before being disqualified and whether a change in this policy will affect the graduation rates for students on academic probation for multiple semesters.  It was noted that simply going below a certain number of credit hours would not place a student on academic probation. However, students that are placed on probation for a second term come up for academic review and may be disqualified.  A reminder was made that every student’s case is unique and every case is reviewed very carefully.

Members of the Student Government Association inquired as to whether student feedback was used in developing this policy proposal and how would students be informed of the change. It was noted that there is student representation on CAS, that any changes would appear in the college catalog, and that the changes could be announced via email to current students.  It was also suggested that the Student Government Association review the proposal and provide any feedback to the CAS prior to the next faculty meeting.

Additional discussion was held regarding the apparent lack of standards of continuation for students whose grade point averages are above 2.0 but are still failing some of their courses, as opposed to students averaging a 1.95 but passing all their courses.  It was noted that CAS does not look at the actual GPA as a cut-off number but that it looks at the progress of the student, relying upon input from the faculty and the Office of Academic Advising in order to determine whether the student should be given a waiver or placed on leave. In response to a question whether there is data suggesting that students are helped by being asked to take a leave of absence due to Academic Review, it was noted that it is hard to identify a correlation because students take leaves of absence for many different reasons.

There being no further discussion, the two Motions will lie over until the next Faculty Meeting.

OTHER

On behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC), Associate Professor Xiaoshuo Hou presented the Committee of Committee’s fall 2022 report (see attached).  There were no comments or questions raised in response to the report.

Next, members of FEC (Professors Xiaoshuo Hou, Jason Ohlberg, Oscar Perez-Hernandez, and Dominique Vuvan) presented a report on the Faculty Governance Structure (see attached).  FEC noted that the current governance system, adopted in the 2015-16 academic year, is due for a formal review in the 2023-24 academic year.  In preparation for that review, FEC wanted to provide an overview of the structure and the function of the current governance system so that productive discussions can be held in order to identify strengths and weaknesses of the current system, prioritize which problems should be solved, and identify potential solutions to the problems that the faculty have collectively decided to solve.

In their presentation, members of FEC reviewed the rationale for the Motion that the faculty approved in 2015-16 when the current governance structure was implemented; provided an overview of the current governance committees and the constraints of populating those committees; reviewed the faculty that are required to serve and when service is required under the current governance structure, as well as the service cycle; reviewed how ballots for elections are populated based on faculty rankings of committees on preference sheets and committee membership constraints; and shared information on other college committees, steering committees, advisory boards, working groups, search committees, and ad hoc service roles that are not part of the current governance structure but for which faculty service is sought.

In concluding their presentation, FEC asked the faculty to consider two sets of questions to prepare for the review of the governance structure: (1) what are our values around service and (2) does the system function in a way that reflects our values?

Discussion then ensured with regard to the various ways that other similar colleges manage their governance obligations.  A former member of FEC involved in creating the current governance structure noted that FEC researched the governance systems of approximately 30 peer institutions before the current system was designed and adopted.  He noted that each institution had its own variation of service requirements with very significant differences and noted that it may be worthwhile to again research other institutions to see if there have been any changes. 

Further discussion was held regarding the prior governance structure (the process of populating committees and problems encountered under the previous system) and the process of determining which committees counted for governance service under the new structure.  It was noted that, prior to 2015-16, FEC had received multiple complaints about the previous governance structure and, as a result, FEC had decided to review the governance structure.  At that time, FEC had started with what it saw as the key governance committees but never concluded their discussions whether other committees should be part of the governance structure. 

Professor Beau Breslin, DOF/VPAA at the time the current governance structure was adopted, noted that while he was on sabbatical he worked with the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education (COACHE) to survey dozens of liberal arts colleges about their service requirements.  He stated that many institutions showed enthusiasm for our service cycle but one school in particular, Kenyon, indicated that their faculty was deeply satisfied with their service. Professor Breslin noted that this institution only had 5 or 6 committees and, thus, far fewer faculty were required to serve.  He then suggested that any review of our governance system should consider ways to streamline our current committees in order to achieve greater satisfaction with the system.

FEC concluded their presentation by thanking everyone for their comments and indicating that the committee intends to organize more occasions for faculty to share their views regarding the governance structure. 

PRESIDENT’S REPORT

President Marc Conner welcomed everyone to the first faculty meeting of the spring semester and hoped everyone had had a wonderful holiday and break.  He shared a favorite quote from philosopher Martin Heidegger, from his lecture on Heraclitus:

“It is proper to every gathering that the gatherers assemble to coordinate their efforts to the sheltering.   Only when they have gathered together with that end in view, do they begin to gather.”

President Conner stated that, as is typical of Heidegger, he used a lot of words to say essentially this: Before we gather, we first must shelter each other.  President Conner said that he has thought about this quote on some long walks with his dog over the winter break, and to him, it seems that these two past years have been all about attending to the sheltering, and now, having done that so well, we begin to gather again.   The fall and spring semesters this year have been filled with gatherings, including the upcoming Winter Celebration, which hasn’t been held since 2019.  President Conner reported that there will be approximately 500 attendees at the event next week, signaling that people are eager to come together again.  President Conner then noted that the second president-faculty dinner had been held recently with a third one on the schedule in the coming week. He announced that later this semester he would be inaugurating a new tradition of holding dinners to honor the winners of the Ciancio Award for Excellence in Teaching and the Phyllis A. Roth Faculty Distinguished Service Award, to accompany the long-standing tradition of holding a dinner to honor the winner of the Moseley lectureship.

Next, President Conner provided the following updates:

• Planning for the symposium on speech and expression on college campuses scheduled to be held April 14-15 is proceeding nicely. Three keynote speakers have committed to attend: Danielle Allen from Harvard will be giving the kick off on Friday evening; Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University and author of Safe Enough Spaces, will be giving a lunchtime talk on Saturday; and David Brooks, well-known columnist and intellectual, will be giving the concluding address on Saturday.  In addition to these three speakers, there will be a Skidmore student panel and a Skidmore faculty panel.  The event will take no particular position other than trying to model how we can engage in difference and how we can talk about what it means to speak on college campuses today. The event, to which the public will be invited, will take place in Zankel.  More details will be forthcoming in the near future.
• This month’s staff meeting, held earlier in the day, had been dedicated to the Vision and Values project. The staff divided into breakout groups to discuss what makes Skidmore unique or special, and what defines us as a community. This was the third iteration of these discussions, with the Board and the Institutional Policy and Planning Committee (IPPC) having already engaged in these discussions.  A forum for faculty is being planned as well as a forum for students.   Details for the faculty discussion will be forthcoming.
• The search for the Vice President for Finance and Administration is proceeding on track. The first of the four finalists has visited campus with the remaining finalists visiting over the next two weeks.  As was shared with the community, because of the highly confidential nature of this search as well as the need to protect candidates’ relationship with their current institutions, open community forums were unable to be scheduled for this particular search.  However, each candidate will have an opportunity to engage with the VP’s direct reports and members of the FEC, ATC, and the IPPC in a more carefully curated forum setting.
• The search for the Vice President for Enrollment and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid is proceeding with semi-finalist interviews being conducted next week. The finalists will then be invited for campus visits in the next few weeks.
• A search for the next Vice President for Communications and Marketing has resumed and will proceed in the coming month. Finalists will be brought to campus later in the semester.

President Conner concluded this portion of his remarks by thanking everyone who has been participating in these cabinet-level searches, in the midst of nearly two dozen tenure-track searches that are also occurring this year.  Particular thanks were given to the members of ATC who are meeting with every vice presidential candidate who comes to campus as a finalist and meeting with President Conner before and after each set of visits to provide feedback, all in the midst of their other work.

Next, President Conner turned to the big topic that he wished to address during the meeting: a frank conversation about college finances.  He reminded everyone that last year in May, after the Board approved the budget, an open forum was held on the state of the college finances, which had been well-received; another similar event is being planned for this coming May after the Board approves the budget.  However, President Conner indicated that he wished to engage in meaningful budget conversations with the community sooner than that, while the budget is in the planning stage. He reported that the College is once again projecting a surplus for this year, one even larger than had been originally anticipated, due to additional enrollment and operational savings that have occurred this year.  He commented that it has long been the practice at Skidmore to describe such surpluses as “one-time surpluses” which “can’t be used for ongoing operational expenses.” However, he noted that for the last 20 years or so, Skidmore has exceeded its enrollment goals every year and has experienced a surplus almost every year. He said that he believes we need to reexamine our approach to budgeting because we have historically continued to budget as if surpluses are not going to happen. Commenting on projected deficits 3-5 years down the road, President Conner described that such deficits were projected in the 2019 fiscal update he received when he accepted the presidency at Skidmore and that stark deficits were projected for 2023. However, it’s now 2023 and just the contrary has occurred. He stated that once again frightening deficits are being projected 3 to 5 years from now but these deficits seem to keep getting deferred. The question, then, is, what does this mean and what should we do about it?

President Conner reported that he is seeking to expand our fiscal approach and how we think about the key budgetary levers at our disposal, such as the size of the first-year class. What would it mean to move a certain number of students from below the line to above the line, that is, to move them into a permanent budgeting context and, thus, into ongoing budgeted revenue? Other potential budget levers to look at include allocations to the capital budget, especially given that we make an extraordinary allocation to capital. Is that where we want to put those funds? Another potential lever is the annual increase in tuition and fees. At present we are budgeting a 3.5% increase for the next five years. Is that reasonable or are we erring in setting that level? What would be the implications of adjusting that projected increase?

These budget levers have implications for any projected deficits and, in particular, for staffing levels. President Conner reminded everyone that in 2019, due to projected deficits, a decision was made to cut 10 percent of all staff and faculty positions.  That was a decision that he had inherited when he arrived. Of course, the COVID pandemic then hit and during the summer of 2020 it looked as if the College might take a $20 - $40 million hit to the budget.  Although some schools saw such losses, Skidmore did not experience them and we emerged from COVID in a better fiscal position than we had going into the crisis.  President Conner then commented that applying a 10% staffing reduction across the board is not a strategic way of managing staffing levels. The College did it by attrition, which is a more humane approach than just lopping off programs or people. However, such an approach means you do not have control over where the reductions take place. Last May, the college described how it has been shifting away from the initial goal of a 10 percent employee reduction and looking at other ways to attain and maintain fiscal stability. Last spring, we announced revised numbers, with fewer staff and faculty positions projected to be eliminated. Nevertheless, President Conner stated that he thought some of the reductions already made had cut into the bone, potentially compromising our mission. By way of example, he cited areas such as IT, Media Services, Facilities, Student Affairs and student support.

President Conner stated he wants to step back and look at staffing levels and examine other more effective levers to address our fiscal needs. Once we get through this fiscal year, we will be able to see what we can commit to. He noted that the financial news at the end of the year is going to be good. The only question is how good and what will this mean and what will it make possible. We are having robust discussions about this, not just at the Board and cabinet level, but also with IPPC, which reviewed the projected budget in December before it went to the Board budget workshop, and the IPPC budget and finance sub-committee, which is working regularly on the budget and related questions. And, President Conner explained, IPPC spent time today reviewing the budget before it goes to the Board for further review. 

President Conner indicated that, at the end of the year, he cannot in good conscience report yet another significant surplus and still be talking about reducing staffing levels, at least not to the extent we have been attempting in recent years.  He believes that there has been nothing more detrimental to our climate and our community over the last two and a half years than that relentless sense that there was a Damoclean sword hanging over people with a somewhat arbitrary threat of when it was going to fall. Although he’s not yet sure what the new narrative is going to be, he doesn’t anticipate using the phrase “staffing reduction” ever again, at least not in the way that we’ve been using it. Noting that he’s been having these discussions with IPPC throughout the year, President Conner stated that he wants to begin these conversations with the broader community now. 

President Conner closed by stating that Skidmore is in a remarkably strong fiscal position at this time, commenting that there aren’t 20 schools in the land who are in a similar position to Skidmore.  As we search for a new Vice President of Finance and Administration and new Vice President for Enrollment, we will need to determine how we can maintain our financial position, remain highly competitive, and continue to grow.

Following his report, the floor was opened for questions and comments.  Discussion ensued regarding the reasons for such a big turnaround from crisis to optimism in the financial outlook. President Conner cited the College’s impressive and sustained success with admissions, including the number of acceptances, the yield rate, reduced summer melt, the proportion of students that are able to pay full tuition, and our strong retention rate. Noting that there is still uncertainty about the future admissions picture, President Conner indicated that he thought we should make some changes in our approach to budgeting now based on our strong history of budget surpluses, while remaining prudent and carefully stewarding College resources. Other topics discussed included the need to increase our residential capacity and to be attentive to the size of classes in Scribner Seminars; the importance of the new Health, Wellness, Fitness and Athletics project for admissions; the current student/faculty ratio, which has moved from 7.6:1 to just above 8:1 during the last several years but which remains one of the lowest in the land; Skidmore’s history during the past decade of increasing the size of the faculty and President Conner’s commitment not to add new faculty lines without a clear plan for how to pay for it; and the possibility of adopting a more participatory budgeting approach, similar to the approach recently used by the City of Saratoga Springs.

DEAN OF THE FACULTY AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS’ REPORT

DOF/VPAA Orr began his report by commenting on the change of locations for faculty meetings, noting that he and FEC wished to experiment with holding the Faculty Meeting in spaces that would be more conducive to informal discussions before the start of the faculty meeting and offer a more participatory environment during the meeting itself.  After experimenting with holding the meeting in the Payne Room for the past two meetings, the next Faculty Meeting in March will be held in Murray-Aikins.  DOF/VPAA Orr then thanked Beth Dupont and her colleagues in media services for the huge effort they had made since the last Faculty Meeting to dramatically enhance the technology. These comments were greeted by a round of applause.

Next, DOF/VPAA Orr provided an update on the union negotiations with the non-tenure-track faculty.  He reported that the first bargaining session would be held next week, and would feature a presentation from our non-tenure-track colleagues.  He indicated that he looks forward to engaging with the negotiating team and anticipates that a series of ongoing meetings will be scheduled as the collective bargaining process gets underway.

DOF/VPAA Orr then provided an update on the ongoing faculty searches, noting that we are making excellent progress with the many searches.  So far, we have successfully concluded 8 tenure-track searches and the search for the Director of the Idea Lab.  We have made some outstanding hires, with more than 50 percent of the successful candidates being faculty of color.  The remaining searches will continue this semester.

Thereupon, Michael Arnush, Associate Dean of the Faculty for Student Academic Affairs, shared a brief Powerpoint presentation concerning the process for academic alerts and the role of the Student Assessment and Intervention Group (SAIG; see attached).  He encouraged faculty to use academic alerts in the event their students are struggling academically.  The academic alert will go to the student as well as the academic advisor, Student Academic Services, Academic Advising, and if appropriate, the Opportunity Program.  When an academic alert is received, outreach is made to the students and the faculty in an effort to provide support for the students.  The earlier a problem is identified, the higher the likelihood that the student will succeed.  For issues other than academic concerns, such as the health and wellness of our students, Dean Arnush encouraged everyone to report those issues to the SAIG.

Next, DOF/VPAA Orr provided an update on COVID.  He stated that the college continues to monitor the Saratoga County COVID community level, which had remained at a low level for a long period.  Just last week, however, the level had been raised to medium.  At this time, there is no impact on our campus policies or practices.  However, if the community level rises any further, the COVID Logistics Group will review the situation and determine whether any changes to our COVID guidelines should be made.  Any changes will be communicated promptly to the community.

In concluding his report, DOF/VPAA Orr referenced his recent email announcing the appointment of Professor Corey Freeman-Gallant as the next Associate Dean of the Faculty for Student Academic Affairs.  DOF/VPAA Orr noted Professor Freeman-Gallant’s past experience in this role and commented that he is sure to be a tremendous help to Dorothy Mosby, our incoming DOF/VPAA.  DOF/VPAA Orr then expressed his appreciation to Dean Arnush for his work in this role over the past three years, particularly throughout the challenges of COVID.  A round of applause was given to Dean Arnush. 

There being no further business, DOF/VPAA Orr adjourned the meeting at 5:06 p.m. and invited everyone to the reception in the Tang Lobby immediately following the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,