Restructuring Task Force Meeting Notes - Nov. 21, 2003

Present: Larkin, Nunes, Cogdill, Dobey, Hansen, Murphy, Spaude, Kang, Bayerl, SubbaNarasimha, Rundquist

Absent: Lawrence, Starks-Martin

Andy Larkin distributed another revised recommendation memo.

Item #5a: Creating a VP for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies. It should read Dean of the School of Graduate Studies rather than Dean of Graduate Studies . It was clarified that the recommendation is to leave Summer Sessions and Continuing Studies as they are. Dennis Nunes says there is support in other universities for attaching Summer Sessions to the core of academic areas. A good reason for keeping it with Graduate Studies is that graduate courses comprise a fairly large portion of our summer offerings. The wording should include that this recommendation is contingent upon the VP of Research having signatory power.

Item #5b: Moving University Communications to the Office of Academic Affairs. It was proposed that this recommendation be removed. Even though a lot of what University Communications does relates to academics, we still believe it still should be located there. It generalizes what that office does, makes it less specialized, and that benefits us. 5b will be removed.

Item #5c: Moving AVP for Administrative Affairs (budget) into the OAA to report directly to the provost. We've been back and forth on this, and comments from the campus community seem to have been 50% for and 50% against moving this position. It was suggested that it not be dropped, but that it instead be a recommendation to look at defining the duties of that position, and deciding where it should be placed on the basis of the defined duties. It should suggest reviewing the issue of moving the AVP for Administrative Affairs (budget) into the Office of Academic Affairs because there's concern that priority emphasis should be given to the academic role of the university.

Item #5d: Clearly defining the duties of the three associate and assistant positions within the OAA. The wording should be more direct; the positions should be identified. It has been clarified that diversity is not part of the title or the duties of the AVP for Faculty Relations.

Item #5e: Identifying the Academic Council to include the provost, the associate and assistant vice presidents for Academic Affairs, and the deans and associate deans. Academic Council should be changed to Academic Affairs Council . There is concern that a group of this size might not be workable. It's not important enough for this task force to consider. If we had schools within colleges, with associate deans heading each school, then those associate deans should be part of Academic Affairs Council. At this time it's not necessary. If we take out associate deans, the proposal doesn't need to be in the recommendation at all. 5e will be deleted.

Item #4: that COFAH establish a review committee to consider dividing the college. Instead of dividing COFAH, it should say that although the College of Fine Arts & Humanities functions well, because of its large size and small number of administrators we recommend that the college establish a review committee to consider any reorganization of its programs.

Item #3: that COSE establish a task force to consider the organization of its programs. It should say reorganization of its programs instead of organization . It should be changed to say it has been endorsed by the chairs, rather than by the college.

Item #2: Dean and School of Undergraduate Studies. A reference to Strategic Plan Priority I has been added. It should say creation of school and appointment of a dean of that school . We did not include in our recommendation that FCTE should be reorganized. Can we add wording about FCTE? Frankie Condon's proposal has a fair amount of support. Can we add that the dean would have responsibility for a Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning? The revised proposal calls for the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning to include lots of things besides undergraduate studies. Should it be in with this, or should our recommendation relate only to the undergraduate support services? If it's included, it should be proposed separately. If we recommend a school and a dean, the school should be the entity to propose that kind of Center. Perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all; the new school should be able to set it up as they want. But would it disappear? This proposal hasn't been presented anywhere else. We didn't solicit this proposal, or any other proposals. If the school of undergraduate studies comes to pass, that school should create the support services in a way they see as best. Even if we like this proposal, our charge may not include making a proposal like this. If this proposal goes through successfully, there needs to be lot of communication with other areas that are doing similar things, like Learning Resources. Our recommendation supports the idea of centralization, but Frankie Condon's proposal calls for more decentralization. Cory Lawrence also felt that student services shouldn't all be in one place. General education should come before student services in the sentence. How would centralized coordination of General Education reduce resources? General education is the main motivation of creating this school and dean. The last sentence is important; coordination of general education is needed. There is some fear that we're just shifting resources to general education and that would hurt the major and minor programs. It should say more effective or efficient use of resources, so that a better balance can be maintained between general education and majors and minors. It should be clear that our purpose is to streamline general education, and that it will reduce the resources needed.

Item #1: Advisory Council for Student Diversity and Social Justice. A reference to Strategic Plan Priority V has been added. We shouldn't specify how often the council should meet; it should be changed to ‘regularly.' Last time we talked about adding the director of student organizations, but didn't come to a conclusion. The overall substance and aim of this council should be more like a lobbying group. We've stated the purpose of the council. Still, not all diversity and social justice issues are being included. We're trying to focus on diversity issues. We're trying to identify people who have expertise in dealing with those issues. Our charge is to meet all students' needs; to exclude these people is not answering our charge at all. Diversity should include all. It should be seen as a coalition of under-represented groups; those groups need to be facilitated to express their own common denominator, their own voice. It might be better not to state who we think should be included; this group is not creating policy. How about letting them decide? The reason we have so many organizations is that people want to belong to an organization of like people. We have lots of organizations because we are diverse; they should not be excluded. We've been working for years on a strategic plan. We have studies saying we have serious problems. We can't address it if we keep diluting it. All we're doing is saying we're going to have this group come together to study the problems and report; we don't want that diluted. It could be stated as “those who are disproportionately underrepresented at the present time.” Isn't the purpose to facilitate communication between these people? No, it's more a conduit for these people to speak to the policy makers. A majority of task force members felt the wording should stay as it is now written.

We have not addressed the charges directly. We need to have one more meeting, primarily to make sure we've addressed the charges we've been given. The task force will meet next Wednesday, Nov. 26, at 8:00 a.m.