A&S Transition Team: Minutes July 31, 2008

Transition Team Meeting

July 31, 2008, 2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242

Present:

Joseph O'Mealy	Alan Teramura	Ned Shultz
Hye-Ryeon Lee	Martha Crosby	Subramanian Shankar
Jerry Russo	Takeo Kudo	Laura Lyons
David Chin	Noel Kent	Carol Karimoto
Mike Kirk-Kuwaye	Karin Mackenzie

I. Minutes of July 24, 2008 Meeting

- no corrections.

II. Discussion Notes

At Alan's request, Michael Peters (Interim Associate Dean, College of Natural Sciences) did further research into peer/benchmark institutions with hybrid (academic and functional) organizational structures. He conducted telephone interviews with Deans or Associate Deans of the Natural Sciences divisions at the University of Michigan, Arizona State University, and the University of Wisconsin. He asked how divisions/units were structured; how budgets, promotion and tenure, and hiring were handled; and how much office staffing they had.

University of Michigan (spoke to Jim Penner-Hahn, Associate Dean -- Natural Sciences)

Structure -- College of Literature, Sciences, and the Arts (LSA)
- Dean of LSA
- Associate Dean -- Humanities
- Associate Dean -- Natural Sciences
- Associate Dean -- Social Sciences
- Associate Dean -- Budget
- Associate Dean -- Undergraduate and Graduate Education
- Assistant Dean -- Advancement
- Assistant Dean -- Student Academic Affairs
- Assistant Dean -- Undergraduate Education
- Assistant Dean -- Graduate Education
Budget
- is static, formula-based, 3-year cycle.
- is set in a meeting of the Department Chair, Associate Dean -- Budget, and the Academic Associate Dean
Promotion and Tenure
- has an elected LSA Executive Committee (composed of 2 members from each division for a total of 6 members).
- divisional committee recommends to the LSA Executive Committee which makes the decision.
- if there is a tie vote, the LSA Dean makes the decision.
Hiring
- target for department is set by the LSA Executive Committee. If below target, pro forma approval; if above, goes to Executive Committee with advice from the Academic Dean (usually accepted).
Staffing
- seven (7) staff among the three Associate Deans.

Arizona State University (spoke to Sid Bacon, Dean of Natural Sciences)

Structure -- College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (LAS)
- Vice President and Dean of LAS
- Executive Dean of LAS
  - Dean of Humanities
  - Dean of Natural Sciences
  - Dean of Social Sciences
  - Associate Dean for Student and Academic Programs
  - Assistant Dean for Budget and Financial Services
  - Assistant Dean for Advancement and Director of Development
  - Director of Academic Personnel
  - Director of Facilities and Space Planning
  - Director of Human Resources
  - Director of Media Relations and Marketing
  - Director of Operations
  - Director of Research Administration
  - Director of Research and Analysis
  - Director of Learning Communities Institute
  - Director of Online Programs
  - Director of Retention and Student Support
  - Director of Scholarships and Academic Services
Budget
- single budget for college
Promotion and Tenure
- Academic Dean and Dean of College. All deans review and discuss dossiers. Academic Dean writes review, reports to the Provost via the Dean of College.
Hiring
- three hiring plans determined at the beginning of the year; decided as a group in a meeting of the Deans.
- trying something new: meta-planning and joint hires for several schools for interdisciplinary units.
- Academic Deans can hire; limitation is in dollars (not position counts)
Staffing
- Administrative assistant, business operations manager.

University of Wisconsin (spoke to Herb Wang (Ex-) Associate Dean, Mathematical & Natural Sciences)

Structure -
- Dean of Letters and Sciences (L&S)
  - Associate Dean, Social Sciences
  - Associate Dean, Arts & Humanities
  - Associate Dean, Mathematical & Natural Sciences
  - Associate Dean, Corporate Relations
  - Associate Dean, Student Academic Affairs
  - Associate Dean, Research Services
  - Associate Dean, Budget, Personnel, Planning, Research Services and Planning
  - Associate Dean & Director, Undergraduate Education
  - Note: -- Associate Deans are 60% FTE and rotate.
    (In response to a question on how long the Associate Dean serves before rotating out, Mike had a follow up conversation with Herb Wang. Associate Deans serve a maximum of two five-year terms.)
    
    Academic and Functional Associate Deans meet weekly for 1.5 hours. Each has a half hour weekly meeting with the Dean of L&S.
Budget
- L&S budget office informs Associate Deans of available funds.
- delegated budgeting for positions -- departments have freedom to make changes which are position count neutral.
- any savings realized are not returned to the department
- funding for equipment comes out of a special legislative fund; assigned by Associate Deans as a group.
- TA positions are decided by Associate Deans using a spreadsheet from Budget office.
Promotion and Tenure
- recommendations from department passed through division to a TPRC-like committee which recommends to Dean of L&S.
- Promotion from Associate to Full Professor at five (5) years does not require external letters.
- For promotions, Associate Dean writes letter of congratulations for Dean of L&S signature
Hiring
- Academic Associate Dean recommends hiring priorities to Dean.
- Department Chair and Associate Dean interviews the short list (Dean of L&S and Associate Dean interviews for full professors).
Staffing
- No staff. Four Associate Deans share a receptionist.

TT Comments/Discussion:

Wisconsin structure seems hierarchal.

Was there a sense of how the (Wisconsin) faculty feel about access? The Associate Deans act as a gateway. Faculty see the Associate Dean first and if there is a need to see the Dean, the Associate Dean goes with them.

In general, the faculty seem to like this structure.

How do the Associate Deans feel about being part-time (60% FTE) and rotating?

Seems that the functional offices run things with academic oversight.

Does this structure work for a Liberal Arts emphasis? Wisconsin seems to think that this works for them.

Wisconsin structure seems highly centralized with the Dean not really accessible to the faculty.

Seems that Wisconsin's structure is designed to make the Deans weak (having them rotate and part-time). It's not clear how long they are in office before rotating out.

If we were to have rotating (Associate) Deans, they would come from the faculty and rotate after X number of years. If come from the ranks, they would have more sensitivity to faculty issues and concerns.

Our current university and campus is centralized (budget and position control).

In the hybrid model, most of the activities are taken care of by functional offices. There is academic oversight. Most recommendations go to the Dean.

Functional offices do not have to be headed by Deans; can be headed by Directors.

At the last meeting, the group discussed governance. There was consensus that the group would keep the document more general rather than include specific policies -- don't want to tie the hands of the person (Dean) coming in. General principles and policy statements are needed; not necessarily algorithms.

Alan asked for volunteers to work on a general governance document (3 -- 4 pp) noting that there were lots of good points in the draft document discussed last week.

Jerry Russo and David Chin are working on the Faculty Senate portion. Jerry reminded the group that there is an A&S Senate Executive Committee and perhaps we should be deferring to it.

Perhaps the TT has gone as far as it can and should transition the work to the faculty? Is the group at or close to its endpoint?

Some members feel that the group needs to recommend a model including the functions and divisions. Need specifics about the divisions and functions at the college level (not departments).

The four functional areas identified were Administrative, Graduation Education & Research, Undergraduate Education, and Outreach and Development. One suggestion was to combine Graduate and Undergraduate Education and leave Research separate.

Can present the three models in academic fashion -- listing the pros and cons of each and indicating if a particular model has strong support of the faculty. When presenting the TT's results to the faculty it would be beneficial to explain how the committee saw things as it worked through the summer; specific examples would be helpful.

What is the process from here?

One recommendation is that the TT complete the document including a recommendation, give it to the Chancellor and appropriate faculty group for review and comment.

Set dates for: recommendation to faculty, faculty discussion, faculty decision. Will need to go through a lot of what the TT did (how reached the recommendation), would TT members be willing to be involved in the process?

Though the website is available, will need more than that -- we will need to facilitate the conversation.

Questions that need to be addressed:

How is the decision made -- by vote of the A&S faculty?
Who leads the discussion? TT? Someone from the Chancellor's Office?
Would the vote be on a resolution? A recommendation?

The process will be a means of educating the faculty, preparing them for the candidates that will come in the Spring.

Suggestion: if there is consensus, the TT recommendation -- Chancellor -- Manoa Faculty Senate -- Senate Executive Committee -- faculty of affected colleges

The appointment of the Executive Dean is not a BOR action.

A straw vote was taken on which model has the majority TT support. Results:

Academic 3
Functional 1
Hybrid 9

Given this result:

present all three models
use the appropriate language to indicate that the majority opinion is for a hybrid model that would fit us
point out that it was not possible to reach a consensus on the number of academic divisions (that portion should be left to faculty for discussion)
recommend a process of consultation
send this to the Chancellor and other appropriate bodies

There is a need to discuss the functional offices.

Volunteers for the governance document: Joe O'Mealy, Laura Lyons, Karin Mackenzie.

III. Focus for Next Meeting: Functional offices

IV. Next Meeting:

Thursday, August 7, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Bilger 242

Nancy Fujii, 8/4/2008