January 21, 2010

Department Heads Meeting

January 21, 2010

Those Present: Victor Matthews, Pam Sailors, George Connor, Ardeshir Dalal, Tom Dicke, Kirby Hanson, Karl Kunkel, Jack Llewellyn.

Items for Discussion:

  1. Heads were asked to look at the list of items in the CHPA SCUF budget and point out if there are any items that we no longer need to request for funding. It was determined that the Microcase license and the new printer for the REL graduate student lab can be deleted from the list.
  2. Heads were asked to look at the AC Agenda Packet and in particular (a) Mike Harders report on Scholarship management and (b) on p. 14 the proposal for Long Range Planning. At the meeting these reports were discussed. On the planning document, the Heads tried to identify “big picture” items that we need to address as we look back at what we have accomplished during the previous five years and what we should be striving for in the next five years. Below is a summary of the comments raised:
  • Concern was raised with the “silo-approach” in which each V.P. and their designated working group deliberate separately. A more integrated approach seemed like a better way to insure coherence in the planning process.
  • Rather than suggesting names of faculty who could work with the various groups it was felt that might prove a frustration if a great deal of time and effort was expended and the new President chose not to consider recommendations made by these groups. It was felt there were enough items already lined up in the spring semester for the faculty without adding another one.
  • In terms of “big picture” items to consider, it was first felt that the university needs to decide (1) what it actually wants to be in the future (e.g. an institution that emphasizes research and graduate programs, an institution that focuses primarily on its teaching mission and undergraduate programs, or an institution that works to balance its commitment to both undergraduate and graduate programs, research and teaching) and (2) how directly the university’s Public Affairs mission will drive the planning process and will be a central facet of its goals in the future.
  • With the uncertainties of the state’s finances, the lack of Ph.D. students to assist with the teaching and research load, and the unknown factor of the new President’s goals and priorities, it was even suggested that the planning process be put off until the new President arrives and can put his or her full stamp on the document rather than just react to an existing draft.
  1. Each of the Heads had obtained information on their foundation accounts and especially their General Scholarship accounts. We discussed how to manage the money in these accounts. The Harders report is recommending that 50% of unawarded general scholarship funds and orphan (non-endowed) scholarship funds be used to help deal with the university’s $900,000 deficit in its general scholarship fund.
  2. To prepare a report for the Provost, the Heads were asked to provide examples in the college of engaged scholarship and community outreach. One example is the Social Capital Survey being conducted by faculty in the SOC department.

AAA will meet next Monday in LIB 101. The Deans will preview their presentations for the President’s Town Hall meeting on Feb 24 and Kathy Coy will make a presentation on the newly developed data sources for the Annual Report. You will find this latter presentation of great interest since it does an excellent job of providing needed data that the Heads will then react to in their reports.