Minutes ”â€œ Cyber College Meeting ”â€œ 05/06/05
Members in Attendance:
Applied Science: Wright, Battacharyya, Jennings, He, Zhang, Al-Shukri
Computer Science: Chiang, Collins, Yoshigoe, Minsker, Geoghegan, Tang
Construction Management: Carr, Xie, Blacklock, Tramel
Engineering Technology: Pidugu, Midturi, Menhart, Bakr, Patangia, Tebbets, Tschumi
Information Science: Bruhn, Lowery, Burris, Dagtas, Wu, Howe, Karlson, Wigand
Systems Engineering: Jovanovic, Chan, Mohan, Iqbal, Reddy
The minutes from the previous meeting were reviewed. Howe was moved from the staff list to faculty of Information Science. The minutes were approved with this change.
Elections for College offices and University Committees were held. The results:
- DCISSE President: Steve Jennings (Applied Science)
- DCISSE Vice President: Nick Jovanovic (Systems Engineering)
- DCISSE Secretary: Hussain Al-Rizzo (Systems Engineering)
- DCISSE Parliamentarian: Pete Tschumi (Engineering Technology)
- Under Graduate Council Representative (2 years): Mike Tramel
- Graduate Council Representative (3 years): Serhan Dagtas
- Committee on Committees Representative: Mo Bakr
- Tenure Committee Representatives: Steve Menhart (1 year), Chris Ray (2 years)
- Faculty Senate Representatives (2 years): Haiyan Xie, Nick Jovanovic, Hirak Patangia
College Elected Committees were reported:
Applied Science: Zhang (primary) & Jennings (alternate), Computer Science: Tang (primary) & Seker (alternate), Construction Management: Tramel (primary) & Ray (alternate), Engineering Technology: Tebbetts (primary) & Pidugu (alternate), Information Science: Howe (primary) & Xu (alternate), Systems Engineering: Iqbal (primary) & Al-Rizzo (alternate)
Applied Science: Bhattacharyya (primary) & He (alternate), Computer Science: Minsker (primary) & Chang (alternate), Construction Management: Blacklock (primary) & Carr (alternate), Engineering Technology: Urbina (primary) & Patangia (alternate), Information Science: Wu (primary) & Zhao (alternate), Systems Engineering: Chan (primary) & Kim (alternate)
Personnel and Policy Advisory Committee
Applied Science: Wright, Computer Science: Bayrak, Construction Management: Ray, Engineering Technology: Menhart, Information Science: Tudoreanu, Systems Engineering: Chan
Applied Science: Anderson, G., Computer Science : Milanova, Construction Management : Xie, Engineering Technology: Bakr, Information Science: Dagtas, Systems Engineering: Liu
Recruitment and Retention
Applied Science : Mazumder, Computer Science : Perkins, Construction Management : Carr, Engineering Technology: Patangia, Information Science: Karlson, Systems Engineering: Reddy
The Policy and Personnel Advisory Committee presented a draft Joint Appointment policy to the assembly for discussion. At the beginning of the discussion (with a quorum being present), the question was raised as to whether the item on the agenda was a motion for approval or a report for discussion. President Bruhn stated that the item was intended for discussion only and that no action would be taken.
During the discussion, Jim Blacklock moved that discussion be terminated and the policy be adopted. A point of order was raised that the agenda must be changed in order for the “motion to adopt the policy”Â to be considered. A motion to modify the agenda was made. A quorum check was called. Only 26 assembly members remained (well under a quorum) and the motion was not entertained.
President Bruhn requested that the assembly secretary summarize the discussion so that the PP&A could resume work on the Joint Appointment policy in the Fall 2005 semester.
Here are the high-lights of the discussion:
Tebbets: Who makes the initial contract? The faculty member? The Dean? The Chairs of the Departments affected?
Midturi: Where does the money come from? How are differences in pay rates between the two departments handled?
Bruhn: How does a difference in raise between the two appointments affect the split in the appointment?
Wright (clarification on Midturi’s second point): Can a change in appointment result in either a raise or lowering of an appointees salary if the pay rate in the secondary department for the same rank and experience is either greater than or less than the pay rate in the home department?
Jennings: Should Joint Appointment be the only mechanism for fostering collaboration? There are other mechanisms available which are easier to implement if this is the only reason to create joint appointments. Should a 50/50 appointment (ie no home department) be the only way we do joint appointments?
Wright: A 50/50 joint appointment will require a faculty member twice as long to achieve promotion, tenure, and advancement, since neither department is required to take the service to the other department into account in making such decisions.
Tramel: Listing “special exceptions”Â without stipulating the circumstances under which those exceptions will be made leaves the door open.
Hawk: As chair, joint appointments have been a disaster. The faculty expectations are at 100% for both departments, regardless of the percentage of the appointment.
Mohan: The expectations should only be made on the item where the JA is appointed. Does the secondary chair’s percentage for raise get averaged by the primary department chair?
Jovanovic: Does an untenured JA have control on initiating his/her appointment in practice? If the Dean or Chair put sufficient pressure on such a faculty member, he/she really does not have any choice about initiating the appointment.
Midturi: What if every faculty member in a department applies for a JA?
Wigand: The Dean should be able to control this.
Midturi: This issue is a faculty issue. We should be able to solve this without recourse to the Dean. Perhaps put a limitation on the percent amount of a faculty that can be jointly appointed.
Jovanovic: Systems Engineering was loaded with joint appointees when the department first started. A limit on the percentage of the department that was jointly appointed would have defused the concerns about department being taken over by JAs.
Midturi: I have a great need for faculty! Need help in teaching. Other departments which are teaching less could supply this need.
Tramel: What happens with a small department such as Construction Management? We cannot afford to supply a JA to another department.
Bakr: The draft policy can address the “disaster scenario”Â of a faculty member being hampered towards P&T. It has a “back out”Â clause.
Midturi: I am worried that my department will be depleted if faculty apply for joint appointment.
Jovanovic: The way to handle the differences in evaluation based on departmental mission is to have an independent evaluation by each department.
Battacharrya: Need to build incentive into the policy. Should be a limit by department on number of JAs.
Mohan: If the sum of the JAs in a department equals 100% (ie one faculty member), the contribution is less than a single, dedicated faculty member.
Tschumi: An incentive to the “donating department”Â such as a “buy out”Â in the maintenance budget, would make JAs more palatable.
Tramel: Should have a statement in the policy, if a department is consistently over-loaded (by Load Report), faculty in that department cannot be considered for joint appointment.
Hawk: Is the college considering more JAs?
Bruhn: Dean’s Office is considering them to help out SE with the new tracks (Mechanical and Electrical).
Bakr: Chairs have made the JA in the past. New policy involves the faculty of the Depts in the process.
Wright: The section of the document which deals with the terms of agreement between the JA and the two departments, supercedes departmental guidelines on appointments. An agreement between a majority of the faculty (draft JA policy) will take precedence over an agreement that requires a 2/3 majority of the same faculty (dept. gov. doc.). This sets a bad precedent for the college and may be used to justify violation of department governance documents in ways that we cannot determine.