Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 28, 2025
Murray Aikins Dining Hall, 2nd Floor
Dorothy E. Mosby, Dean of the Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs, called the meeting to order at 3:37 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dean Mosby asked if there were any corrections to, or comments regarding, the minutes of the Faculty Meeting held February 7, 2025. Hearing none, she moved to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded and they were approved.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
NEW BUSINESS
On behalf of Promotions Committee (PC), Associate Professor Erica Wojcik introduced two motions. The first regards a change in the timeline for promotion to full professor, and the second clarifies evaluative criteria. The rationale for these motions can be found in the attached documents. Professor Wojcik then invited questions and comments from the faculty.
A faculty member noted that, with the number of semesters to be included in a promotion file being changed to 12 from 10, faculty may have to go back in to their files from their promotion to associate professor. They asked if there should language included that would preclude someone who is submitting a promotion file from having to submit records that have already been evaluated by an assessment committee. Professor Wojcik said that this is not a new issue, and would come up regardless of the change in timeline. She said that the 12 semesters referenced in the new language refer to the 12 semesters following promotion to associate professor. If there is a semester within that where a faculty member has generated no new records, due to a leave or a sabbatical, that will not impact the evaluation of the file as a whole.
A faculty member asked for a clarification on the language about the potential variation in balance between scholarly and creative work and service. Professor Wojcik stated that the Promotions Committee sees that language as a clarification of existing policy, as opposed to a change in policy. Professor Wojcik said that there remains an expectation of participation in both service and scholarly and creative endeavors, but that the choices that faculty make after they are granted tenure vary so widely as to be incomparable at times.
A faculty member said that he thinks there is very clear language in the preamble about the trajectory that people take as they move from associate to full, and the shifting balance between scholarship and service. The different weightings of the areas are well reflected in the preamble.
A faculty member stated that the changes put forward by Promotions Committee will not water down the standards, but will allow for all types of excellence to be rewarded, by prioritizing a holistic approach to evaluating promotion files.
A faculty member said that he anticipates that the word 鈥渟ustained鈥� may prove to be a problem going forward for external letter writers. He expressed concern that it may be difficult to interpret. He suggested the PC may need to go further in their clarifications.
Professor Wojcik acknowledged that this potential issue with the language was discussed at length by PC. She stated that, when preparing your file for promotion to full, it will be important to read the entirety of the pertinent section of the Faculty Handbook. She also stated that the preamble should be distributed to any letter writers. The main thrust of the clarification is intended to emphasize that the evaluating committee will be looking at all three areas of any faculty member鈥檚 submitted file. She said that in all three areas, the committee will be looking for a pattern over time, while acknowledging natural ebbs and flows. If they had the space in the handbook to give a plethora of examples that might be more clarifying, but could also be a limiting factor as people may hew to the specifics of these examples. A faculty member suggested that the language of 鈥渆bb and flow鈥� be used in the preamble. Professor Wojcik thanked them for their suggestion and reminded the faculty that they can share any further questions or comments with her or with PC after the meeting. The motion will lie over until the next Faculty Meeting.
On behalf of the Committee for Academic Freedoms and Rights (CAFR), Professor of Philosophy, introduced a motion (see attached) regarding changes to the Faculty Handbook pertaining to Negative Tenure Decisions and the Tenure Review Subcommittee. The motion is intended to render unambiguous the policy that supplemental materials for one鈥檚 tenure file are not permitted after the submission date, but can be used in a tenure appeal. The motion will lie over until the next Faculty Meeting.
OTHER
Jess Ricker, Vice President for Enrollment and Dean of Admissions & Financial Aid, gave an update to the faculty on enrollment for the Class of 2029. She informed the faculty that we've received the second largest applicant pool in the college's history, we've secured 52% of the Class of 2029 through our Early Decision rounds, and we're currently $1 million under budget for financial aid in early decision, which gives us more flexibility as we shape the remainder of the class. She then gave the faculty a look at the work happening in Admissions and Financial Aid right now. They are nearly done reading applications and have shifted to the crucial phase of finalizing the class. The team is processing financial aid applications and carefully shaping the class to ensure we meet our goals for both post-melt class size and net tuition revenue. The goal is to release decisions on Saturday, March 15.
VP Ricker shared with the faculty some of the work happening in this final phase:
- Working with STEM faculty to select Porter-Wachenheim merit scholarship winners as well as S3M;
- Supporting music faculty as we invite students to campus for the Filene music scholarship competition;
- Incorporating feedback from faculty across dance, music, theater, and studio art portfolio reviews;
- Collaborating with athletics to ensure they have full rosters for all our teams;
- Balancing our commitment to the Davis United World College Scholars program while ensuring we also have non-UWC international students on campus;
- Supporting the Opportunity Program with its different parameters for NYS HEOP, our own AOP, and specialized Kettering funding for students from Ohio;
- Managing volume for FYE in London;
- Attending to geographic diversity and the different yield rates for students living in regions further from campus;
- And, ensuring we have students eager to study all areas of our liberal arts curriculum.
Once decisions go out, there鈥檚 only a brief pause before we field Financial Aid questions and appeals and continue to work to get these students to say yes to 黑料吃瓜网. Admissions and Financial Aid are eager for faculty support and partnership with their yield events, and will be in touch with those who volunteered to assist with open houses and other admitted student engagement opportunities as they work to have our class filled by early May. VP Ricker assured the faculty that more updates and insights will be shared along the way, and thanked the faculty for their continued support.
Dean Mosby returned to the podium to provide an update on the College鈥檚 work with the Huron Consultancy Group. Please find the slideshow attached here. Dean Mosby asked that the faculty reach out to her or Associate Dean of the Faculty Corey Freeman-Gallant with their questions or comments. Associate Professor Nick Junkerman and Professor Tim Harper then joined her at the podium to provide an update from the perspective of faculty heavily involved with the Huron project.
Professor Junkerman said that there is significant faculty representation on the Academic Portfolio Leadership Group, and that he and Professor Harper are both also on the Steering Committee overseeing the work in a more general sense. He said that they are moving out of the data collection phase and into a moment of looking at where we are now and identifying opportunities. Professor Junkerman said that this work will probably only get more involved and harder for faculty, and that it is a significant additional ask above what people in these leadership groups are doing already. The degree of faculty involvement has been high, and it will be important to maintain that going forward. As more detailed analysis and recommendations from Huron come in our Academic Portfolio Leadership group the attitude has been that we want to the data in before talking about opportunities. Professor Junkerman emphasized that there will continue to be close communication with the faculty as a whole as this work continues. He then solicited questions from the faculty.
A faculty member asked if Huron will produce a report with recommendations, and whether or not faculty and staff will have access to it. VP Konstalid said that they expect a report to be produced and to share it with the faculty, but that some findings may be withheld.
A faculty member asked if there were ways that faculty could be kept apprised of the work with Huron that will allow them to give more specific feedback to the faculty members participating directly with Huron. Professor Junkerman said that this is at the forefront of the minds of the faculty on the Academic Portfolio Leadership Group, and that they are hoping to create more opportunities for broader outreach to faculty and for additional meetings to discuss the issues being surfaced. He reiterated that this close communication will become more and more pivotal as the process continues.
A faculty member asked for more detail on the process of identifying cost savings; where the data comes from, how it is discussed, and what the follow up might be. He asked Vice President for Finance and Administration, Dan Konstalid, if he might have insight into this based on his work with Huron at Gettysburg College. VP Konstalid said that the process of data-gathering remains ongoing and that recommendations will be tailored to 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 specific context. Dean Mosby clarified that some examples might be faculty workload, course releases, service load. She noted that these are some of the peculiarities of 黑料吃瓜网鈥檚 financial landscape that will render our data unique to our institution. VP Konstalid affirmed her statements, adding that they expect to receive recommendations from Huron based on things like external benchmarking our operations against similar ones at other organizations, internal comparisons viewing similar departments and their relative composition, and finding places where we may have opportunities to take work that is distributed across campus and centralizing it for savings which can be redeployed elsewhere. He reiterated that their findings and recommendations are going to be specific to what they learn from 黑料吃瓜网 and what they derive from our data.
A faculty member asked for an explanation of what recommendations might not be suitable to be shared with the faculty, in order to allay fears that crucial information is being kept secret. Professor Junkerman said that, even as this process evolves, it remains possible that we will get something from Huron that reveals a misunderstanding on the part of the firm. An erroneous recommendation being perpetuated in the report is the kind of information that would be kept out of a final report that is shared with the campus community. Another example of information that may not be shared with the entirety of the faculty would be sensitive data, or information that cannot be shared without breaking confidences. In those cases, information may be provided on a more summary basis without identifying any individuals.
A faculty member said that it appears in the timeline presented in the slideshow that much of the most consequential work will be happening over the summer. They asked about how that would intersect with faculty rhythms. Professor Junkerman said that his understanding is that the consultancy should have submitted its work back to the College in late April or early May. A lot of the later steps are discernment within the organization, and Professor Junkerman stated that those can be calibrated by work stream depending on who needs to be involved in that process. VP Konstalid agreed with Professor Junkerman that we can expect Huron鈥檚 work to largely be completed towards the end of the semester, and that there certainly is a discernment process afterwards. Professor Junkerman stated that he and the other faculty members on the Academic Portfolio Leadership Group will continue working with Huron through the end of May, but do not anticipate working on this over the summer. Nor do they expect other members of the faculty to be working on it over the summer. Dean Mosby agreed that the work with faculty governance with regard to the discernment process will pick back up in the fall.
Associate Professor Dominique Vuvan acknowledged the previously noted sense from some faculty of this process being kept from them. She stated that the faculty members working in the Academic Portfolio Leadership Group have been working hard to make sure that they understand the inputs that the consultants are receiving, as well as the model that they are using. The model is a simple multiplication formula that allows them to figure out where our relative resources are going when it comes to providing instructional credits to students in the classroom. She emphasized that any faculty members with questions about how this works are welcome to contact her, and that she and ADOF Freeman-Gallant are working to put some sessions together to provide more information to faculty in a less structured environment than a faculty meeting. Professor Vuvan then asked Dean Mosby to share with the faculty the process by which the office of the Dean of Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs will be processing the information and recommendations that Huron will provide.
Dean Mosby said that she envisions apportioning out the decision-making to the relevant committees based on the content of the recommendations and under whose purview they would ordinarily fall. A committee may be asked to look at a limited slate of options, discuss them, and then advise the Dean鈥檚 Office on how to best proceed. Dean Mosby then asked VP Konstalid to provide a similar answer with regard to Operations. VP Konstalid said that he expects for each divisional vice president to begin the process by taking on the decision-making processes for items within their operational budget, discussing their analyses with the President鈥檚 Cabinet, working with the appropriate people in their divisions to gain additional insight, and ultimately making decisions as a Cabinet as to the appropriate next steps. Dean Mosby thanked the faculty for their questions and invited Associate Professor and Chair of Appointments and Tenure Committee (ATC), Sarah DiPasquale, to join Professor Vuvan at the podium.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Professor Vuvan and DiPasquale presented to the faculty news of an upcoming change to the ATC Cycle (see attached).
Professor Pushkala Prasad, representing the Faculty Development Committee announced that Associate Professor Jennifer Mueller is the 2025-26 recipient of the Ralph A. Ciancio Teaching Award. The faculty expressed their congratulations with an ovation.
Associate Professor Jenny Day and Professor Eric Morser called for proposals for the upcoming Citizens and Scholars Institute 鈥淒ialogue Across Difference and Discourse in the Classroom.鈥�
Members of the non-tenure track faculty bargaining unit provided a rundown of the tentative Collective Bargaining Agreement with the College (see attached).
DEAN OF THE FACULTY AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS鈥� REPORT
Dean Mosby began her report with an expression of thanks to the members of the non-tenure track bargaining team and the College administration鈥檚 bargaining team for reaching a tentative collective bargaining agreement. She said that it is important to mark this moment as a vital step in regularizing the teaching and service expectation for our non-tenure track colleagues, as well as offering opportunities for greater job security and promotion as one deepens their pedagogy and service during their time at the college. Our next step will be to prepare our community for a new way of working together. To that end, General Counsel and Vice President for Human Resources Sarah Vero and Dean Mosby have scheduled informational Zoom sessions with Chairs and Program Directors and tenure line faculty in the coming week. VP Vero joined Dean Mosby to remind the faculty that she and her office are always available if there is an emergent situation related to the recent spate of executive orders from Washington. She invited the faculty to join an information session on March 20th that will have more detailed guidance ().
A faculty member asked if curriculum changes will be necessary. VP Vero said that it does not appear so at this time. The faculty member asked if the College administration is considering how they can accommodate the needs of naturalized Americans, who are at greater risk. VP Vero affirmed that these matters are under consideration and that more information will be shared in the session on March 20th.
Dean Mosby invited the faculty to her upcoming office hours, and reiterated that this is a moment that is ripe for stoking division in our community. She reminded the faculty that we are a community, and we must try to rally around our mission and our purpose as an institution because there are students who are counting on us every day to do the work that we have set out to do to prepare them for a life outside of 黑料吃瓜网.
Dean Mosby thanked Associate Professors Erica Bastress-Dukehart, Lucy Oremland, Eunice Ferreira and Harder Chair Matt Lucas for contributing to the Board of Trustees鈥� understanding of the terrific work of the faculty.
There being no further time for questions, Dean Mosby closed her report and invited President Conner to the podium.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Conner opened his remarks with thanks to the faculty for an exemplary show of shared governance at this faculty meeting, and to Dean Mosby for her report. He said that he is looking forward to celebrating Professor Mueller鈥檚 teaching at the Ralph Ciancio Award dinner at Scribner House.
President Conner then reported to the faculty with regard to the Board of Trustees meetings that occurred earlier in the week. He said that the faculty panel was very well-received by the trustees, as was the presentation from Student Affairs staff. There was a dinner with the ten members of the Student Government Association鈥檚 Executive Committee, which was a special opportunity for the Board to interact with students. He explained that in many ways, these Board meetings were a summit on the Strategic Plan. The Board spent hours discussing the plan and providing feedback, and were appropriately focused on providing their perspectives on its fiduciary and strategic aspects. The plan was met with positivity and helpful feedback, which is the ideal outcome. President Conner said that he is working through his revisions of the plan, and that another version will be presented to the faculty in early April for any final feedback and reactions, before the final version is completed in mid-April and subsequently presented to the Board for approval at its May meeting.
President Conner took a moment to acknowledge the many hours of work put in to the plan by campus stakeholders such as CIGU, SGA, the office of the Dean of Faculty, the President鈥檚 Cabinet and Extended Cabinet, and IPPC. He expressed his anticipation for the completed plan, and thanked the faculty for staying past the allotted meeting time. He closed his remarks by reminding the faculty that he will remain after the meeting for any additional questions, and is always available by email or office hours.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:23pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Nora E. Graubard
Senior Administrative Coordinator
Respectfully submitted,