The Citadel Faculty Council Meeting Minutes
 

I. Call To Order and Agenda

Chair Mailloux called the meeting of the Faculty Council to order. The agenda was sent out ahead of time.

II. Attendees (substitutes shown in parentheses)

III. Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

The draft minutes of the February meeting were sent out prior to this meeting. Comments or corrections were requested. The minutes were approved with the correction of one typographical error related to the date.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes to the Distribution of Faculty Research Funds

Chair Mailloux thanked Associate Provost Mark Bebensee, Faculty Research Committee Chair Joelle Neulander and Faculty Development Committee Chair Elise Wallace for joining this meeting, and explained that due to time limitations, Dr. Bebensee will explain the proposal first, and then field questions from Faculty Council members. After Dr. Bebensee's discussion, the chairs of the two committees will be asked to speak and answer questions for fifteen minutes each. After the guests leave, Faculty Council will discuss further.

Dr. Bebensee distributed a handout that featured the following points:

Thoughts about the Distribution of Faculty Research Funds

Faculty Council Meeting with Mark Bebensee, March 24, 2011

1. We don't have to do this at all. If there are too many complications or faculty concerns, we can continue the approach we use now.
2. The Deans were interested in a new approach for these reasons:
   1. They want more school-level identity and engagement.
   2. Currently, except for Tony and Ron (who function as department chairs as well as deans), the deans have little opportunity to influence faculty professional growth and development.
   3. The deans wanted to have school-level review committees that would ensure that consideration was given to how a faculty member's proposal fit into his or her progress toward tenure or promotion; e.g. , if a faculty member continued to seek support to go to conferences and present papers but was not submitting papers for publication, this may not be the best use of funds. It might be better for that person to seek summer research funds from the dean to prepare papers for submission for publication.
3. School committees would be in a better position to evaluate the quality of a faculty proposal.
4. School committees would create more opportunities for faculty to serve and thereby increase their "service" record
5. Deans might be in a position to use some of their other resources (Impact and Excellence funds) to provide additional support for worthy proposals.

In his opening remarks, Dr. Bebensee emphasized that "we don't have to do this at all," but explained that the 14 departments and Library have more of a departmental mentality rather than a School identity.

Dr. Bebensee explained each point on the handout (see above) and then answered questions.

The first question was related to whether available funds would be diminished as a consequence of the proposal to shift review of funding request from the college-wide committees to committees composed within the five schools plus Library. Dr. Bebensee said no, the proposed change would not affect available funds.

In answer to a question about how the pie would be divided, Dr. Bebensee said that funds would be divided according to historical data, with a portion placed under the Provost's control "to solve problems."

Someone asked whether there any negative aspects of the proposed change. Dr. Bebensee said that there is some faculty paranoia about this approach extending to tenure/promotion recommendations, but there is no interest in changing that process.

A faculty council member said that low historical data was problematic for the Library, for example, as the current process allows access to much more funding.

Someone else said that faculty have ample service activities and do not need more committee work added to their workloads; several faculty council members agreed. Concern was expressed about the possibility of faculty research becoming a dean slush fund.

Dr. Bebensee asked if anyone was aware of the total pot of monies. Faculty Research Committee Chair Neulander said that the total amount is not known ahead of time.

One departmental representative expressed concern on behalf of his department that this proposed change might affect people who publish and present at conferences; would it affect allocation in favor of publishing?

A faculty council member asked whether evaluation of proposals at the school level and allocation of funds at the college level had been considered, and suggested that dividing a pot before you know about the proposals that have been submitted is not sound. Another member agreed with this point and said that historical data puts inertia into the system.

Someone else said that the deans' desire to be more involved with faculty development is understandable, but this involvement is currently at the departmental, not dean, level.

Faculty Research Committee Chair Neulander distributed a handout that reflected 2005-2011 research proposal funding (not presentation grant funding) according to department/school. Dr. Neulander's main points included the following:

• The concern about how funds can be allocated before knowing the number of proposals and the amount of money associated with these proposals.
• The issue that giving power to the deans is more easily accomplished in the larger schools; the decisions are more likely to be professional than personal in a larger school.
• The quandary of distributing funds in advance, resulting in some schools funding 100% of certain requests or a smaller percentage, depending on the number of proposals.
• The present system allows a college-wide knowledge of what other faculty are doing; this knowledge brings faculty together.

There were no questions for Dr. Neulander.

Faculty Development Committee Chair Wallace said that her committee is overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed changes, bringing up concerns about funding levels, infighting, and favoritism. The committee thinks that the current system works, and that it is flexible for incoming/outgoing faculty. The Physics department, for example, is for the change because of he lack of college-wide understanding of physics proposals. The Library expressed concern that it would be allocated by number of FTEs. It would be awkward for smaller departments to vote on the worthiness of colleagues' proposals as their communities are too close. The college-wide committee can be more objective.

After Dr. Bebensee, Dr. Neulander and Ms. Wallace left the room, Faculty Council members discussed several issues. The point was made that allocation is the issue, not evaluation; these issues need to be separated as one is clouding the other. Accordingly, Chair Mailloux suggested that the discussion be divided into two parts: evaluation and allocation.

A member asked about the authority of the deans in the proposed process; what would be the criteria for the deans' decision. Someone else stated two reasons for being against the proposal: school-level identity is a divisive concept, and existing departmental representative can and does provide insight into incomprehensible subject matter contained in proposals. Another person asked about the worthiness of proposals and whether proposals fit into existing criteria rather than popularity or perceived worthiness. A member expressed concern about a department head who evaluates faculty determining whose proposal is more worthy. Smaller schools (Education, Business Administration) and the Library would end up involving more people in the process of evaluating proposals. Someone repeated the idea that college-wide review is good and no one wants more service "opportunities."

Another person said that the current system is not broken, and that he likes the collegiality of the existing process. Concern was expressed that the faculty paranoia over this proposal might be realistic, as many people think this proposed change is the first in a series of steps. A point was made that in one field in particular, the availability of these research funds is a powerful recruitment and retention tool for faculty. Another point was made that if a dean is made more aware of requests, the dean might want to contribute funds. Someone else agreed that the deans need to be more involved and aware. Someone stated that one department was perceiving this proposed change as a power grab by the deans resulting in a less fair, less transparent process that would result in favoritism; keep the transparency as the process is not broken. Someone asked about the Impact and Excellence funds; Chair Mailloux explained that the Provost has discretionary funds, and he will check on the funds available to the deans.

A motion was made and seconded to keep the same college-wide methods of evaluating and allocated research funds to faculty. The vote was 13 for, 1 against.

V. Next Meetings and Adjournment

Chair Mailloux asked faculty council members if they were agreeable to holding two meetings in April. In addition to the regularly scheduled April 28 meeting, members agreed to meet on April 14 to discuss faculty governance. Chair Mailloux adjourned the meeting at 12:10 pm.

Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Connor, Secretary