[Click for PDF]
Common Time Chairs Meeting Summary, 4/22/10 (Notes by: Susan J. King)
Meeting Leader: Khadijat Rashid
PPTF Members in attendance: Khadijat Rashid, Bill Marshall, Susan King, Jan Hafer, Caroline Finklea, Teresa Blankmeyer Burke, Carol Erting, Ann Powell, Isaac Agboola, Lauri Rush
Visitors: OIR Discussion-Daryl Frelich, Rho Bangura, Melanye Coleman, Norma Moran
Budget Discussion-Deb Lipkey (Provost’s Office), Yoshiko “Koko” Chino (GIS), Laureen Obermiller (GIS), Bonnie Simmons (GSPP Dean’s Office)
Approximately 30(?) Faculty in Attendance
Start time of meeting-12:45 pm
· OIR has not been in operation for several years now
· The PPTF is here to listen to the concerns of the faculty regarding their completion of the PPTF template. (Then the PPTF members present stood and introduced themselves.)
· The visitors were also introduced.
· Start with a Budget discussion, then move on to issues related to OIR.
· For the sake of confidentiality, it was decided at PPTF that Criteria 8 will not be made public on Drive P. Instead, the Chairs will complete this information on their own and send it directly to the PPTF. Khadijat and Deb Lipkey distributed personnel-related data to each of the Chairs.
Highlights of discussion regarding BUDGET breakdown by programs:
1. Deb Lipkey began the discussion by saying that this was not an exact science. That distributing costs among programs within a department is not easy. Deb mentioned that she had some ideas as to how to address this.
2. Various Chairs then expressed their concerns, including, but not limited to:
a. Dividing up Department budget by program when the faculty, labs, equipment, and other resources are all shared across programs. Sometimes this sharing of resources reaches across departments as well.
i. Deb Lipkey responded, again, by saying that she has some suggestions as to how to complete this task. However, the PPTF should offer such guidance to the Chairs. Deb Lipkey submitted to Khadijat an outline as to how she would approach the charge. Basically, Deb suggests that the formula be devised that prorates the budget by credit hour.
b. While the data for costs by program would be at best an estimate, Chairs are requesting that they have an opportunity to submit qualitative information related both to the budget and institutional data from OIR. How will PPTF evaluate this? They must look at both the numbers and the explanation.
i. Khadijat responded that, yes, the Chairs will be given an opportunity to discuss their completed templates with the PPTF.
c. Will there be an opportunity for the Chairs to communicate and discuss their completed templates with the PPTF? This should be addressed.
d. Is it possible to extend the deadline? It is such a busy time of year that the Chairs are scrambling to complete the templates but may not have enough information from OIR or the Budget Officer yet.
i. Khadijat responded by suggesting that the PPTF has discussed the timeline and understands the Chairs’ concerns. Khadijat, herself, has to complete the data for the Business Department as well as co-chair the PPTF, etc.
ii. Some of the Chairs expressed no desire to extend the deadline; others said that it would be an impossible task otherwise.
e. Issues related to dividing up interpreting costs across programs was raised. Some Chairs saw this as impossible.
i. Koko, from GIS, mentioned that they have some data broken down by program, but not all.
ii. Calculating interpreting costs would also need some guidance from the PPTF.
iii. The Deans’ Offices have some of this information as well and might be able to help filter this information by program.
f. Travel, Faculty Development Costs … how do you apportion these when it’s all bundled into a faculty member taking a trip to participate in a conference?
g. Costs associated with Temporary and Adjunct Faculty could also reap inaccuracies since they are often shared.
i. Deb Lipkey responded that she might be able to help with this but the Chairs should first study the budget data that Deb Lipkey provided at the meeting first.
h. Who is supposed to complete this budget information? Will it be supplied on the template and then the Chairs can respond to the numbers? What exactly is being asked of the Chairs at this point?
Highlights of discussion regarding OIR data:
1. With ½ hour remaining, Daryl introduced the topic by explaining that there are only 3 people in Pat’s office working on this. Originally, Daryl calculated that there were 17 indicators by over 200 programs. Since that time the number of programs has whittled down to a more manageable number. So it has been a challenging task to the OIR staff as well.
2. Daryl mentioned that providing the data has been a two way process. When the data was submitted to the Chairs, often the Chairs would notice discrepancies in their own understanding of their numbers. Daryl and the people in OIR have worked diligently to address the Chairs’ concerns and Daryl said that they all have a willingness to get the information correct.
3. Various Chairs then expressed their concerns, including, but not limited to:
a. Interpretation of the data by the PPTF could be a problem. Would need to have qualitative data to explain the numbers.
b. Currently, there is not enough space on the template to provide that explanation. In fact, the template does not have enough space to write in 100 words or less, as directed in some instances.
c. Chairs don’t have breakdown of data by minors.
d. OIR has yet to fill in the information on the templates. Chairs cannot complete this task on time without that data.
e. Calculation of faculty workload. A decision needs to be made regarding what is included (i.e., independent study, internships, dissertation, etc.)
f. Class size is not always a good indicator of workload. Serving on a dissertation committee, for example, can consume more hours than classroom teaching. Therefore, the use of class size in determining value is not always fair.
i. Khadijat explained several times during the meeting that the PPTF will be looking at all the criteria using a wholistic approach. One data point will not be the sole source of determining a program’s viability.
g. Calculating FTE is also a problem.
4. Daryl then talked about the negotiations regarding the data with the Chairs. Daryl said that OIR is still working on getting the data right but absolutely rely on the programs to work with OIR to help them understand the issues.
a. A few Chairs responded that they appreciate the work of OIR and their willingness to adjust the data according to their discussions with them.
MEETING ADJOURNED at 2:20 pm