Comments on the 2nd recommendation

• Re IDS: Aran MacKinnon points out that "these programs belong neither practically or pedagogically in any one of the colleges or departments...This can all be worked out in an easier, practical way by simply creating a separate listing in the catalogue for the IDS programs that is not parsed out among or attached to any college."
  
  That makes sense to me. I'll check out whether that would be allowed. It's hard to think why it wouldn't be, but often policies are odd.
   
• Re scheduling of rooms: Can we put some kind of guidelines for departments early scheduling of rooms to prevent... small classes in [lecture halls]?"
  
  Good idea. We'll look into that.
  
• Re lecture halls: "What about TLC 1-200 and 203?"
  
  A sin of omission, which is to say, I screwed up and forgot to list them. They should be scheduled like the other lecture halls.There are probably others. Just let me know what's missing. I'll also check with Annette Pritchett in the COAS office.
  
• Staffing: this got the most heated reaction.
  
  Randy Hendrix sent me this summary of what the A&S chairs said about this:
  "Chairs at this morning’s Chairs Council meeting expressed a great deal of concern over the Task Force Recommendations for staffing the new colleges.  They urged a rewriting of the recommendation to argue that to meet RPG and other needs the three new dean’s offices need to be staffed on par with the dean’s offices of RCOB and COE.   They noted that it will be difficult to get all three specializations that Tim, Duane, and Denise currently bring to the office in any one person.   They worry about the Deans’ offices becoming black holes where important matters disappear or bottlenecks where important matters get slowed, and cripple the new colleges at the outset.  They question whether an interim Dean can make a successful case for additional staffing needs."
  
  Another chair made some specific suggestions:
  "I think your recommendation for staffing is going to put all 3 new colleges at a severe disadvantage. It looks like you are saying: 1 associate dean, and 2 other 'clerical' staff. That is probably less staff than the English dept. It is also much less than RCOB and COE.
  This plan also seems be contrary to the idea you mentioned that each new college, and its interim dean, may choose to use its staff resources in different ways. With such a minimal staff, there seems to be no flexibility to do this. I'm thinking, for example, that one college may want an Associate Dean for students and curriculum, an Associate Dean for Research and Grad studies, a budget person, and a 'part-time' assistant dean for budget matters (these are just hypothetical examples - not intended as real titles). With exactly 1 associate dean, 0 assistant deans, and only 2 'staff, I believe these new colleges will be unable to do anything more than just survive, and survival will even be in doubt."
  
  Those seem like reasonable arguments. Our charge is to recommend an initial structure that will get the new colleges off the ground, and to leave making the case for individual college needs up to the interim deans, as the other chair mentions. That's why we included the recommendation that the President and Provost should "consult with the interim deans to determine any additional staffing needs for their colleges.
  
  If a college needs additional staff members beyond the skeletal crew that it is our task to outline, its dean should have no trouble coming up with convincing evidence and metrics about RPG, grants, fund-raising, or whatever the needs may be. I expect that return-on-investment arguments would have the best reception, and making them should be no problem for a dean-ish type person.
   
• Randy also mentioned that the chairs want the task force "to address the cost of conducting the search for interim deans and interim associated deans internally.  They recommend we put in writing that departments that lose chairs and faculty in the process will have to be adequately compensated to meet class and other workload demands."
    
  Yep. We're working on that. I've met with Kimily Willingham and Lucretia Gibbs, and have exchanged emails with Liz Baker in Business and Finance.
  
• One chair asked about the next open meeting. We were waiting until the first hectic weeks of classes are over, so maybe week after next would be good. We also need to meet with the chairs again and with the department's budget managers. Let me know if you'd like a meeting with your department, unit, or group.