moving forward with strength

Moving Forward with Strength

Idaho State University Proposed Campus Reorganization

February 12, 2010

Introduction

President Vailas announced on Nov. 4 at a public forum that he would direct the Provost to form at least 3 task forces to examine reorganization of academic colleges.

IntroductionThree clusters of units:

Pharmacy and Health Professions Engineering and the disciplines in

sciences Education and Arts and Sciences absent

the disciplines in the sciences

Introduction Three objectives:

Increase efficiency and streamline operations

Enable ISU to emerge academically stronger, not weaker

Realize a financial savings

President’s 11 Questions

Does reorganization have the potential to facilitate research and instructional collaborations?

Potential to enhance faculty’s role in shared governance?

Potential to reduce demands on faculty time for service responsibilities?

President’s 11 Questions

Potential to help distribute workload across disciplines?

Potential to enable streamlining of programming?

Potential to address understaffing in smaller depts?

Potential to enhance patient care in the health professions?

President’s 11 Questions Potential to increase flow of

communication? Potential to broaden use of available

resources across larger units? Potential to facilitate long-term strategic

growth? Potential to save faculty lines, and

salaries?

Timeline

President’s deadline:

Provost to submit report by March 1

Task Forces

No more than a dozen faculty At least one open forum Liaisons to the other task forces Broad latitude in how they conduct

business

Task Forces

Chairs attempted to appoint a balanced range of faculty members to the

- including current or former department chairs- current or former Faculty Senate members

Pharmacy and Health Carol Ashton, Nursing Paul Cady, College of Pharmacy Tracy Farnsworth, Health Care Admin Steve Feit, Kasiska College of Health Prof Kathleen Hodges, Dental Hygiene Tim Hunt, Biomed & Pharm Sciences James Lai, Biomed & Pharm Sciences

Pharmacy and Health Galen Louis, Public Health Barb Mason, Pharmacy Practice and Admin

Sciences Catherine Oliphant, Pharmacy Practice and

Admin Sciences Christopher Owens, Pharmacy Practice and

Admin Sciences

Pharmacy and Health

Neill Piland, Institute of Rural Health Tony Seikel, Communication Sciences

& Disorders and Education of the Deaf Linda Hatzenbuehler, Chair

Science and Engineering• Dan Ames, Geosciences• Rich Brey, Physics • Dring Crowell, Biological Sciences• Arya Ebrahimpour, Civil & Environmental

Engineering• Nancy Glenn, Geosciences• Robert Holman, Chemistry• Alan Hunt, Physics

Science and Engineering

• George Imel, Nuclear Engineering• Hossein Mousavinezhad, Electrical

Engineering • Tracy Payne, Mathematics• Ken Rodnick, Biological Sciences• Steve Adkison, co-chair• Pam Crowell, co-chair

Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Ed

• David Adler, Political Science• Karen Appleby, Sport Science and Phys Ed• Sherri Dienstfrey, College of Arts & Sciences• Thom Hasenpflug, Music• Sue Jenkins, Educational Foundations• Nancy Legge, Communication and

Rhetorical Studies

Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Ed

• Herb Maschner, Anthropology• Jack Newsome, College of Education• Tom Terry, Mass Communication• Curtis Whitaker, English and Philosophy• Maria Wong, Psychology• Laura Woodworth-Ney, History• Kandi Turley-Ames, chair

Fourth Task Force

• On January 7 Provost Olson constituted a fourth task force to consider issues that do not fall within the immediate purview of the three ongoing task forces.

• Shifting oversight of graduate education from the Graduate School to Academic Affairs and control over graduate curriculum back to the individual colleges?

Crossover Areas

• Steve Adkison, Task Force Chair• Paul Cady, Pharmacy• Lyle Castle, Idaho Falls• Pam Crowell, Task Force Chair• Kay Flowers, Library• Alan Frantz, Faculty Senate

Crossover Areas

• Linda Hatzenbuehler, Task Force Chair• Tom Jackson, Graduate School• Bessie Katsilometes, Meridian• Ken Smith, College of Business• Kandi Turley-Ames, Task Force Chair• Barbara Adamcik, Chair

Faculty Time Investment

Faculty Time Investment

The 36 faculty on the 4 committees spent an impressive3,011.28 hours of faculty time

Health Sciences• Eleven official meetings (excluding public forums)

– November 2009 = 4– December 2009 = 2– January 2010 = 5

• Four public forums– December 2009 = 3– January 2010 = 1

• Nine sub-committee and constituency meetings– November 2009 = 2– December 2009 = 3– January 2010 = 4

• TOTAL MEETINGS: 24

Health Sciences Task Force Hours/Time Committed

• 2 hrs average per meeting = 48 hrs per person• 48 x 12 members = 576 hrs • 45 x 1 task force chair = 45 hrs

– Total faculty hrs in meetings = 621 hrs

• 25 hours per person outside of meetings for research and discussions• 25 x 13 (includes chair) = 325 total hrs of research

• 8 meetings of other task forces attended by liaison• 8 x 2.5 hrs = 20 hrs meetings in other task forces

• TOTAL FACULTY HRS: 966

Science & Engineering

• Seven official mtgs (excluding public forums)– November 2009 = 2– December 2009 = 3– January 2010 = 2

• Two public forums– January 2010 = 2

• TOTAL MEETINGS: 9

Science and EngineeringHours/Time Committed

• 1.75 hrs average per meeting = 15.75 hrs per person• 15.75 x 10 members = 157.5 hrs • 45 x 2 task force co-chairs = 90 hrs

– Total committed faculty hours in meetings = 247.5 hrs

• 25 hrs per person outside of meetings for research and discussions• 25 x 12 (includes co-chairs) = 300 total hrs of research

• 12 meetings of other task forces attended by liaison• 12 x 2 hours = 24 hrs meetings in other task forces

• TOTAL FACULTY HRS: 571.5

Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education Task Force Meetings

• Sixteen official meetings (excluding public forums)– November 2009 = 3– December 2009 = 6– January 2010 = 5– February 2010 = 2

• Two public forums– January 2010 = 2

• TOTAL MEETINGS: 18

Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, and Education Task Force Hours/Time Committed

• 2.5 hrs average per meeting = 45 hrs per person• 45 x 12 members = 540 hrs • 47 x 1 task force chair = 47 hrs

– Total faculty hrs in meetings = 587

• 25 hrs per person outside of meetings for research and discussions

• 25 x 13 (includes chair) = 325 total hrs of research

• 4 meetings of other task forces attended by liaison• 4 x 1.5 hours = 6 hrs meetings in other task forces

• TOTAL FACULTY HRS: 918

Crossover Areas

• Six official meetings– January 2010 = 3– February 2010 = 3

• TOTAL MEETINGS: 6 (and ongoing)

Crossover AreasTask Force Hours/Time Committed

• 3.33 hrs average per meeting = 19.98 hrs per person• 19.98 hrs x 11 members = 219.78 hrs • 20 hrs x 1 task force chair = 20 hrs

– Total faculty hrs in meetings = 239.78 hrs

• 25 hrs per person outside of meetings for research and discussions• 25 hrs x 12 members (includes chair) = 300 total hrs of research

• 1 hr per person for focus group attendees• 16 attendees x 1 hour = 16 hrs for focus groups

• TOTAL FACULTY HRS: 555.78

Total of all ReorganizationTask Force Meetings

• 49 official meetings (excluding public forums)– November 2009 = 11– December 2009 = 14– January 2010 = 19– February 2010 = 5

• Eight public forums– December 2009 = 3– January 2010 = 5

• TOTAL MEETINGS: 57

Reorganization Task Forces Hours/Time Committed

• Total faculty hrs in task force meetings (includes liaison hrs) = 1,761.28 hrs

• Total hours of research and discussion = 1,250 hrs

• TOTAL FACULTY HRS: 3,011.28

The Process

• Task forces worked from Nov to Feb • Reports submitted in first week of Feb• Provost devised a balanced and unified

campus plan

The Process

Joint meeting:- Faculty Senate Executive Committee- Council of Deans- President of student body- Chair of Staff Council- President’s Faculty Advisory Council- Provost’s Faculty Advisory Council

The Process

University-wide public forum

Video to be available on Reorginization website

The ProcessReorganization website

- task force reports- other documents - Provost’s plan - video of the open forum - website address:

http://www.isu.edu/acadaff/organization/

The Process

Dedicated email address so that faculty and staff could provide input

provost@isu.edu

Discussion

The smaller the aggregate across which workload must be managed, the more difficult it is for units to adjust workload in order to lighten loads for research-productive faculty

Comparison of Colleges by Size

ISU’s colleges are too smallto operate efficiently.

College of Arts and Sciences

Fewer tenured and tenure-track faculty(with exception of North Dakota State U)

CAS colleges in several of our peer institutions are substantially larger

.

College of Arts and Sciences

Idaho State Univ 190Montana State Univ 290North Dakota St Univ 185Northern Arizona Univ 334Kent State Univ 388

College of Arts and Sciences

Univ of Montana 236Univ of Nevada-Reno 343Univ of Wyoming 267Wichita State Univ 251

College of Education

No. tenured and tenure-track facultyin the College of Education atpeer institutions is significantly greater,with the exception of U of Montana

College of Education

Idaho State Univ 34Montana State Univ 55.7North Dakota St Univ 53Northern Arizona Univ 118Kent State Univ 130

College of Education

Univ of Montana 35Univ of Nevada-Reno 48Univ of Wyoming 58Wichita State Univ 42

College of Engineering

All of ISU’s peers are more than double the size of ISU’s college.

In institutions with similar enrollment, No. of tenured and tenure-trackfaculty are 2 to 4 times the size of ISU’s engineering faculty

College of Engineering

Idaho State Univ 20Montana State Univ 75.3North Dakota St Univ 82Northern Arizona Univ 191Kent State Univ 0

College of Engineering

Univ of Montana 0Univ of Nevada-Reno 68Univ of Wyoming 78Wichita State Univ 42

College Sizes

Clearly, ISU has not positioned itself to be efficient in terms of allocation of resources

College Sizes

• Reduce the range of faculty departmental commitments

• Create flexibility to implement a true variable course load

• Afford research-productive faculty the time to do their work

College Sizes

• Opportunity for interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary collaborations

• Opportunities for joint faculty appointments • Opportunities for faculty to invest significantly

more time in developing both their individual research agendas as well as larger-scale collaborative projects

Reorganizations Nationally

• U of Idaho plans to reorganize the College of Natural Resources, reducing depts from 5 to 3

• U of Northern Iowa, first in a series of campus reorganizations

• U of Massachusetts at Amherst,several college-level reorganizations

Reorganizations Nationally

• Eastern Washington U reorganized its colleges from 6 to 4

• Other reorganizations: Colorado State U and U of Arkansas

• Arizona State U, second reorg withina six-month period

Reorganization

• Streamlining administrative infrastructure

• Projected savings will likely be between 1 and 1.5 million dollars

ISU Campus Reorganization

The Plan

The Dean

• Each college will be headed by a dean, • Oversees all personnel and curricular• National external search for dean• Governs with advice from an executive com• Primary responsibilities: strategic planning,

policy development, advocacy, fundraising, budget accountability, facilities, andexternal relations

Executive Committee

• Advises dean in all key decisions (tenure and promotion, personnel issues—including hiring recommendations to the Provost—space allocation, performance evaluations, and curriculum)

• Advises dean and serves as the mainfaculty governance body at the college level

Schools

• The principal administrative unitis the school

• Facilitate direct collaborative efforts, both curricular and scholarly

School Directors

• The first level of authority is at school level

• Authority over budget allocation, program assessment, accreditation coordination, scheduling, personnel issues, workload assignment, promotion and tenure, and salary recommendations

• Faculty report directly to the school director

School Directors

• Hold regular meetings of faculty and staff

• Manage faculty and staff workload

• Foster funded research and research collaborations, particularly cross-disciplinary collaborations

Department Chairs

Oversee curricula and otherdiscipline-specific concerns,with advice from acurriculum committee

Department Chairs

Input into hiring, personnel issues,tenure and promotion, studentconcerns, and local accounts

Pharmacy andHealth Professions

Pharmacy and Health

Began two months prior to the President’s call for reorganization

Submitted report February 3

Pharmacy and Health

Task force recommends creating a Division of Health Sciences headedby an executive dean

Pharmacy and Health

Division of Health Sciences- College of Pharmacy- School of Nursing- School of Rehabilitation and Communication Sciences- Kasiska School of Health

Professions.

Six Goals

• Strengthen ISU’s health mission• Streamline administrative structures• Maintain core faculty positions and

accreditation status

Six Goals

• Decrease curricular overlap• Increase research and opportunities

for collaborative research• Save money and increase revenue

Five Sub-committees

• Issues pertaining to transition• Curriculum• Clinics• Translational research• Outcomes

Division of Health

One exception:the Office of Medical and Oral Health was moved from a stand-alone unitto a unit within the Kasiska Schoolof Health Professions

Science andEngineering

Recommendations

• Conducting thorough program reviews• Conducting a nationwide search for a

founding dean• Forming an executive committee ASAP• Sharing staff across the college• Maintaining departmental structure

Recommendations

• Ensuring that tenure, promotion, and annual review begin at the departmental level

• Developing faculty-sponsored, college-wide research colloquia to promote interdisciplinary interactions and research projects.

Recommendations

Program review can proceed simultaneously with, and would likely enhance, reorganization

Recommendations

Academic Affairs remains opento initiating a search immediatelyfor a founding dean

Four Key Values

• Data-driven decision-making• Commitment to research and teaching

(graduate and undergraduate)• Faculty review by peers within the

discipline• Maintaining accreditation of healthy

academic programs

College of Science and Engineering

Two schools- School of Engineering- School of Mathematics and

Sciences

Recommendations

Combine Physics and Nuclear Engineering?

*UBO, Grants Coordinator, Development Officer, and Academic Advisor

Arts and

Letters

Arts and Letters

College of Arts and Letters - School of Fine Arts and Humanities - School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Four Outcome Goals

• Increase research creative and scholarly activities within the new college

• Increase efficiency and streamlining among aggregates

• Recruit and retain faculty and students• Increase opportunities for

collaboration among aggregates

Five Strengths

• Preservation of core faculty and chairs• Promotion of a community of scholars• Enhancement of faculty governance• Streamlined administrative structure• Enhancement of curricular flexibility

and student opportunities

One Change

The College of Education will be included as a school within the new College

Arts and Letters

The College of Education would be too vulnerable if left on its own within the new campus organization and given the poor fiscal situation in the state

Arts and Letters

Faculty of the College of Educationhave many research and curricular connections with faculty within humanities and social sciences

*UBO, Grants Coordinator, Development Officer, and Academic Advisor

Arts and Letters

Academic Affairs understands that adequate funding will need to be provided

President’s 11 Questions

The task forces reported that the proposed structures by and large answered the President’s eleven questions in the affirmative

President’s 11 Questions

Does reorganization have the potential to facilitate research and instructional collaborations?

Potential to enhance faculty’s role in shared governance?

Potential to reduce demands on faculty time for service responsibilities?

President’s 11 Questions

Potential to help distribute workload across disciplines?

Potential to enable streamlining of programming?

Potential to address understaffing in smaller depts?

Potential to enhance patient care in the health professions?

President’s 11 Questions Potential to increase flow of

communication? Potential to broaden use of available

resources across larger units? Potential to facilitate long-term strategic

growth? Potential to save faculty lines, and

salaries?

Implementation

Details will be worked out over time

Send Your Inputby Friday, February 19

provost@isu.edu