ASEC Poll Narrative Comments by Category

ASEC Poll Narrative Responses by Category
July 7, 2004

Comments have been organized under the following headings:

I. Overall Comments on General Concept

II. Curricular Concerns

III. Administrative Structure

IV. Convening Groups/îProgramsî

V. Faculty Equity

VI. Deans

VII. Teacher Education/International Education/Graduate Programs

VIII. ASEC Report Style and Process

IX. Miscellaneous

I. Overall Comments on General Concept

1) I am in general agreement with the recommendationsÖ

2) I am not against restructuring the academic administration of the College but I do not feel that what has been proposed is significantly better than what we already have and, in some ways, will be worseÖMy general support for the ASEC report is significantly qualified in the sense that I support the general principles on which the report is based (e.g. ìcreating stronger academic communitiesî, ìstructural transparencyî, ìfaculty empowermentî, ìdecision making roll for programsî, etc.)Ö

3) ASEC is the one most important committee in my 30 years at Ramapo.

4) I generally support the recommendations of the ASEC Committee because a clearer overall structure is sorely needed for the benefit of students and faculty alike.

5) I do not believe that sweeping changes need to occur.

6) The current system works for most majors. There is nothing to be gained in creating mini-schools. Why have all this disruption to ìfixî problems with a few majors.

7) I think Ramapoís school structure, the programs that it has, and the ways faculty have constructed their teaching lives makes a restructuring very unsuitable for this point in our history when we are working on shifting to the new credit system.

8) I agree that ìacademic reorganization isÖdesirable if it facilitates marked improvement in academic programs and ultimately the diffusion of excellence throughout the academic division. We must be careful, however, about assuming that a change in structure is what will best address some of the administrative problems at Ramapo. We must also take care to make sure that we donít lose what is best about Ramapo as we move toward a more traditional administrative structure. In my opinion, what is best is our flexibility and ability to move beyond strict boundaries in our intellectual endeavors.

9) The present system is Byzantine and makes no objective sense. Some faculty suggest that it is the result of a purposeful design and unique philosophy but in fact the current structural arrangement seems to have resulted from personal disagreements.

10) I oppose the elimination of current schools and the appointment (vs. the election) of deans. Any divisional change should await the possible reformulation of major programs.

11) I am totally in support of ASEC's stated goals.

12) There are clearly some issues with the current academic structure. Instead of a wholesale sweeping change, fix those issues that are problematic, and leave other aspects untouched. Some convening groups, or schools, DO seem to function coherently, and they should not be made to fit into a new mold ñ rather, perhaps use those as templates for how things should be operating?

13) ASEC was created to ìsolve the Psychology department problem.î That could be done in five minutes by any administration simply by putting the psychology (or indeed any other multi-school) major in one School.

14) No administrators shall be added until the 1975 faculty-ñto-administrator ratio of 5.6 : 1 is achieved (it is currently 2.4 : 1 in 2003).

15) I do believe that the changes proposed will have undesired consequences on the college and the type of education we offer to our students. Ramapo was designed with a unique purpose in mind. If that design is flawed, we should hone it to better serve that purpose, rather than implement a new design which may serve another.

16) I thought your report was excellent. It was so refreshing to have the place looked at coolly and carefully! I am, however, voting NO because the ASEC final report does call for significant restructuring of the schools and the creation of, if not departments based on majors, then something in that direction.

17) The ASEC committee has done a great job. All of the structural problems that I encountered during my first few years here are addressed in the report. In particular, the suggestions the committee makes regarding schools and convening groups are right on target. Ö I have high hopes that the majority of faculty will recognize the great value of the report. The recommendations of the ASEC committee should be adopted in full, as swiftly as possible.

18) On balance I cannot support the ASEC final report. While I find parts of it very useful in clarifying issues that have been too vague for too long, I must disagree with many of its recommendations and I find others insufficiently defined at this stage to support.

19) I agree with many of the ìminorî issues, which to a large extent involve ìsimple fixesî (produce a document saying what a convener does). I STRONGLY disagree with the major structural issues. I do not support ìprogramsî (superconvening groups) ñ some schools seem to work fine, others donít. Instead of re-thinking ALL (even the ones that are not problematic) ñ work on a smaller, piecemeal scale.

20) ASEC has fulfilled its charge admirably by considering most of the major issues around academic structure and providing us, under a short deadline, with a thoughtful and detailed report. Nonetheless, I do not on balance agree with its conclusions, and, even if I did, feel that such a major proposal should have a second round of review after our individual responses by convening groups, units, FAC, and FA, otherwise it will be too much, like buying the proverbial pig in a poke.

II. Curricular Concerns

1) Keep emphasizing the interdisciplinarity is found in the classroom, not in the school organization! What will happen to the minors should be spelled out in more detail.

2) I do not necessarily agree with specific ASEC recommendations (e.g. the process by which specific programs and majors would be reconfigured). I also have concerns about a weakening of the further interdisciplinary dimensions of Ramapoís mission depending on the nature of the academic restructuring.

3) By strengthening the convening groups the majors will be more solid and will gain in quality.

4) Interdisciplinarity will not be affected by a new structure. Those of us who are interdisciplinary in our scholarship as well as in our classrooms, will continue to be so regardless of the structure in place.

5) I do not see how majors will be strengthened by being part of program groups which would include several majors with a director who is not from the specific major. Decision making within majors should be strengthened, but I believe that can happen within the current schools.

6) My greatest concern is true attention to interdisciplinarity, and the mission of the college. I have heard the response to this concern addressed in only a cursory fashion. So far, I have heard that the ìflavorî of Ramapo will be maintained, and that the will of the faculty will essentially be enough to hold together the interdisciplinary focus of the College. I do not believe this to be the case. Speaking of the mission, I have not heard the mission statement of the college seriously addressed in any of the meetings or discussions on this matter. There needs to be a clear connection made between the mission of the college and the style of the college structure.

7) Many minors will lose significant numbers of students, and faculty will be scrambling to cover courses in the major and other programs theyíre responsible for.

8) I also agree that each major should have one home ñ it is confusing to students to offer a major out of more than one school.

9) I am unclear who will mount general education courses. SSHS cannot staff Social Issues without using primarily adjuncts, how would a Sociology program be able to provide a required course?

10) Five year reviews of all programs should include at least two outside evaluations.

11) I believe major programs in some instances should be able to reside in more than one school, for example economics and law & society. For the latter, eliminating this possibility will severely harm the program.

12) Specifically, I condition my support upon the following:

13) Ramapoís interdisciplinary majors/minors are going to be impossible to house with majors/minors whose curricula they overlap (which is the rationale for a program), simply BECAUSE they are interdisciplinary ñ you would end up with a ìprogramî comprised of an interdisciplinary major/minor, and all the associated disciplines (e.g. in TAS, a single ìprogramî would consist of ALL the majors/minors except perhaps psychology, due to overlap in bioinformatics, biochemistry, environmental science, environmental studies; to break this ìprogramî is to do so arbitrarily, and there would then be programs, as well as majors/minors, whose curricula overlap!) These programs would essentially be "mini-schools" in some cases. For example, a program consisting of biology + chemistry + biochemistry + bioinformatics: there will be chemistry faculty here making decisions about bioinformatics in something they may know/care little about, and not be involved in any way. The majors/minors must remain autonomous.

14) Majors should be offered in one school. Faculty membership can be in a number of programs.

15) I do see the merit of simplicity in housing each major in a single school, although I also see some perplexity for such essentially interdisciplinary majors as Law & Society. Indeed, I have some concern that our interdisciplinary pillar will be put under stress as we trade fluidity for clarity.

III. Administrative Structure

1) One major obstacle seems to be how secretarial help would be allocated. Iím sure you are aware of this problem. It can be solved fairly, but I have a feeling people wonít go forward with this plan until it is. Three schools now SAB, CA, and TAS, all seem to have a pretty clear identity in business, art, and science. However, the split between AIS and SHS has always seemed to me to be fairly arbitrary. This is not unusual; I think many institutions have similar problems. (Political science is in humanities? African American studies are in social sciences?!) A simple, though unpopular, solution would be to merge the two schools. This seems politically unlikely. So the program model works in that it allows groups to re-congregate according to their own sensibilities.

2) reduce the number of schools

3) I think schools could still be preserved (or fixed) as administrative units if possible.

4) I am in agreement forcing all majors into one school (profs and students) I disagree reducing the number of schools.

5) I am not sure why it would be necessary to combine majors into academic programs, rather than having each major stand as its own program. It seems to me that these aggregates would in most cases be strained and difficult to account for beyond some effort to minimize the number of programs at the college. They also might add an administrative layer and faculty would probably meet to discuss matters at the major level, the program level, and occasionally the school level. These combinations might simplify the work of a dean, but they would likely complicate matters for the faculty.

6) While I believe that the problems identified need to be remedied the answer is not found in the total restructuring of the current system of schools. The ASEC recommendations throw out what is good about the school system without having changes that are specific to the problem areas. I believe that the appropriate changes may be made without such a drastic change. Resources such as availability of secretarial services for faculty, conveners, and program directors need to be considered.

7) Departmental segregation via structure seriously impairs the relationships among faculty in diverse disciplines.

In a few meetings some have said that structure of the college does not really matter, and that the structure of the college will not have great influence on the type of college we are. If this were the case, we obviously would not be working so hard to change the structure in the first place. If structure does not matter, why bother?

The will of faculty is not enough to maintain a true diverse form of pedagogy and implementation. It is also essential to recognize that as the college grows, and more new faculty (we hope) come into our community, there must be in place a very clear structure which fosters their capacity to engage in work which the college deems central to furthering its mission.

8) If there is concern about students not identifying with their schools, let's run focus groups and learn the issues from the perspectives of our students. Then, we can certainly design activities that would engender a closer affiliation. However, first we need to decide if this is a core value. Is our primary goal identification with a major or do we place a high value on identification with a School, as well?

In addition, other problems with the structure (reported by ASEC) could be addressed by fine tuning our present structure, such as personnel decision making by an entire school when perhaps a convening group should be making those decisions or the need for more budgeting taking place at the School level.

9) If we have programs, then I donít see why we need schools at all. I think we could just have 2 deans to oversee budgetary issues, non-faulty staff positions, and so forth. Faculty would not need to meet in schools any more. (I do not think 3 schools would work ñ there is no logical way to divide the programs and faculty into 3 functional schools that wonít create tremendous inequities.) Also, I would not create an entirely new layer of administrative overview. Now we have convening groups and schools. We shouldnít add a layer and go to majors, programs, and schools. Either let the new ìprogramsî take the place of schools or leave the academic structure as it currently is.

I wholeheartedly agree that Schools should be reorganized ñ at the very minimum the same convening groups are housed in one place. I like the idea that the schools would become strictly administrative entities especially if they are to remain conglomerations of programs that do not necessarily relate to one another (as in AIS or SSHS in particular). I think that the number of schools could be reduced as well if schools were to be administrative units. (Many faculty seem to think this is a preposterous idea but at many colleges around the country this is precisely what happens e.g. the college of arts and sciences provides an administrative umbrella for a variety of liberal arts departments. We could still do this even if we have our convening groups rather than departments.

Departments and program chairs should be given significant autonomy regarding personnel, curriculum, and budgetary matters. Commensurate with this autonomy should be a fairly stringent set of standards for accountability.

10) I also think it makes good sense to assign a program- - and all its students - - to a particular school while allowing faculty from other schools to continue to have the right to teach in the program. Faculty who select a program as their primary home which is not housed in their home school should be given the option to move to the school in which the program is housed or remain where they are. All new faculty hired primarily to support this program should be hired into the home school. Faculty who select a program as a secondary or a tertiary program should be allowed to teach in the program from whatever school they reside in.

I am strongly and completely opposed to any changing of the current school structure beyond what small amount of faculty relocation would result from the assignment of programs to a single school. I saw absolutely no justification or compelling evidence provided that changing the structure would offer any advantage or improvement and there is every indication that we would rupture the logic, integrity, comfort level, and working relationships that currently exist to the damage of everyone not to mention the serious fiscal impact that will result from having to completely redo every description of the college, all materials, etc. This would be a far bigger problem than the switchover to the Unit Plan and we know that is already presenting significant challenges. Letís not try to do too much at once especially when the move seems unnecessary in the first place. Clearly significant problems are occurring in one particular school (AIS) but the solution to those problems should not drive changes throughout the rest of the institution. Instead work should be done and in that particular school to resolve those problems.

NOTE: The way to save money on administrative overhead is not to reduce the number of the schools or the deans. Instead the Provostís office structure should be returned to what it was before President Smith reframed it and top administrators in other units should also be reduced to back to a reasonable number. The chart comparing administrative growth vs. faculty growth provided in the report is persuasive we are distinctly top heavy ñ but it is not the deans that are the problem.

I am also strongly opposed to the creation of program chairs. Such a move would drastically increase our administrative layer for no real reason and thus take us in exactly the wrong direction! Deans and units are responsible for groups of 40-45 faculty. Department chairs and departments are often the size of many institutions. It is challenging to do personnel work at this size but quite doable. The procedures and structures are all well developed. Furthermore, any change in personnel practices and procedures would need to be negotiated with the union a huge effort and not necessarily one the administration is likely to win and for what advantage exactly? To go through such major changes just to create chairs of programs 12-15 faculty and give the chairs and the programs administrative responsibility for personnel etc. is to create unnecessary bureaucracy and to invite corruption, cronyism, and coercion. I would instead empower the conveners to handle their own (non-personnel) budgets and to do the scheduling for their programs within the context of a convenerís council within the school. I would leave the personnel practices where they are and as they are. I would note that one benefit of creating aggregate programs is that there would be somewhat fewer conveners and that is probably a good thing. I would note that I do support the reports urging that conveners be eligible for a maximum of two three-year terms.

11) One of the comments in the ASEC report pertains to growth of the administration and lack of faculty growth (growth of administration by 140%, adjuncts from 0 to 216, and faculty by 4%). How will a ìprogramî structure, and maybe one less school, really address this inequity? What ARE these 72 administrative positions ñ can some be eliminated or combined? Will eliminating one school and going to a 4-school structure address this?! This seems to be an entirely separate question, and a ìprogramî structure will not affect it.

12) I do not find a convincing case for reducing the number of schools. In fact, the amount of time and effort to decide which four or three or two schools there should be, and then to decide and negotiate, and perhaps to arbitrate which faculty and which programs should be housed in each, and to do so simultaneously with converting to the 3-3 model ought to daunt the most ambitious of reorganizers.

One are ASEC was invited to, but did not chose to, consider was academic administration above the unit level. I believe that the nature of the functions currently performed justifies only two assistant (or possibly associate) provost positions, i.e., for curriculum and for technology. By reassigning the other two positions, which should be at the director (or possibly dean) level, much needed funds would be moved from the management to the teaching side of the ledger.

13) You propose maybe 3 or 4 larger ìadministrativeî units. What do you mean by administrative? What exactly will be the duties of those units. I suspect that if such a unit has a dean as its leader, there will be a power struggle such that the unit will do more than assign classrooms, etc. What protections will we have to ensure that the 3 to 4 units simply do not become big Schools?

IV. Convening Groups/Programs

1) I think convening groups have to be strengthened. Conveners need to have more power/authority.

2) I am in agreement: reduce the number of convening groups to 15 or 20. Limit chairs terms to 2 terms of 3 years each

3) There seems to be general agreement that having one convening groups across two different schools is a problem. Therefore, I suggest resolving this issue through discussion with those convening groups that exist across two schools and deciding on one home.

4) I agree that major convening groups should have more to say than they now do about personnel matters. I think that some of the very tiny majors would profit by forming larger programs.

5) The idea of groups of majors and minors joining into larger interdisciplinary programs seems fine. Perhaps 10-12 programs would make sense. This seems like a more workable alternative to the current schools. Faculty would meet with others in their major to oversee that curriculum, and then would meet within their larger ìprogramsî for personnel, budget issues, etc. Each program can have a chair, but there will still be a need for major and minor conveners (I think) to address major/minor specific issues.

6) Right now issues such as what roles convening groups play, and how membership to these groups is determined are extremely vague.

7) must reduce the number of convening groups, especially those with few majors; must locate current convening groups in a single school, especially economics and psychology standards.

All program chairs shall be rotated among all the department faculty members. Drop current wording in the ASEC report that states: The position of chair should periodically circulate among faculty in the program to must circulate.

8) Consolidation of some major programs would best be done by members engaging in an exploratory process over a 3-4 month period (or more). Outcomes could vary in structure from a loose alliance to a designated curriculum with shared lines. After a year or less of these arrangements, the environment is now conducive for a more genuine discussion of divisional change.

9) I am willing to see the creation of the so-called programs i.e. reconstituted convening groups of interrelated majors and minors shaped to create an assemblage of between 12- 16 faculty per program. However, individual convening groups should have a strong say in who they shall aggregate with and I endorse the reportís emphasis on the dynamic nature of the aggregation allowing shifts to occur readily as changing circumstance occur.

10) Let us move to what the rest of the world calls departments so that we and our students can have a physical and professional space within which we can identify and by which we can grow intellectually.

11) Regarding resources (particularly financial): trickier for several reasons. TAS has several small convening groups, and some larger, and the nature of science is that sometimes large equipment purchases are required, but right now, the Dean allocates moneys apparently equitably so if one discipline gets a piece of equipment one year, another discipline gets money the next year, etc. TAS seems to function in this regard, and so perhaps the schools individually should decide whether the financial resources are kept in the hands of the Dean, or allocated among the CGs. I would hate to have a situation whereby empowering the CG results in not getting what is needed for either my or some else's discipline. Also, one may have a situation where a convener is not willing to take responsibility for a budget, or mismanages it. Finally, due to the interdisciplinarity at Ramapo, faculty can belong to multiple CGs, and thus how does one allocate a budget to a CG based on how many faculty belong to it? Based on how many majors/minors you have? That would be highly unfair, particular to faculty and CGs that service the GenEd population.

Regarding ASECís rationale #4 (equitable distribution of resources): The way this point was written, makes it seem like the number of CGs is a bad thing. I am fairly new to Ramapo, and as far as I can ascertain a CG is a major (or minor); and a groups of faculty teaches courses in that major/minor. Therefore, it is logical that there is an organizational body responsible for that major/minor; the CG. Combining CGs into programs is not going to address the needs of the individual, content-wise, to those faculty that are not part of one or more of the majors/minors now part of the program.

12) program leaders should not become chairs. (This is a Union matter, anyway). They certainly should be making personnel recommendations, but rather as senior colleagues and mentors, and to unit personnel committees, not directly to the dean.

13) I am afraid that in fitting majors into aggregates of roughly uniform size, many small majors will be lumped together into units where there is little common ground. You have then created another level of administration ñ small major-aggregate-school-all college. The aggregates will simply become small Schools and the Faculty in a small major will continue to meet as a convening group. It is very unclear to me how the aggregate question will be resolved.

V. Faculty Equity

1) I would love to see the end of abuses. People who float and do what they want in and out of convening groups, teaching what they wan, not what they were hired to teach.

2) holding faculty to 1 primary home but allowing them to belong as a peripheral member to other groups

3) The present structure is too loose, arbitrary, and vague, and while it has some benefits, it allows for unaccountability and some abuses. I will support alternative structures that establish a clear line of command and make people accountable.

4) As for the faculty, large numbers donít want their work to be involved solely with their major discipline. They enjoy working with minors, graduate programs, etc. And itís not just the gray-haired ìfoundersî whose schedules take this form, but large numbers of faculty of all ages. Not only would these programs begin to languish with less of their input, but so would the faculty themselves.

I agree that non-participating faculty are a loss to us all, but that the Provost plus deans could use leverage over them.

5) It is easy to grow as a faculty member here, in my experience. I would hate to see us lose the ability to test our disciplinary boundaries.

6) Some groups have considerable power over the faculty who belong to them (theydetermine which courses they will teach, and weigh in on tenure and promotion), while other groups seem to be like clubs anyone can belong and faculty do not have any binding responsibilities to these groups. There is no limit to the number of groups one may join, and therefore one is always pressed to join additional groups. It will be impossible to deliver effective programs until faculty are held responsible for meeting teaching obligations in particular programs. Someone may be hired to teach American history, say, and then go on to never teach a single history course. Meanwhile many programs have no faculty that are primarily and clearly responsible for teaching in them like first year seminar, or MALS, and therefore these programs constantly try to woo people away from their other teaching responsibilities.

7) I think too that it makes sense for a faculty member to identify a primary program, a secondary program and where appropriate a tertiary home. However, I am very concerned about pressures from the programs interfering with expectations that the faculty should teach in general education. I would like to see a commitment for all faculty to provide at least one general education course (which does not double-count) every year. Faculty should also be expected to contribute a school core course every two years (i.e. the capstone course, or writing for the majors, or the values, ethics course etc.). In the case of the school core course I would not object to double counting.

Beyond those commitments, I believe that faculty should be expected to teach ‡ of their remaining teaching load in their primary program (which could include courses that double count for the major and for general education). They should be allowed to provide 1 to 2 courses a year to other programs. In other words: out of the 6 courses to be taught under the new Unit Plan Professor X (in Year 1) would teach 1 gen ed course (not double counting), 1 school core course, 3 courses in primary program, and 1 course in secondary program. In Year 2, Professor X would teach 1 gen ed course (not double counting), 3 course in a tertiary program. Release time where it is appropriate and granted should be carefully defined in terms of which courses should be the last to be touched by release time, in some cases the need for the regular delivery of a course to a secondary program is so critical that it would need to take priority.

Please note the assigning of program homes and school homes for faculty already teaching at Ramapo must be done with great care and with agreement from the faculty member. Unhappy employees do not do their best work. For the sake of our students and of our overall quality as an institution we must ensure that everyone is willing and empowered to do their best work. Hence no-one should be forced against their will into a particular program or school.

8) Some current majors/minors are small in terms of the number of declared students, but the faculty involved in these convening groups teach a large number of gen ed courses and sections some faculty see far more gen ed students than students in their own major. A convening group that is small in terms of the numbers of majors it has would not be considered ìsmallî when the total number of students taught by these faculty are considered ñ but there is no allowance for this in the proposed structure; convening groups are lumped.

9) I recommend that every faculty member teach at least one not double-counted gen ed course every two years. However, group leaders should continue to be faculty members and be kept strictly to a limit of two three-year terms. To elevate them to the status of department chairs with primary responsibility for personnel decisions seems unnecessary, and excessively costly; after all, there are department chairs at other colleges who oversee more faculty than do the deans of our schools.

Faculty should certainly be in the school and program where they do more of their teaching, but I think it would be wisest and easiest to allow existing faculty generally to be allowed to choose what school and program that should be. (The report seemed rather too authoritarian here.)

10) I think a good suggestion would be to emphasize, in future plans and meetings, that the school locale of a program will be decided by people who actually teach in that program. So the legendary problem of where to put psychology would be decided by the sum of psychologists, all of them! One of the perils of democracy is, of course, that we donít always get our way. Expect complaints. Perhaps a reminder is due to the faculty (less pedantic than this one, I hope): part of being a professional means (at times) sacrificing personal interest for the sake of the institution. Some people may thus wind up working closely with others whom they have long despised. I say, so be it! Colleagues should be able to play nice, after all. Should we expect less from each other than we do from our children?

I really like the idea that faculty should have primary and secondary teaching commitments. The elements of what you were hired to teach, what you have been teaching, what youíd like to teach, and what needs to be taught all might be combined into some concrete formula to figure out just who does what. However, right now there is no mechanism to compel people to teach what they are supposed to teach, and your proposal does not do this either. What to do with a long tenured colleague who obstinately continues to teach, say, astrophysics when she was intended to and should be teaching Chinese? Will there be any mechanism that allow faculty to explore their talents while still holding them accountable for their responsibilities?

11) Therefore, to retain flexibility for interdisciplinarity and for exploring new areas, faculty should not be required to teach more than half their load with their program.

12) the uneven quality across convening groups at Ramapo College is a glaring weakness of the institution. Hold all future departments to a common set of standards regarding 1) faculty publications, 2) teaching effectiveness, 3) rigor of curriculum, and 4) grading

VI. Deans

1) I agree we should encourage Deans to work more on community and fund raising

2) after the faculty expressed concern last year about the permanent position of DEAN, why should we move to a structure in which the Dean has a renewable contract, seemingly with no term limits?

3) I have several concerns about the recommendations of ASEC the deans will be administrators, not faculty members in a temporary administrative role. Since the deans will be the members of the Provost's Council, the faculty will no longer have a seat at the table.

4) On page 12 of the ASEC report, they do not spell out what countervailing authority/power will exist against Deans who will be given authority to make difficult decisions that may run counter to popular faculty opinion.î Deans currently already have too much unchecked power. Please provide a detailed procedure to correct his prospective problem.

5) The six schools would then be headed by directors who would each teach one course a term plus their administrative responsibilities. Fundraising would be done by vice presidents as well as the president.

6) Report section on deans IID Who selects the deans? Who determines whether their terms are renewed? Since an earlier point in the document states that they must be free to make decisions not popular with faculty, the answer to these questions appears not to include faculty. One of the things that attracted me to this school was the faculty-as- deans aspect of the structure; deans are faculty first and will return to the ranks. This gives them a view of faculty matters that cannot be found in the ASEC recommendation. If deans have power to affect faculty, then I prefer the current system. If, however, they are ambassadors and fund ñraisers, with specified limits to affecting faculty, then the recommendation is OK with me. Problem is, it is not specified.

7) I can live with the reports recommendations re: dean selection i.e. internal if possible, external if there is only one internal candidate. Still I would definitely want specific evaluation periods built in and a guarantee that the dean cannot serve longer than two three year terms. Ultimately, I would prefer to continue to seek deans from within the college since every one we bring in from a national search would take a faculty line and be eligible for tenure after a brief period of time but would not necessarily be a strong addition to the faculty or an addition according to the key program needs at that point. I disagree with expecting Deans to do any significant fund raising. That should not be their responsibility they should be academic leaders, not glad handlers.

8) I believe deans should be chosen, wherever possible, from among applicants within schools, and that it is lunatic to require an outside search just because only one candidate steps forward. The provost has, and should continue to have, the right to reject a unitís selection of its dean, but I believe that, with a strong provost, strong and effective deans will generally be available from among existing faculty. They will of course require training, but less so than any dean chosen from the outside. If deans must be chosen externally they should be chosen simultaneously as faculty members and reviewed by the appropriate convening group before hiring. The report did not stipulate the length of a deanís term. I think it should be, as currently, three years. I do not however, have an objection, provided s/he receives unit endorsement, if the dean serves more than the current (often violated) limit of two terms.

VII. Teacher Education/ International Education/ Graduate Schools

1) I agree Teacher Ed should have separate status

2) The Teacher Education Program, as stated in the ASEC report, would function best as a separate entity (named as an Institute or whatever is deemed acceptable). As stated in the report, the head of this Institute would sit on the Deansí Council to discuss lines, resources, etc. We can make this change now.

3) I agree completely with ASEC's recommendations regarding teacher education, international education, and graduate programs.

4) Rather than a separate unequal unit for education, I believe there should be a full school of community education which would also house some psychologists, other humanities teachers other social scientists and scientists. Such a school should be able to offer degrees and share programs with other schools.

5) Teacher Ed and International Ed I am not clear on the advantage of separating either of these as institutes rather than leaving them part of the college. How does this further the goals of ASEC? I am particularly concerned about the message we give if we separate the international piece since internationality is part of the college's mission.

6) I fully embrace the recommendations on Teachers Education, International Education, and Graduate Programs although I think the coordinator of Graduate Programs like the director of Teachers Education should sit with the deans and participate in major academic and budgetary decisions. While the graduate coordinator (unlike the teacher ed director) would not have personnel responsibilities, the needs, concerns, and perspectives of the graduate programs should be audible at the deans council level.

7) I do support S III of the report, with two modifications: 1) I think the director of teacher ed should be a faculty member, chosen by and evaluated by teacher ed faculty as if s/he were a dean. 2) It should be clarified that leaders of individual graduate programs are to be faculty members.

VIII. ASEC Report, Style and Process

1) The ASEC model didnít totally convince me because the presentation was vague. The three entities presented didnít have names. How can I vote for a structure with no names?

2) I do not support the ASEC recommendations for structural changes in the schools, because that the changes recommended do not adequately deal with the problems that set out to correct.

3) The recommendations, as presented at this point, suggest a structure but there is not enough detail. Which groups will be placed together? How many schools would exist? What is better about this model which suggests we should change?

4) Overall I see no evidence that the issues that emerged will be better served by a new structure that is, as yet, really a skeleton. I believe that we could act on the three items mentioned above [convening groups in a single school, teacher ed as a separate institute, clarifying school identity] and also look at the other concerns that were raised and address them. Then we should evaluate whether our structure is working well. If after this evaluation, change is warranted, we should design a fully conceived model. Votes would then be on a clear and specific set of recommendations that would clearly define a new structure.

5) More details of recommendations, and supporting data, would be helpful.

6) I have several concerns about the recommendations of ASEC. I am not sure what we are accepting or rejecting. There is no definition of a school or program. I see many problems arising that were not mentioned in the report.

7) Though I absolutely agree with the stated intent of the ASEC recommendations and find their staggering amount of work impressive, too much is unclear in the final document for me to be comfortable endorsing it. I have a hard time connecting some parts of the power point/exec.summary with the actual recommendations; for instance, there may be ways other than appointing professional deans to increase funding for academic schools/programs. As Hank Frundt stated in his letter, the ìblank checkî aspects of the plan, the pieces not specified, are potentially harmful to our future. At the same time, I agree with Gordon Bearís (and the committeeís) point that the three layers of convening groups, units and schools are cumbersome and donít seem to serve the students or faculty well.

8) I am voting no on this matter because I do not feel that the ASEC final report is complete. The report leaves too much to be decided in the future and I am sure that when those details are presented there will be much that I do not like. Ö More college-wide discussions on this are essential.

9) The words ìdepartmentî and ìchairsî make people very uncomfortable around here. I like the use of ìprogram.î Instead of a program chair, some other term should be used that is less fraught with controversy. Program head? Program mistress? Programmer???

10) It is very unclear as to how the units will be created. Will they have traditional themes such as: Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, etc.? Or, as one committee member stated, will they be built around larger interdisciplinary issues such as: The Environment, Global Issues, etc.? The uncertainty of this issue causes me great concern.

IX Miscellaneous

1. These changes will have a profound effect on governance. For example, how will ARC be constituted? Three members? One from each school? Fifteen members?

2. VPAA for Finance must be replaced ASAP! She is too cozy with the board has

been a major force preventing meaningful change at Ramapo College.