A-Mail for Thursday, June 21, 2007

Subject: Nominee for Dean of the College
Submitter: Douglas E Green, Professor, English

Message: The Committee for the Selection of Nominees for Dean of the College (SNDC) is now completing the task with which it was unanimously charged by the faculty: to “confer with the President and the Board of Regents in the selection of nominees for the Dean of the College.” To this end we have solicited the views of the faculty on the “process for selecting the nominee(s) for Dean of the College” and the rationales behind those views. The question was intentionally broad to allow colleagues to respond as they saw fit and to give us a clearer “sense of the faculty.” We believe that the 82 thoughtful responses—from faculty across disciplines, programs, and ranks—have provided us with just that. On behalf of the entire community, we wish to thank all the respondents for their civic-mindedness and the great service they have performed for the college.

The solicitation has helped us clarify and balance the issues raised by the debates at the last two faculty meetings, the intervening online discussion, and the work of the Faculty Senate. While the solution will of course not be to everyone’s liking, our recommendations not only reflect our own best judgment of how to proceed in this situation but also conform to the general will of the faculty and prepare the way for the next stage, which includes input from staff and students as well as faculty.

Though numbers were by no means our only consideration, they were telling: there is a 4:1 ratio between faculty who approve of the sole candidacy of Barbara Farley (73%) and those who want a national search (16%). Moreover, about half of the 16% favoring a national search clearly argued for it as a means of providing the current Interim Dean legitimacy in the permanent position. In addition, even many of the non-committal responses (11%) were favorably disposed to Barbara Farley’s assuming the post of Dean of the College. Though the May faculty meeting, online debate, and original Senate motion on 4 May 2007 had suggested support for Barbara Farley as the nominee, the solicited responses enabled us to gauge not merely the breadth and depth of that support but how our colleagues reconciled this preference with other institutional and faculty concerns. Moreover, we had to consider what that support meant in relation to our own principles and any preconceptions or assumptions we ourselves may have harbored.

Though we cannot rehearse here all the pros and cons of a national search in the current situation, both those advocating a national search and those preferring the sole candidacy of Barbara Farley, as well as those not clearly committed to either stance, were concerned (a) about faculty input into the process of selecting the Dean, (b) about setting a precedent (or an additional one) that would further erode faculty rights and responsibilities, and (c) about what constitutes legitimacy in office and how best to guarantee it in this case, especially in relation to the matter of open competition. There were also concerns about continuity, momentum, the working relationship between president and dean, and experience and performance in office. As one would expect of a complex issue and situation, the arguments were in most cases not neatly pro or con.

HAVING CONSIDERED these matters individually, duly deliberated them together, and conferred with the President and the Board (in the person of Regent Marie McNeff), the committee unanimously recommends Barbara Edwards Farley as the nominee for the position of Dean of the College and Vice-President of Academic Affairs.

In a follow-up letter we will outline some criteria for the position of Dean and the structure and general timeline for conducting the evaluation of the nominee, especially with an eye to written materials and open forums. To meet the perceived need to be both thorough and expeditious, we are recommending the evaluation of the nominee be conducted through existing mechanisms and governing bodies. The President’s Office and HR will arrange for feedback on the nominee from staff and from our various student constituencies through open forums and other means, including the opportunity for confidential written responses through Human Resources.

The procedure for faculty is as follows: In addition to other public forums arranged by the administration, Barbara Farley will meet with Faculty Senate at one of its first sessions and, to ensure maximum exposure, with faculty at large during a reserved hour of the first faculty meeting in September. Feedback from faculty will be channeled through the Faculty Senate, which will then make its recommendation publicly to the President.

WE ARE simultaneously recommending that the Faculty Senate and the Personnel Committee continue to examine and, if appropriate, to clarify our governing documents as they pertain to the faculty’s role in the selection of the Dean of the College and Vice-President for Academic Affairs. Faculty on all sides of the issue now have a very clear sense of our part in choosing the officer who represents our interests to the President and the Board: The faculty role is primarily advisory and mediated through committee structures variously constituted by the Faculty Senate. Whether or not this state of affairs is satisfactory, the SNDC Committee, like a good portion of the faculty, believes that the matter deserves deliberation, discussion, and debate. We also wish to affirm the general, though not universal, precedent for choosing our Dean through a national search, which has been our recent practice. In other words, though we believe it will have wide support, the current process reflects the unique circumstances of the present situation.

The members of this committee thank the faculty for placing their trust in us and hope we have lived up to their charge. We thank students, staff, and administration for their patience while we have necessarily worked largely on matters related to the special relationship between the Dean of the College and the faculty. From our vantage point, we see the actions of the Faculty Senate this spring, the conduct of the faculty deliberation at its latter meetings, the online debate, and the remarkable responses we have received as indications of the vitality and health of this institution.

Sincerely,
Doug Green, Professor of English, Humanities and Fine Arts Representative, and SNDC Chair
Lois Bosch, Associate Professor of Social Work and Professional Studies Representative
Mark Strefeler, Associate Professor of Biology and Faculty Senate Representative
Nancy Fischer, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Natural and Social Sciences Representative
Marie McNeff, Professor Emerita of Education and Regents’ Representative
Alex Hoselton, Student Vice-President and Representative
Wayne Kallestad, Registrar and Staff Representative
Gaye Lindfors, Special Assistant to the President

<<	<	\| Current Issue \|	>	>>
(Browse Issues)