1 / 57

Campus Open Forum Warren Kent Wray March 5, 2014 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

TRANSITION FROM “NO DEANS” TO “DEANS” College of Arts, Sciences and Business College of Engineering and Computing. Campus Open Forum Warren Kent Wray March 5, 2014. SIX COMMITTEES. Administrative Planning Committee – Larry Gragg

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Campus Open Forum Warren Kent Wray March 5, 2014' - remington-ronnie

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

TRANSITION FROM “NO DEANS” TO “DEANS”College of Arts, Sciences and Business College of Engineering and Computing

Campus Open Forum

Warren Kent Wray

March 5, 2014

Six committees

  • Administrative Planning Committee – Larry Gragg

  • Academic Planning Subcommittee – Dave Enke/Larry Gragg, Co-Chairs

  • Non-Academic Planning Subcommittee – Greg Smith

  • Resource Planning Committee – Kelvin Erickson

  • Personnel and Financial Resources Subcommittee - Kelvin Erickson, Chair

  • Physical Resources Subcommittee (Campus Space Committee) – Walt Branson, Chair

  • External Functions and Activities Planning Committee – Lea-Ann Morton, Chair

  • Strategic Planning Responsibility Committee – Rose Horton/Jim Drallmeier, Co-Chairs

  • Faculty Bylaws Committee – Mark Fitch, Chair

  • Steering Committee – Kent Wray, Chair


Committee discussions: February 3 – 28

University-wide forum to

hear from committees: March 5 (today)

Steering committee considers

preliminary options for consideration

and comments and forward to

special committees: March 12

Committees submit

recommendations: March 21


Chancellor and Provost consider

recommendations: April 2

Campus-wide Open Forum II

to hear recommendations

by steering committee: April 9

3-4:30 PM

Opportunity for final comments

from faculty, staff, students,

and alumni: April 14

Chancellor and Provost make

final decisions: April 21

Consultants um system

  • Deborah Noble-Triplett

    Assistant Vice President Academic Affairs

    VP Human Resources/Academic Affairs

  • Eric Rosenhauer

    Director Performance Improvement

    UM Health System

Order of speakers

Mark Fitch, Faculty Bylaws Revision Committee

Rose Horton, Strategic Planning Responsibility Committee

Kelvin Erickson, Personnel & Financial Resources Subcommittee

Walt Branson, Physical Resources Subcommittee

Lea-Ann Morton, External Functions and Activities Planning Com.

Larry Gragg, Academic and Non-Academic Planning Subcommittee

Deborah Noble-Triplett and Eric Rosenhauer, UM System

Rp a s ad hoc bylaws committee

RP&A’s Ad-hoc bylaws committee

Campus Open Forum

Mark Fitch

March 5, 2014

Committee charge

…to review any necessary changes to the bylaws regarding bringing back deans and that all standing committees are to report back to the ad hoc committee on any implications of bringing back the deans that they see in the purview of their committees

Committee members
Committee Members

  • Mark Fitch

  • Martin Bohner

  • Daniel Tauritz


  • Compared 2007 changes (to no deans) to current bylaws

Suggested by laws changes
Suggested by-laws changes

Create Colleges as a Faculty Organization

  • Consisting of “all tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track full-time faculty members holding the rank of instructor or above  in the departments that belong to the college, its Dean, and any of its Associate or Assistant Deans”

  • “The chief executive and administrative officer of each college is its Dean”; search similar to current Dep’t Chair search.

  • Meetings at least once per semester.

Suggested by laws changes1
Suggested by-laws changes

  • “…shall have delegated directly to it by the General Faculty jurisdiction over matters primarily of interest only to that college. This includes

    • appeals of departmental academic actions and

    • establishment of new certificates, minors, and degree programs,

    • with a primary responsibility for maintaining and improving the academic excellence of all departments within the college

      Special programs offered completely in a single college under Dean (now all under Provost)

Suggested by laws changes2
Suggested by-laws changes


  • Members of General and Graduate Faculty

  • Ex-officio members of Faculty Senate (also add Chancellor as ex-officio)

  • Not eligible to chair a Standing Committee

Previously passed fs resolutions
Previously passed FS resolutions

  • Standing Committee previous chair shall organize election of successor, else Faculty Senate President designate committee member to organize elections unless a committee has its own chair election policy

  • Administrative Review Committee from 4 to 3 members

  • No Grad Council rep on Campus Curriculum Committee

Previously passed fs resolutions1
Previously passed FS resolutions

  • Intellectual and Tech Transfer Committee

  • Tenure Policy Committee

  • Grievance Hearing Panel “…functions in accordance with CRR 370.010…”

  • Parking, Security and Traffic Committee from 12 to 7 faculty members, from 2 to 1 undergraduate student, additional 1 (was 2) may be Chancellor-appointed, and Chancellor no longer to appoint chair.

Strategic planning responsibility committee
Strategic Planning Responsibility Committee

Campus Open Forum

Rose Horton

March 5, 2014

Strategic planning responsibility committee1
Strategic Planning Responsibility Committee

The current Missouri S&T strategic plan was created and adopted with the current organizational structure in effect. It may be appropriate, and even a requirement for some levers and actions, that the new colleges and Vice Provost and Deans be responsible for the successful implementation or application of some of the plans levers and actions. This committee will review the current strategic plan and, working with appropriate lever leaders and action owners, identify which levers and actions will become the responsibility of the new VDPs when the new colleges become operational.

Strategy statement
Strategy Statement

Missouri S&T will provide by 2020 a top return on investment among public research universities to students, employers, research partners and donors through extraordinary access to renowned expertise, services and experiential learning opportunities.

Strategic planning responsibility committee2
Strategic Planning Responsibility Committee

  • Jim Drallmeier (co-chair)

  • Joan Nesbitt

  • Laura Stoll

  • Debra Robinson

  • Ralph Flori

  • Jeff Cawlfield

  • Rose Horton (co-chair)

Plan of action
Plan of Action

  • Jim Drallmeier and Rose Horton met to determine course of action

  • Levers were assigned to team members

  • Team members were tasked with analyzing each action and determine if Academic Deans needed to be added

  • Lever Leaders were consulted throughout decision process

  • Recommendations for adding Academic Deans to actions were proposed to Chancellor and Cabinet

Strategic plan action realignment
Strategic Plan Action Realignment

  • Lever 1.1- Action: 1.1.2

  • Lever 1.2- Actions: 1.2.3, 1.2.5 and 1.2.6

  • Lever 1.3- Action: 1.3.1

  • Lever 2.1- Actions: 2.1.2 and 2.1.6

  • Lever 2.2- Actions: 2.2.3, 2.2.4 and 2.2.5

  • Lever 2.3- Actions: 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.5, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.10, 2.3.11 and 2.3.12

  • Lever 2.5- Actions: 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.6 and 2.5.8

  • Lever 3.1- Actions: 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3

  • Lever 3.3- Actions: 3.3.1 and 3.3.5

  • Lever 3.4- Actions: 3.4.7 and 3.4.10

  • Lever 3.5- Action: 3.5.3

  • Lever 4.2- Actions: 4.2.1 and 4.2.2


  • Lever 1.1 (experiential learning) - 1 action

  • Lever 1.2 (foster innovation) - 3 actions

  • Lever 1.3 (student access to faculty) - 1 action

  • Lever 2.1 (faculty hiring) - 2 actions

  • Lever 2.2 (Missouri’s technological research) - 3 actions

  • Lever 2.3 (culture of excellence) - 8 actions

  • Lever 2.5 (modify teaching methods) - 4 actions

  • Lever 3.1 (evaluate programs) - 3 actions

  • Lever 3.3 (improve facilities) - 2 actions

  • Lever 3.4 (promote inclusion and diversity) - 2 actions

  • Lever 3.5 (student engagement) - 1 action

  • Lever 4.2 (enhance labs) - 2 actions

    TOTAL strategic plan actions: 32

Resources planning committee

Resources Planning Committee

Campus Open Forum

Kelvin Erickson

March 5, 2014

Resources planning committee1
Resources Planning Committee

The Resources Planning Committee will coordinate extensively with the other major restructuring planning committees by helping to identify the number of personnel positions required to accomplish those financial, administrative, academic, and outreach responsibilities and activities that the other committees have identified as being essential and continuing in need. There will be a committee chair that oversees the two subcommittees.

Personnel and financial resources subcommittee
Personnel and Financial Resources Subcommittee

Personnel and Financial Resources Subcommittee will be responsible for identifying the type and number of positions that will be required for each Vice Provost/Dean's office. Once these positions have been approved, the availability of these positions will be announced through HRSAADI as open for internal candidates and those individuals being displaced by the reorganization will be given the opportunity to apply for the new position recommendations. In addition, this committee will research the financial structure of similar deans’ offices and estimate the funds needed to support the various deans’ offices non-personnel needs, functions and activities (e.g., office operations, travel, unplanned support for reporting units, proposal matches, etc.). (This committee will not establish the VPDs budgets.)

Personnel and financial resources subcommittee members
Personnel and Financial Resources Subcommittee Members

Kelvin Erickson, Chair Lance Haynes

Daryl Beetner Shenethia Manuel

Steve Clark Deborah Noble-Triplett

Mitsy Daniels Keng Siau

Lokesh Dharani Lisa Strauser

Lucretia Eaton Jay Switzer

Barbara Hale Kerry Magner (Graduate

Richard Hall Student Council Rep)

Space committee report

Space Committee Report

Campus Open Forum

March 5, 2014

Walt Branson

Committee charge1
Committee Charge

The Space Committee will coordinate with the Personnel and Financial Resources subcommittee once the number and type of personnel needed to staff each of the deans’ offices have been identified. Once the number and type of staff members are known, the Space Committee will locate potential office space for each of the new VDP offices and present one or more recommendations to the Chancellor.

Physical resources subcommittee campus space committee
Physical Resources Subcommittee (Campus Space Committee)

  • Walt Branson, Chair

  • Kelvin Erickson

  • Deanne Jackson

  • Krishna Krishnamurthy

  • Jim Murphy

  • Matt O’Keefe

  • Ted Ruth

  • Greg Smith

  • Kris Swenson

  • What space is available?

  • What principles should be used in determining office locations?

  • What are the right locations?

  • How will decisions fit with campus master plan?

  • Are there units that should be moved so that these offices can be located in the “right” places?

External functions and activities planning committee

External Functions and Activities Planning Committee

Campus Open Forum

Lea-Ann Morton

March 5, 2014

Committee charge2
Committee Charge

Identify those activities and functions involving fundraising, outreach, and relations with individuals, organizations, and companies external to the university that are currently beneficial to the university and may continue to provide benefit to the university in the future. After identifying all external activities of benefit to the university, make recommendations regarding which activities should continue where they are currently assigned or be reassigned to the new vice provost and deans’ offices, and make further recommendations regarding which university unit, if not the VPD’s, should assume the responsibility for ensuring that these activities are successfully continued.

Committee members1
Committee Members

Lea-Ann Morton, Chair

Henry Wiebe

Laura Stoll

Wayne Huebner

Greg Gelles

Muthanna Al-Dahhan

Sajal Das

Kamal Khayat

Steve Tupper


  • Two committee meetings have been held.

  • Committee reviewed the following documents:

    • All vice-provosts lists of key duties

    • 2006 report regarding deans to no-deans transition

    • S&T strategic plan and six identified customer groups

  • Committee selected and reviewed duties assigned to all vice provosts office that are considered external functions.

  • Committee elected to include additional external functions that are “of benefit to the university” and have direct impact on no-dean to dean transition.

  • Committee completed spreadsheet with tentative recommendations on where the external functions could/should reside.

Administrative planning committee

Administrative Planning Committee

Campus Open Forum

Larry Gragg

March 5, 2014

Committee charge3
Committee Charge

Determine whether each function currently performed by Provost direct reports should either stay under the listed office of responsibility, be eliminated, or be moved to another office - which could include one of the two new Dean positions, an existing office on campus, or possibly another new office, entity, or direct report.

Committee members2
Committee Members

Academic Committee

Larry Gragg, Co-Chair Jeff Schramm

Dave Enke, Co-Chair Kris Swenson

Phil Whitefield Vicki Hudgins

Dedie Wilson Deborah Noble-Triplett

Krista Chambers Mark Fitch

Jerry Cohen K. Krishnamurthy,

Mariesa Crow resources person for the

Everett McDaniel committee

Committee members3
Committee Members

Non-Academic Committee

Greg Smith, Chair Keith Strassner

Dan Waddill Barb Palmer

Dave Van Aken Venkat Allada

Diana Ahmad Robert Aronstam

Dick DuBroff Tom Schuman

Sharon Matson


  • Committee chair, via email, invited the campus community to submit suggestions.

  • The Academic Committee met four times and the Non-Academic Committee met three times. To ensure coordination, Greg Smith and Larry Gragg attended all meetings and Dave Enke attended all the Academic Committee meetings and one of the Non-Academic Committee meetings.


The two committees assumed that the Vice Provost of Academic Affairs position would be eliminated, and that the duties of this office would either be eliminated, moved to another existing office on campus, or possibly require the development of a new office or entity for any remaining functions.


  • Provost direct reports submitted lists of the key functions and activities of their offices to the committees.

  • The two committees then assessed each function using two key questions: Which office on campus provides the greatest value to the teaching and research challenges of the faculty? How can we best minimize redundancy in functions?

Tentative recommendations
Tentative Recommendations

Key Functions from VPAA to Deans

  • Interview and provide input on tenure-track faculty candidates (in collaboration with Department Chairs)

  • Curriculum issues

  • Work with various academic and non-academic units to build collaborative relations to respond to opportunities related to graduate studies (in collaboration with VPGS, formerly VPGS only)

Tentative recommendations1
Tentative Recommendations

Key Functions from VPAA to Deans

  • National and regional presence and representation at the Council of Graduate Students and Midwest Association for Graduate Schools (in collaboration with VPGS)

  • Allocation of miscellaneous instruction

  • Salary adjustments and increases for academic units

  • Review and approve required faculty hiring forms and/or eRecruit approval

Tentative recommendations2
Tentative Recommendations

Key Functions from VPAA to Deans

  • Corporate relations

  • Provide assistance with grievances

  • Budget monitoring of 19 academic units

  • Extra faculty compensation

  • Faculty policy interpretation

Tentative recommendations3
Tentative Recommendations

Examples of Specific Functions for Dean of Engineering and Computing

  • ABET oversight

  • Freshman Engineering

  • MSU program management

Options for consideration1
Options for Consideration

1. Combine the offices of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies and the Vice Provost of Graduate Studies into a new unit that would report to a “Dean of Students.” Such an arrangement would continue to allow for consistent policies for undergraduate and graduate students across the campus, while sharing similar resources.

Options for consideration2
Options for Consideration

2. As an alternative to item 1, keep the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Studies as currently defined (or possibly redefined), but transform the position of Vice Provost of Graduate Studies into a “Dean of Graduate Studies” that would work with and support each new college.

Options for consideration3
Options for Consideration

3. As an alternative to items 1 and 2, the current structure of having both a Vice Provost of Undergraduate Students and Vice Provost of Graduate Students can be kept in place and continue to function as currently operating. This alternative would not require new administrators or changes in office, other than determining their proper interaction with the new colleges and Deans.

Options for consideration4
Options for Consideration

4. Locate the staff (five) and all functions that remain listed under the VPAA and not currently reassigned to another entity other than the Provost within an “Academic Support Center” that would report to either the Provost, the Budget Office, Human Resources, or some other entity. An alternative option would be to have two separate Academic Support Centers within each new college reporting to the Deans, but this would involve some duplication of effort, potential inconsistencies between colleges, and the possible need for additional staff.

Options for consideration5
Options for Consideration

5. Create a “Teaching and Learning Center” that would incorporate CERTI, EdTech, the New Faculty Forum, New Faculty Orientation, UM Faculty Scholars, and, perhaps, LEAD. Such a combination would create one location for many teaching and faculty development activities on campus.

Options for consideration6
Options for Consideration

6. Combine the two writing centers within undergraduate studies and graduate studies to encourage efficiencies between the two existing centers, while also ensuring that the new entity is adequately funded to support both undergraduate and graduate students.

Options for consideration7
Options for Consideration

7. Utilizing existing resources and staff, consider the option of creating new centers or groups, such as the Academic Support Center (see item 4), that would serve both academic and non-academic departments that are unable to hire or support staff that can help full-time with budget, communication and other relevant department functions that are necessary to serve students, faculty and staff. Examples include a Financial Support Center and a Communication Support Center, among others.


Please go to the following website and leave anonymous comments with your thoughts and ideas!