Facilitator: Karl Benedict

Recorder: John Probasco

Committees and Presenters

Undergraduate Education: Dr. White
Academic and Research Organization Research Initiatives,
        Interdisciplinary Interactions, Collaborating and Shared Governance: Dr. McIver
Support for Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity: Dr. Malloy
Globalization, Internationalization, and Latin America: Dr. Tolman
Graduate and Professional Education, Mentorship and Recruitment: Dr. Campana

Committee Presentations Made

Comments from Forum

1. Objections to entire process

1. Globalization

• Instituting an Associate Provost
• Allocation of money should be going to faculty needs and not formation of another administrative position

1. Academic Research

• Concern over giving overhead oversight functions to the administration
• Again, money shouldn’t go from faculty to the administration
• Money, instead, should be applied to faculty salaries
• Taxing of departments should not be allowed

• Reorganizations
• Don’t impact academic programs
• Should look at centers for
• Don’t hit small programs

1. Undergraduate Research

• Hire tenure track faculty to replace leaving faculty
• Losing faculty
• Haven’t replaced
• Money going back to administration

• Get more TAs to work along side faculty
• Would resolve many issues related to Lottery Scholarship considerations as well as Core requirement

1. Graduate and Professional Ed.

• Concern for loss of Graduate students to Texas and Arizona schools
• Need to compete in recruitment
• Support research
• Provide scholarships
• Credit Hour competition with other programs is leading to programs taking from each other
• Undermining quality of programs

1. Concerning Retention of Funds and Overhead

1. Reward mechanism for those who generate money is necessary
2. Problem is that those who are rich will get richer
3. There should be a better mechanism to distribute funds due to generation of funds
4. This should be campus wide
5. Opposing viewpoint is that this could be done by funds going back to the departments not the administration.
6. Maybe shouldn’t go back to departments at all
7. Needing more tenure track

• Unfortunate to lose
• But how to address problem
• Reward and tenure based on research
• Yet doesn’t address problem of retention
• So use instructors instead of tenure track
• They teach load while tenure track deal with upper courses
• Need to promote on basis of teaching

• Problem of lower division courses
• Tenure track are hired to teach upper division, not lower division, leading to our current problem

1. Another Set of Issues with Process

1. Though supposed to be committee of faculty

• A great administrative presence

• Also the faculty present are those with reduced load
• Few normal faculty
• Concern of allegiance to administration

1. Research, Scholarship, Creative Activity Committee

• Has only Basic and Social Sciences Representation,
• No humanities

• Offended, neglecting value

1. Reorganization

• Concerned over statement that organization is outdated in all forms
• Sure, organization needs to be revised but need department and school structure not a floating structure

1. Interdisciplinary Programs

• Most such programs receive more funding than they do here
• First need to respect the department and its programs before pushing for interdisciplinary programs
• Strong programs exist where there is strong support
• Seems want to break down such programs rather than develop

1. Problems with current structure of departments

1. Difficult to understand implications of work in one are in relation to others
2. Current structure limits cooperation and ability to work across departments
3. There should be more overlap
4. Perhaps no departments? Possible, should be looked into
5. Disciplines are becoming very broad
6. Right now, difficult to work across departments unless structurally close
7. Why so many accountants for instance? Streamlining
8. Mass communication needed but difficult in current paradigm
9. Do we need all of the staff support?

• Probably not
• Don’t need all the paperwork either

1. Department structure can change

• Modernize
• Do things differently
• $ back to faculty and research

1. Support of Plan but Learn from past

1. College of Education Fiasco

• Did in depth analysis of self and contribution to NM
• Decided to reorganize
• Started to reorganize, but lost Provost
• Process was attacked by new Provost and cast aside

1. Whatever we do must have support of the central administrations

• Can’t afford division
• Must have interdisciplinary structure in place
• Must have support at all levels or will fail

1. Back to Interdisciplinary Programs

1. Don’t want to see edict of assignments of programs
2. Should be a bottom up process
3. Should be faculty who want to work together
4. Should be nurtured by higher levels

1. But charge doesn’t say this

1. $ goes to top
2. right now says that it is too decentralized
3. appears no trickle down right now
4. $ not from bottom up
5. a burden on the administration
6. Administration should be furthest from involvement

1. No edicts

1. but need support
2. can start program, but need support
3. need structure
4. some decisions that need to be made can not be made by one person or faculty member
5. must recognize that can’t do everything collectively
6. decide to support certain things strongly and to go as a university
7. don’t have resources to do everything
8. question is how to make decision and move along

1. Involvement of Faculty Senate

1. Not too much control, but should be approved by a body of some sort, like the Senate
2. Need a decision maker and control

• Got to have spread from richer departments
• Who to do this?
• Faculty Senate
• Administration

1. Dichotomy of Decision making process

1. Fields evolving rapidly but department structure is against it
2. Credit hour struggle
3. Resources decentralized and competition for these resources
4. Don’t give all of decision making power to administration
5. Asking for a breaking down of impediments

• Incorporate faculty in process

1. Balance of Centralized vs. Decentralized

1. Interdisciplinary programs that are succeeding are doing things on own
2. When department chair changes, decrees change
3. Too dependent on chair to do program
4. Need support also in permission to do and realize goal
5. Supports committees work in this are and appreciates their presentation and focus

1. More Concerns of general process and considerations

1. Concerning Resources

• Resource should not go to administration from smaller groups
• Should not only go to sciences, medical school, etc.
• Also need to consider social sciences and humanities

1. Only one committee for finance

• There is only one way to raise university resources
• Assumptions of committee evades basic need for more money

• Seen in need for faculty, TA support
• Grad student support across board
• Facilities and infrastructure
• Labs costs and modifications and upkeep are more important

1. Should focus on increasing resource base
2. Process parameters seem not to be addressed

• Raises concern from start

1. Barking up wrong tree in whole enterprise