Faculty Senate Minutes
Return to Revised Minutes
Summary: 1) Election Results
That is the language that is already in place.
This is the way the statement reads to me, (this may not be what you intent).
We need to make sure we are real clear in what are intentions are.
It reads as if the chairman would not normally be renewed but he may be
What do you think would be a better background assumption?
Is that assumed to be the normal procedure? What I don't want to see is
after five years someone states that that's not what's written.
This is a valid point; the old language actually states that the president
appoints dean for an indefinite term. The dept chairperson is only appointed
for a fix term, what is a fixed term? Does the language already exist that
these appointments maybe renewed?
Yes, but only for the chairs.
The provost is the one that added the term, and we felt that was a good
thing. This is just a recommendation that will go to the (what office?)
for approval to be added to the handbook.
Is their some reason in having a review for a three-year chair. It
seems to me it would be important if the chair were going to be renewed.
Taking the amount of time it takes to do a review, if you have a chair
that is not going to work out it will take awhile to figure that out and
then just let the rest of that term drift.
The five-year term in not new to this document but has been in place for
a while, but is not in the handbook. In the dean's definition you
could simply say "before reappointment" which would correct the misconception
of them being renew or not. The problem I see with this statement
it seems to imply that only deans reviewed are those deans who head up
schools, does this also include myself which is dean of undergraduate education,
there are a couple other deans that don't head up schools. I'm not
sure what the intent is here in respect to those deans. I have no position
on this it's just not clear in this statement.
I think if we take the statement "of the school" and add "Deans of Schools"
I believe this would imply all deans.
Motion to accept handbook changes
We don't know of any yet. But we do expect it to be a challenge.
on the agenda Planning and Resources Committee presentation on the IT structure
changes presented by C. Breneman
C. Breneman: The
real question is how do we evaluate the IT undergraduate program with the
IT graduate research program? How do these two fit together or do
I believe it is to early to tell. I think we can assume it not too
much different then institute research center and their corresponding undergraduate
programs. They have interdisciplinary research and their own separate
undergraduate program. I don't see where this is functionally too
much different from that.
P. Hajela: What
does the senate want to do with this proposed IT structure. Do we
want to go on record stating this is something that we would like to reexamine
in depth and then give are opinion on or accept it as proposed?
Do you have any idea how big the management group is in IT?
From my understanding it is the majority.
Is science a good home for this group? Maybe you want an IT component
in management and an IT in science, you want to maintain an inter-displinary?
Is the school of science the best academic home for the undergraduate and
master level work? I personally feel the program is a good one and
that we should endorse it. There is going to be problems along the
way, and as with the Rensselaer Plan it will be review on annually bases.
M. Hanna: I still
have a large concern in that is the undergraduate program in the right
place? Based on the student that are in the program I don't know how many
of them would feel that the school of science is the right place.
If I had to pick the two strongest places within in the field right now
for the IT undergraduate program it would have to be computer science or
management. I guess my question is why did it go in one direction
opposed to the other? I would be more comfortable in saying
we withstand until further evaluation.
Are you suggesting they split the research administration, graduate administration
and undergraduate administration so there is three pieces instead of two?
I donít have a problem with the graduate portion if you answer the question
about the master's portion of the program? Does the thesis master
work the same way as PhD does? If it's a non-thesis where does it
I believe the reason why the school of science was chosen for this is because
the research component definitely has more science as well as engineering
in it. We want to think of IT as a science application.
I believe we have a number of unanswered questions, including core curriculum
matters as well as the right place for the IT structure. I think
this needs more discussion within the senate before we endorse the IT structure.
Fifth item on
the agenda Planning & Resources Committee- Department Mergers in SoE.
C. Breneman: K.
Nelson has an alternative proposal for increasing the critical mass of
K. Nelson: The statement that we have had a declining faculty is true, due to the administration-letting faculty go without replacing them. In my view there are three individuals within the ECSE who are really power engineers. If those three individual were moved into electric power this would free up three slots in ECSE, which would allow the administration to hire people that they feel are more in line with the directory making ECSE more complying with the Renns. Plan and it would build the number we need in EP so that we could get back to where we were during our research. I am currently negotiating with General Electric for 2 of their engineers to come to RPI as research professor fully funded by GE for four million dollars each for a indefinite period of time. Which would again provide another two individuals.
P. Boyce: It seems
this is almost an attempt to eliminate something that has been successful
in the past but doesn't have the new concern of the Renns. Plan.
We should support financially successful existing department, which are
producing a useful product.
It has been pointed out that other department could actually fall in this
particular ax very easily if undergraduate numbers are what accounts for
what makes something successful or not. It appears that undergraduate
numbers are more sufficient to the current administration then graduate
The three professors whom are currently in another department. If they
were added to your department this would go a long way in increasing your
bulk. Have you talked to these individuals, are they interested,
and what are the obstacles in making this happen?
I don't believe they have formally been approached. I don't know
what their wishes are. One of the individuals already has a joint
appointment in EP but is administratively in ECSE.
It sounds like an interesting idea I was just wondering if you had a feeling
if there was obstacles or interest?
I don't want to speak for the dean, but I think if the dean were here he
would say that he sees a collation between ranking and size. If you
looking at the top ranking universities there is undoubtedly a colligation
between the size of a dept and it's ranking. The fact of the matter is
that the comradely is not true. There are some very fine small departments.
I think is motivation is to try and build numbers in ECSE.
P. Hajela; Unfortunately
the Dean is traveling and he has requested the senate grant him the opportunity
to speak to the P&R report and perhaps address all question that have
been raised here today. The senate may go various way today, we can
vote on the proposal put forward by the P&R committee or wait and hear
from the dean, we can vote either way to accept the proposal or turn it
down, or we can defer the decision to next week, when the dean can make
a presentation to response to questions so we may make an educated decision
at that point.
What impacts will this have on the undergraduate program in EP? Will
the curriculum be as vile able?
The impact on the undergraduate program will be very small. We are predominately
a postgraduate program department. We have more PhD per faculty member
than any other school of engineering. I think were it not for the
fact we are continuous bailing the boat (so to speak) even with our research
level at a low high we could still be a great deal higher. The money
is there it just we don't have the time to go after it, because we are
in such short numbers. Your question is specifically for undergraduate
then I would have to guess those numbers are extremely low, that it would
not be impacted very much.
What has been the history of faculty in the tenure process?
I have been chairman for 15 years and I haven't yet not got anyone through
the P&R committee.
How many faculty are we talking about?
I would say 3 or 4.
What are the backgrounds of the students that come in for their masters/PhD?
K. Nelson: Electric Engineering and Electric Power Engineer and one year master program.
The question I would like an answer to next week or shortly there after
is what is the value of adding these extra faculty or lack of not adding
in keeping this department?
If this were to become an electric power division within electric engineering
what does it do to your staff and your ability to work? In terms
of teaching load, in terms of being able to get a research source from
In the current situation we taking an overload in teaching so we can attract
master degree and doctrinal students. Moving in to ECSE it is unclear
if the same relationships would be allowed. The question has been
avoided a numerous times. The current arrangement is that the faculty
teaches an additional core course, to obtain the TA allocatement to attract
graduate students. The second area is that the assumption is whether
we are in ECSE or EP the same job security, right now the market is enormous
for graduates. The assumption is that we have a strong program now
you mess around with it and what happens is that its unsure if it will
be allowed to continue doing what it does and you can not be assured that
the faculty will stand for that. If you can't hire or won't hire
people to backfill empty positions, the program will be destroyed in a
very short time even if we want it to be or not.
The P&R proposal is that we should request a moratorium so that they
can continue their study?
Yes, so that we get answer to the question, which have, been voiced here
today. If the dean were not traveling today, I would assume the dean
would be here in this meeting and then we would have a greater ability
to make a resolution as to how we feel. Then you are hearing all
sides of the issues. I don't think it intergrades the recommendations
by the P & R committee but it just allows us more input.
I believe we should allow the dean his chance to answer our questions then
I would like to make a decision.
I would feel more comfortable with having the dean address this senate.
As to just address the P & R because we faced him there and we asked
a lot of question (a lot of these questions). What we need is for
the senate to receive his answers.
All in favor of having a meeting next week, with the dean and at that point
make a decision on the merger. Meeting for next week approved.