Academic Structure Proposal Responses

Proposal from the School of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Academic Working Group response: The Academic Working Group discussed the proposal and financial analysis and unanimously endorsed the proposal.

NHS Leadership Team response: The Leadership Team unanimously endorsed the proposal.

NHS Dean response: The Dean endorsed the proposal.

Provost response: The Provost endorsed the proposal.

President reponse: The President approved the reorganization, to be effective July 1, 2010.

Proposal from the School of Earth Sciences and Physics (spring 2010)

Academic Working Group response: After a robust discussion the Academic Working Group voted six to one in favor of approving the first alternative presented in the proposal.

NHS Leadership Team response: The Leadership Team discussed the first alternative presented in the restructuring proposal.  No consensus arose from the in-person discussion, and because some members were unable to attend the meeting, individuals were asked to provide their feedback to the Dean for compilation.  Individual responses were divided among those who were in favor and those who were against the proposal, with several undecided.  A plurality of individuals did not support the proposal.  While multiple respondents noted their desire to support ESP's wish to separate, and some felt that the rationale for separation provided in the proposal was strong, others took issue with various elements of the rationale and were concerned about inefficiencies associated with creating two small units from the current single entity.  Issues surrounding summer coverage of the proposed departments emerged as a key concern.  Specifically, the fact that the proposal did not meet the college's specified minimum level of summer coverage for the unit leader was recognized as an issue.  The limited availability of administrative assistant staffing in the two proposed departments, particularly in the summer, was cited as another concern.  Multiple respondents worried that service to students and others would suffer under the limited office staffing associated with the proposed reorganization.

NHS Dean response: The Dean did not endorse the proposal, as it does not meet the college's specified minimum level of summer coverage for the unit leaders.  As well, the level of administrative assistant staffing appears inadequate to support the proposed academic units' operations.

Provost response: The Provost did not endorse the proposed reorganization.

President response: The President did not endorse the proposed reorganization.

Proposal from the School of Earth Sciences and Physics (fall 2010)

Academic Working Group response: There was unanimous support among all members present (all but two individuals). There was agreement that barring some unforeseen issue, the current document could serve as both the Letter of Intent and the formal restructuring proposal. The Working Group requested that the unit’s personnel work with the NHS Dean’s Office on generating the required cost analysis. The Working Group expressed no need to participate in a discussion of the cost analysis and, unless something unforeseen occurs, considers its tasks with regard to this restructuring proposal to have been completed.

NHS Leadership Team response: All those present at the October 28, 2010 Leadership Team meeting unanimously endorsed the proposal.

NHS Dean response: The Dean endorsed the proposal.

Provost response: The Provost endorsed the proposal.

President response: TBA

Shell