Faculty Senate: Mahmoud Abdalla, William Arrocha, Avner Cohen (Vice President), Sabino Morera, Katherine Punteney, Thor Sawin (President).

Assembly Members: Abdelkader Berrahmoun, Philipp Bleek, Alana Brandt, Paige Butler, Sandra Dow, Jacolyn Harmer, Maria Jesus Iglesias-Barca, Rana Issa, Sharad Joshi, Samuel Kim, Elaine Korzak, Heekyeong Lee, Wei Liang, Jason Martel, Robert McCleery, Deniz Ortacepte, Alix Sehr-Stewart, Yuwei Shi, Nancy Tsai, Max Troyer. Via Zoom:  Netta Avineri, Kathi Bailey, Canri Chan, Wallace Chen, Naoko Matsuo, Pablo Oliva, Barry Olsen, Cas Shulman-Mora.

Staff: Jeff Dayton-Johnson, Stacie Riley.

The Faculty Assembly meeting was called to order by President Thor Sawin at 12:14pm.

Faculty Emerita Nominations: Thor states there are two faculty members who have been nominated for faculty emerita. As a reminder, faculty are eligible for emerita status if they have taught at the Institution for at least 10 years, have the desire to become emerita, and commit to not taking a full-time position at another university after retiring. The two emerita nominations are Jan Black and Nukhet Kardam. Unfortunately, the Assembly meeting does not meet quorum so this vote will have to be done via electronic ballot, which Thor will try to send out this afternoon.

Faculty Committee and Service Needs: In December 2018, the Assembly voted in a change to the length of standing committee membership from two-year terms to three-year terms, and also to aim for approximately a one-third turnover rate per year in each committee. We are in an interesting position this transition year, as we have people finishing two-year terms and these are allowed to extend to a third year if they wish.  However, if everyone who was elected to a two-year term in 2017 converted to a three-year term there would be no new people on any of the committees this year, or in 2022. There are three standing committees where we need faculty to serve:

• Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC), which has the responsibility to review faculty dossiers for promotion, contract renewal, and sabbatical. They also have a role in the Faculty Annual Review (FAR) grievance process. Robert McCleery, current FEC Co-chair, states that being on this committee is some work, but it is a great way to learn about our colleagues and get impressed by their accomplishments. Heekyeong Lee, current FEC Co-chair, states that each year the number of files to review changes, this year there were eight sabbatical dossiers, 15 contract renewals, and seven promotions. There will be three open positions, two GSIPM and one GSTILE.

The caveat to serving on the FEC is that members should not serve while their own contract renewal, promotion, or sabbatical is being evaluated. However, if this leads to an insufficient number of faculty members eligible to serve on FEC, then one of two exceptions can be made. First, if a new member is up for contract renewal or promotion in the third year of their term they can run for a two-year term. The second option is new members up for sabbatical in the third year of their term can recuse themselves from deliberations over their application.

• Academic Policies, Standards, and Instruction Committee (APSIC) provides oversight of Part 1 of the MIIS Policies and Standards Manual, evaluates and provides recommendations on proposed curriculum changes, deliberates on student academic grievances and appeals, and has a role on the Student Conduct Board. There will be two open GSTILE positions on this committee.

• Faculty Senate. Thor states there may be no available seats on the Senate. The three Senators elected to two-year terms in 2017 have all expressed interest in extending their two-years to a third year, remaining on this committee. So there is not a pressing need for new Senators.  However, given the long standing tradition at MIIS that at least one Senate slot opens each year, a compromise position reached after consultation with this year’s Senate and last year’s leadership is that if anyone who would like to join Senate, they should let him know and an election will be held with the new candidate and those current Senators extending to a third year. However, if there is no interest that’s okay since there is a full Senate, but there would be no new Senators next year, nor in 2022

Interest in all three of these committees can be expressed in the following GoogleForm: (https://tinyurl.com/NominationsAY1920) 

Dean and Program Chair Evaluations: The current handbook stipulates that the Deans and the Program Chairs are meant to be reviewed by the faculty by April 30^th. Thor states that if this was a practice in the past it has not been done for quite some time. The Senate has drafted a set of questions for these evaluations (see framework handout). Thor has spoken with the Administration and they are willing to send out these evaluations. Hopefully, by the end of this academic year faculty will have a chance to evaluate their Dean and Program Chair.

It was pointed out that if these evaluations are meant to be substantive the April 30^th deadline would need to be conducted earlier in the academic year, since the Dean’s input into their evaluation has to be sent to Middlebury by March 15^th. If it’s meant to serve as a learning tool, then the April 30th deadline is not a problem.

FAR Evaluation Categories and Rubric: Thor reminded everyone that in December 2018 the Assembly voted to add faculty development as an evaluation category to be used starting with the FAR for calendar year 2019. A handout was distributed showing the proposed rubric for faculty development and the updated rubrics for the remaining categories. Thor encourages everyone to look at the handout and provide any suggestions by May 7^th, before Senate finalizes the document.

Faculty Senate Handbook Retreat: This Friday, May 3^rd, from 3:00-6:00pm, the Faculty Senate will hold a handbook retreat in Morse A101. This retreat will concentrate on identifying and fixing areas of the handbook that are not working well, that are no longer in practice, and updating the handbook to reflect our current practices. The plan for making changes to the handbook (go.middlebury.edu/handbook) is to triage all suggested changes into three categories:

• Minor changes the Senate will make.
• Medium changes will be added to a list to get faculty feedback on before the Senate acts.
• Major changes would be brought to the Assembly for a vote.

The handbook is only officially updated once a year by the Counsel General’s office.  Therefore, if we want any changes to apply in the AY 19-20, we need to make them now. Thor asks that if you are aware of any areas in the handbook that need attention please let one of the Senators know prior to Friday. The Senate plans to have a ballot ready in late May/early June so that these changes can be implemented.

Workforce Planning Update: Vice President Jeff Dayton-Johnson joined the Assembly meeting at 12:50pm. Jeff reminds everyone that the objective behind Workforce Planning is trying to reduce faculty compensation sending by $1.3 million per year starting the year after next. This reduction represents approximately 14 positions, however, the target is not the number of faculty but a dollar value. Since the Institute is also in the market to hire new faculty (two Chinese T&I and one TLM) the target we have to meet is higher, approximately $1.5 million.

The principal mechanism used to meet this financial goal is Workforce Planning. In March, most faculty received an invitation to apply for the voluntary separation package (ISP). Of the faculty who were eligible to apply, 20 chose to put in an application. Separation offers were sent to those faculty, who are currently in the window of deciding whether to accept or decline the offer. Jeff should find out who applied by the May 3rd. Jeff does not believe that 17 faculty members will accept the ISP.

For a variety of reasons, the Administration had to start thinking about a “Plan B”. The official answer to what happens if not enough people accept the ISP has always been, “we are committed to the voluntary program”, which Jeff realizes is not much of an answer. From the beginning, Jeff has said that when it comes to faculty contracts, non-renewal is possible. Another option on the table is early termination of contracts.

Contract renewal decisions from Jeff Dayton-Johnson and Provost Jeff Cason went out on Monday, April 29^th. Of the fifteen cases up for renewal only two were not renewed, and they were not renewed based on section C.7.c of the Faculty Handbook (non-renewal of contract due to reduction in program). Jeff states he has received two reactions to the news that two contracts were not renewed, either total surprise or relief that it was only two when it was thought there might be closer to ten non-renewals. It is important to know that when it came to the non-renewals, there were several layers of analysis used before the decisions were made. The first layer looked at productivity by program, helping to determine which programs were overstaffed and which were understaffed. The second layer of analysis looked at academic integrity, defined as how many faculty we can lose per program before that program becomes non-viable, and also what roles those faculty played in delivering the core curriculum of their program. When it came to contract renewals, Jeff used the above information to determine which faculty would not be renewed.   Depending on how many faculty end up accepting the ISPs, the results of Plan A (ISPs) and Plan B (two contract non-renewals) may be insufficient to meet deficit targets.

The last step we can use to reduce faculty compensation is “Plan C”, early termination of contracts. This is not something the Administration takes lightly, and before we progress down this path it needs to be carefully assessed. There are other cost-saving measures we could use to help reduce the deficit such as retirements and resignations (retirements and resignations would only contribute to deficit reduction if those position are not filled). Another option is reducing the adjunct budget, which is not easy to do because of the heterogeneous roles played by those instructions. We are currently spending $2 million a year on adjuncts, which keeps increasing, even as enrollment numbers decrease. This year we did cut $250,000 from the adjunct budget, and with a little more foresight we could reduce it further.

To reach the remainder of our goal we have two options – 1) continuing an increased rate of non-renewal of contracts over several years or 2) the early termination of contracts now. Neither option is good, both have important downsides to consider. Contract non-renewal would be slower, dragging this morale-damaging process out for several years. It also has a built in unfairness to it, since it would be based on where faculty are in their renewal process, and those faculty up for contract renewal this year or next year bear a disproportional share of the risk. Early termination is more violent, but quicker. Jeff is leaning towards early termination of contracts to end the uncertainty. Contract non-renewal might still be occasionally used even in this scenario (it was almost never used in the past), but les

Termination of contracts would need to be done very swiftly so those colleagues whose contracts are terminated early will be on the same calendar as those who accepted the ISP. This would allow affected faculty to know by the end of June (as required in handbook section C.7) so they can prepare over the summer and be ready to go on the academic job market in the fall. There would be a severance package offered to faculty terminated early, similar to what is being offered in the ISP.

Before we move in this direction, there will be a series of conversations with program chairs to determine where cuts could be made. We will not be asking the chair who to cut, instead we will clarify that we understand the program’s curricular responsibilities, each faculty member’s role within the curriculum, and whether there are extenuating circumstances, such as why a professor was teaching mainly small or elective courses (perhaps they were asked or volunteered to teach such course to create opportunities for others). Early termination allows us to be more strategic over the long run in who is let go. If, after we know who accepted their ISP offers, and after taking into account retirements and resignations, we are still short of the deficit reduction target, early termination of contracts could be the next step.

Lastly, Jeff states that performance has nothing to do with these cuts. This is strictly a way to reduce faculty compensation. Jeff understands that this is an usually unpleasant and demoralizing process we are going through.

Faculty asked several questions:

1. Is early termination of contracts legal?  The answer: It is complicated but Middlebury and MIIS lawyers consider it legal. MIIS appointment terms say it is at-will employment, but also specifies an end date. The severance package won’t be a buyout of all remaining years of the contract, but will be on par with what was offered in the ISP.
2. Have we really focused sufficiently at revenues or are we just looking at costs? Weren’t the projected enrollment numbers positive?  The answer: An increase in enrollments, but still operating at a deficit. The deficit has been reduced from 4.2 million per year down to between 1 and 1.3 million per year, but this has largely been driven by cost-cutting. This workforce reduction is driven by financial considerations. We have looked for many years at revenue generating plans, specifically significant energy and money invested in advancement and in enrollments. These plans have not borne enough fruit to offset the increased costs of faculty compensation, and decreased tuition revenues.
3. What can be done to boost morale?  The answer:  Morale will probably be better in the medium term if workforce planning is not dragged out over several years.  What could motivate faculty is a chance to refocus our academic programs.   One faculty member suggested a series of lectures and celebrations over the coming year, when a larger than normal cohort of faculty will be leaving the Institute.   Other faculty members commented that knowing we are making a more strategic decision is a morale booster.
4. What is the time table of this?  The answer: Between now and the end of May, input will be gathered from the program chairs to ensure that the MIIS council correctly understands the degree maps and the role of faculty within them. 
5. What do people at the College think of us, what did they think when they first acquired us?  The answer: Probably less frequently than we realize. Ron Liebowitz’ original vision centered on complementarity, that we are many things that the College was not (East vs. West coast, undergrad vs. grad, liberal arts vs. professional).
6. Will any ISP offers be rejected? If a faculty member accepts the ISP, will MIIS decide to not extend it to them?  The answer: That was considered at one point, but at this point we will likely not be rejecting any ISP applications.  We may need to hire some new faculty to replace ones lost however.