You are here
CAS Administrative Resctructuring Procedures
Procedures for Administrative Restructuring
Adopted by Faculty Council, January 16, 2008
College of Arts and Sciences
Stage 1: Development of the Proposal
Recognizing that administrative restructuring can be initiated both internally (from within units) and externally (from outside units), Proposals may be developed by a range of parties: an individual faculty member, a group of faculty members, a chairperson, the Dean of the College, the Provost, or the President.
Proposals for administrative restructuring include merging units, dividing units, forming new units, and eliminating units, as well as other unforeseen plans to alter administrative structure.
When faculty or chairpersons propose an administrative change, the development of the Proposal must adhere to consultative processes within the unit. Committees, when appropriate, should be involved, and the results of committee votes should be recorded; subsequently, the unit should deliberate on the Proposal, and the results of unit votes must also be recorded.
Those within the unit who wish to propose restructuring must consult with the Dean and his or her staff to ensure the feasibility of the Proposal in terms of staffing, facilities, budget, and resources; these consultations may forestall problems that are unforeseen at the unit level (distribution of FTEs, budgetary issues, space allocation, and so on) but that may be addressed in productive ways during the development process. In addition, the Dean should assess whether the Proposal can be implemented without creating adverse effects on other units within the College.
If individuals or groups of individuals within an affected unit—either members of committees or members of the unit as a whole—object to the proposed restructuring, they may prepare Written Dissents; while Dissents are not considered part of the Proposal, they will be forwarded with the Proposal as it continues through the review process.
When the Dean, the Provost, or the President proposes an administrative change, his or her office will prepare the Proposal.
The administrator who proposes the restructuring must consult with the affected units. The review process should begin at the committee level, when appropriate, and the results of the committee votes must be recorded; subsequently, the unit should deliberate on the Proposal, and the results of the unit votes must also be recorded.
If individuals or groups of individuals within the affected units—either members of committees or members of the unit as a whole—object to the proposed restructuring, they may prepare Written Dissents; while Dissents are not considered part of the Proposal, they will be forwarded with the Proposal as it continues through the review process.
The Written Proposal*
Proposals must include the following elements (or an explanation of why the element does not apply):
Rationale: This section includes both the context from which the Proposal developed and explanations of the benefits of administrative restructuring.
Curriculum: This section discusses the curricular impact of the Proposal. What will be gained, as well as lost? Does the proposed change affect licensure or certification for students? Does it affect a program’s accreditation?
Staffing: This section discusses personnel issues: those related to faculty, adjuncts, support staff, student workers, and anyone else required for the operation of the unit.
Facilities: This section addresses the management of office, classroom, laboratory, studio, or other physical space.
Technical Support: This section addresses the need for equipment, technical support, new services, and so on.
Budget: This section discusses the projected impact of administrative restructuring on a unit’s budgetary activities, both immediate and long term.
Resources: This section discusses how resources will be divided or combined, as appropriate.
Other Issues: This section, if necessary, includes explanations of issues not covered in other sections that have a bearing on the administrative restructuring.
Voting Records: This section includes the votes at each stage of unit review: committee and whole unit.
Written Dissents, if any, are not part of the formal Proposal but should be attached to it.
Stage 2: Circulation of the Proposal
The Proposal—along with Written Dissents, if any—will be submitted to the Chairperson of the Faculty Council.
The Chairperson will review the proposal to ensure that it contains all necessary elements. If the proposal is incomplete, the Chairperson will request a revised Proposal, detailing the required additions. Revised Proposals will be treated in the same manner as original submissions.
When a Proposal is complete, the Chairperson will forward the Proposal and Dissents, if any, to the Dean and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council. The Chairperson will also forward the Proposal and Dissents, if any, to the Academic Affairs Committee and the Administrative Affairs Committee, charging them to evaluate the Proposal and provide a recommendation to the Faculty Council.
Stage 3: Committee Reviews
The Academic Affairs Committee and the Administrative Affairs Committee will review the Proposal separately. They may consult proponents to request additional information or suggest revisions.
If those who made the Proposal choose to revise it based on Committee recommendations, they should notify the Chairperson of the Faculty Council, who will notify the Dean and the Executive Committee.
The initiators of the Proposal should then return to affected committees and units for additional discussions and votes (see Stage 1). The revised Proposal should then be forwarded to the Chairperson of the Faculty Council (see Stage 2). Revised Proposals will be treated in the same manner as original submissions.
If the initiators of a Proposal choose not to revise, each Committee will proceed with its recommendation.
Each Committee will make a recommendation to the Faculty Council to approve or reject the Proposal.
Forwarding the Proposal.
A brief summary of the discussion and the vote of each Committee will be forwarded to the Chairperson of the Faculty Council, who will place the Proposal on the agenda of the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Faculty Council and forward to all members of the Faculty Council the following documents:
1. the Proposal,
2. Written Dissents, if any, and
3. the summaries and votes of both the Academic Affairs Committee and the Administrative Affairs Committee.
Stage 4: Faculty Council Review
Those who initiated the Proposal—either the person(s) or representatives of the group or unit—must attend the meeting at which the Faculty Council will discuss the Proposal.
During the Faculty Council discussion of the Proposal, those representing the Proposal may be asked to provide additional commentary or respond to questions. The Council will also allow any ISU faculty member with interest in the Proposal to address the Council. After discussion, a vote will be taken to approve or reject the Proposal.
Forwarding the Proposal
After the Faculty Council votes, the Chairperson will forward the following documents to the Dean:
1. the Proposal,
2. Written Dissents, if any,
3. the summaries and votes from both the Academic Affairs Committee and the Administrative Affairs Committee, and
4. a summary of the Faculty Council discussion, as well as the Council vote.
Stage 5: Dean’s Review
The Dean will review the full range of documents related to the Proposal and prepare a written evaluation that will be shared with the Faculty Council.
Forwarding the Proposal
If either the Dean or the Faculty Council supports the proposed administrative restructuring, the Dean will forward the following documents to the Chairperson of the Faculty Senate:
1. the Proposal,
2. Written Dissents, if any,
3. the summaries and votes from both the Academic Affairs Committee and the Administrative Affairs Committee,
4. the summary and vote of the Faculty Council, and
5. the Dean’s evaluation. However, if both the Dean and the Council reject the proposal, the process ends.
*Discussions should be detailed and informative, even when some elements of the plan cannot be fully resolved. For example, projections about staffing and budget often must be negotiated at later stages; however, proposers should offer plans, recommendations, and projections.