Planning Week Mathematics Department Meeting

Wed. Aug. 16

Members present: Carlos Almada, Madhu Bhandary, Daniel Carbaugh, JD Evilsizer, Kitty Fouche, Ken Frerichs, Hongying Dai, Baiqiao Deng, Cindy Henning, Tim Howard, Eugen Ionascu, Ron Linton, Brian Muse, Melinda Pell, Renjin Tu, Daniel Van Kley, Karen Waters, David Wisdo, Quan Zheng

Meeting Minutes:

Flower Fund:

The department flower fund is a voluntary pool of funds used for department expressions of support and sympathy to our department colleagues or their family members. Ms. Ketterlinus said the fund currently has about $80. Mr. Frerichs suggested that each department member add $5 to replenish the funds.

Strategic Plan:

Dr. Howard reviewed key items in the department strategic plan:

  1. Hire more faculty – we have requested 7 new math positions and 1 new philosophy position for fall 2007
  2. Review MG math course offerings, commitment to offering on regular basis – Dr. Fouche has agreed to lead this exploration
  3. Investigate formation of mathematics and statistics consulting center – Dr. Bhandary will lead this investigation with support from Dr. Tu and Dr. Dai.
  4. Study the feasibility of forming master’s degree program in applied/industrial math & statistics – Dr. Bhandary also will lead us in this effort
  5. Study the feasibility of establishing a degree program in philosophy – Dr. Van Kley and Dr. Wisdo will work on this
  6. Student engagement in undergraduate research and participation in regional meetings – It was noted that Dr. Linton is the university representative to the Council on Undergraduate Research and that the CSU CUR chapter will be involved in the development of an online journal of undergraduate research.
  7. SOA exam completion by faculty – Brian Muse is developing with that goal in mind.
  8. Hire Math/Science Learning Lab director
  9. Send faculty to quality professional meetings – Dr. Howard noted that the department travel budget has not been increased as new members have been added to the faculty. We have an average of $340 per person.
  10. Identify/implement ways to improve productive grade rates
  11. New part time office staff

Meeting Dates:

For the fall semester, department meetings will be held on the first Tuesday of each month at 3-4:15 p.m. Curriculum Committee meetings will meet at the same time on the second Tuesday of each month. These time slots have been chosen to improve the chances of having part time faculty involvement in the meetings.

Student welcome

Dr. Howard announced that on Tuesday, Aug. 22, the department will host a meeting of all math majors at 12:30 in Arnold 101. Free pizza will be served. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce students and faculty and give a brief overview of our programs and upcoming events.

Committee Elections and Appointments

Charges for individual department committees are attached to these minutes.

  • Math Curriculum and Assessment Committee – Ron Linton (chair). All tenured and tenure track math faculty are voting members. All other math faculty are welcome to participate in meetings and offer their input.
  • Faculty search committees. We will be forming two committees – one for math and one for philosophy.
  • Math – Baiqiao Deng (chair), Carlos Almada, Eugen Ionascu, and Renjin Tu. One member will need to be added from outside the department at a later date.
  • Philosophy – Daniel Van Kley and David Wisdo (chair). Others to be added upon approval of the new position.
  • K-12Outreach (recruiting, Math Tournament, education programs). Cindy Henning and Brian Muse will serve as co-chairs. Carlos Almada will be in charge of exam writing.
  • Math Placement Appeals–Eugen Ionascu (chair), Baiqiao Deng, and Renjin Tu.
  • Consulting Center Planning–Madhu Bhandary (chair), Hongying Dai, and Renjin Tu.
  • Student and Faculty Development (MAX Club, colloquium). Brian Muse, chair.
  • Philosophy Program Coordination – Degree program feasibility study, transfer credit recommendations, Philosophy Club, and Philosophy website. Daniel Van Kley, chair.
  • Chair Math Dept. Personnel Committee, Rep. to COS Personnel Committee -- Carlos Almada
  • COS Post-tenure Review Committee– David Wisdo
  • COS Curriculum Committee– Ron Linton

Criteria for the Annual Review of Department Faculty Members

Dr. Almada proposed amending the service criteria by making service on university and institutional committees a favorable activity instead of a required one. The motion passed unanimously.

Dr. Howard reminded everyone that a sheet will be coming around for them to sign indicating their awareness of the annual review criteria.

An ad-hoc committee was formed to review the criteria and propose updates to be applied in the 2007 calendar year. Carlos Almada, Baiqiao Deng, Eugen Ionascu, and Ron Linton agreed to construct a draft for review at the November department meeting.

Faculty searches:

Dr. Howard outlined some areas in which we currently need additional faculty involvement:

  • Actuarial mathematics
  • History of math
  • Early Childhood Education and Middle Grades Education programs
  • Introductory statistics

In addition, it was noted that in seeking new faculty, we should anticipate ways to implement items in our strategic plan such as the consulting center and a master’s degree program.

There was some discussion about procedures forsoliciting department input regarding candidates and for making a recommendation for hiring. The procedure to which we agreed is as follows. After the candidates have finished their campus interviews, a department meeting will be held to discuss candidate strengths and weaknesses. Following that discussion, all tenured and tenure track faculty may vote on each candidate (acceptable or not acceptable). Faculty members should not vote unless they have thoroughly reviewed the applicant files in advance. The overall vote will be forwarded to the search committee and the department chair. The search committee will then issue its own prioritized list of recommended candidates recommended to receive offers. The search committee report will include a list of strengths and weaknesses for each of the finalists.

Committee Charges

Curriculum and Assessment

  • Evaluate/modify course offerings for Middle Grades Math/Science Education majors – work with appropriate COE faculty
  • Check all courses for the requirement of a C or better in pre-reqs
  • Review CPSC 1301 requirement
  • Designate specific guided electives accepted for Area F
  • Recommend a department policy for independent study course offerings
  • Review Major field assessment data and make recommendations
  • Other items, as needed

K-12 Outreach (recruiting, Math Tournament, education programs)

  • Organize math tournament
  • Work with COE on MG math/science course recommendations
  • Devise a recruitment plan

Math Placement Appeals

  • Review incoming appeals
  • Formulate appeal problems for approval by curriculum committee

Consulting Center Planning

  • Study efforts at other institutions
  • Gauge the needs of university community and external community
  • Initiate a few consulting projects, if possible
  • Issue a proposal addressing:
  • Resource needs
  • Marketing plan
  • Faculty release time
  • Models for student involvement
  • Compensation and consulting fees
  • Annual performance reviews and credit for consulting

Faculty search committee charge and procedures

  1. Review Faculty Handbook policies on faculty searches
  2. Recommend ads and advertising strategy to dept. chair
  3. Complete USG applicant clearinghouse form
  4. Meet with HR director to review search guidelines
  5. Acknowledge receipt of application materials
  6. Screen applicants and select candidates for phone interviews
  7. Obtain HR endorsement of applicant pool
  8. Conduct phone interviews
  9. Recommend candidates for campus interviews
  10. After receiving approval from dept. chair, arrange campus visits to include:
  1. Open time for meeting faculty and students
  2. Classroom presentations
  3. Research presentations
  4. Meet w/dept chair, dean, VPAA
  1. Obtain student and faculty feedback on quality and fit of candidates
  2. Department meeting to discuss finalists
  3. Survey students from the courses taught by applicants and students who attend the research presentations.
  4. Tenured and tenure track faculty vote whether each candidate is acceptable or unacceptable (anonymous vote)
  5. Document the strengths and weaknesses of candidates
  6. Deliver report to dept. chair
  7. Ranked listing of applicants recommended for offers
  8. Strengths and weaknesses of all finalists interviewed
  9. Report to Human Resources
  10. Respond to questions from applicants about status of search
  11. Notify applicants when search has concluded