usm home | a-z index | contacts | help

Committee Reports

Click here for Final Report

17 February 2006 - Sixth Meeting

Members present: Boden, Carroll, Chaulet, Chen, Hapcic, Harris, Kading, Kargul, Maher, Picinich (nonvoting), Shaughnessy

Draft report

We discussed and revised the report, focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of creating a new college, summaries of conversations with other faculty, justifications for creating a new college, suggestions for improving arts education at USM, and recommendations to the dean.

Chris Maher will send a revised version to the committee and ask for final comments, along with an electronic vote. Then she will send the final report to Dean Malhotra.

Next meeting – TBA

10 February 2006 - Fifth Meeting

Members present: Boden, Carroll, Chaulet, Hapcic, Harris, Hewitt, Kading, Kargul, Maher, Picinich (nonvoting), Shaughnessy, Wilkis

Draft report

We discussed and revised the report, focusing on the accomplishments in Music, Theatre and Art as well as impediments to delivery of arts education.

Next meeting – Friday, 17 February, 5 PM in 315 Bailey

20 January 2006 - Fourth Meeting

Members present: Boden, Chaulet, Chen, Hall, Harris, Hewitt, Kading, Kargul, Loughlin, Maher, Ozimek, Picinich (nonvoting), Savage, Shaughnessy, Wilkis

I. Committee members summarized their conversations (phone calls, emails) with department chairs at comparable state institutions that have colleges of the arts in order to establish some comparisons. Ideally, they spoke with chairs from departments in the arts college and in the liberal arts and science college; however, chairs did not always return messages. Institutions included were: Kean University, Wichita State, Texas State – San Marcos, Troy University, Cal State – Long Beach, George Mason, Arizona State, U of Nebraska – Omaha, Portland State, Western Washington University, SUNY – Geneseo, and Texas Tech.

Common themes in responses:

1. What are some advantages to having arts depts. housed in a separate college of the arts?

Having their own dean is critical: deans in separate arts colleges understand the arts better (critical), so, for example, tenure and promotion process runs more smoothly. Plus, the dean can be a stronger advocate and provides better voice for arts within and outside the university.
Greater visibility for the arts and for the university
Improved fundraising
Improved image/voice within the university and improved public image

2. What are some disadvantages?

Often, respondents reported no disadvantages.
More service required
Structural costs: Additional costs to establishing another administrative unit and less cushioning with budget in a smaller unit
CAS loses visibility and lose unity of liberal arts

3. Effects on fundraising?

Most people reported positive effects on fundraising

4. What advice would you give as we proceed?

Choice of dean is critical
Need a development officer
People have to work together to make it successful
Have resources and facilities in place
Resolve governance issues first

II. Draft report

We discussed the outline of the report to the dean, including what the report should accomplish. One suggestion was to start with list of accomplishments that have been achieved with existing CAS structure, then discuss challenges and limitations to that structure. The section on recommendations should be a set of defined positive outcomes of this process. We also should include a summary of the responses from interviews from faculty and deans at other places.

Committee members will send their comments to Chris Maher by Friday, 27 Jan 06, and she will compile them and generate another draft by the next meeting.

Next meeting – Friday, 10 February, 4 PM in Portland, Room TBA

4 November 2005 – Third meeting

Members present: Carroll, Chaulet, Chen, Hapcic, Harris, Kading, Maher, Oberholtzer, Savage, Shaughnessy, Wilkis

I. Chris Maher summarized the list of pros and cons that the Committee generated at the last meeting.

II. We then discussed organizational structure at other institutions. Chris Maher reported on email and telephone conversations with deans from George Mason University and University of Nebraska – Omaha about advantages and disadvantages of a separate college of the arts. Brian Hapcic reported on a conversation with a faculty member from the University of Southern Mississippi about the merger of fine arts into a College of Arts and Letters. Scott Harris reviewed similar institutions listed in the NASM directory and found no correlation between a program’s strength and the institution’s administrative structure. In short, many different models exist, and they probably are driven by internal issues (resources, politics, etc.). We also discussed several issues, including the issue of scholarship and how well other faculty and deans understand the nature of scholarship in the fine and performing arts.

The Committee agreed that it would be useful to talk to colleagues at other institutions, both within "arts colleges" and "arts and sciences colleges". We agreed to contact department chairs in one arts department and one "non-arts" department and ask them 4 questions:

1. What are the advantages of having your fine arts depts. in a separate college?

2. What are the disadvantages?

3. How does a separate college affect internal and external fundraising (an issue frequently raised here) and the profile of arts departments within your campus and community?

4. What should we consider as we proceed?

III. We discussed concerns about the COA planning that faculty from other departments have raised so far. We will ask Dean Malhotra to include COA as an information item on the agenda for the upcoming CAS faculty meeting.

IV. We agreed to an outline for the report to the dean, which will include what currently works well and does not work well; advantages and disadvantages of a COA; organizational structure and it function; a list of prioritized needs (expanding upon facilities, faculty, funding); and a recommendation about whether or not to continue planning.

Topics for next meeting include reports from conversations with chairs and deans and discussion of a draft report.

Next meeting – TBA

21 October 2005 – Second meeting

Members present: Chaulet, Chen, Hapcic, Harris, Hewitt, Kading, Kargul, Maher, Oberholtzer, Savage, Shaughnessy, Wilkis

I. Scott Harris (Director, School of Music), Chuck Kading (Chair, Department of Theatre), and Michael Shaughnessy (Chair, Department of Art) gave brief presentations of their programs’ structure, mission, and goals. Presentations were followed by questions and answers. Handouts will be posted on the CAS web site. Handouts: ART MUSIC THEATRE

II. Committee members generated a list of pros and cons associated with establishing a College of the Arts and discussed aspects of items on the list. The list will be posted. Pros & Cons

Topics for next meeting include a synopsis of the pros and cons discussion, examination of models from other universities comparable to USM, and determining a structure for the final document due to the dean by December.

Next meeting – Friday, 4 November 2005, 4:00 PM, 315 Bailey

September 30, 2005 - First meeting

Members present: Boden, Chen, Hall, Hapcic, Harris, Hewitt, Kading, Kargul, Kilroy, Loughlin, Maher, Picinich, Savage, Shaughnessy, Wilkis

Guest: Dean Malhotra

Dean Malhotra asked the committee to spend the fall 2005 semester discussing and presenting their findings for the best administrative structure to deliver Arts education at USM. Chris Maher was elected to Chair the planning group and she encouraged members to suggest topics for discussion at the next meeting. Sue Picinich agreed to distribute some preliminary research information on other institutions (see link below) and John Boden will seek additional information on the structure at University of Nebraska Omaha.