Feedback for SAC Representation for pending vote at Division Meeting on 2 June. Please see two posts below - you may discuss openly on either post as a start. I am building a forum site also where "pro" and "con" points can be accumulated, if you wish. I am building also an opportunity for anonymous postings, as well.
This blog site is intended as an open forum for staff in Science Division to participate in the decision process in an open manner, since Division Meeting attendance is not possible for many (particularly part-time) staff and faculty.
The forum is also open and is available here: http://sac-rep-forum.4584.n8.nabble.com
The relevant sections of the Charter and the voting process were emailed out to all eligible voting members in the division on Wednesday, 24 May. Please check that email for details. Thanks for participating! Paul
This blog site is intended as an open forum for staff in Science Division to participate in the decision process in an open manner, since Division Meeting attendance is not possible for many (particularly part-time) staff and faculty.
The forum is also open and is available here: http://sac-rep-forum.4584.n8.nabble.com
The relevant sections of the Charter and the voting process were emailed out to all eligible voting members in the division on Wednesday, 24 May. Please check that email for details. Thanks for participating! Paul
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe forum is here: http://sac-rep-forum.4584.n8.nabble.com
DeleteAgreed to by SAC for distribution on 8 May (note - please see clarifying post below received from EES and Physics on 18 May as well). Remarks prepared by Claudia Owen as summaries of previous public statements at meetings in 2014-15 as well as other SAC discussions. Version 1 of 2.
ReplyDeleteSAC Discipline Representation (for 2 June 2017 Division Meeting)
Shall SAP be modified to provide for separate representation by faculty representatives of both the Earth & Environmental Sciences/Watershed Sciences and Physics/Astronomy Discipline Groups? The arguments below were prepared by Claudia Owen and discussed at SAC. Minor editing has been done here for clarity.
A. Arguments For
1. As separate discipline groups, these disciplines deserve representation as do all other unique discipline groups in the Division.
2. EES, WST, and Physics are distinctly different disciplines with differing needs.
• As an advisory committee to the Dean and Division, SAC needs input from all disciplines.
• SAC is more like the Senate than the House of Representatives, and should have representation from all groups.
3. The Physics group has little idea of what EES/WST does or needs and vice versa.
4. Our needs are sometimes in conflict, which makes representation difficult.
5. Additional work is required for a single representative to be responsive to multiple disciplines, to caucus with their own and other discipline members both before and after SAC meetings (increased workload for such a representative)
6. Substantially more than 50% of voting members of the Division agreed with this change when it was last addressed at the Division in 2014-15. The motion failed by one vote to achieve a 2/3 majority.
B. Arguments Against
1. Other disciplines would lose voting share proportion if EES/Watershed and Physics were separately represented.
• This makes the assumption that the past/present system is fair, equitable, or in some sense optimal
2. More people on SAC would make it harder to schedule meetings
• Although true, if it is the right thing to do it should be done whether it is difficult or not
3. This puts an undue burden on disciplines with small numbers of full-time faculty. With only one full-time faculty, that person would have to be on SAC every year or a part-time faculty member from that discipline would need to serve on SAC (increased workload for such a representative). See #5 above.
4. It is good to rotate membership on a committee like this, and you'd get that for large discipline groups, but not for small ones.
Footnote 1: Please note here if the college retains the Watershed Science Technician (WST) program, WST has a coordinator and that individual has paid release time, and could count as a representative for this division. A vote is due 5/10 by the college. EES = Earth & Environmental Sciences
a revision of this document also appears in the next comment.
Here is the modification from EES/Physics (neither representative could be present at the 8 May meeting, and so we had a separate discussion afterwards, resulting in this version). This also includes edits to remove references to Watershed Science, which was terminated as a discipline by Board action on 10 May, as anticipated.
DeleteEES—Physics SAC split
a. Arguments for
1) Choosing not to provide comparable governance standing for all disciplines, and particularly EES and Physics (Including Astronomy), reflects negatively on a division presenting itself as the “Science” division when these two disciplines have substantial and independent standing within the scientific community reflected in appreciation that includes the following:
a) EES concerns the Earth and its evolution, which makes up the primary, immediate physical environment for human activity and living things and their evolution on Earth.
b) Global warming is a major concern and global climate science is being attacked;
2) Physics concerns fundamental discoveries and investigations that inform all science disciplines, and its evolutionary scope covers a time scale beyond the existence of forms of matter that are the subjects of other science disciplines.
a) The scope of Physics includes the 96% of known matter that now appears to be other than the kinds of matter studied directly or indirectly by other disciplines.
b) Scientific, medical and other instrumentation is understood as informed in major ways by the work of physicists.
3) Lack of comparable governance standing for EES and Physics is less than fully equitable and inclusive, which degrades the working environment.
4) EES and physics are distinctly different disciplines with differing needs.
• As an advisory committee to the dean, SAC needs input from all disciplines.
• SAC is more like the senate than the house of representatives, and should have representation from all groups
5) Basically physics has little idea what EES does or needs and EES has little idea what physics does or needs.
• It is a fact that EES does not represent Physics well and that Physics does not represent EES well. This is no reflection on the particular representative serving on SAC any particular year.
• The single physical science SAC rep. (EES/Physics) is not always able to speak for the other discipline when unanticipated topics arise.
6) Our needs are sometimes in conflict, which makes representation difficult.
7) Additional work is required for a single physical science SAC rep. to caucus with their own and other disciplines.
8) Substantially more than 50% in the previous vote agree with this change. Previously the vote for splitting was only short by one to achieve the required 2/3.
b. Counter Arguments
1) Other disciplines would lose ground as EES and Physics gained
• This makes the assumption that the past/present system is fair, equitable or in some sense optimal.
2) More people on SAC would make it harder to schedule meetings
• Although true this is a specious argument, if it is the right thing to do it should be done whether it is difficult or not.
3) This puts an undue burden on disciplines with small numbers of full-time faculty. With only one full-time faculty, that person would have to be on SAC every year or a part-time faculty member from that discipline would need to serve on SAC.
• Actually see number 5 above.