Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 7, 2025
Murray Aikins Dining Hall, 2nd Floor/Zoom
Natalie Taylor, Interim Dean of the Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs called the meeting to order at 3:35pm. She invited Associate Dean of the Faculty David Cohen to the podium to speak about the recent loss of Professor Cathy Hill. ADOF Cohen spoke about Professor Hill鈥檚 contributions to the College both professional 鈥� such as her design and stewardship of the Entrepreneurship Minor 鈥� and interpersonal. He shared with the faculty that there is a memorial wall outside of her office, Palamountain Hall 362, and that all are welcome to share their memories of her there. ADOF Cohen also reminded the faculty that the Employee Assistance Program is available for support in this time of grief.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dean Taylor said that one correction to the minutes was already made at the request of a faculty member and after consulting the transcript of the meeting.鈥�
The initial language of the minutes read:
鈥淎 faculty member asked if the Huron Summary Report that has been shared with the faculty is the entirety of the Huron work product that will be shared.鈥�
The corrected version now reads:
鈥淎 faculty member asked if the Huron Summary Report that has been shared with the faculty is the entirety of the Huron Report鈥�.The faculty member noted that some faculty would like to see the raw data.鈥�
Dean Taylor asked if there were any further changes or corrections to the minutes as distributed. There being none, the minutes of the December 5th, 2025 faculty meeting were approved.
OLD BUSINESS
On behalf of the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC), Associate Professor Jeremy Day-O'Connell read into the record the following motion:
MOTION: FEC seeks to strengthen democratic representation in shared governance by modifying the terms of tenure-track faculty鈥檚 鈥済overnance service cycle鈥� so as to augment our election pools.
Professor Day-O鈥機onnell then solicited questions from the faculty. A faculty member noted that she had not attended the previous meeting and requested a brief summary of the differences between the current system and the proposed system. Professor Day-O鈥機onnell said that the governance cycle is based on tenure-track faculty members鈥� sabbatical cycle and that, currently, faculty are invited to make themselves available for election and appointment one time in the period between sabbaticals. The motion proposes to make faculty members automatically available when they return from sabbatical and until they have served in the shared governance system. This change results in ballots that will have about three times as many people on them and will allow committees to be populated more easily and equitably.
A faculty member noted that he does not see this as a minor change. Instead of standing for election once in seven years, you may be required to stand as many as three times. He noted that this may also result in faculty members feeling coerced into serving on a committee they did not rank highly on their preference sheet and work lives being significantly impacted. Professor Day-O鈥機onnell said that he believes it will have the opposite outcome. There are no additional requirements for service, though there is a possibility that you will need to fill out the survey three times instead of one. He noted that this will help faculty to be matched with the committees they are most interested in, because the pools will be larger.
A faculty member noted that this change will limit faculty discretion in choosing how and when to participate in service. Professor Day-O鈥機onnell noted that very few faculty choose to submit themselves for service in the first two years after they return from sabbatical, and simply wait until the third year, at which point they are required to do so. He reminded the faculty that they have the option to petition the Office of the Dean of Faculty to not be in the pool in any given year.
A faculty member asked if waiting until the third year after sabbatical is not in itself a choice. Professor Day-O鈥機onnell said that FEC had inferred that a large portion of those choosing to stand for service in the third year had done so out of inertia and acknowledged that that inference may be unfounded.
A faculty member asked why faculty would need to complete the preference sheet each year, as opposed to having the same preference sheet used for all three years. Professor Day-O鈥機onnell said that plans for implementation are ongoing, and that this will be considered.
A faculty member spoke in favor of the motion, noting that she is part of a small
cohort and had been elected into a committee she had ranked second-to-last in the
first year off of sabbatical. She said that this negatively impacted her career, and
she supports any changes that might address the issue of too-small pools. There being
no further questions, the motion was brought to a vote and passed with a large majority.
Associate Professor Ting Li, representing FEC, read the following motion into the
record:
MOTION: FEC moves that the faculty adopt the revised Parental Leave Policy in the Faculty Handbook. This updated version ensures that the policy for tenure-track faculty is consistent with the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), promoting clarity and coherence.
Professor Li then solicited questions from the faculty. A faculty member noted that the proposed parental leave policy is based on the previous work of a faculty group that investigated possible improvements a few years ago. The group鈥檚 recommendations were not implemented at the time, but were used as the basis for the parental leave policy proposed by the non-tenure track faculty bargaining unit during negotiations with the College. She noted that this motion evidences the potential positive impacts for members of the Skidmore community that are not represented by the NTT faculty union.
The motion was brought to a vote and passed with a large majority.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
FACULTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Professor Li remained at the podium to present the Committee of Committees鈥� report. Please find the full report here.
PRESIDENT'S REMARKS & UPDATES
President Conner opened his remarks with a message of optimism for the College. Despite the unprecedented challenges facing higher education, Skidmore remains well-situated. He stressed that our admissions work and our financial stewardship are going to be vital to our ability to withstand these headwinds. Maintaining our values and priorities, which are clearly outlined in the Strategic Plan completed this past May, will also be crucial.
Our diversity and inclusion efforts will continue to proceed. While other institutions abandon this type of work, Skidmore remains committed to it. President Conner noted that he has been clear that political stances are not the purview of a college president, but that Skidmore cannot accomplish its mission without the freedoms guaranteed in the country鈥檚 founding documents. When those freedoms are threatened, the institution itself is threatened; the College will not abandon its principles in this fraught political moment.
President Conner continued with an update on Skidmore鈥檚 finances. As has been frequently shared, our future costs outpace our future revenues. As a result, projections for 3 to 4 years from now show deficits in the $10 to $12 million range per year. We have projected similar deficits in the past and successfully taken the necessary actions to produce a balanced budget. This situation has some key differences. We bring in revenue primarily through enrollment and fundraising. We continue to work hard to ensure those revenue streams are at a maximum; our annual fund has increased by 25% and we are doing all we can in terms of enrollment. However, we can neither enroll nor fundraise our way out of these projected shortfalls. The only way to reduce the projected deficits is by cutting expenses.
Skidmore has been exploring every avenue for cutting costs. The Huron Consultancy was hired to bring their expertise to bear in identifying potential measures that we may not have surfaced without outside perspectives. That project gave us a number of directions to pursue but did not present any quick fixes or easy answers. The process will necessarily be collaborative and community-wide. All expenses must be considered. Two-thirds of our annual expenses are salary and benefits. We cannot continue fulfilling our mission without some reductions in staff and faculty positions. The hope continues to be to do this through attrition. Basically, over the next few years, for every two positions that become vacant, one will need to be eliminated. Working with a smaller staff and faculty will require some rethinking and creativity in how we accomplish our mission. Any major decisions regarding cuts and reductions will be communicated clearly and consistently to the college community. The cumulative effect will be significant budget savings and the continuation of Skidmore well into the future.
While enrollment is a major revenue-generator, overspending the budget for financial aid in recent years has contributed to our looming deficits. The incomes of prospective students鈥� families have remained fairly consistent but have not kept pace with the rising cost of college. The biggest pushback on enrollment right now is the decline in international applicants, which is occurring across higher education. Thus far, we are tracking in line with last year with regard to full pay students鈥攁bout 240 full pay students. Our goal for the incoming class enrollment is set at 680 students. Financial aid is the number one fundraising goal in the strategic plan and capital campaign draft so that we can continue to bring excellent students to Skidmore regardless of their financial aid needs.
The capital campaign draft will be presented to the Board of Trustees at the meetings later this month. The February meetings will focus on the Strategic Plan and its goals, with particular attention paid to Foundation 6, Financial Equilibrium, as that is where the Board has the most appropriate fiduciary role. A major part of the next few months, as the capital campaign plan takes shape, will be hiring our new Vice President for Advancement. The three finalists have been visiting campus over the last week. President Conner thanked the Appointments and Tenure Committee for their assistance in the screening process. Each candidate had very well-attended public forums, which speaks to how much this community understands the importance of the position. He hopes to announce the appointment before the end of the month.
President Conner then solicited questions from the faculty. A faculty member asked if a modest across-the-board pay cut has been considered as a potential solution to our projected deficits. The President answered that every possibility is being considered. The question of faculty and staff compensation, particularly benefits, continues to be placed towards the bottom of the list of levers to pull. The College would like to maintain the current scenario of at or slightly above market-level compensation. The forecasted budget for the GSA is 2% per year. President Conner expressed that they鈥檇 like to raise that percentage and would strongly prefer to avoid lowering it. The better future would be fewer employees with an undiminished quality of worklife.
A faculty member asked if, while we cannot overenroll ourselves out of a budget deficit, the reason that we are not accepting students further down the list who can pay full tuition is that they would undermine the quality of our applicant pool. President Conner explained that there was a surge of applicants around 2022, due to Skidmore鈥檚 success in meeting the challenges of COVID. The larger classes in those years had a disproportionate number of full pay students. That surge in full pay students has since decelerated. We need to continue to balance the financial needs against the academic quality of applicants, because if we go too far down the list, we may admit students who will struggle to succeed here.
A faculty member asked what process was used to come to the goal of 680 incoming students, and if it was led by Admissions or by the President鈥檚 Cabinet. President Conner said that it has been discussed by a much larger number of college stakeholders: IPPC, the Enrollment Management Group, the Board of Trustees, the President鈥檚 Cabinet, Admissions, and external consultants who work with the Admissions team. It has been a process of the last six months to come to the appropriate number.
A faculty member said that former Dean of the Faculty Michael Orr had previously stated that Skidmore spends $4 to $5 million each year on tuition remission for faculty, staff, and their dependents. He asked the President to provide information on the average number of faculty, staff and their dependents that have enrolled in Skidmore in the last 5 years and the accompanying costs. He asked if the tuition remission program was being considered for cost cutting. President Conner said that he does not know those numbers off hand, but will work with Vice President for Human Resources Sarah Vero and Vice President for Finance & Administration Dan Konstalid to look into those expenses and share the numbers with the faculty.
President Conner reminded the faculty that he will be holding office hours in the coming weeks, and that he is always happy to hear from them. He thanked Professor Casey Schofield, Assoc. Professor Dominique Vuvan, and Assoc. Professor Adam Tinkle for attending the VP for Advancement forums, before thanking the faculty for their time and closing his remarks.
DEAN OF THE FACULTY AND VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS' REMARKS
Dean Taylor stated that her remarks will primarily address the ongoing work of her office and provide an update related to the loss of faculty lines over the next 3 to 5 years. This work started over the summer. The Summer Working Group (SWG) was charged with considering the observations made by Huron on ways that we might reduce the size of our faculty. That group was made up of Professors Nick Junkerman, Dom Vuvan, Maggie Greaves Ozgur, and Tim Harper, as well as Joe Stankovich, ADOFs Oscar Perez Hernandez and Corey Freeman-Gallant, and Professor Kelly Sheppard (in his role as Faculty Director of Assessment).
Their work was guided by a few principles which have continued to guide us. The first principle was that the loss of faculty lines should have the least possible impact on the curriculum. As a consequence of that, they sought to reduce faculty lines by changing some operational details; particularly departmental leadership models. The second principle is that the loss of faculty lines should come from attrition. Since the December Faculty Meeting, the ongoing work continues to center these two principles. Two mini-working groups were formed to spend about a month of the break looking into and thinking about different models to reduce course releases in order to prepare for the loss of faculty lines. Dean Taylor thanked the mini-working group volunteers: Professors Jennifer Bonner, David Cohen, David Howson, Steve Ives, Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, 鈥楤ecca Johnson, Tammy Owens, Kelly Sheppard, and Chris Vecsey.
Some of the models included divisional directors, and some were more modest changes to departmental leadership that included loss of course releases, with perhaps some financial compensation in lieu of the releases. The model that received the most positive feedback at the January meeting of department chairs and program directors (CPDs) was the most modest proposal, which included the loss of one course release and possibly some additional compensation. The Dean鈥檚 Office will now move on to the next step of consulting with FEC to form a working group, which will be charged with refining the model. The reduction of course releases is meant to facilitate and make possible the loss of faculty lines with the least amount of impact on our curriculum. The reduction of course releases will not protect us from the loss of lines, but when those losses happen CPDs and other constituencies who receive course releases will need to move back into the classroom to compensate for the loss. Dean Taylor acknowledged that CPDs are being asked to do more work without the compensation of course releases but, inspired by the SWG, this is the method that will have the least possible impact on curriculum.
The second principle, that the loss of faculty lines should come from attrition, will require departments and programs to work together to plan for the possibility of losing a line, and to consider how they would support their curriculum with a smaller faculty. Possible changes might include: reducing the number of requirements, eliminating prerequisites, or collaborating with other departments to pool resources, or contributing a greater number of courses to gen ed requirements in order to relieve departments with enrollment pressures. These plans will look different for all departments and programs. The changes will hopefully lead to rigorous and engaging programs of study 鈥� regardless of how different they may look. Dean Taylor emphasized that she and the members of her office welcome discussion of these changes and possibilities.
Returning to the timeline of this work, Dean Taylor said that her office will work with FEC on a willingness to serve as part of the working group refining the course release reduction model. She anticipates that in the next academic year the model will need additional refinement, and may require some handbook and budget modifications before it can go into effect. In the meantime, departments and programs will make the necessary adjustments to their curriculum to prepare for retirements and resignations. That work will take us through the next year and a half. She then opened the floor for questions from the faculty.
A faculty member asked if reducing contact hours for the First-Year Experience (FYE) has been considered, as that could free up faculty time for other courses. Dean Taylor explained that there are two reasons that path has not been pursued. First, the SWG had identified rethinking department leadership as the best avenue to preserving curriculum. While changes to the gen ed curriculum have been floated, Dean Taylor expressed her agreement with the SWG that the curriculum should not be subject to budgetary constraints. The second is that the FYE and Scribner Seminars contribute greatly to how we onboard new students, and she would prefer not to downsize it unnecessarily. The faculty member clarified that he also supports the continuation of Scribner Seminars, but that it might be worthwhile to consider if the same outcome could be achieved with fewer contact hours. Dean Taylor noted that reduced contact hours are unlikely to bring us closer to our primary goal of bringing faculty back into the classroom.
A faculty member asked how Skidmore chooses which classes the Trustees will visit, and whether or not there was an open call for faculty to participate. Dean Taylor said that there was not an open call. The primary factor in determining which classes would be visited is the Trustees鈥� schedule. The faculty member said that it seems as though the same people get picked for these opportunities repeatedly. Dean Taylor said that it was more about convenience than the specific faculty members.
A faculty member asked how the administration, as progress is made towards refining new leadership models, will consider the unique circumstances of each department and program. She exhorted the assembly to remain mindful about the potential for exacerbating existing inequities between departments and programs. Dean Taylor said that these concerns will need to be ironed out during the model鈥檚 refinement. She agreed that it will be important to consider how we might compensate people that have unique circumstances, or that are handling an unusual event that can affect the chair鈥檚 work. There will be at least one open forum on the leadership model this spring, which will be an opportunity to discuss these details more fully.
A faculty member expressed her gratitude to the working groups and the CPDs for their work, and her hope that the college will continue to support new CPDs. She then asked for the average number of faculty leaving the college per year. Dean Taylor said that believes there were about eight or nine faculty members who retired last year, but that the number does change each year. She noted that, while some will be replaced, we cannot replace all retirements.
There being no further time allotted, Dean Taylor closed her remarks.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Dean Taylor moved to enter a Committee of the Whole (COW). The motion was seconded. Dean Taylor appointed Professor Heather Hurst Chair of the COW. The purpose of this COW was to discuss qualitative student feedback and generate effective questions for evaluation. Please find the presentation on teaching review here. Faculty feedback was gathered as a result of small group discussions and will be shared with the faculty in April. When the time allotted expired, Professor Hurst moved for the faculty to rise and report. The motion was seconded, formally ending the COW.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
College Librarian Marta Brunner announced Scribner Library鈥檚 . She also asked the faculty, if they are creating a departmental textbook lending library, to please reach out to the librarians before putting those books on reserve.
Assistant Professor Sarah Kizuk announced an open meeting regarding the establishment of a Skidmore chapter of the American Association of University Professors. The meeting will be in either late February or early March.
Dean Taylor announced that faculty feedback has now been incorporated into Skidmore鈥檚 self-study for reaccreditation with Middle States. The final draft will be available to the community. The peer evaluation team will be arriving on March 29th for their four-day visit. On April 1st at 10, the review team chair will report on their findings in Gannett Auditorium. The faculty are encouraged to attend.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:22pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Nora E. Graubard
Senior Administrative Coordinator