Meaghan, joe R

							                     Management Department Meeting Minutes
                                101 Laws Hall

Date: Friday, December 5, 2008
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Attending: Bryan Ashenbaum, Chuck Crain, David Cowan, Megan Gerhardt, Byron Finch,
Xiaowen Huang, Rebecca Luzadis, Joe Rode, Peter Salzarulo (Recording), Josh Schwarz, Kay
Snavely (Presiding), David Walsh, Peng Wang, Charles Watson, Mark Wesolowski

Announcements
   It was announced that after many years of service, Chuck Crain intends to retire after this
     year. It is possible that he will return next year under the three year provision of Miami’s
     retirement system. The department is grateful for Chuck’s many years of commitment
     and leadership, will miss having him as a regular member of the department, and wishes
     him success and happiness in retirement.
   Xiaowen Huang has received a summer research grant from the university.
   Rebecca Luzadis was recognized by Mike Curme for her extensive efforts and
     commitment to BUS 101, particularly in teaching two large sections this semester.
   Teresa Wagner was recognized recently in Miami Quarterly, a student run magazine as
     2008’s “Most Influential Professor.”
   Next semester, Management Department meetings will be held Fridays 11:00 to 1:00.
   We had intended to discuss clinical faculty, although that will now be postponed as we
     decide whether or not to pursue it.
   A draft of the fall schedule is still a work in progress and should be complete in January.

University senate request regarding fiscal priorities
    Chuck Crain presented a one page document listing several categories which the
      University Senate proposed as areas where Miami could cut spending. He asked us to
      rank the top 5 areas we feel are most important.
    Concern was raised for how the categories were developed since by consciously
      presenting us these categories and then asking us to rate them in this manner is
      tantamount to pitting one category against the other.
    To help alleviate concerns, a discussion of the history of this document followed. The
      concept was that a member of the committee which generated the document is very facts
      driven and therefore wanted to collect some sort of data from the faculty as to what
      categories they view as most important. The document was originally designed whereby
      each category would be rated on a Likert scale. It was not intended to pit one category
      against the other but as a way to determine where our priorities are. The university will
      make cuts. We need to show where we want to protect and where not.
    The question was raised as to the time frame for considering these categories.
      Theoretically, it is only about this year (or during the budget crisis), although some may
      be longer.
    In the meantime, we are all encouraged to send Chuck speedy responses to the survey or
      to send Rebecca suggestions which she might be able to take back to her committee.
      One suggestion was to reduce our semester term by one week to bring it in line with
       every other institution, since our academic calendar runs a week longer each semester
       than our peer institutions in the state.

FSB career services committee request regarding guidance
Bryan Ashenbaum reported that a new Director of Development has been hired who is exclusive
to Business School. This is in comparison to the previous director who split time between the
Farmer School and the Career Center. Bryan is interested in hearing our thoughts on how they
can better serve us and how we feel it is best to link our students to the professional world.
Please contact Bryan with any suggestions and or comments.

Revised summer school staffing model and draft schedule
A new summer funding model has been developed. Kay will send it to us electronically along
with a copy of the summer school draft schedule for 2009.

Strategic changes and fiscal concerns
    According to Dean Jenkins, the business school needs to reduce the 2009-2010 divisional
       budget by a million dollars. Using several methods, the dean’s office found ways to save
       $575,000. The division still needs to find another $425,000.
    One cost savings proposal the Dean suggested is that the DS/MIS department consolidate
       with the Management department. Area coordinators would continue to be used and the
       current chair of DS/MIS would become the chair of the consolidated department.
    In order for this consolidation to be feasible, some proposed preconditions have been
       discussed: 1) no majors, minors, or programs would be cut, 2) untenured tenure-track
       faculty would be evaluated by tenured faculty in their current departments. 3) Staffs from
       both departments would be consolidated.
    Jeff Smith investigated how you go about merging two departments. The process begins
       when the Provost assigns someone from another division to study the proposal. Kay will
       send the department a copy of the policy. After gathering enough information, a
       recommendation would be made about whether to proceed. The established process is
       very thorough and that is probably the place to voice any disapproval.
    Discussion centered on the fact that the merger does not seem to have a strategic basis.
       In fact, it was widely felt that the merger had no economic basis as the projected savings
       of not replacing a chair is so low. This is especially true considering that there is more
       savings opportunity that could be reaped, namely the fulltime MBA program.
    The discussion then centered on whether there were hidden costs to the merging. These
       included the time wasted going to meetings which now discuss issues not previously
       related to your area. The difficulty coordinating two groups which differ so greatly. It
       was also noted that, because the two areas have so little in common, pairing them would
       tend to look “small time” to prospective employees and potential faculty hires, making it
       difficult to attract the caliber of people we have been hiring from top doctoral programs.
    It was pointed out that, because the potential savings seem to be so low, it is almost
       insulting to complete this merger. It also sends a poor message to the rest of the FSB as
       to how the departments are valued.
      There does appear to be some synergy with the DS/MIS department. It may not be a bad
       idea to meet and discuss synergies and the process we use to make this merger. If we
       initially take a misstep, then those synergies potentially disappear.
      It was also discussed as to whether we should hold a vote on the issue. It was decided
       that it may be best to postpone any vote in order to let the idea settle in and because not
       all faculty were present at the meeting.
      A very important point was made that we, the Management Department, all respect the
       DS/MIS department and think of its members as good colleagues. The resistance is not
       that we do not appreciate them, but rather, that we just do not feel the merger is being
       made on a strategic basis.


Meeting adjourned at 3:45