UNCP Faculty Corner

AA Reorganization

This is a place for discussion of the report to the Provost from the Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization of the Academic Affairs Division.

Committee Members (alphabetically): Betty Brown, Anthony Curtis (chair), Judith Curtis, Jose D’Arruda, Eric Dent, Susan Edkins, Martin Farley, Beverly Justice, Ramin Maysami, Ottis Murray, John Parnell

Mission Statement: The mission of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization of the Academic Affairs Division is to streamline the division to increase its effectiveness through greater efficiencies.  Through analysis of essential and non-essential services, the committee will examine expenditures, personnel and reporting relationships.

Recommendations to the Provost:

Phase 1:

  1. Reassign the online technology support of Distance Education (DE) to DoIT. Reassign the academic responsibilities and budget to the academic departments. Reassign the budget related to online evaluations to DoIT.
  2. Reassign advisement and retention areas of CAE to a direct report to the Provost.
  3. Transfer Sponsored Research, Honors College, and PURC to report to Associate VC for Academic Planning and Special Projects (now Dr. Hilton). These units are recommended to change titles to directors. Remove position of Associate Dean/realign with comparable needs in other units.
  4. Refocus School of Graduate Studies to retain day-to-day operations with emphasis on promotion and marketing of UNC Pembroke’s graduate programs. Work with the Office of Admissions and Enrollment Management to remove duplication of services and concentrate on recruitment efforts. Align resources commensurate with the activities to these units.  Allow re-formation/expansion of Graduate Council with directors and 3 elected graduate faculty to formulate academic decisions and criteria. Consider elected chair and vice chair from GC members. Operate as a clearinghouse for applications and graduate assistantships with final admissions and assistantship decisions remaining with the individual graduate program director.
  5. Reassign the SBTDC person from the Regional Center to the Thomas Family Center for Entrepreneurship. Determine appropriate needs that can serve in the most effective capacity.
  6. Consolidate HCAP and HCOP under one director.

Phase 2: Depending on which areas are reassigned, moved and consolidated, the Ad Hoc Committee will be exploring the effectiveness of a University College structure and how it can facilitate within the Office of the Provost.



  1. Here is some information that I hope will help in understanding the process followed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization of the Academic Affairs Division in reaching its recommendations.

    The committee met Feb. 9 and agreed that we have fulfilled the original charge and mission given to the task force within the time frame of the charge.

    The mission of the committee was to recommend possible ways to streamline the division to increase its effectiveness through greater efficiencies. Through analysis of essential and non-essential services, the committee examined expenditures, personnel, position descriptions and reporting relationships.

    Our committee was composed of senior, long-time and mostly-tenured individuals, many of whom have served as deans or department chairs within Academic Affairs and who teach on the Graduate Faculty or the Honors Faculty and are members of the Faculty Senate executive committee and other Senate committees.

    To reach its recommendations, the committee received documentation from the Provost’s office and from the compiled SACS information about the current structure of academic affairs. We invited three associate/assistant vice chancellors from the Provost’s office, as well as the co-chair of the SACS reaccreditation steering committee, to describe and help us understand the de facto AA structure.

    Then, we investigated the structure of our peer institutions as identified by General Administration. To that list, we added peer institutions identified previously by the Provost’s office in reports to General Administration as closer to our peer institutions, thereby, compiling an extensive list of peers. Information from those peer institutions helped us understand how they structured themselves and handled their administrative tasks.

    We examined our current UNCP structure and the structure of those dozens of similar universities to form our recommendations.

    We met every two weeks for four months. We were charged with providing a report in January, which was short notice for a task that elsewhere might have required at least an entire school year.

    Our recommendations were first presented to the Provost in draft form and modified by his suggestions. We then presented them to the Chancellor and modified them in accordance with his suggestions. We then submitted a final report of recommendations to the Provost.

    Our committee members felt strongly that we were a fact-finding body as we carried out our mission. We were an advisory committee presenting recommendations to the Office of the Provost regarding efficiency and functionality of the organization of the Division of Academic Affairs. To that end, we felt strongly that we met our mission with due diligence, with professional commitment, with objectivity, and with impartiality.

    Our committee members did not wish for others to think that the Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization of the Academic Affairs Division was in a position to make decisions for change. We only studied, found facts as charged, and then made recommendations.

    In the end it is important to note that, at the time of our meeting with the Chancellor, he informed us the adoption and implementation of the proposals would be a decision for the next chancellor and our suggestions could not be implemented this year. As you might imagine, this was a disappointment to the committee members after the extensive, serious work we had invested in the project. Since it appeared the Committee’s proposals would not be adopted any time soon, the committee decided to disband. At that point, the committee felt it had completed its duties and it dissolved.

    I hope this is helpful in understanding the process.

    –Tony Curtis
    Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Reorganization of the Academic Affairs Division

    Comment by Anthony Curtis — February 14, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

  2. I wonder if the committee could provide a rationale for these recommendations. I would better be able to consider them if I fully understood the implications of and the presumed efficacy of the proposed changes. While some obviously reflect the mission of the committee; others are less clear to me. For example, part of recommendation 4 states that SGS will work with Admissions and EM to eliminate duplication of services–I get that. But, regarding the reassignments and report transfers, the Honors College changes, associate dean positions and some of the other recommendations for SGS, it’s unclear what the rationale is. The recommendations whose rationale are unclear seem to be bigger issues, bigger changes. Thanks.

    Comment by Susan Cannata — February 10, 2010 @ 7:14 pm

  3. It’s not clear if item #3 refers to all associate deans, or only the associate dean of the Honors College. I have found that the creation of associate dean responsibilities in the College of Arts & Sciences has increased access to the dean’s office and improved effectiveness of that office (from my perspective as a department chair).
    It’s also not clear if item #3 has the intent to turn the dean of the Honors College into a director only. I remember that change being made to dean more than a few years ago after the honors program was converted to a college.

    Here’s an article written by a former dean of the honors college at University of So. Carolina:


    Comment by Jamie Litty — February 5, 2010 @ 12:41 pm

  4. Under Phase I, item #1: Once these functions have been reassigned what will be the functions performed by the remaining DE staff positions? What will the new DE structure look like?

    Comment by James Robinson — February 5, 2010 @ 8:30 am

  5. My only question is whether these recommendations reflect specific attention to our clarion call for improving student retention? The Committee’s hard work is certainly evident.

    Olivia Oxendine

    Comment by Olivia Oxendine — February 5, 2010 @ 7:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: