January 18, 2013
I am writing once again as Chair of the Advisory Committee charged with the task of advising the Principal on the selection of the Dean of the Faculty of Law, and on behalf of the committee, to provide a reminder of the fast approaching the deadline of January 22, 2013, for responses to my earlier invitation to provide comments for the committee’s consideration. Rather than trying to summarize the context for my earlier invitation, it is, for convenience, appended below.
While I am writing, I should also mention that the Executive Brief prepared by our consultants in consultation with the committee members was recently posted to the part of the Provost’s website devoted to the committee’s work. Please visit: http://queensu.ca/provost/responsibilities/searches/executivebrief.pdf
The text of the previous invitation follows:
I am writing as Chair of the Advisory Committee charged with the task of advising the Principal on the selection of the Dean of the Faculty of Law. What follows is written on behalf of the committee, and was prepared in consultation with, and endorsed by, the members of the committee. The purpose of the communication is to provide a report on the discussion at the committee’s first meeting, and to solicit comments from student, staff and faculty in the Faculty of Law.
A major part of the two-hour meeting was spent on two issues. First, the committee reviewed the work of our consultants from Odgers Berndtson , Mike Naufal and Jane Griffith, who had prepared an Executive Brief and a draft advertisement for the position. Aside from some minor comments, the committee expressed itself very happy with both documents.
The discussion of these documents was informed by the responses to my earlier invitation, issued to the Faculty of Law and to the Queen’s community more generally, to offer comments on the “present state and future prospects of the Faculty of Law and the Deanship”. One particular aspect of a number of the comments that were received prompted the discussion of the second issue discussed by the committee.
Specifically, the committee discussed the suggestion that the current Dean, Mr William Flanagan, be asked to consider appointment for a further term. At the conclusion of the discussion, the committee members, without exception, encouraged me to ask Mr Flanagan whether he would be willing to consider reappointment. When I did so, Mr Flanagan responded positively.
The committee will therefore further consider the case for Mr Flanagan’s reappointment for a five-year term, in which context it is issuing a second invitation for comments, hence this communication. As before, these comments should be addressed to me and submitted in writing to Barb Paquette . Every respondent is asked to state whether the comments submitted may be shown, in confidence, to the committee members. So that the Advisory Committee may meet again in a timely fashion, I ask that anyone wishing to respond to this invitation do so by Tuesday, January 22, 2013.
Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic)