Present: Dean Swartz, Associate Deans H. Scott and P. Smith, E. Dobbs, M. Pillado-Miller, L. Sinnett, D. Smith, and B. Voyles, Frank Thomas (Administrative Coordinator for Community Relations and Campus Master Plan), and four representatives from consulting firms (Shepley Bulfinch Richardson and Abbott and Dober, Lidsky, Craig, and Associates) who have been employed to assist us in doing a needs assessment and campus master plan.
The Dean called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. in Windsor House.
Discussion with Campus Planners
The management team for the Campus Master Plan project talked about the planning process which began formally on Wednesday, September 23, with this meeting with Executive Council. A number of meetings will be held with individual faculty and department chairs throughout this year.The consultants plan on bringing a draft of several alternative plans to the Board of Trustees in June. Although there are several phases to the master plan effort, the initial two phases will be conducted simultaneously. Phase One--Program Confirmation and Assumptions-- will seek to develop information on the physical environs of the campus and how building and campus changes might occur to support present and proposed programs for the curriculum and pedagogy. This will be done through interviews with faculty, staff, and students. Questions will be asked about what it is that we do now; what should we be doing; what is it that we want to do. Phase Two--Building, Campus, and Environs Field Studies--will be a detailed examination of the existing physical situation at the College. This will help us define problems, highlight particular elements of the campus, and give us indication for additions or reconfiguration of the environs, if needed.
The consultants stated that our our planning needs to be grounded in our mission and that it should be based on present needs but also must envision how faculty might be teaching, doing research and working together and how students might be learning fifteen to twenty years into the future. This calls for flexible, fluid space.
Don Smith commented that we also need to remember the past. American academic institutions have not been noteworthy in preserving their architectural heritage. He urged the consultants and the faculty to familiarize themselves with campus plans that have been developed for the College in the past and with published materials which include Grinnell in discussions of Iowa architecture. Esthetics matter, and the faculty ought to make all aspects of the well being of the College and all aspects of the campus plan, not just those related to the academic programs, its business. This will be especially important when priorities are set. Smith added that it would be helpful if we could have a color-coded map of the campus and adjacent properties so we could determine what is meant by "campus."
Council members discussed the mechanics of setting up meetings with consultants so as to provide the maximum perspective on all the issues. Multiple strategies will be necessary to make certain that all perspectives are included.
Council members were asked to comment on specific needs that the campus currently has. The following needs were mentioned: more office space including space for faculty on Senior Faculty Status; more classroom space especially for seminar classes ranging from fifteen to twenty students; more computer and multimedia equipped classrooms; more space for support staff and technicians; more lab space; more student academic lounges.
Frank Thomas and the campus planning consultants left at 5:11 p.m.
The minutes of September 16 were corrected and approved.
Remarks by the Dean
President Osgood and Jonathan Brand are away visiting Carleton and St. Olaf this week.
Comparison Colleges
The Dean reported that the College has had a list of around thirty colleges with which it has compared itself over the past seven or eight years. Some of these thirty colleges have not been appropriate comparison schools because they were, for example, single sex, were too large, had graduate programs. President Osgood has asked that we select a smaller number of colleges (about ten) which the College can use consistently in gathering both quantitative and qualitative comparison data. It is very important that we have an appropriate list of comparison colleges as we plan for the future. President Osgood requested that the list include Carleton and Macalester, that it focus on the Midwest, that it include some northeastern colleges and a few from other regions, that it give preference to geographically isolated colleges in small towns, that it be designed for use in comparing many variables (enrollment issues, alumni outcomes), not just salaries. President Osgood worked with his staff, trustee board members, and Carol Trosset, Director of Institutional Research, to select a final list from colleges which met the above criteria and also the following criteria: Carnegie Baccalaureate I colleges, coed, highly selective, nonsectarian, low percent in-state enrollment, member of HEDS (Higher Education Data Sharing consortium ensuring readily available comparable data), small town location away from similar institutions, significant applicant overlap with Grinnell, total enrollment of 1000-2000. The following list of twelve colleges has been selected:
Grinnell Amherst Colorado
Carleton Bowdoin Davidson
Macalester Swarthmore Washington & Lee
Oberlin Williams
Beloit
All of these colleges will have self studies from the 1990s which will provide us with useful information. Sinnett reminded us that in all comparisons we need to make certain that differences are statistically significant.
[Scott left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.]
Proposal from Mathematics and Computer Science Department
Dean Swartz reported that the department does not need to post the position description until November; therefore, he suggested that the Council could wait to discuss this proposal until President Osgood can be present. To prepare for the discussion next week, Council members requested clarification on several points raised by the proposal.
Leaves for Writing Lab Faculty
Last week's discussion of this question has led to broader consideration of professional titles at the College, with the Council hoping that these titles may accord with clear and consistent designation of faculty responsibilities. The term "lecturer" is described in the Faculty Handbook as a title "unrelated to the aforementioned ranks" (Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Instructor) and used to describe both part-time faculty members and those full-time members of the faculty who teach credit-bearing courses and also have other regular college duties. In practice, full-time lecturers typically report to a non-academic supervisor as well as to the Dean of the College.
L. Sinnett moved, E. Dobbs seconded the following motion:
That the Dean of the College review the criteria by which titles are assigned to faculty in order to guarantee uniformity across faculty members.
The motion passed unanimously.
Remarks by Council Faculty Members
E. Dobbs suggested adding the category "New Business" as an agenda item for Council meetings, following the standard practice for faculty meetings.
E. Dobbs solicited the sense of the Council on a general clarifying statement for Dean Swartz to take to the Personnel Committee: "The Faculty Executive Council sets policy and procedures which are carried out by the Faculty Personnel Committee." Council members agreed that this statement reflects the sense that emerged from joint meetings of the Personnel Committee and Executive Council last spring and summer. This general statement does not cover specific procedures, such as the nomination of candidates for promotion to full professor. Associate Dean P. Smith will prepare a summary of what was discussed in the joint meetings, for distribution to the present Faculty Executive Council and Faculty Personnel Committee. This summary will help to clarify the issues which remain to be resolved.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
Helen Scott/Paula Smith
Secretaries