Present: R. Osgood, J. Brand, J. Swartz, P. Smith, D. Caulkins, W. Ferguson, B. Grey, K. Kamp, T. Moore, B. Voyles.

The meeting came to order at 4:20 p.m. in the Nollen House Conference Room. The minutes and excerpts from the 2/14/01 meeting were approved.

President's Remarks

The President resumed the discussion on the budget that had begun in the Monday (2/19) faculty meeting, presenting a chart on the various items that had been moved from the Fund for Excellence into the base budget. A faculty member requested that these data, as well as the two charts presented at the faculty meeting, be provided to the whole faculty, either electronically or on paper. Information was requested on those Fund initiatives which are ongoing as a result of previous commitments, as well as those that have been terminated. The President explained the relationship between those items from the FFE which have been terminated, those which have been bonded off into special accounts until their "term" expires, a third group rolled into the base budget, captured on the distributed chart, and finally FFE moneys rolled into a new capital fund account, designed to help with Master Plan Buildings. One member indicated some concern that the faculty had had no input into this triage process. Faculty members of the Council indicated that items, once rolled into the base budget, had a tendency to take on a life of their own, which made it difficult to subsequently delete them. The President noted that the development of the Fund for Excellence rollover mechanism had served to convince the Board of Trustees to increase the endowment contribution to the base budget, despite their concern about the high percentage of that budget funded by endowment income. J. Brand pointed out that, even with the increase, the endowment's contribution to the base budget remains just short of 60%.

There was continued discussion of the process of decision-making and the role of the faculty in that process. One member noted that the faculty want input into those decisions that involve trade-offs. The President again stated that it is probably inappropriate for faculty to have much say in areas of the college's operation not closely related to the instructional side of the college's operation. He further pointed out that two faculty members sit on the college budget committee, which oversees the whole budget. One member indicated that these members found effective participation difficult and that they neither reported to nor, in any meaningful sense, represented he faculty or any of its constituent bodies. In response to concern that growth on the administrative side of the budget outpaced growth on the faculty side, the President stated that, when he took office, several administrative offices, such as admissions and development, had made compelling cases that they were understaffed both in comparison to our peers and in light of their assignments.

However, he stated that a careful eye has been kept on the relationship between the administrative and faculty expenditures with an eye to maintaining proportional growth. A member noted that while it is true that there will probably never be complete agreement among the faculty on any particular issue it is still necessary to seek genuine faculty input to the questions involving budget trade-offs. The President noted the time pressures on the key actors in the budget development process brought on by the Board's meeting schedule which did not accommodate faculty input. The President stated that he believes the key point in relation to the budget and the faculty governance structure is disclosure-a process he began with the Treasurer and the faculty two years ago. J. Brand noted that even at this point, after the Board has approved the new budget, the details are still not settled. One member asked what the faculty projections over the next several years. The President said that the faculty is normally inflated by 1 or 2 positions per year. There was a discussion of leave proofing.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean noted that in on-going conversations with George Carroll, outgoing Student Government Association Vice President, the Student Curricular Council is thinking that some SEPC groups might want to do surveys of certain majors to obtain information which would be helpful to the departments. He encouraged the SEPC to work with department chairs in this process.

There are a few departments that have budgets for speakers, the concentrations have similar budgets, and then there are programs such as the Roberts Lectureship which have budgets for that purpose. The Dean proposes bringing all these funds together in one budget that would be administered by some sub-committee of the Division Chairs in order to better tie speakers more centrally to the curriculum.

The President and J. Brand left the meeting at 5:37 p.m.

Diversity Proposals

B. Grey (for M. Pillado Miller) moved, B. Ferguson seconded, approval to recommend a campus interview of their candidate in African American art, contingent upon a successful telephone interview. The motion carried.

B. Ferguson moved, B. Grey seconded, approval of the Human Geographer proposal to bring their candidate to campus for an interview. B. Grey, T. Armstrong, D. Caulkins, and E. Willis participated in a successful telephone interview. There was some discussion. The motion carried.

Council Remarks

B. Grey noted that he would be refocusing future Council meeting agenda in order to take up those items on the original agenda listing for the year.

B. Ferguson stated that the Policy Studies Planning Committee would be coming forward with a new Policy Studies Concentration proposal.

The meeting adjourned at 6:22 p.m.
Secretary
Karen Wiese