Present: President Osgood, Dean Swartz, Associate Deans H. Scott and P. Smith, E. Dobbs, R. Grey, M. Pillado-Miller, L. Sinnett, D. Smith, and B. Voyles

Remarks by the President

The budget planning process for 1999/00 is underway. In the past, the College has operated with a bare bones budget one that required infusions during the budget year of things left out of the basic budget (for example, travel expenses). This year the budget planners are attempting to build a complete budget that takes into account all expenses.

The draft document on the Fund for Excellence proposals from the President will be sent on November 25 to the Grinnell College Board of Trustees, faculty, staff, and students and to the City of Grinnell Community. The President encourages comments to this draft document. On December 15, he will release to the College community his final position paper.

The President thanked everyone, especially the previous Dean Charlie Duke, David Lopatto, and Paula Smith, for a successful NCA visit.

Remarks by the Dean

Every effort is being made by the Dean's Office to decrease the use of paper when electronic forms of communication can be used. Executive Council minutes are now available on the WWW as soon as they have been approved by the Council. They will no longer be included in faculty meeting agenda packets. A number of forms issued by the Dean's Office will also be sent only via e-mail.

The Dean is working with Roberta Atwell, the Affirmative Action Officer, on hiring procedures. When a department has its short list ready, the Dean and Affirmative Action Officer will meet with the department member in charge of the search to discuss the top ten candidates and any minorities in the pool in the hopes that we can do a better job of meeting our goal, strongly endorsed by the faculty, of increasing the number of faculty members of color on our campus.

The Dean commented briefly on the NCA visit. David Wee, Professor of English at St. Olaf College and chair of the NCA review team, has asked to use our NCA assessment plan as a model in preparing for St. Olaf's upcoming NCA review. He finds our plan very well developed in comparison to the many other plans he has assessed.

Discussion of Revised Draft Statement on Faculty Allocation

Council made final changes to the draft Statement on Faculty Allocation Procedure. Some concern was expressed about the language referring to "possible reductions or reassignments" in the first paragraph. Council agreed that a document such as this needs to cover as many scenarios as possible and that, therefore, the language is appropriate. B. Voyles moved and R. Grey seconded a motion to endorse the following statement:

It is clear that, as the long range planning and policy body of the faculty, the Executive Council should be centrally involved in providing advice on allocation of faculty resources. It is critically important that any policy and procedure dealing with the allocation of faculty resources deal not only with how faculty additions are approved and allocated, but how possible reductions or reassignments of faculty positions are handled.

In order to be able to respond to changing needs of the institution, we need to be prepared not only to add, but to change, reassign, and reduce faculty positions. For the Executive Council and Administration to understand the current allocation of faculty resources and to, on occasion, reallocate and/or recommend additions to the faculty, they need to be in possession of sound information about the current state of faculty resources.

Therefore, each time a faculty position opens, the department with the opening should submit a brief synopsis of current staffing in the department and of ways in which that staffing fits with departmental and College curricula. This statement should also include enrollment needs as well as a proposed position description. The context of the discussion could include curricular breadth and depth as well as enrollment issues. The Dean can provide additional advice as to the issues to be addressed in the document.

Departments wishing to request filling a current or adding a new faculty position may prepare and submit a statement of need as outlined above to the Executive Council by April 1 of the academic year prior to the year of the anticipated search.

The motion carried by unanimous vote. Council recommended that this statement be added to the Chairs' Handbook and that the Dean send the statement by e-mail to all faculty.

Continued Discussion of Issues Surrounding Personnel Considerations Policies

Council continued its discussion of P. Smith's document "Division of Responsibilities: Faculty Executive Council and Faculty Personnel Committee." The next unresolved issue to be discussed from the document was time in rank before tenure: in its Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the AAUP states that the probationary period of a person in a full-time position should not exceed seven years. Out of fairness to the faculty members, but also to those who come up for tenure on a normal schedule and therefore have had less time to complete scholarly products, should the College reconsider the policy of allowing faculty members to defer the tenure review?

The President stated that this matter deserves serious consideration. The AAUP deadline is not an important part of this because the paperwork would reflect a deferral based on consent and a waiver. But the issue of substance, having to do with discretionary deferral if others are turned down for a failure to satisfy the requirements within the normal period, is a serious one. In the past, deferrals within the Faculty Handbook guidelines were at the discretion of the Dean ("At the request of the individual and the department, and with the assent of the Dean of the College, the consideration may be deferred for no more than two years," Faculty Handbook p. 25, 3.d.) Council concluded that deferrals should be available for medical or parental leaves but not for personal leaves. Sinnett will draft a statement for Council endorsement at its next meeting. This statement will need to replace the statement currently in the Faculty Handbook.

The last unresolved issue from P. Smith's document has to do with the faculty review calendar: In September of 1997, the Board of Trustees approved a policy whereby faculty members who are denied tenure will not be eligible to apply for a sabbatical leave, even if they are serving in their seventh year at the College. With our current review calendar, faculty members following the "normal" sequences will not know the result of their tenure review until March of the year prior to the leave. This delay could create problems in arranging the leave, scheduling courses, and appointing leave-replacement faculty members. This circumstance might be ameliorated if we could complete all tenure reviews in the fall semester. The review process would begin in the spring of the faculty member's fifth year in service and the dossier would be assembled in early October. Other institutions use this schedule, but it would represent a substantial change in current practice at Grinnell.

The President suggested one idea for discussion that he has seen work effectively at other institutions. The faculty members up for tenure would receive a sabbatical leave in their seventh year if they got tenure and a personal leave of absence, if they would so choose, in their seventh year if tenure was denied. This would mean that the faculty member who did not receive tenure could return to the college for the final year of teaching after the personal leave. Council members worried about holding a department in limbo for a full two years before a tenure-track hire could be made. Discussion of this unresolved issue will be continued at the next Council meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

Helen Scott
Secretary