Present: R. Osgood, J. Brand, J. Swartz, B. Grey, D. Kaiser, K. Kamp, J. Mohan, J. Mutti, B.Voyles.

The meeting came to order at 4:15 in the Nollen House Conference Room.

The minutes and excerpts of the February 20, 2002 meeting were approved.

The following business was taken care of electronically in advance of the meeting.

President's Remarks

The President noted that the Board of Trustees had charted a direction regarding facilities during their meeting this past week, however no decisions have been made. They also heard a presentation on the residence halls where the issue of whether to build three or four dorms was raised. Ceasar Pelli also gave a presentation on the Campus Center with a focus on the issue of whether the Library or Darby should occupy the same space as the Center. The Board asked him to proceed to design the Campus Center on the premise that the Library will not be on the site and Darby will probably not be part of it. B. Grey noted that they had some considerable discussion regarding the new Mission Statement but did approve it.

D. Kaiser asked the President if the Board had identified a sequence for construction of the planned facilities. He responded that they had not, but there are clearly implications from the Campus Center decision. Kamp asked when the Campus Center is to be built. J. Brand responded that there is a projected completion date of fall semester 2005. B. Voyles asked about a start date for dormitory construction. The President responded that it should begin in about a month. J. Mutti asked if there has been a resolution of the lighting issue in relation to the planned Sports Complex and the Observatory. The President stated that the planners have taken this into consideration, but there will be additional attention given the issue during the design stage.

D. Kaiser asked the President about the Development Office interactions with faculty regarding the development of materials for the fieldhouse in preparation for fundraising. The President responded that Development has begun working on background statements for Science II and the fieldhouse. D. Kaiser asked if the President is content with the implications of the Campus Center on future prioritization of facility development. The President stated that if we lose Darby we will need to look for another large space immediately. J. Mohan asked if we would go a year without basketball and volleyball in the event Darby is demolished. The President responded that we would look to temporary space. Taking a global view, the President stated that as decisions get made there are three variables that come into play:
· maintainence of our current programs;
· funding sources; and
· aspirations.

The President went on to note that during the campus planning phase he had talked with the Board about the need for additional faculty office space, renovation of ARH, and rehabilitation of ARH classrooms. He added that Mears Cottage adds another dimension to the equation. The President stated that a facilities sequencing planning team has been formed to look at Mears space. The team is composed of the Dean, Mark Miller, Mark Godar.

B. Grey stated that some of the Trustees expressed appreciation of their increased contact with students and would like a similar level of contact with the faculty.

J. Brand left the meeting at 5:15 p.m.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean updated Council on the status of faculty searches.

The Dean distributed the nomination statement which the college has submitted to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education for consideration of award in their Institutions of Excellence in the First College Year competition. He thanked P. Smith for her excellent work in drafting this statement.

The Dean also distributed a powerpoint presentation which he delivered to the Board on the status of our Mentored Advanced Project (MAP) experiment. He stated that the Curriculum Committee has unanimously voted to recommend the program to the faculty as a permanent part of the curriculum. He did note that there are some issues which still need resolution regarding the definition of a MAP and in relation to faculty compensation which needs to be taken up by the Council. D. Kaiser acknowledged the positive experiences which faculty have had with the MAPs. However, he urged the Curriculum Committee to also solicit faculty comments from those whose experience has not been positive.

Council Remarks

B. Voyles reported on the Science Division discussion of long-range academic planning. He stated that the majority of the discussion was on issues of governance. The other major focus was on the dual culture of faculty research at Grinnell regarding the involvement of students in research.

In relation to the larger issue of long-range planning the President noted that he has raised Council's issue of the difficulty of conducting long-range academic planning in isolation from the other institutional planning activities with the Board. They responded that if it would make academic planning more efficacious the Board would be happy to open up the process and participate with Council in their efforts.

D. Kaiser followed up on his question of a previous meeting regarding the status of the President's research into the Williams College experiments with reduced teaching load and the addition of tutorials. The President stated that he is trying to get a detailed accounting of what they are doing and the trade-offs that the faculty made in the process of making these changes.

D. Kaiser also followed up on his question of a previous meeting regarding the status of the President's research into the issue of litigation and copyright infringement involving college libraries and coursepaks. The President stated that he has reviewed the few cases that have been brought and is not convinced that placing coursepaks on reserve after having paid royalties is an infringement of the copyright laws. He will go to the lawyer and ask for an opinion and will share that with the Instructional Support Committee.

D. Kaiser asked how the budgetary process has worked out under the new process implemented this year. The President stated that the participation of the particular faculty members was an excellent addition since they brought both long-standing knowledge and budget experience to the Committee. He stated further that based on the performance criteria of quality, transparency, and production of a fairly final budget earlier in the year the process has resulted in a positive experience. J. Mutti stated that he believes faculty participation on the Committee was valuable in that they are able to share information with the faculty on the larger contours of the budget and what significant things are being planned or are taking place.

B. Voyles asked whether it is true that the Forum will not be open this summer. He urged that if this decision has been taken that it be revisited. The President stated that he would look into the matter.

Mellon Postdoctoral Fellows Proposal

The Dean distributed a document which presents key information regarding the College's experience with the postdoctoral program funded by the College and the Mellon Foundation. He stated that the College had received an invitation from Mellon to renew the grant for an additional five years. He noted that the departments have reported being able to recruit high quality candidates in relation to normal searches. He stated that the recommendation we would make to Mellon in a new proposal would be that these appointments will allow us to deliver Mentored Advanced Projects and study leaves. J. Mutti asked how the postdoctoral program compares financially to more routine leave replacements. The Dean replied that it is more expensive but there are other social goods which are obtained by the College with the postdoctoral appointments.

D. Kaiser noted a long-standing complaint regarding the high faculty cost in terms of time that is involved with term replacement recruitment. He asked how these costs are measured. The Dean responded that the tangible costs are included in the grant, but the intangible cost of faculty time cannot be quantified.

Both the Dean and the President noted that there is a strong affinity group that exists between the postdoctoral fellows and the assistant professors. D. Kaiser moved, K. Kamp seconded, approval for the College to move forward with a new proposal to the Mellon Foundation. The motion was approved.

J. Mohan asked whether Council is intending to proceed with long-range academic planning. B. Grey stated that Council members will meet informally regarding a second faculty survey soon.

The meeting adjourned at 6:00p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese