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

The meeting came to order at 4:15 p.m. in the Nollen House Conference Room. The minutes and excerpts of 9/26/01 were corrected approved.

It should be noted that as Council business is increasingly taking place electronically between formal meetings any such action from now on will be reported under Dean's Remarks and will be flagged as having taken place electronically prior to the meeting for which minutes have been recorded.

B. Grey noted that Council should soon closely examine issues associated with activities which have been funded by the Fund for Excellence, particularly those items for which Fund support is scheduled to end this fiscal year.

Regular Council business was preempted by a telephone conference call with Mr. Ray Haas, Council's process consultant for long-range academic planning. As this was the first full Council contact with Mr. Haas introductions were made. B. Grey opened the discussion with a summary of preliminary conversations he and J. Brand had previously had with Mr. Haas. He asked Mr. Haas for his thinking about a possible agenda for the first meeting of the group in Grinnell. Mr. Haas responded that he wanted Council to focus on the questions related to academic affairs that need to be reviewed and resolved and to order these within an actionable timeframe.

B. Grey stated that he would like to have the what, when, and how questions of the process of long-range academic planning answered so that this information can be shared with the full faculty. Mr. Haas emphasized that to be useful the plan must serve as a table of contents that will inform all decisions taken in the future. B. Voyles remarked that it seems that Council is starting in the middle of a process of change at Grinnell that has been ongoing for some time, but not explicitly recognized and he would like the previous and future attempts at changing the academic program to become transparent. J. Mutti asked whether we should be looking at things that the faculty can make decisions on or open the discussion up to things that others have decision-making authority over. D. Kaiser asked Mr. Haas for examples of how the planning criteria he urged the college to create could adequately distinguish among various potential proposals, as Mr. Haas suggested they would. Mr. Haas replied that things like class size and faculty leaves could be considered as examples; reducing or maintaining small class size might emphasize a priority of teaching, but increasing the frequency or length of faculty leaves might give preference to improving faculty research, so that establishing the priority of teaching or faculty research might help decide between the desirability of two equally potent good outcomes. Mr. Haas emphasized that Council would be wise to integrate into the planning process as many faculty as possible so as to develop broad support for the plan. Some faculty will not wish to be burdened with this task, but a plan that is informed by the whole spectrum of faculty opinion will be more likely to succeed. B. Grey stated that he has been thinking heavily of survey and focus groups as vehicles for tapping faculty opinion. Mr. Haas noted that at most institutions written communication is not enough to achieve the goal of producing a plan which can be supported and implemented over time.

Mr. Haas then asked each Council member to tell him what s/he expected to have in hand at the end of the first consultation meeting. B. Voyles stated that he would like to have a better sense of how to frame the questions that need to be discussed with the faculty. Mr. Haas replied that one way to consider the discussion is by asking the question-what is the relative balance between scholarship and teaching in relation to promotion and tenure. J. Mutti stated that his goal is to be able to look at the big picture and to understand how to join issues so that trade-offs are transparent and can be discussed. Mr. Haas stated that an effective plan would provide us with criteria which will inform decision-making on proposals which have not yet been thought of. He suggested that the plan be based upon the College's core values and statement of purpose. J. Mohan stated that he wants to be able to map a course toward and heighten the sense of having a harmonious community and a curriculum which is appropriate to the early 21st century. Mr. Haas commented that curriculum and community are plan "content" objectives rather than of process. He suggested that perhaps Council should identify who the stakeholders are that need to be brought along in order to achieve plan objectives. D. Kaiser expressed his reservations of the efficacy of central planning. The telephone conversation ended.

The President noted that B. Grey had provided a preliminary list of issues to Mr. Haas but wanted everyone to know that these items represent only initial thinking of one person and asked for an overarching vision. He suggested that these open meetings with Mr. Haas be restricted to faculty. He stated that in the end the faculty should come out of this recognizing that they have made decisions that will be effective. J. Mohan suggested that conversations with faculty should be limited to academic program and not quality of life issues as had been the case with the earlier full faculty retreat.

B. Grey asked Council to decided on the sequencing of events starting today. After some discussion it was decided that the first step is for Council members to individually send further academic program priorities or issues to B. Grey to be synthesized and discussed next week. B. Grey and J. Brand will take the revised list of questions/issues to Carol Trosset in order that she design a short survey instrument to obtain faculty responses. When responses are obtained then Council will want to meet with Mr. Haas.

President's Remarks

The President remarked on the spectacular quality of the current art exhibition and urged all faculty to attend the reception with some of the Board of Trustees this Friday.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean noted that certain Council business had been conducted electronically prior to this meeting in order to save meeting time. The following represents this business.

We sent in our full-page display advertisement to the Chronicle of Higher Education last week. The used a photographic processes to use in the print version of the Chronicle, but scanned it to incorporate into the electronic version. Their optical character recognition made a mess out of the ad and they neglected to proof the electronic copy. Several on our campus and Terri Phipps noticed this immediately, and we notified the Chronicle. They have apologized, corrected, and are running the e-version two additional weeks.

We have one more round of Mellon and FFE funded postdoctoral positions, and two are funded. One is funded by Mellon and is limited to the humanities and related areas, and the other is our match, and should be from another area. In the past two years, we have limited the second postdoc to social studies, as we had NSF funding in sciences. Now we have exhausted the NSF funding, so I am inclined to open the competition to all departments. We will send out the same note as last year inviting proposal from departments, due the end of October unless you recommend against it. Council will then pick two of the proposals and we will advertise for the positions. Last year we had only two departments apply.

As you know we have been working on a proposal with Oberlin in the Mellon Faculty Career enhancement program to be finalized in October. Last week we were informed by Mellon that they wished us to work with 6 other colleges (3 pairs of Pomona and Reed, Amherst and Williams, and Smith and Wesleyan) to submit a companion proposal from the group of 8 of us.

Finally, due to the Board meeting on Saturday, the Dean will not be able to attend the Family Weekend receptions and poster sessions on Saturday. Helen will represent the Dean's Office. He apologized, but cannot be at two places at once. He hopes that the events go well, and know that many people have put a lot of effort into the various presentations.

The Dean stated that P. Smith will be leaving the position of Associate Dean in fall 2002. He noted that a number of persons have been nominated or have expressed interest in the position. He asked Council to give some thought to the strengths that they think should be brought to the position.

Discussion of Affirmative Action Statement Revision

This discussion has been delayed until K. Kamp can be present to answer questions.

J. Brand left the meeting at 5:30 p.m.

Discussion of Education Department Proposal

J. Mutti requested that Council look seriously at the structure and program of the Department at this time. B. Grey asked whether Council members have enough information to have this discussion or should M. Voyles and possibly J. Ketter be invited to inform Council in their discussions. B. Grey also noted that Council's agenda is very full already, but that this discussion is important. B. Voyles suggested that M. Voyles could prepare a memorandum for Council in which she could review the conversations she has had with other schools about collaboration. D. Kaiser asked whether it is still a policy of the College that every department be externally reviewed every ten years. The Dean answered that this policy is included in our NCA report.

The President left the meeting at 5:40 p.m.

J. Mutti asked for the Dean to articulate the larger issues related to the Education Department. The Dean stated that while the College commitment to pre-college teacher education remains strong, it is difficult for the Department to continue with the full program 1) in such a (State) regulated environment, 2) where student demand is not strong, and 3) where specialized methods teaching expertise requirements of very small numbers of students (often just one) need to be met through short-term contracts which must be supervised by the existing tenured faculty. All of these things result in a great strain on a small number of tenure-track faculty.

P. Smith left the meeting at 5:55 p.m.

J. Mutti stated that there are opportunities presenting through collaboration. He asked the Dean if there are budgetary outer limits that will constrain Council's consideration of the future of the Departmental program. The Dean stated that there are always trade-offs in decision-making with a finite budget. D. Kaiser asked why this has to be a zero-sum game? When we talk of the Education Department he noted we are talking about producing a social good that is universally upheld as necessary for the continued growth and well being of our country. This Department deserves our support, but not necessarily at the expense of other parts of the academic program. He urged that Council be empowered to think in a bigger box than just within the limits of trade-offs.

Council Remarks

B. Voyes handed out a memorandum regarding the issue of external speakers. He noted that the Speakers Committee has decided that what they had set up this year as a method for allocating funds needed to be rethought over the course of this year.

The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese