Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Council
February 12, 2003
Excerpts
Present: S. Barber, D. Kaiser, J. Mohan, M. Montgomery, J. Mutti, R. Osgood, M. Schneider, J. Swartz.
The meeting came to order at 4:20 in the Nollen House Conference Room.
Task Force on Speakers and Convocations
Helen Scott was invited to the meeting to discuss how to handle the convocation process this next year since the Task Force has not yet completed its work. J. Mutti asked if problems were experienced this year. Scott replied that there were no problems. He asked if the allocation of the 11 slots to convocations satisfied demand. She replied that it did. D. Kaiser noted that insofar as anyone has commented on convocations to him it was to express great pleasure at those with faculty speakers and noted that those were also the best attended. He expressed his desire to see this aspect of convocation continue in the future. J. Mutti asked what process will bring this matter to conclusion. Scott replied that the recommendations of the Task Force will first go to Council, then to a faculty meeting and then to the division meetings for discussion. It was agreed to continue to manage convocations next year the same way that it was handled this year.
H. Scott left the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
The minutes and excerpts of 2/5/03 were approved.
President's Remarks
The President noted the upcoming Board of Trustees meeting in Arizona. The agenda, currently being circulated to the campus community, includes an update on strategic planning, a presentation on the Science II progress, approval of the budget, a report by the Dean, and a presentation of the ad hoc athletic facility planning committee which will recommend the appointment of an architect. He will then appoint a campus committee to provide input to that architect.
Dean's Remarks
The Dean asked Council for agenda items for the upcoming faculty meeting.
He updated Council on the status of faculty searches.
He noted that the College is in the process of bringing a new academic information management tool, PioneerWeb, online which will allow instant access to student's academic information. It will be demonstrated to the Committee on Academic Standing and launched on or about April 1st. The functions of the program include allowing students access to the general class schedule, their own class schedules, grades, and degree audit.
There was discussion of the current situation with course registration and students being cut out of classes. He noted that the number of cuts has been reduced significantly since last spring semester. There was discussion of issues with the add/drop deadline. Some suggested that perhaps the add deadline should be moved up and the drop deadline moved back.
Council Remarks
M. Montgomery reported on the meeting with untenured faculty. Several Council members met with approximately 30 untenured faculty to discuss the current faculty salary situation, acknowledge the disparity among the ranks and with their peers by noting what the budget steering committee and Council are trying to do to remedy that situation, and to acknowledge their desire for more transparency in the faculty review process. They expressed their appreciation and hopes for remedy.
M. Montgomery noted that an open campus meeting was held on February 10 to discuss the current version of a decision set created by the strategic planning committee. He noted that Clark Lindgren had opened the meeting by presenting a strategy (zero tuition) which was not among the alternatives in the decision set. Much of the remainder of the meeting was spent discussing the pros and cons of this strategy, although D. Kaiser pointed out that it is not a strategy but a mechanism for achieving the goal(s) of a given strategy.
M. Schneider distributed a document which provides graphic representation of peer salary trends, required raises this year to meet 100% of projected peer averages by rank, and linear and non-linear raise functions which project percentage raises by years in service (number of years since appointment to the College). There was considerable discussion of the graphs and strategies for redressing the disparity of assistant professor salaries. The President noted this discussion is necessarily constrained by the fact that the faculty salary pool for this year to be voted on by the Board next week, is 5% plus $80,000. He also noted that we are receiving information about the budget situations of our peer institutions and it is fair to say that peer salary raises are not likely to average 5%. M. Schneider suggested that given what we perceive as a budget problem facing many of our peer institutions this year (which could result in lower percentage raises at those institutions) to take action now may result in a bigger effect on assistant salaries-perhaps even reaching 100% parity.
There was discussion of how to present this complicated situation to the faculty. The Dean asked M. Montgomery what he wanted from the faculty. Montgomery responded that he needs the tenured faculty to understand what the short-term financial impact on them will be if we are to fairly address the assistant professor salary disparity. It was decided that this would be taken to the faculty at the next faculty meeting on February 17th.
D. Kaiser thanked Schneider and Montgomery for their work on this problem.
The meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Secretary
Karen Wiese