Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Council
November 20, 2002
Excerpts
The meeting came to order at 4:20 in the Nollen House Conference Room.
The minutes and excerpts from the meetings of November 13th were approved.
The President made no remarks.
Dean's Remarks
The Dean asked if Council wished to meet next Wednesday before Thanksgiving. It was decided there would be no meeting.
During the next meeting of Council Jonathan Brand will present information on the next phase of budget planning.
He distributed an update of the Science II building plan. He noted there is a new sketch of the planned facility at CERA. The architects will visit campus for an open campus meeting in mid-December.
J. Mohan asked about the process of Council involvement in the faculty interview process. The Dean explained how past Councils have operated.
The Dean updated Council on the status of faculty searches.
Council Member Remarks
D. Kaiser asked about the status of the Forum and Library sketches by Shepley Bulfinch which have been expected for some time. The President responded that they are close to presenting several options. Once these options are revealed he plans to hold several public presentations and provide opportunities for discussion.
Faculty Salary Process
M. Montgomery noted that he had not gotten to tallying the ballot from the faculty meeting discussion but has reviewed them for majority sentiment. He stated that there is consensus on having some sort of merit system and that faculty are not concerned about how (the method) merit is apportioned. He believes that Council should move forward with the proposal drafted by the Dean following Council deliberations last year. The President suggested that whatever proposal emerges it should not go forward to the faculty without the full support of Council.
The Dean noted that Marc Chamberland has asked him in the faculty meeting and in subsequent discussions about the dispersion of Budget Committee ratings. He has compiled these for the last four years and this information was distributed prior to this Council meeting. He asked if Council were comfortable releasing this information to Marc. D. Kaiser again asked the Dean to provide information on the demography of the faculty at our peer institutions. It was agreed that sharing this information would be a good thing.
There was discussion of salary levels among the ranks. M. Schneider noted that
if it is true that our Associate Professors remain in rank longer than their
colleagues at peer institutions then that fact would inflate the salary. M.
Montgomery noted that the untenured faculty have asked the Council meet with
them to explain the various aspects of the salary situation at Grinnell in relation
to our peer institutions and he will arrange for this meeting. D. Kaiser observed
that recent discussions about the salary process make clear that non-tenured
faculty feel doubly offended by a process whose intention should be to affirm
and reward their success. Instead, comparison with peer institutions suggests
that Grinnell values less highly than peer institutions the reward and retention
of non-tenured faculty. Likewise, the comparative data on mean salaries for
tenured faculty suggest that senior colleagues at Grinnell are gaining on their
parallels at peer institutions. Obviously, Kaiser continued, these results are
undesirable and harmful to Grinnell. He suggested that, whatever process the
college embraces to calculate annual raises, the system should encourage and
reward faculty. If, as some have proposed, the comparison with peer institutions
is misleading at the assistant professor rank, then the Dean and the Budget
Committee ought to make clear exactly how the data skew the comparison. Alternatively,
if the data are not skewed and Grinnell is not keeping up with the mean salary
of our peers at the assistant professor rank, the College should make every
effort to reach that mark immediately.
J. Mutti noted that with regard to forming a full proposal to change the faculty
salary process there are still major issues which need work such as how teaching
will be considered.
The Dean suggested, as a procedural point made by D. Kaiser last year, that the discussion must move methodically from resolution of one issue to the next if any progress is to be made in these discussions. M. Schneider stated the importance of finishing with this issue this year or facing the uncertainty of a new Council. The President suggested that an omnibus discussion would not accomplish the tasks at hand and that one person might take this on to produce a draft which could then be examined by the group. No one volunteered.
A loosely structured discussion of various aspects of the faculty salary process ensued.
It was decided that Council will move ahead in its discussions using the Dean's draft document. The President noted that the process does not now adequately deal with teaching and that is an issue which needs to be treated.
The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
Secretary
Karen Wiese