Present: S. Barber, V. Brown, L. Gregg-Jolly, M. Montgomery, R. Osgood, M. Schneider, J. Swartz, R. Vetter

The meeting came to order a 4:20 p.m. in the Nollen House Conference Room.

The minutes of 10/8/03 were approved.

President's Remarks

The President thanked everyone on campus who participated in the strategic planning focus group discussions.

Dean's Remarks

The Dean reported that he had spent Monday and Tuesday at the ACM Dean's meeting held this year at Cornell College. He reported that the ACM is currently preparing a proposal to the Mellon Foundation focusing on faculty development.

He noted that there is a faculty meeting scheduled for Thursday to make up for one that was cancelled earlier.

He noted that the Tutorial Committee has reviewed the tutorial evaluation and has recommended essentially a status quo. An issue has been raised about whether or not to include the text sections of the evaluations in personnel reviews. The Committee is recommending that we continue to include the text in personnel reviews.

Council Member Remarks

M. Montgomery stated that he will be informing the strategic planning committee members that it is his intention to release the draft report to the wider community within the week.

M. Schneider asked about rumors that there are plans to create a high-tech computing facility on campus. The Dean responded that it is true that the College will establish a center with high-end multi-media computing equipment for students who are working on academic projects which can be enhanced by such capabilities.

V. Brown asked if there was discussion of the Curriculum Committee's report on independent projects and Mentored Advanced Projects in the Humanities and Science Division meetings this week. R. Vetter and M. Schneider reported that there was discussion but no consensus. Brown noted that it has come to her attention that the Science Division meetings are provided with food which is paid for from the Dean's budget and noted that humanists and social scientists also need extra nutrition if they are to adequately take on the business of the College. The Dean indicated that he was unaware of refreshments being provided in Division meetings.

Faculty Salary Process

The Dean distributed a draft memorandum penned by M. Montgomery and J. Swartz intended for distribution to the full faculty on the new faculty salary determination process. The memorandum reflects the core principles endorsed by the faculty last year. S. Barber questioned a statement in the document regarding regular review of faculty by rank, specifically with regard to lecturer. M. Schneider suggested that those who are regularly reviewed by the Personnel Committee should also be reviewed by the faculty Budget Committee. The Dean will clarify the language. M. Montgomery suggested that the Council members consider the document further, but with the view of getting it to the faculty by the end of the semester.

R. Vetter asked how the process would work over a three year period. The Dean provided the formula- Salary 2005 = Salary 2004 + an across the board increase + (merit score x factor with the merit score remaining constant for three years). There was some discussion of how finely tuned the merit score values should be. M. Schneider suggested that the process should involve integer values only. L. Gregg-Jolly asked if there was documentation of the process or formula used by the Budget Committee over the past 10-15 years. The Dean replied that there is no such record. There was discussion of how merit scores would be determined and what weights would be given to teaching, scholarship, and service. The President suggested that following the language of the faculty handbook one could conclude that teaching would be weighted ~ 60%. M. Montgomery noted that this would militate against reliance on end-of-course evaluations and increase the importance of the Faculty Activity Report and Department letter. V. Brown noted that there is an aspect of teaching which is not being discussed-that people can improve their teaching. She suggested that the merit system should be used to send a strong message to faculty about what we mean by "good teaching".

There was discussion of the apparent fact that service is not valued very much in this process of merit score determination, although performing service to the College community can be very time consuming. The Dean noted that there is wide variation in scores for service. M. Montgomery noted that it is because of this variation that the service component of the merit score does affect the overall score.

L. Gregg-Jolly asked if revising the salary determination process will affect the size of the salary pool. The Dean responded that it would not unless the faculty were to say to the Trustees that they did not want a merit system.

There was discussion of the working range of possible scores. The President suggested that he thought the high overall quality of the faculty argued for a range that would result in the majority of the faculty falling in an area which is above the center of the scale. For example, using a one to five scale the mode would be four. The Dean argued that the salary recommendation for assistant professors should track the recommendation of the Personnel Committee. M. Schneider suggested that three years is the right review interval since it is a sufficient amount of time for people to be able to take a big picture look at their performance and productivity. Extending the period to four years does not significantly reduce the burden on the Personnel Committee, but it does extend the period before institutional feedback can be received (in the form of a merit score) to five years since the raise doesn't occur until the year after the review. R. Vetter expressed the view that extending the period to four years would put the carrot so far out in from that it was no longer visible. The Dean stated that it is his hope that implementing this system will result in faculty coming forward for consideration for promotion to full professor earlier.

Free Speech

V. Brown asked the Dean to distribute the exact language of the two motions which were made on the floor of the faculty meeting which need to be discussed by Council before the next Council meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:12 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese