Present: C. Hunter, D. Lopatto, E. Marzluff, W. Moyer, R. Osgood, T. Roberts, J. Swartz

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

The minutes and excerpts of 3/8/06 were approved.

President’s Remarks

The President made no remarks.

Dean’s Remarks

The Deans attended the Deans’ meeting of the Associated Colleges of the Midwest this week. They are working to review several off-campus study programs sponsored by ACM and are working to consolidate three Chicago-based programs in one location. They are also developing an ACM-based internship in Chicago.

Council Remarks

C. Hunter noted that there are several faculty members of the Social Studies Division who have voiced concern about the abrupt manner by which they were told of the increase in co-pay percentages for health insurance this year. There was discussion. W. Moyer asked the President to make a general announcement explaining the factors considered in the decision-making process which resulted in increased co-pays.

Physical Education SEPC

There was discussion of the make up of the Physical Education SEPC continuing from last week. The Dean noted that, in this case only, the SEPC exists only to intersect with faculty governance. W. Moyer moved, C. Hunter seconded, approval of a proposal by the Dean which reads:

Early each fall semester, the team captains will meet and elect 4-6 of the team captains to serve as the SEPC for the year. The size of the group might depend upon the number of searches and reviews anticipated in the year. When the P.E. Department is conducting a faculty review, the S.E.P.C. will solicit information from students who have completed activity and other courses and been coached by the faculty member under review, and will summarize the results in a document to be submitted to the department chair.

The motion was approved.

Department Reports Assessing Interviews with Candidates

The dean presented a draft revision of language interview assessment by department chairs designed to reflect current practice. The primary change is to make clear the different expectations for tem and tenure-track appointments. E. Marzluff noted that, while the faculty handbook (and current and proposed policy) provides for the collection of information from everyone who met with a particular candidate, she wonders how often departments actually seek input from the Dean and the President. The President stated that it has never happened during his tenure, but he would like to preserve the policy. E. Marzluff also noted that the proposed draft provided by the Dean includes the following:

In order to clarify information and to keep those who are involved in this important decision fully informed, the Executive Council and the President have requested that each department completing a search submit a statement that recommends making an offer to their selected candidate or candidates. In preparing the written justification to the Executive Council, the department should take the comments provided by the Executive Council interview team into account in its decision and in preparing the written recommendation to the Executive Council. The statement should include a brief biography of the candidate being recommended followed by the rationale for an affirmative recommendation, including both the perceived strengths and any reservations concerning the proposed appointment.

Marzluff noted that our expectation has been that we have such an assessment provided for all candidates interviewed on campus, and that when departments have not included such an assessment we have often requested further information. She suggested that the language also be changed to reflect this.

Promotion to Professor

The President reviewed the process of revising the Faculty Handbook regarding Section “III. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTIONS, AND GRANTING OF TENURE CONSEQUENT TO THE BY-LAWS OF THE TRUSTEES OF GRINNELL COLLEGE”. He noted that T. Roberts volunteered to pen the revisions, which are now complete and before Council, and he thanked him for his work. He noted that he approves of the revisions and if Council agrees he will give it to the College lawyer for review. On his approval the document will be given to the Faculty Organization Committee, then to the faculty, the President, and the Board for approval.

Eligibility to Vote

The President stated that he is not ready to have this discussion.

Harris Leaves

The Dean reminded Council that he had previously suggested devising a plan to assess the program. The President suggested the possibility to revisit the specific purposes of the endowment made by Jack Harris in the event of an unfavorable review. The Dean reviewed the history of the changing process of decision-making and the current process. The President argued against the Harris model because he believes it is wrong to take young faculty out of the classroom at this critical time in the development of their teaching. E. Marzluff stated that she believes a system of internal competition for junior faculty created by the Harris leave is demoralizing to junior faculty who submit unsuccessful proposals. There was some discussion of the fact that some young faculty are discouraged from taking their leave by their departments. T. Roberts stated that if this is happening it is in the interest of the department and certainly not of the young faculty member. W. Moyer asked if the junior leave is guaranteed. The Dean replied that no one has been turned down to date. W. Moyer moved, D. Lopatto seconded, approval of a Council assessment of the Harris Leave Program. The motion was approved. E. Marzluff asked if the senior leave program should also be examined, and if so would it be efficient to do both things at once. Further discussion yielded the following questions which would be addressed in the assessment of the Harris Leave program.

1. What role the existence of the possibility of a Harris leave plays in attracting faculty to the College?

2. What message does a failed Harris proposal send to an Assistant Professor?

3. How many Assistant Professors feel pressure to apply for a Harris leave, and if unsuccessful the first time, to apply a second time?

4. Are Assistant Professors pushing their research leaves off because of the prospect of a Harris leave?

5. What is the effect (positive and negative) of a Harris Leave on scholarly productivity of an Assistant Professor during the pre-tenure period?

Faculty Meeting Agenda Items

There was brief discussion during which the following items were identified for inclusion on Faculty Meeting agenda sometime before the end of this semester: 1) FOC elections, 2) athletics, and 3) Frank Thomas to report on diversity.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese