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

Additional attendees for joint meeting with the Personnel Committee: E. Gilday, J. Seiz, Ann Ellis, Barb Trish

Secretary: J. Chenette

Joint Meeting of the Personnel Committee and the Executive Council

The meeting came to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Nollen Conference Room.

Relationship Between Personnel Committee and Budget Committee Salary Merit Processes

The Dean explained that Personnel Committee reviews for promotion to Professor do not result in the setting of merit scores because that option was precluded by faculty legislation establishing the three-year salary review cycle. There is a sense that the Budget Committee salary process could benefit from the more detailed assessment of teaching and scholarship that goes into promotion reviews. There was discussion.

Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Reviews

Council discussed Personnel Committee concerns with regard to departmental review letters and recommended revised language for the review guidelines.

Guidelines for Context Statements

W. Moyer reported on the Budget Committee’s revision of instructions for the teaching section of faculty context statements. They have added three bullet points:

• Discuss how regular and/or supplemental end-of-course evaluations have informed your teaching.
• Discuss the impact scholarly and other activities have had on your teaching.
• Discuss any collaborative teaching you have done.

There was general approval of these additions.

The President raised a question about whether the rules of thumb the Personnel Committee and Budget Committee developed for setting merit scores for teaching overstimulate innovation and novelty as opposed to rewarding consistent teaching excellence. It was agreed that these rules of thumb might bear reexamination next fall.

Different Criteria for Promotion to Professor for Different Emphases in Career Paths

There was a brief discussion of criteria used for promotion to Professor.

The joint meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m., at which point the Executive Council carried on with its business.

________________________________________

Executive Council Meeting (starting at 3:05 p.m.)

Continued Discussion of Faculty Position Proposals

Council reviewed the Dean’s draft letters responding to position proposals.

Geology and Geography Searches

The Dean suggested allowing two years for the search open to a senior-level appointment, since a hire at that level is more likely to take multiple years. Council agreed to invite faculty from all three divisions to serve on the search committees. The Dean will contact these individuals and invite them to serve on the search committee.

Review of Special Search Guidelines

Council members made suggestions concerning the guidelines for this year’s special searches. The President suggested that all the special search chairs be encouraged to spend more time with Brad Bateman discussing the steps they will take to build a diverse pool. There was further discussion.

Review of Document on Interdisciplinary Hiring and Reviews

Council agreed that they are done reviewing the document on interdisciplinary hiring and review. The Dean reminded Council of the need to form the review committees in such a way that they remain as stable as possible so that reviewees will have faith that the committees are impartial and not chosen with a specific agenda in mind.

Procedures for Promotion to Professor

T. Roberts summarized the changes made to the previous draft of proposed Faculty Handbook guidelines on procedures for promotion to Professor. Council thanked Roberts for his good work.

Strategy VI

The President described the background for this proposal, indicating that the main goal is to sharpen the public image of Grinnell by associating it more clearly with a small number of distinctive areas of excellence. The ones identified in the current draft are science education, socially aware leadership, and interdisciplinary creative studies. These may or may not be the right areas to emphasize, and there could be more – but not many more – added to the list. As we refine these ideas, we will do things to enhance and publicize each area of excellence.

E. Willis inquired about the plans for further dissemination and discussion. The President indicated his intention to send the document to the faculty and post on the Web site. There will be more structure discussions in the fall before he takes the proposal back to the Trustees in October. W. Moyer emphasized the need for close coordination with the Expanding Knowledge Initiative.

Position Descriptions

Council considered and refined or approved the wording of position descriptions. E. Marzluff emphasized that departments need to know the approved position descriptions are the ones sent back, not the ones they submitted.

Council members expressed their appreciation for D. Lopatto’s and W. Moyer’s outstanding service and leadership. Lopatto and Moyer expressed their thanks to other Council members and indicated how much they will miss Wednesday afternoon meetings.

The meeting adjourned at 5:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Jon Chenette