Present: C. Hunter, E. Marzluff, J. Meehan, R. Osgood, S. Rebelsky, T. Roberts, J. Swartz, E. Willis

The meeting came to order at 4:20 p.m. in Room 226 of the Rosenfield Student Center. The minutes of October 4, 2006 were approved.

President’s Remarks

The President noted that the Board of Trustees concluded their meetings here last week. He thanked E. Willis for giving a thoughtful presentation.

Dean’s Remarks

The Dean noted that at the recent meeting of the Audit and Assessment Committee of the Board of Trustees a new draft set of Strategic Plan Performance Indicators (10/6/06) has emerged. He electronically distributed this draft earlier to Council. S. Rebelsky distributed a memorandum dated 10/11/06 which comments on these indicators.
Strategy 6 of the Strategic Plan calls for raising the public profile of Grinnell College. He thought it worthwhile for the Executive Council to discuss the draft document that the Trustees saw at their meeting. This draft should be viewed as a conceptual framework and not as an implementation plan. From this viewpoint he sees three conceptual questions as guiding implementation:

1) does it make sense to identify a few areas of strength?
2) are these four areas the right ones?
3) is the Board willing to allocate additional resources to implement this strategy(6)?

The President stated that after discussion of this conceptual framework his aim is to have an implementation plan sufficiently outlined to allow budget projections in time for the Board’s February meeting. E. Willis is interested in having the Strategy 6 planning document circulated widely and would not like to delay much further. The President called for final comments before fall break with the idea of posting the final document for consumption right after break and discussion at the October 23rd faculty meeting. At that meeting he will present the rationale and solicit further discussion.

Willis reiterated a concern with the relationship between implementation of Strategy 6 and implementation of the Expanding Knowledge Initiative which Wayne Moyer expressed last year when the Strategy 6 document first appeared before Council. T. Roberts shared that concern noting the potential of Strategy 6 to overwhelm the EKI. The President responded by noting that he does not see Strategy 6 as a curricular driver, as is EKI, but rather created for public relations purposes. He views the outcome of discussions of the Strategy 6 document and the performance indicators as providing something concrete to give to those responsible for public relations. E. Willis noted her perception of a disconnect between current strengths of the academic program as articulated in Strategy 6 and the emphasis of the EKI on developing future strengths.

The Dean reminded Council of the grant history of and departmental experience with the Mellon Postdoctoral Fellows program. He noted that we have two appointments left to make out of a total of 15 appointments made under two separate grants to the College since 1999. He electronically distributed a proposal from the Religious Studies Department which seeks to make an appointment with a specialization in the history of Islam. E. Marzluff stated, that while her remark is not a reflection on this particular proposal, she believes that the underlying idea of the program is laudable but she believes that in practice it reinforces the instability in our curriculum by bringing in term appointments. Several Council members argued that the Mellon postdoctoral fellows have been significantly more qualified than many of those brought in under regular term searches and have enriched the departments that they were appointed to. The Dean stated that he supports the Religious Studies Department’s request. S. Rebelsky moved, C. Hunter seconded, to approve the proposal of the Religious Studies Department to seek a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow with a specialization in the history of Islam. The motion was approved. The Dean asked T. Roberts to prepare a position description for Council approval.

Council Remarks

E. Willis noted that this was her first presentation to the Board of Trustees and she has come away from the experience with the idea of trying to think about concrete ways to develop faculty-Board interaction.

She mentioned the rather large number of searches to be undertaken this year and that diversifying the faculty is still very much on the minds of the Board of Trustees. She reminded Council of their responsibility to make sure that current search procedures are followed in earnest by all departments. The President reinforced this by saying that there are a number of Trustees who have noted that we are carrying out 13 searches this year.

Willis also noted that the interim personnel review process is underway and she wonders if our procedures are working the way they should. The President agreed that he has concerns with interim reviews. For example, the sheer volume of them that are undertaken each year. He would like to explore the idea that the process could be less formal while allowing for something more formal that could be opted into if the situation warranted such action. T. Roberts noted that there is a sentiment among faculty that the reviews are not critical enough at both the tenure and promotion to professor levels. Discussion ensued.

T. Roberts noted that there was a discussion of voting at the most recent Humanities Division meeting. There were a significant number of faculty stating that the issue of voting in committees was very confused. S. Rebelsky suggested that Roberts raise this with the Faculty Organization Committee for guidance from the Faculty Handbook.

Roberts noted that there are continuing problems with rental cars. The Dean acknowledged this and stated that much of the problem is derived from the fact that the company delivers rental cars to the campus. He noted that Jim Mulholland is working with the company to rationalize the operation if possible.

S. Rebelsky raised a concern, from the most recent Science Division meeting, regarding the Registrar’s Office sharing information with students at pre-registration regarding their likelihood of getting into a particular class that they have pre-registered for. The Division is calling for a halt to this practice and other members concurred. The Dean said he would make this request of the Registrar.

Departmental Efforts to Diversify Faculty Applicant Pools

The Dean noted that there have been changes from past processes. He electronically distributed a copy of current guidelines, approved by Council last spring, to be followed by departments in searches. The President noted that these requirements cause constant complaint, but he believes we should be unyielding in our expectations for departments following these requirements. T. Roberts and J. Meehan noted that in some cases the cost of implementing these requirements significantly exceed the expectation of return. E Marzluff, citing previous experience of Council, does not want to be in the situation again of finding that there are problems with departments not following the guidelines after they have brought candidates to campus for interviews. She reminded Council of the intentional tension between the roles of Brad Bateman (facilitator) and Frank Thomas (adjudicator) and hopes that this relationship can strengthen our process.

Council adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese