Present: C. Hunter, E. Marzluff, J. Meehan, 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 11, 2006 were approved.

President’s Remarks

The President was traveling.

Dean’s Remarks

He reminded Council that there are four special searches (chemistry, music, sociology, and theatre) underway with deadlines coming up soon. These dossiers have to be reviewed by Council before interviews can be scheduled.

He distributed a sheet showing the allocation of Council member assignments for interviewing candidates for faculty positions. There was some discussion of appropriate allocation of assignments among divisions.

The Dean asked Council for discussion of the issue of membership on the ad hoc committee on faculty voting. There was discussion of an issue raised in the last faculty meeting by three members of the Humanities Division regarding equal representation of divisions on this committee. There was no resolution at this time in favor of returning to the Chair of the Faculty Organization Committee for guidance.

The Dean noted that Facilities Management is going to install temporary clocks in the Rosenfield Center until the campus-wide synchronized clock system can be brought on line. He also noted that ASI has figured out how to put time on the plasma announcements screens located throughout the building.

Council Remarks

C. Hunter noted that the ACM tuition remission policy has recently changed and he is happy to see that Grinnell will continue to cover 90% of tuition costs at other ACM colleges for children of employees, but is dismayed to see a reduction from 100% to 90% tuition coverage for children of employees who chose to attend Grinnell College. He foresees differential financial impact on staff who may not be able to afford this cost compared to faculty who can better withstand such financial burden.

Hunter also reported on a conversation with Emily Moore who told him of a recent letter from the NCAA regarding a proposed change in the athletic governance structure within our conference which would remove decision-making from the faculty of those conference institutions. There was discussion.

S. Rebelsky reported that the noon Science Division meeting was such a success (particularly in terms of attendance) that we’re going to move all of our meetings to noon.

He also stated that he has found it frustrating that we often receive a number of versions of memos and other documents with no clear way to distinguish them. For example, Council just received two documents entitled Preparing Position Proposals under the EKI. I wonder whether we might make it regular practice to (a) date memos and (b) include the word draft when those memos are, in fact, drafts.

He also reported that he has heard concern from a number of Science faculty about the Science portion of Strategy 6. In particular, there seems to be inappropriate attention paid to K-12 education. He reminded Council that he had raised that as a concern in the past, and thought others had, too.

Rebelsky reported that there is nothing new to report from the faculty voting task force as they are waiting until Council makes a decision about Humanities representation before moving forward.
The Dean reported that during fall break there was a security violation which resulted in a breach in our computer system. Rebelsky expressed concern about the breach. The security issue has been resolved and we are commissioning a further external security audit of the system.

Gender and Women’s Studies

There was a discussion of staffing in the Gender and Women’s Studies Concentration.

Expanding Knowledge Initiative/Faculty Position Proposals and Evaluation

E. Willis stated that the multiple objectives proposed for competitive EKI proposals as listed (below) are “muddying the water”:

• contribute to interdisciplinary/emerging areas of scholarship at the College;
• enhance diversity;
• lesson a department’s reliance on term faculty; and
• enhance student-faculty research.

She suggested that the first is the true EKI objective and the others are more broadly stated objectives of the larger academic program and, as such, support the first. E. Marzluff suggested that the EKI proposal guidance could state that stronger proposals will include contributions to one or more of the three larger institutional objectives. It was agreed that all new EKI appointments must increase the number of interdisciplinary courses offered by departments and concentrations. A discussion ensued.

S. Rebelsky asked about the division of labor between the EKI Advisory Board and the Executive Council. It was agreed that, based on the EKI experience involving the two groups last year, there could be better communication. E. Willis suggested a joint meeting to clarify the roles of both. The Dean asked E. Marzluff whether the Advisory Board is trying to delineate areas acceptable for development of EKI proposals or simply encouraging interdisciplinary innovation wherever it occurs. Marzluff responded that the Board’s intention is the latter. She urged Council to consider proposals received in April on a case-by-case basis.

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese