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 November 29, 2006 were approved.

President’s Remarks

The President noted that he had just attended Barb York’s retirement party. She gave the College 42 years of faithful service. The College is very grateful to her.

He has tremendously enjoyed meeting with the EKI candidates. He has found their range of vision very stimulating.

He noted that David Clay, Karen Voss, and Marci Sortor are working hard on the FY 2007 budget.

Dean’s Remarks

The Dean reported that he is having conversations with John Kalkbrenner about issues with Dining Services that have been raised previously by Council and that these discussions are ongoing.

Council Remarks

S. Rebelsky reported that some faculty members asked me about the seemingly early deadline for grades this year and noted that there had been complaints last year about the earliness of the deadline. He checked with the Registrar’s Office and they say that they really do need the early deadline so that they have time to get the Committee on Academic Standing docket together. There was discussion. The Dean noted that the early deadline has been established from necessity of our extensive CAS review process.

T. Roberts noted that, as Department Chair, he has been working to try to satisfy the Dean’s request for a second tutorial from the Religious Studies Department next year. This process has caused him to reflect on the issue of equitable distribution of tutorial requirements among departments, particularly in view of the College’s intention to grow its student body over the next five years. He asked if there is a rough correlation between the size of a department and the number of tutorials they are requested to provide. The President suggested that the Dean provide a current enumeration of tutorials by department for further discussion of this issue. Discussion ensued.

E. Willis noted that she had met with the Student Curriculum Committee recently and they were asking about the relationship between the SEPC and departments in regard to department meetings. She noted that there is a lot of variation across the College. She told the Student Curriculum Committee that she would be willing to bring to council a document with suggestions on how departments can enhance communications with members of their respective SEPCs.

Department Proposals

Council took action on a number of department personnel proposals.

Promotion to Full Professor

Council noted that there was only one associate professor brought forward for review for promotion to full professor this year and asked why. The Dean noted that there have been many promotions made over the past two years and the pool is not as deep this year. Council voted to approve the recommendation that one associate professor be reviewed for consideration of promotion to full professor.

Strategy 6

E. Willis engaged Council in an overview of comments she has received from faculty members regarding the Strategy 6 document. Many are wondering about the timing, audience, and purpose of this document, noting that they perceive it to have evolved into something much more than the basis for developing public relations material. Others are questioning the relationship between the Strategic Plan and Strategy 6. Faculty are also questioning the relationship between the descriptive and aspirational aspects of the document—wondering where the aspirational vision came from—apparently not from the faculty and insisting that the next iteration of this document reflect the voice of the faculty and not simply the administration. Finally, there are those who note that the document makes clear argument for what we do but is not successful in stating who we are.

The President resisted calls for delaying further redrafting. He noted that the relationship of Strategy 6 to the Strategic Plan is in the effort to articulate, in our own voice, some enduring strengths of this institution. As to the question of the purpose of the Strategy 6 document, the President noted that this is not of a constitutional nature as is the Strategic Plan and suggested that if we are successful this document will evolve over time.

T. Roberts noted that much of the negative/questioning faculty reaction to the document comes from the fact that it is posted on the College website for all to see (appearing cut in stone and embraced by all) coupled with their perception that its contents have resulted from a top-down dissemination effort. E. Marzluff echoed his comments, however she noted that while in reality Strategy 6 is but a small part of the Strategic Plan it has somehow taken on a presence which is larger than it should be. She also believes that because it is on the web faculty feel like it is a done deal and they may be less likely to respond and make their voices heard.

C. Hunter took this opportunity to argue that the most valued aspects of the academic program (close advising, open curriculum, self-directed program of study, and self-governance) must be articulated in future drafts of this document.

S. Rebelsky stated his belief that this document does not reflect the voice of the faculty when it comes to matters of the academic program which forms the basis for 3/4th of the content of the strategy.

J. Meehan argued that from the aspirational viewpoint she does not believe the case has been boldly presented.

The President left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

Frequently Asked Questions: Interdisciplinary Appointments

There was a discussion and editing session of a document to go to departments regarding interdisciplinary appointments.

Council adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese