Present: J. Cummins, B. Ferguson, K. Jacobson, J. Meehan, R. Osgood, S. Rebelsky, J. Swartz, E. Willis

The meeting came to order at 1:15 p.m. in room 203 of the Rosenfield Student Center.

The minutes and excerpts from September 26, 2007 were approved.

President’s Remarks

The President noted that the Board of Trustees are holding their fall meeting on campus beginning tomorrow during which time they will, among other things, review endowment investments and vote to approve the second phase of the athletic facilities.

Dean’s Remarks

The Dean noted that he has been looking at enrollment caps for spring semester and has been talking with departments where adjustment is needed and opportunity exists.

He distributed a document which includes proposed Faculty Handbook changes which defines “Regular Faculty Member”.

He distributed a 9/28/07 memorandum from Laura Sinnett, for the Faculty Organization Committee to the Executive Council regarding promotion and tenure schedule for faculty appointed to the rank of associate professor.

He reminded Council that the College is a member of a 23 college consortium funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation which is aimed at collaborative faculty development. He distributed a memorandum which he wrote, as principal organizer, describing the first of three planned Assemblies of faculty and administrative representatives of the 23 schools to take place February 15-17 in St. Paul, Minnesota. The first Assembly is focused on interdisciplinarity.

Finally, the Dean noted that the academic sub-committee of the Budget Steering Committee had begun to review term staffing proposals. There are many contingencies at present.

Council Remarks

S. Rebelsky noted that while he applauds Steve Briscoe’s action to alert the College community of the danger associated with an approaching storm containing tornados, he noted that there was a glitch in the computer network delivery system which caused several in the community to receive their notification several hours after the storms had passed. He thanked Briscoe and Bill Francis for their identification of the problem and work to fix it. J. Meehan thanked Security and Student Affairs staff for the professional and efficient way in which they moved the students to shelter during the emergency.

B. Ferguson commented on the very successful student poster sessions held during the past Parents Weekend.

E. Willis would like the Dean to remind department chairs that, in the case of unusual burden, they may request a course release beyond standard policy.

Appointment and Review Processes for Interdisciplinary Faculty

Referring to a 4/25/06 memorandum from the Office of Interdisciplinary Studies, Interim Advisory Board to the Executive Council on “Proposed Models for Interdisciplinary Hiring”, E. Willis launched a probing discussion which began with the subject of alternative models for the appointment and review processes for interdisciplinary faculty members, which she characterized as an “elegant” solution to the variety of situations which might present themselves in the future. The discussion originally focused on the need for proposed change/addition of language in the Faculty Handbook. After considerable discussion, the Dean asked Council for the conceptual framework which could be used by him, the President, and College lawyer to draft specific language.

The President left the meeting at 2:45 p.m.

The ensuing discussion focused on the types of structures/models (composition of the review committee) which could be considered and negotiated, at the time of initial contract, which would govern the subsequent review process for a particular candidate. This flexibility of process is necessary because appointments will likely be made with a variety of teaching responsibilities; 1) appointment in a department with no teaching of courses in the curriculum of that department, 2) appointment in a department with a minority of course load in the department, and 3) appointment in a department with the majority of course load in the department. It was agreed that the size of the Review Committee for an interdisciplinary faculty member would be held to a relatively (3-5) small size.

J. Cummins noted that while the Interim Advisory Board and Executive Council have recognized that different models might suit different situations, the real question is who has the power (vote) to make the tenure recommendation within the various models. There was a general agreement in Council that it move to protect the interests of both the candidate (particularly ensuring that evaluative input by someone with expertise in an appropriate area of knowledge be sought in each case by the home department) and the department of appointment (particularly not wanting to create a situation where a department is put in a position where it could be forced to tenure someone whom it does not believe has performed adequately.

One model would have the department conduct the review just as called for in the Faculty Handbook, but to solicit input from appropriate faculty members outside the department. This could include faculty members outside the College who have appropriate expertise. This is close to the current practice and might not require any change in the Faculty Handbook.

A second model would add one or two appropriate non-departmental faculty to the tenured members of the department of appointment as the review committee.

A third model would be to constitute a review committee with one of two members of the department of appointment and one or two faculty members with appropriate areas of knowledge outside of the home department.

The general consensus of the Council was that the second model was the best compromise in terms of protection of the tenure process, the individual being reviewed, and the appointing department.

The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.

Secretary
Karen Wiese