Faculty Development Committee- St. Olaf College
Minutes for meeting of 20 March 2007
Present:
Jeanine Grenberg, chair |
Dan Hofrenning, RPC representative |
Doug Beussman |
Matt Richey, RPC representative |
Tony Lott |
Patricia Martin, ex-officio |
Tim Mahr |
Arnie Ostebee, ex-officio |
Irina Walter |
David Schodt, ex-officio |
Jonathan Hill, RPC representative |
The meeting was convened at 8:30 am in Buntrock 221
Jeanine introduced the concerns of the meeting and the rationale for the invitation extended to RPC. It was noted that the following questions have been raised throughout this academic year concerning FDC:
What role is FDC to play in terms of a policy-making body?
What are the various components of FDC?
It was proposed that St. Olaf undertake a program review of faculty development that would constitute something larger than FDC.
The question was raised as to whether FDC should initiate a discussion on the floor of the May faculty meeting as to the direction of faculty development. The concern was that FDC should be involved in discussions with RPC regarding faculty governance before a faculty-wide discussion took place.
Matt informed FDC that RPC has reserved changes to faculty life for the fall of 2007.
Dan made the point that governance questions should include how money is being spent and that external consultants would be helpful in assessing the distribution of funds question.
Matt raised the issue that a program review should work with RPC and other committees.
Jonathan discussed the need for general sources of funding to be available to the faculty so as to broaden the intellectual pursuits on campus.
Tim raised two questions that should be discussed during a program review: How do we bring policy oriented issues to the larger faculty? What is the best venue for airing such issues so that they are successfully advertised?
The committee and RPC representatives had a general discussion of the merits of doing a program review at the point in the faculty governance change process. In addition, RPC representatives raised concerns about the current state of faculty development as administered through FDC (the granting process, purview of the committee, etc.)
The final issue discussed was a discussion of who would take ownership of the campus-wide program review. Arnie pointed out that such a program review would involve a large work load.
The committee and the RPC representatives agreed that the document detailing a program review should come before the whole faculty- that the audience should be as broad as possible. Jeanine raised the issue that FDC hopes RPC would consider putting off a decision about faculty life committee restructuring until the results of the self-study are complete.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25
