Minutes of the March 2007
Faculty Meeting

Opening:

President Anderson called the meeting to order at 11:34 am.

Bruce Benson opened the meeting with prayer.

The minutes of the February 2007 Faculty Meeting were approved.

Report by the Faculty Observer to the Board of Regents

Margaret O’Leary, Faculty Observer to the Board of Regents, gave a report on the most recent board meeting, which included the action items dealing with three additional FTE to reduce class sizes, the agreement to study possible use of St. Olaf lands, the decision to try and raise the money for the rest of the science center, the decision to raise tuition and fees for next year, and RPC’s work on how the wage pool should be raised. She further reported that the Academic Affairs committee had met to continue the discussion of the two-year theme of global citizenship. She added that Karen Hansen, the director of Center for Lifelong Learning, had reported on how this theme was affecting her work with alumni and friends of the college. She stated that the committee had started planning a session for the June meeting where the entire board could be educated about the two-year theme. Finally, O’Leary explained the role of BORSC, the Board of Regents Student Committee, noting how impressed by their work she had been.

President’s Remarks:

President Anderson began his remarks by acknowledging those faculty who had recently received tenure, those who been promoted to associate professor, and those who had been promoted from associate to full professor, noting what a pleasure it was to welcome all of them to the ranks of “village elder.”

He then announced the Board of Regents’ decision to increase the comprehensive fee for the following year by 8.15% to a comprehensive fee of $38, 500. He said that he had signed a letter that had gone out to every parent and student about the increase. He then explained some of the thinking behind what he termed the reasonable yet fairly aggressive increases of the past five years. He noted that considering the college’s price tag in relation to other colleges, it is the most expensive of the Lutheran colleges, and in relation to other highly selective liberal arts colleges in the upper Midwest, it is close to the median. He concluded his remarks on the topic by noting that the letter he had sent out to parents and students stated that the college would keep the commitment to meet the need of students through financial aid.

The President then commented on a recent e-mail he had sent out to the college on the issue of what to do, if anything, with the land the college owns north of North Avenue. At present, he noted, it was leased to farmers. He explained that the Board wanted to consider whether there were better uses for it. Figuring that they could use more and better information before making a decision, they had hired the consulting wing of Boldt construction to tell them, among other things, how much the land was worth, what the different possible uses of the property were, given the relevant facts and interested parties. The consultants, he stated, would deliver their report in June. He added that in the following months there would be public forums with the consultants, and he encouraged faculty to attend and speak up if they were interested in having input in the decision.

Steve Reece stated that he appreciated the timeliness and tone of the letter that the President had sent out, noting that in the previous year, he hadn’t found out about the increase until summer, when the tuition was due.

Cindy Book asked how incoming students would find out about the increase. President Anderson said that incoming students would find out when they received their financial aid offers.

Consent Agenda:

The Consent Agenda was voted on and passed.

Action Items:

Jill Dietz, chair of CEPC, moved that 06/07-5, a proposal containing changes to the Family Studies major be approved. Kathryn Ananda-Owens proposed an amendment and Dietz accepted the amendment as a “very friendly amendment.” The motion as amended was approved.

Committee Reports:

Dietz reported on the progress and continuing activity of CEPC. She reported that they planned to bring several issues to the faculty for a vote in April, including the issue of grading practices and the academic catalogue’s marking descriptions and benchmarks, the issue of selective admissions of students to courses, proposed revisions to the multicultural studies requirements, and a variety of issues brought to the committee by the Registrar, including calendars, exam schedules, cross-listing of courses, and the transfer of credits. With respect to all of these issues, she noted that the website contained a great deal of useful information that she encouraged the faculty to review.

Matt Richey, chair of RPC, reported that the committee was rapidly approaching bringing proposals for committee restructuring to the faculty for a vote in April, thanked a number of faculty who had already contributed a great deal to discussions. Stating that he hoped the faculty would voice concerns so that the committee could take comments under advisement, he then asked for comments and conversation.

Eric Lund asked about whether the consideration of transfer credits would fall under the auspices of the off-campus courses sub-committee. He also asked whether the director of IOS should be identified and described as an ex-officio member of the sub-committee.

Richey clarified that with regard to transfer credits, they would probably be considered by the larger committee, though any sub-committee could take the issue up if it had extra time. Regarding the matter of ex-officio status, he agreed with Lund’s suggestion.

Dan Dressen asked, in reference to section “e” which stated that “the each of the elected faculty members, other than the Chair, shall be a member of at least one permanent subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee,” whether this didn’t imply that at least one member of the committee would have to serve on two sub-committees.

Richey agreed that the issue needed to be stated more clearly, but clarified that it would be possible for the Chair to be a member of one of the sub-committees; it was acknowledged, however, that the tenor’s math was correct.

Jeanine Grenberg asked whether it was correct to say that the sub-committee “may or may not” be composed of members of the committee.

Richey said that RPC felt that the sub-committees would be served best if they were staffed primarily by curriculum committee members, though in principle, it would be possible for committees to bring other members of the faculty in, e.g., the director of IOS or ARP.

Grenberg asked for clarification about whether the committee members would have the authority to appoint sub-committee members on a case-by-case basis, as necessary, and added that she liked the idea of the committee having the ability to call on faculty members who might be able to lend their expertise to specific issues.

Richey responded that RPC was thinking carefully about the language and the need for rigorous definitions, since there is an important difference between utilizing individuals who sit in on many committee meetings and identifying someone as a sitting member.

Ananda-Owens stated that she was in favor of establishing the members of the sub-committees as definitely as possible, together with a list of who was and was not serving on committees, sub-committees and task forces.

Richey responded that, in the view of RPC, it was important to distinguish between requiring and allowing committees to seek individuals outside the committee, and that while RPC didn’t want to require the committee to do this, they also didn’t want to disallow the possibility.

Maggie Odell called the faculty’s attention to the fact that it was still dealing with a model of governance that requires elections, and she wondered whether the system that was being considered was some kind of hybrid that combined elections and appointments.

Marc Robinson asked how many positions would be freed up by the proposed reconfiguration.

Richey said that the with respect to curriculum, it would drop from 15 to 12. With respect to student life, he said that 10 positions would probably be eliminated from the current configuration.

Odell stated that the present year’s nomination season had made it clear to her that the issue with committee reform wasn’t about reducing the number of people or the burden of service work, but about becoming more efficient. Related to that point, she said that the proposals could create problems for finding people to serve. She said that the student life committees being phased out had traditionally been places for junior faculty to get their feet wet working on committees. None of the remaining positions, she noted, seemed appropriate for junior faculty. She asked, in conclusion, if the committee would revisit the issue of how to get people to serve and when it is appropriate for them to serve.

Richey said that with respect to the issue of service for junior faculty, it was RPC’s opinion that it was not important to reserve seats for junior faculty, noting that they had plenty to do between teaching, scholarship, and service relating to their particular areas of expertise.

Dietz stated that it was important for the revisions to enable more interaction between the Dean of the Faculty and the curriculum committee, in light of the fact that the Dean had access to FTE, enrollment plans, money matters etc. She asked further whether Richey had any insight into how the Dean wanted to interact with the proposed new committee.

Richey said that consolidating committees would make it easier for the Dean to have one place to go for such conversations, since in the current structure RPC and CEPC met at the same time. He acknowledged that he was not sure how the Dean felt about the proposal, personally, though his sense was that he was generally supportive.

Mary Carlsen said that in the language of the proposal under the general purpose of the curriculum committee there was helpful clarity regarding to whom the committee was responsible. She asked whether equally clear language could be added to the student life committee proposal.

Richey said that the committee would work on the language but noted that role of the faculty in student life is different than the role of faculty in curriculum review and more vague, and that the proposal was trying to be cautious about appearing as if it was extending the faculty’s power.

Dressen asked whether the athletics schedule committee would be subsumed by the student life committee. Richey said that it would.

Bob Entenmann said that he appreciated the language in the proposal that clarified that the student life committee’s primary function would be advisory. He also asked if the phrase “make recommendations where necessary,” should be present in sections “v.” and “vi.” Richey said that the language would be added.

David Nitz requested that the proposal delineate more clearly what the student life committee would be responsible for initiating.

Greg Kneser said “Academic Integrity” might be a good example of an issue that would be initiated or “driven” by the faculty.

Ananda-Owens asked whether the members of the committee who hear student appeals disciplinary proceedings would be an equal number of students and faculty, and whether all members would have an equal vote.

Richey said that an answer was not implied in the proposal and the issue was not yet resolved, though he thought it was possible that it would be something that the committee, once constituted, itself could resolve.

Ananda-Owens replied that she would prefer that the issue was resolved before the proposal came up for a vote.

Announcements:

President Anderson announced that a commencement speaker for the year had been selected, Mark W. Olson.

Carlsen announced that the department of Social Work would be holding a conference during the following week on disasters at home and abroad, to celebrate the 30 th year anniversary of the department.

Grenberg announced that the following Thursday, David Schodt would be giving the Mellby lecture at 7:30 in Viking Theater.

Caroline Anderson announced that the Phi Beta Kappa Visiting Scholars lecture would be given by Raymond J. DeMallie on March 15 th at 4:00 pm.

Judy Kutulas announced that Women’s History month was beginning.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:33.

Respectfully submitted,

Jamie Schillinger