Minutes of the October 6, 2005 Faculty Meeting

President Thomforde called the meeting to order at 11:33 AM

Pastor Benson opened the meeting with prayer.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the September meeting of the faculty were approved.

President’s Remarks


President Thomforde reported on the Regent's Meeting. 2006 budget approved this morning by finance committee. The budget is strong and looks good; another important question is the price of a St. Olaf education and the position of that price with respect to three competing groups: other ELCA colleges, liberal arts colleges in the Midwest such as Grinnell and Carleton, and the University of Minnesota. Another question present in these discussions is how to assist the most needy and most able students. The science center campaign continues to solicit board members and donors; after June the appeal will move to the public. The Presidential search continues, represented by faculty members Mary Carlsen and David Nitz.

Order of Business

IDOCS

Mike Swift moved IDOCS 05/06-1, the approval of a new course in biology. The motion was seconded. No discussion of this motion took place; the motion to adopt this passed without opposition.

CEPC

Jill Dietz remarked that this year the task of presenting material will be borne by CEPC committee members.

Corliss Swain moved CEPC 05/06-1, which proposed four new courses. The motion was seconded. In discussion, it was stated that the proposed course, Economics 369, treated contemporary economic growth without significant historical accounts of economic growth. The motion passed, opposed by one vote.

Jo Beld moved CEPC 05/06-2, which proposed GE outcomes for the PHA requirement, proposed to be renamed Studies in Physical Movement (SPM). The motion was seconded. Jo Beld presented the context for the proposal. The proposal continues the faculty's review of GE that began in Spring 2004. A number of GE requirements were reviewed in light of changes in the college, world, or discipline from task forces; CEPC reviewed. Four working groups convened to address these requirements: PHA, MAR, NST, MCS, BTS-T. MAR and NST were considered by one working group; MCS requirements were considered by another working group; PHA and BTS-T working groups completed their drafts last year, both presented to the faculty in May 2005 meeting. CEPC is prepared to present revisions to PHA. Vigorous discussion ensued. Three types of questions were presented: grading, the number of quarter-credit classes offered, and clarification of the proposal itself.

First, Ed Langerak expressed concern about grade inflation in PHA courses and wondered whether they should become uniformly pass/no pass. Jo Beld responded that grading practices were not addressed in the workgroup. Anne von Bibra responded that many dance classes are already pass/no pass.

Second, Ed Langerak, David van Wylen, and Robert Jacobel, and Ted Johnson expressed similar concerns that the proposed PHA revisions would decrease the number of quarter-credit classes offered, which would create scheduling conflicts for students who take courses with labs or take music lessons. Workgroup members from Physical Education and Dance (Cindy Book and Heather Klopchin) responded that most quarter-credit courses already satisfy the requirements or would do so with some revision and would not decrease the number of quarter-credit courses available. Jo Beld also indicated that the workgroup attended to the course-taking patterns of students and that the proposal does not eliminate quarter-credit courses but indicates that half-credit courses will satisfy the requirement.

Third, Matt Rohn, Jeanine Grenberg, and David Van Wylen asked questions and expressed concerns about the proposal itself. One question is to what the outcome "competence in physical movement" refers. Members of the workgroup explained that this means that students will improve their competence throughout the course. Clarification was also requested for the requirement that students engage in "another mean of activity or mode of movement." Members of the workgroup responded that this means that this requirement intends that students should have different experiences of physical motion. Jo Beld responded that this differentiation would be determined ultimately by GEC in consultation to the individual department. The final question about the proposal was whether the requirement stressed the cognitive over the physical. Cindy Book demonstrated how physical movement and cognition interact by having the faculty rise to stand on one foot.

After the faculty sat down, the motion passed with opposition.

Athletic Committee

Wes Pearson presented a survey constructed with the help of Susan Canon regarding class time missed by student athletes. The full results of the survey are on reserve at the Rolvaag Memorial Library. The committee had no motion to present to the meeting for any actions with respect to this report. Discussion followed and Jeanine Grenberg requested that faculty should receive advance notice for absences. Both Wes Pearson and Matt McDonald expressed willingness to cooperate and to explore whether an official announcement might come from the Athletic Director's Office at the beginning of each semester.

Wes Pearson moved the adoption of the winter sports schedule; it was seconded and passed unanimously.

RPC

Matt Richey presented the issues discussed by RPC: the structure of committees, budget and compensation, and the faculty manual. Three sub-committees have been established on each issue. RPC meets every other week; sub-committees alternate between meetings.

First, concerning the faculty handbook, RPC will have a leave policy to present to the November faculty meeting. There are a variety of leaves to consider. Other areas of concern are: scientific misconduct and intellectual property issues. RPC welcomes input on these issues. Next, RPC plans to present a proposal for a new committee structure at the December faculty meeting in response to a 2002 recommendation for reconsideration of faculty governance. Building on past work, it appears that there are four areas: curriculum, faculty life, planning, and student life. Finally, RPC is charged to steward compensation of faculty members. It appears that practice and policy do not correspond at the College and RPC hopes that a broad discussion can begin about the relation of workload to compensation.

Provost's Remarks


Provost May yielded his time to Jo Beld for her announcement.

Announcements

Jo Beld announced an initiative on the GE learning outcomes. The Office of Academic Research and Planning, CILA, and ISSL committee all are sponsoring opportunities for faculty to examine the GE learning outcomes and to discuss ways to assess the outcomes in specific GE requirements.

The meeting adjourned at 12:34 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Gregory A. Walter