Council Met on Friday, April 16, 1999 at 2:30 p.m. in the History Seminar Room.
Present: Dr. Barry Beedle, Dr. Bob Blake, Dr. Ann Bolin, Dr. Steve
Dr. Brian Digre, Dr. Julianne Maher, Dr. Buck McGregor, Dr. David Nawrocki,
Prof. Fred Rubeck, Dr. Debbie Thurlow.
Approved the minutes of the March 19, 1999 meeting.
Discussed Academic Council spring retreat scheduled for May 8, beginning at 9 a.m.
Discussion of Proposal for Faculty Development Funding
Professor Beedle asked how the funds would be distributed to the end users. For
example, would they be first distributed to deans according to a formula and then
be distributed to faculty at the discretion of the deans? He expressed a desire that
at least some of the faculty development funds would be available to every Elon faculty
member without requiring a dean's approval for their use.
Dr. Maher recapped how the present faculty
development funds are distributed and
indicated that she has voiced Dr. Beedle's concern in meetings with the deans. She
indicated that the deans have expressed willingness to publish guidelines for use
by their faculty, describing the policies for using faculty development funds.
Dr. Blake asked about the ability to carry
unused funds over to the next year in order
to fund travel to a more distant or more expensive meeting. Dr. Braye asked that the
amount allowed to be carried forward be at least $500 and asked for additional
clarity on how this will be handled. Dr. Maher indicated that she will give broad dollar
amounts to the deans and that they will communicate guidelines to the faculty.
The General Studies component will be under the control of Dr. Tom Tiemann,
director of General Studies.
Discussion of the Academic Technology Initiative
[Point numbers in this section refer to the Academic Technology Initiative Draft
that was distributed to Council members with their agenda packet.]
Dr. Maher explained the Initiative as follows:
Points 4 and 6 would be new additions to Academic Computing.
Points 1, 4, and 6 combined represent approximately $100,000 in total which will
continue from year to year. Points 2, 3, and 5 are directly related to each other
and comprise the effort to make the freshmen year more technologically
intensive and help new students become more comfortable with using the
College's technology. The G.S. Program will be asked to set up a task
force to start more pilot projects in the fall.
Point 7 will improve media access. All of Elon's Internet access now goes through
Guilford, and this needs to be changed. A single T-1 line will probably not be
Point 8 affects the registrar, Datatel, and registration.
Point 9 will be an investment in the computer labs, beginning with the Model
Point 10 will provide $120,000 for computers for individual faculty members and
$50,000 for classroom data projection equipment.
Dr. Braye pointed out that some of the $607,000
in the initiative is not new money. It
includes items from various existing budgets plus some year-end money. However,
points 1 through 7 are mostly new money.
Dr. Blake asked how the proposals would be
chosen. Dr. Maher said that this would
be done by a subcommittee of the Dean's Council, including some faculty representation.
She also clarified point 1 by explaining that some of the funded proposals can be much
less than $5,000. The $5,000 represents the upper limit for these proposals.
Dr. Maher stated that we need more support
that is specifically for students. That is
the intent of point 6. For example, we need more information handouts for students,
and we need a Power Point specialist who is accessible to students.
Dr. Bolin suggested that Elon 101 be better
used for introducing students to technology.
Dr. Maher pointed out that two hours of the freshman orientation would be devoted to
technology and the library.
Dr. Braye suggested that Academic Council request
feedback from ATAC regarding
the Kaludis report. He believes more dialog is needed between Council and ATAC.
Dr. Digre indicated that there should be greater
opportunities and greater expectations
for faculty to learn technology. He feels that there should be many small grants,
designed to get all faculty up to speed, including those whose grant requests
might seem less sophisticated than others -- in fact they might be the ones who need
it most. Drs. Digre and Bolin felt that a large number of summer stipends might be the
best use of these funds.
Dr. Maher summarized the discussion and indicated
that she might appoint an Academic
Council member to serve on the review committee for the Academic Technology
Discussion of Department Chairs Subcommittee Report
Dr. Braye indicated there was very little difference between the current version and
the last draft that was seen by Council. He also said that some of the items in the
report have already been started. Additional course releases and summer stipends
have already begun.
Dr. Digre suggested asking Dr. Maher to report
back to Council next year regarding
the implementation of the report.
Council agreed to accept the report in its
present form and to present it to the faculty
but to remind everyone that the items in the report are in no way guaranteed to happen.
The report represents guidelines, not formulas.
Discussion of Graduate Programs
Dr. Braye asked the members to consider how much time and energy should be
committed to graduate programs.
Prof. Rubeck indicated that a subcommittee
chaired by Dr. Maher had met with
President Lambert. Dr. Lambert had said that we should all get together and decide
on the appropriate place for graduate programs in Elon's future.
Dr. Maher said that President Lambert had asked
the Long-Range Planning Committee
to draft guidelines to help in making these decisions in the future. There needs to be a
general forum to discuss this issue, preferably before the Senior Staff retreat on June 1.
We should not make any decision on any individual graduate program proposals until
we have placed the issue into a larger context that will help in arriving at the best
Dr. Braye suggested discussing this issue
at the next (May) faculty meeting. He will
discuss this possibility with Dr. Francis.
Discussion of Academic Council s Spring Report to the Faculty
The draft report was discussed and accepted with minor corrections.
It was mentioned that there is still some lack
of clarity as to who is and is not a member
of the faculty.
Council discussed the fact that Shared Governance
needs representation for non-teaching
faculty. It was suggested and approved by consensus that Jim Donathan and Connie
Keller be asked to represent the non-teaching faculty.
Discussion of the Committee Assignment Worksheet
Dr. Bolin presented a slate of nominees for the various college committees. She then
explained the lengthy and careful process of sorting out the many who had volunteered
to serve on various committees. Each volunteer was given a committee nomination
that was either his/her first choice or second choice, and diversity issues were carefully
considered throughout the process.
Council unanimously approved the slate presented by Dr. Bolin s committee.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Return to Academic Council