(Official versions will be posted on the Academic Council web after approval at the next monthly Council meeting.)ATTENDANCE
CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF OCTOBER MINUTES
Professor Anderson called the meeting to order. Minutes were unanimously approved with two grammatical corrections and the word "allow" substituted for the word "require" in recommendation d) on the "Role of Chairs."
REPORT OF ROLE OF FACULTY IN SHARED GOVERNANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
Professor Anderson welcomed the members of the Academic Council Subcommittee on the Role of Faculty in Shared Governance. Their report will be placed on the Academic Council's web site.
Dr. Henricks, chair of the Faculty Governance subcommittee, shared an overview of the report to the Council. He thanked the subcommittee members and recognized Dr. Bissett for his work. Dr. Henricks outlined the charge and procedures and followed with a review of the various interpretations of the term "faculty" at Elon College. The first 3 recommendations involve a recognition of three levels of faculty status: academic support faculty, teaching faculty, and administrative faculty. Council inquired how the procedures for the promotion of academic support faculty (recommendation 3) would be developed. Dr. Henricks responded that additional procedures would need to be developed by a group similar to Professional Status, Promotion and Tenure (PPT). The differences between teaching faculty and academic support faculty were discussed.
Dr. Bissett gave an overview of recommendations 4-9 with regard to Academic Council's role in shared governance including: a strengthening of Council's role as the coordinating body of standing committees; term length increased to 3 years for members of the Academic Council; and 1 course release per semester for the Chair of the Academic Council. Council suggested summer compensation for Council Chair be considered given the amount of work needed to organize the upcoming academic year. Council felt that the recommendations may encourage senior faculty's participation. Discussion focused on the composition of council; the value of 3 year terms; and changing the institutional culture to bring about these changes. Dr. Bissett reviewed recommendation 9 which recommends reports of the Academic Council and Standing Committees be led by Academic Council Chair at Faculty Meeting.
Dr. Redington provided an overview of Curriculum Committee (recommendations 10-14) the major concerns of the subcommittee involves its representation, size, and communication with the faculty at large. The Curriculum Committee should be an elected body of teaching faculty. While most curriculum proposals would be developed within departments/divisions, some proposals would come from outside this structure. In these cases, appropriate department(s)/division(s) should be involved as early as possible. Council concerns included: the radical change in representation; the role of students as voting members; and equal representation with 10 teaching faculty members and 2 students. Discussion followed about the current operation of the Curriculum Committee.
Dr. Henricks discussed the recommendations regarding the relationship between the faculty and the Board of Trustees. This relationship includes: biannual meetings between Council and the Board of Trustees' Educational Affairs Committee; Council's chair as an ex-officio member of the Board; faculty members from other colleges/national organizations serving on the Board to address higher education issues; and increasing communication between faculty and the Board. Recommendations 22 and 23 relate to the President's relationship to faculty while recommendation 24 recommends that the new role of a faculty member on the Budget Committee be assessed during the 2001-2002 academic year.
An overview of Research and Development (R & D) and PPT Committees were provided by Dr. Thurlow. Changing R&D Committee's role from advisory to a decision-making body would alter the role of the Academic Vice President to that of a voting member. Recommendations concerning the PPT will come after academic restructuring is completed.
Dr. Redington provided an overview regarding committees that deviate from the general criteria of standing committees (recommendations 26-28). In recommendation 26, Athletics Committee's faculty would be elected rather than appointed. Teacher Education Committee and the Academic Appeals Committee would be removed from Standing Committees and be established as Advisory Committees (recommendation 27). Discussion of the Athletic Committee followed.
Assistant Librarian Keller reviewed the status of academic support faculty (last three recommendations). These recommendations include: nominating academic support faculty to standing committees (when appropriate); re-evaluating the role of academic support on advisory committees; and establishing a professional development and evaluation system for academic support faculty. Council's discussion touched on professional development and how academic support faculty would be evaluated.
Dr. Henricks recommended that Council not only consider the report but determine how to present the findings to faculty. His suggestions include publishing the written report or a list of Council supported recommendations. Faculty responses should be collected through a public forum, private conversation, and email. A forum with subcommittee members and faculty should be used to gather feedback.
Council considered the best way to present the report to the faculty. Professor Anderson suggested that it be posted on the Academic Council's web site and that faculty be invited to review it prior to the December meeting. Council members will be present at faculty meeting to take notes and gather input for discussion at Council's December 10th meeting. Council could then discuss faculty response, revise recommendations, and bring new recommendations to the February faculty meeting. The revised faculty governance recommendations would then be presented at the March Board of Trustees' meeting. A special Board meeting in June could provide an additional opportunity if the March deadline cannot be met. A 2-3 page list of recommendations will be attached to the December faculty meeting agenda.
Dr. Green discussed the Fall Report. Several changes have been made such as the addition of the category of professional track for the 1999-2000 academic year. Additional improvements include: a break-down of faculty rank by gender; a third category to the "Number of Courses Taught" which now shows courses taught by administrative/staff personnel in addition to full-time and part-time faculty; and the standard deviation for faculty salaries by rank, gender, and rank and gender for 1999-2000. An additional table listing average salaries by division with headcount in each division was also added.
Dr. McGregor reported on the Health Care Committee and its recommendation that 3 elected faculty representatives serve on the new Health Care Committee. The choice of non-teaching personnel will be left to the President. Three year terms for members of the new Health Care Committee has been recommended since issues are complicated.
DEVELOPING SALARY PROJECTION INCREASES
Provost Francis provided Council with a copy of the guidelines used in developing salary projection increases and briefly reviewed them. Council asked if inequity corrections are part of the pool and Dr. Francis responded that they are not. These come from a separate pool of money. Discussion ensued regarding how individual salary increases are determined in different divisions. Provost Francis reiterated that Deans are provided with guidelines used for developing salary projection along with the "Criteria for Evaluation" found in the Faculty Handbook.
The Academic Council discussed the budget priorities for the 2000-2001 academic year.
Return to 1999-2000 Minutes Page.
Return to Academic Council Homepage.