Fred Sauls (Chair), David Baggett, Jayne Klenner-Moore, Jennifer McClinton-Temple, Joan Coffin, Marc Marchese, Trent Snider, Claire Gilmore, Charlie Brooks, Jim Dolhon, Howard Fedrick

The meeting was called to order a few minutes after 2:00 p.m. in the Lipo Room.

Ad Hoc Committee on the Faculty Scholarship.

Dr. Brooks distributed the letter that will be sent to faculty and asked for comments. The committee would like to send out the letter in Spring 2006. Dr. Sauls asked that comments be sent to Dr. Brooks within the week.

In reference to the questions recently sent to the project teams regarding the Core review, Dr. Snider distributed the report form sent to the Core 120 Project Team for use as a template. He explained the template and noted that C & T would be meeting on Dec. 9th to discuss the various meetings of the project teams.

He noted that C & T's goal was to present a rough draft of the new Core some time in April 2006.

A few members of council asked where the statements on the various project team reports came from, and Dr. Snider reported that they were culled from surveys done by C & T as well as from two faculty meetings regarding the Core. He noted that he had attended the Business School faculty meeting earlier in the day and that he and Dr. McClinton-Temple would be attending a conference on curriculum in January 2006.

Dr. Marchese reported that the evaluation of administrators has been suggested. Dr. Sauls said that was possibility for the future. It was noted that the revised student evaluation forms had been used for the first time in Fall 05 and that the results of this should be examined.

Question #1: "Should this be mandatory?" The consensus was yes, and that it would be difficult to implement if it were not. A Vote was taken. Council unanimously voted that it should be mandatory.

Question #2: "Should this be viewed as faculty 'periodic maintenance' and should we then have separate procedures to deal with 'problem faculty', or should they both be part of one larger set of procedures?" It was suggested that we already have mechanisms in place to "deal with problem faculty" and that this vehicle need not address that issue.

Question #3: "How much evaluative component should be included?" It was suggested that we look at how the business school measures scholarly progress. It was also suggested that the evaluative component point in a "positive" direction. In other words, that the thrust of the review be "how can I improve?" and not "what am I doing wrong."

Questions #4 and #5 were not discussed in great detail. Both addressed accountability. Question #4 addressed accountability in the use of college resources and question #5 addressed accountability in performance results. It was noted that the written report would help with the accounting of performance results.

Question #6: "How frequently should this occur? Do we need separate 'triggered' reviews"? Five and seven year cycles were both suggested.

After some discussion, a vote was taken.

7 votes for 5-years

3 votes for 7-years

1 abstention

As to the second part of question #6, it was suggested that such a mechanism is already in place to "trigger" a review. It was further suggested that the mechanisms in place to address serious problems with students, and possibly serious problems with colleagues do not work well and perhaps we need something else.

It was suggested that the formal evaluation begin five years after promotion.

Council will return to these questions as the Draft moves through the writing process.

Dr. Sauls announced that Dr. Bernard Healey will be replacing Dr. Claire Gilmore in Spring 06 during Dr. Gilmore's sabbatical.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:17 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennifer McClinton-Temple