· Faculty Council Chairman Fred Sauls called the meeting to order a little after 2:00 PM and shamelessly plugged the man he believes to be the greatest American scientist ("Beer is proof that God exists and wants us to be happy" – Benjamin Franklin).

Fred surrendered the floor to Barbara Sauls who asked faculty to please send their baby pictures (of themselves) to her for use in the Faculty Celebration. (From here on referred to as the zeroth order of business).

· C&T chairman Trent Snider then took the floor and assured those present that the succession plan of C&T was safe since Jeremy Simington was not present (Trent did not elaborate on whether Jeremy’s absence was planned for that purpose).

Trent proceeded to the first order of business: the explanation of the Core Revision Review document he emailed to all faculty on Wednesday, March 29.

· Points Trent made that are not contained in the document:

* Trent saw the faculty meeting as a place to note comments about the proposed CORE and clarify any language used in the document, not necessarily a place to debate the CORE. A debate of the CORE then followed.

* Not all decisions placed in the document were unanimous C&T decisions, but many were.

* 1/3 to 1/4 incoming freshmen are required to take CORE 099

· Trent then opened the floor for faculty comments. A detailed list of these comments can be obtained from Jennifer McClinton-Temple, who will report the conversation back to C&T.

· A suggestion to have a show of hands to see what fraction of faculty supported Plan A (limited student choice) or B (broader student choice) as detailed by C&T’s document and Trent’s presentation was made at about 3:00. The vote was actually carried out at about 3:30.

* In short: Plan A: keep CORE similar to its current structure, with a few tweaks. Plan B: keep CORE approximately the same size, but have fewer requirements, thereby producing more electives. (In long: refer to C&T’s Core Revision Review document)

* The vote produced about an equal showing of support for both plans. No attempt was made to count due to the close-to-even split, but many rumors of which won floated. I like unfounded rumors as much as the next guy, but Trent said he observed Plan B was the winner.

Second order of business: "Recent administrative merger of the Neuroscience program into the Psychology Department" (quote taken from Social Science Division March 24, 2006 Minutes)

· Main question: to place the following motion to the Faculty Meeting:

In light of the process that excluded faculty, the combination

upon by the Faculty Meeting.

· Points made by main speakers, in order of their having the floor:

Fred Sauls: As Nick Holodick defended the awarding of tenure to the Board of Directors, the Board asked about where tenure lies. They would apparently prefer that it be in departments (in point of fact, the Handbook explicitly states that it lies in departments or programs. Thus, much of this may be laid at the feet of their error).

This precipitated making public the decision to move the Neuroscience program into the Psychology department. This change involved removing the title of Program Director from Joan Coffin. The process of doing this was handled unprofessionally, especially in doing so without consulting her. The administration has apologized and promised not to repeat the error of inadequate consultation.

In a Faculty Council meeting attended by Drs. Holodick, Coffin, and Brooks, Council proposed that the decision stand, but be reviewed after one year. This was deemed acceptable and approved by Council vote.

After that meeting, Fred received a memo from the Social Science Division asking for the motion quoted above to be put in front of the Faculty Meeting. He also summarized the contents of an email received from Dr. Coffin (cf. infra).

Charlie Brooks: Said he was consulted by the administration about the merger before the decision was made. Charlie then laid out reasons why the merger would be good for King’s College including improved communication about the program, ease of planning courses, and cost savings. The union itself involves no change in either department’s program or goals.

Nick Holodick: Admitted the process was handled poorly by the administration, and they have apologized. However, the administration stands behind its decision, because they feel it is best for King’s College.

Brian Pavlac: Spoke for Social Science Division (see their minutes emailed to all faculty by Charlie Brooks on March 30, 2006). Brian said that his division thought it is highly unusual and even wrong (as written in the Faculty Handbook) for administration to make program changes without the consultation of all involved faculty. Therefore, the recent administration decision should be negated.

Jean O’Brien: A program directorship was removed from a qualified person for no reason that was discussed with her. Further, not all members of the affected programs were consulted before the decision was made. Further, the arguments made by Charlie Brooks at the Faculty meeting for the merger was the first she’d heard of them. Jean granted the point that all titles are bestowed (and can therefore be taken away) at the sole discretion of the President of the College.

Dr. Coffin was unavoidably absent. Her views are expressed in the e-mail to Dr. Sauls, appended.

· Discussion then revolved around whether during the year of review the department/program would be separate or merged. All parties agreed that following the year of review, ANY plan shown to benefit King’s College would be implemented.

· The motion quoted above was then put to the faculty, collected by a show of hands, with the clarification by the Chairperson, Fred Sauls:

*A vote of Aye would recommend that the Psychology Department and Neuroscience Program remain separate during the year of review.

*A vote of Nay would recommend that the Neuroscience Program would be merged into the Psychology Department during the year of review.

· Seven Aye votes were counted. The Chairperson noted an obvious, uncounted majority of Nay votes, so the Nay vote carried.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:15.

 

PLEASE: DON’T FORGET THE 0^TH ORDER OF BUSINESS!!!!

 

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Supkowski