ࡱ> TVSY uNbjbj *b\\uFLLLLL```` lD`,.000000$TLTLLi"LL..,j?0 .  L >,$>RTT  > : Minutes of meeting of Committee of Committees, 11 December 2003. Katie Hauser, chair of CFG, opened the meeting at 3:30. The chairs of each committee seated around the table were asked to speak in turn about their experiences with the administration this term. CAPT Roy Ginsberg, chair of CAPT: Relations with the administration have been good. President Glotzbach has been to the committee several times. Discussions on the appointment of the DOF have been intense, with good give and take. The President has shown an eagerness to understand, has been receptive to queries, and has been a good listener. Lary Opitz (CAPT): Things bode well for the future. We will be discussing procedures and goals with the President. There has been a give and take of sorts because CAPT is responsive to the fact that this is only the beginning of the Presidents journey here. This attitude may change going into his second year. Question (Mehmet Odekon): It was understood that there would be a national search for the DOF. What happened? Roy Ginsberg: A review process will be in place that will mean a review of Chuck Josephs performance sooner rather than laterin his third year rather than his sixth, as the Faculty Handbook stipulates. In the end, it wasnt CAPTs decision to make; we gave the President the strains of thought, as we understood them, from the faculty. Lary Opitz: We were only recommending to him, with the sense of the faculty. Question (Reg Lilly): Will this be Chucks first year of the three, then? Roy Ginsberg: Yes, this is his first of three, and there will be a full review as the Faculty Handbook stipulates, but after three years rather than six. Question (Grace Burton): What did the Board of Trustees think? Roy Ginsberg.: They cleared it. John Anzalone (CFG): Having been on CAPT, I can say that administrative reviews have been conducted less frequently than one might wish. Question (Grace Burton): When was the last review of an administrator carried out? Are there not administrators who are in their sixth years but are not being reviewed? Roy Ginsberg: In two cases, there are individuals who are approaching retirement. CAPT has made it clear that we wish to adhere to the six year process of review. We have had discussions with the President about two administrators due for review, and we have made him understand that we wish to stick to the six year process. Karl B. and Don McCormack are due for review. We are seeking clarification on Dons possible retirement. We dont want to push the President too hard. We are seeking a balance between respect for the process and the Presidents wishes. Comment (Michael Arnush): The absence of a national search in the case of the VPAA/DOF is an anomaly, and it would seem that the President expects national searches in all other cases. Question (Mary Stange): Has there been addressing of gender issues? We have now two white guys running the College, at a College aware of the issue of gender equity. Roy Ginsberg.: We are cognizant of that, yes. Comment (Reg Lilly): The current Dean of Students assumed his position, without any search, from having been Associate Dean of the Faculty. Comment (Grace Burton): And he has not been reviewed. Comment (Murray Levith): We dont seem to have a tradition when there is a senior administrative position. What role will CAPT or this committee have in discussing, advising, and so on? Comment (Mary Correa): The relationship of the Academic Vision to how these offices become restructured needs to be raised. Roy Ginsberg.: The President did not mention the Strategic Plan, nor VISTA, in his description of doubling the. CEPP Gordon Thompson, Chair of CEPP: Things have been going fairly well. We ironed out a disagreement with the DOF office. He wanted to bring in both Associate Deans to our retreat, and I quickly polled the faculty, and then came to a resolution of it. Comment (Grace Burton): Thats interesting. In the presidential search, there were interviews with chairs of faculty committees, and there were deans present for those interviews. It seems to be a pattern. Gordon Thompson.: Chuck relies a great deal on these deans. But it seems inappropriate for them to be present at so many faculty committee meetings. Comment (Grace Burton): I agree. Comment (Gordon Thompson) For a period of time, an associate dean (Sue Bender) actually sat on CEPP. FPPC Mehmet Odekon, Chair of FPPC: The minute the academic year starts, there is only one thing on the mind of FPPC members: to bring the end of the year with dignity. With the five budget drivers spelled out, we now have parameters for a budget. In the second semester, we have to assign numbers, and that is when the trouble always begins. The two times we have come into contact with the administration so far have been on the faculty floor and when FPPC had a meeting with the Presidents Staff. To this point, relations have been quite positive, to the extent that the President himself expressed the desire to have the motion on benefits brought to the faculty floor. There has been a much more peaceful atmosphere, and he said we have no objections to what you are saying. Our suggestions on the first preamble, on salary adjustment plans were taken very well. I hope that when the GSA figure is decided upon, there will be a continuation of that good will. Gove Effinger, (CFG): Mehmet, as you know, a subcommittee of CFG is looking into FPPC, as a result of years of people saying how bad it is. Should we still be pursuing that? Mehmet Odekon: Oh, yes! These are matters where administration must be responsible, accountable, and transparent. Much more power is given to the faculty when the administration presents things directly to the faculty. We are lucky this year to have two business people with expertise on the committee. Kate Leavitt, (CFG): This is one of the things we are looking at on CFGexpertise. Mehmet: Well, I do not recommend that for FPPC. It would turn into a business-department-only committee. Kate Leavitt (CFG): Do you think a strong IPC is the way to go? Mehmet Odekon: Yes, and FPPC should be a subcommittee of that group. Question (Murray Levith): If Karl will be returning, does it make sense to have a new FPPC in place? Kate Leavitt (CFG): Should the President be on the committee? Mehmet: What point would that serve? Comment (Reg Lilly): Perhaps there has been a problem with personalities? Mehmet: Yes, but not only. It is a demoralizing exercise in futility to which no one should be subjected. John Anzalone (CFG): FPPC/IPC have been dysfunctional for too long. Even under the Porter presidency, efficiency was nil. Under Jamie Studley, the ineptitude was also bad. And the new president is unpredictable. We would like to build a model under which the planning stages. We need to bring the committee structure closer to the decision-making. If IPC/FPPC is under the President, that would make it difficult for the President to reject recommendations out of hand. Mehmet: I am sure that this honeymoon will not last; next spring it will end, and I do not want the faculty to be in the position of taking blame for the budgets. Benefits Reg Lilly, Benefits Committee: I am happy to report that the President solved a personnel problem on our committee expeditiously, within 36 hours, in fact, of arriving here. And relations have otherwise been good. Part of the reason for that is that there is a direct conduit from Mike Hall to the President, and information is not going first through Karls Byzantine office. Bret Ingerman was serving on our committee in Mike Halls place, and I challenged Brets credentials and recommended that he be removed from the committee. Karl would not move on this. I sent a letter to the President on Tuesday and by Thursday Bret was off the committee. It was handled decisively, and the President showed up at our next meeting to go through our recommendations. It was a matter of non-academic administration. What does CFG have to do with this? Gove Effinger (for CFG): Actually, there was specifically in the Faculty Handbook a text that was under dispute, and we were in fact involved in this. It came down to one word: appropriate. Reg Lilly: I was told by the administrators, however, that the faculty handbook is for faculty. We are not bound by it. Administrators in general find faculty governance to be a huge waste of time. Comment (Michael Arnush): They do because it holds them to account in ways they dont think are right or that make them uncomfortable. All College Council Mark Huibregtse, faculty rep from ACC: ACC has not met at all this semester. It is scheduled to meet next week. This is unusual. Jamie used ACC quite effectively. And student leadership is frustrated that the committee is not meeting. Tim Burns (CFG): Yes, I know that (SGA president) Scott Minkoff is frustrated about this. Mary Stange (CFG): The Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee has not been meeting either. Comment (Mary Correa): I dont usually have a high level of trust, but I have to say that this guy has been very busy in his first six months here. Committee on Admissions and Student Aid Mark Hoffman, chair of CASA: Things have been just fine in our dealings with Mary Lou. Committee on Academic Freedom and Rights Kate Graney, Chair of CAFR: Business has been conducted with no problems. Curriculum Committee Mary Correa, chair of Curriculum Committee: Our dealings with the administration have been primarily with Sarah Goodwin, Associate DOF, and have been fine. Faculty Development Committee Peter Stake, Chair of FDC: The Committee has decided to get faculty feedback on development. We are trying to figure out questions that may lead to recommendations beneficial to the faculty. There is money there, but people are not applying for it, and we want to learn why not. The question is, how to proceed? What are the reasons faculty are not applying? We know it isnt a lack of faculty interest in research assistance. Institutional Planning Committee Grace Burton, Chair of IPC: There was one meeting called, when I happened to be away. This Committee is not dysfunctional, but non-functional. (President) Phil (Glotzbach) wanted to know the history of IPCs problems; he wanted to know the history of how our planning came to be. But this is the only contact we have had with the administration. The one issue that has come up has been the Environmental Committee, which needs to have one of IPCs members appointed to it, by the President, as a representative. Katie Hauser (CFG): We recently contacted the President about that, and he has made the appointment. Grace Burton: Oh. Well, this is the first that I have heard about it. As you can see, theres a problem. Mark Huibregtse (for IPC): The one meeting we had was about the Hockey Team decision, and then the agenda for the year was mentioned. Gove Effinger (CFG): There is a logistical problem in IPC and ACC not meeting at all this semester. There is no one up in (President) Phils office who is aware of the need to set up these meetings. Comment (Gordon Thompson): The most disquieting aspect of the meeting was that the President had not read the strategic plan. Grace Burton: At a meeting of the Governance Advisory Council (GAC), (DOF/VPAA) Chuck (Joseph) had indicated that hed be getting in touch with me about a meeting of IPC, and he did not. Gove Effinger (CFG): We (CFG) have been concerned about this too. A centerpiece of what we told him at our meeting last week was that in a redone governance structure, the IPC would be the central planning committee, right under the Presidents Staff, where decisions actually get made. The President has offered to meet with us very frequently, each week in fact, next semester, to work out the restructuring of faculty governance. He is committed to working with CFG to get our governance structure running smoothly and efficiently. Comment (Reg Lilly): There were real functional problems at IPC, one of them being massive rotation of faculty through the committee, and institutional memory was consequently the preserve of the administrators on the committee. Any restructuring would have to address this problem. Gove Effinger (CFG): We are definitely thinking about this. One of the models we are looking at would be a centrally powerful Faculty Committee, working with all the other committees Grace Burton: Another problem on IPC is that the (previous) Presidents guest list was enormous. Faculty were engulfed by administrators. We had some struggles with (former President) Jamie (Studley) on that. And since it is the Presidents committee, the President can invite whomever he or she wishes. Question (Mehmet Odekon): This brings to mind a question that I have for CFG. We had a faculty-only meeting a few weeks ago, and the VPAA/DOF was there. Why? Tim Burns (CFG): We invited the deans of the faculty to be there. Question (Murray Levith): Bob DeSienno was there too. Why? Katie Hauser (CFG): Well, he had not been invited. Only the deans were. We dealt earlier in the semester with the issue of what constitutes a faculty meeting. Gove Effinger (CFG): We sent out a request for agenda items, and then, looking at the agenda that developed, we deliberated about which administrators, if any, should be invited. We decided that the two agenda items were of great importance to the DOF office. Mary Stange (CFG): (President) Phil (Glotzbach) mentioned to us when we met with him that he finds the faculty-only meetings divisive, and at odds with his notion of collaborative leadership. Kate Leavitt: I heard his remark a little differently; he is looking for trust. Faculty Observers Michael Arnush, Faculty Observer to the Board of Trustees: This group should consider what the role of Faculty Observers to the Board should be. (Past President) Jamie (Studley) had felt comfortable asking faculty members to speak to the Board. There appeared to be an expectation created that faculty observers should speak. (President) Phil (Glotzbach) contacted us immediately about our report on the October Board meeting. He wanted changes in the language in our report, not only on what Board members had said, but in the spin put on what was said. We ironed those out. Two issues we have raised with him and have not heard back on yet: what is the role of faculty observers? What is the administrations position on faculty members of the Board? Murray Levith, Faculty Observer to the Board of Trustees: Id add that observers in the past observed and attended only the general meeting of the Board. Now the observers attend all the meetings, and Board members wish to talk to us. Second, Id like to point out that Presidents Palamountain and Porter got together with us before we wrote up our reports. Michael Arnush: We should note that the faculty voice was not reported to the Board last spring, nor was there any willingness to hear about discontent (with the flat GSA). Barbara Black alone said something about the facultys discontent. It became public only at the informal meetings we had with Board members on Friday morning. Comment (Lary Opitz): It might be important for the Board to hear the facultys vote on the recommendation of FPPC. Comment (Mehmet Odekon): There is something we need to think about. Is it productive to bring the recommendations (of FPPC) to the floor of the faculty for a vote? Or is there another, better mechanism to make our judgment known to the Board? Michael Arnush: The faculty observer could be a voice of the faculty. Comment (Murray Levith): One of the differences nowand maybe this is only due to the fact that the committee system isnt working so wellis that we used to make policy. The financial aid budget was something the faculty talked about. We faculty used to read the folders of the candidates. No longer. Similarly, on FPPC, decisions are made by the VP for Finance. The College is bigger, there are more administrators, and maybe that has to be. But this is something to keep in mind when we are looking at reform of governance. Michael Arnush: We seem to have two meetings for faculty, neither of which are faculty-only meetings. I understand the need to invite deans when there is a question for them, but they should hear the deliberation about it, for twenty minutes or so, and leave. Comment (Reg Lilly): I have been on the academic support staff advocacy group. They want a forum too, but have no CFG to organize them. Gove Effinger (CFG): We are already working on this issue, with Jim Chansky and others. Comment (Roy Ginsberg): Are we going to keep having meetings at the Tang? The venue seems designed to depoliticize the event. Comment (Gerry Erchak): I went to Chuck (Joseph) and John (Brueggeman) to complain about it, and they both told me that everyone loves it. (Many voices suggesting great disapproval of holding faculty meetings at the Tang.) The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 by Katie Hauser. Respectfully submitted, Tim Burns Addenda, 1/04 (Katie Hauser) Faculty expressed concern that the imminent (Summer 2004) retirement of John Ramsey, Dean of Studies, has not yet been an official/public topic of conversation on canvas, and amongst faculty. We agreed that this would be a good opportunity to re-visit the function of the Dean of Studies office, which may help identify qualified candidates for the Deans position. Katie Hauser reported, on behalf of CFG, that interactions with administration had basically been fine this semester. Phil had visited CFG twice, and the committee feels somewhat optimistic about working with him in the future. In general, the committee agrees that we need to give the new president time to settle into his job, yet we also have expectations of him vis--vis faculty governance that he is not yet fulfilling. A AuN h x6h xAB  d e  b c ,-$a$$a$-bcvwfglmgh78$a$$a$UV[\"#WX  J K !!`!a!!$a$$a$!!##K$L$U$V$%R'''h(i(1)2)))))**++z+{+,,9,$a$$a$9,:,,,,, - -- -----////112222 3 333R4$a$$a$R4S455+7,7H8I8993:4:::;;R;S;;;<<==>>#>$>?$$?BBCCKtNuNgd x$a$(/ =!"#$%  s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH <`< NormalCJ_HmH sH tH 8@8  Heading 1$@&5>@>  Heading 2$$@&a$5DA D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List 4B@4 Body Text$a$PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭VvnB`2ǃ,!"E3p#9GQd; H xuv 0F[,F᚜K sO'3w #vfSVbsؠyX p5veuw 1z@ l,i!b I jZ2|9L$Z15xl.(zm${d:\@'23œln$^-@^i?D&|#td!6lġB"&63yy@t!HjpU*yeXry3~{s:FXI O5Y[Y!}S˪.7bd|n]671. tn/w/+[t6}PsںsL. J;̊iN $AI)t2 Lmx:(}\-i*xQCJuWl'QyI@ھ m2DBAR4 w¢naQ`ԲɁ W=0#xBdT/.3-F>bYL%׭˓KK 6HhfPQ=h)GBms]_Ԡ'CZѨys v@c])h7Jهic?FS.NP$ e&\Ӏ+I "'%QÕ@c![paAV.9Hd<ӮHVX*%A{Yr Aբ pxSL9":3U5U NC(p%u@;[d`4)]t#9M4W=P5*f̰lk<_X-C wT%Ժ}B% Y,] A̠&oʰŨ; \lc`|,bUvPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!R%theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] uFbuN(-!9,R4m?3KuN)*+,-./0[[[[/t:CwF?x?CwF8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagstime9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate  111215172003305DayHourMinuteMonthYear    ireijocghmt z , 2  \bci9?X^  \b"agT[VYi l C!I!!!""#%#$$P(Y(y(~(i)n)**5/8/11>2222(3.353=355"5+5,6266677#9)96::::;;;;<X<Y<_<E=K===??@@oAvABB@BJBwFtFwFZZ``?@ABDEFGHIJLMNOPQRURoot Entry Fpߪj?W1Table2 WordDocument*bSummaryInformation(CDocumentSummaryInformation8KCompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q