EPAG Minutes

Thursday, February 23, 2006

8:00

Humanities 309

 

Beth Cleary,  Caroline Ettinger, Andrea Johnson, Mahnaz Kousha, Gary Krueger, Ruthanne Kurth-Schai (Chair),  Diane Michelfelder, Jayne Niemi, Michael Schneider,  Peter Weisensel, Karl Wirth

 

  1. Minutes:  The minutes from last week’s meeting were approved after revisions and corrections. 
  2. Reminders:  We reminded ourselves to attend the study away lunch today and cross-listing lunch on March 23rd.  
  3. Department & program review schedule:  The revised version of the review schedule is done and was distributed via email.
  4. General Education Requirement Implementation document:  The document is close to being finished and ready for sub-committees.  We clarified that the EPAG representatives to the Subcommittees have a term of two years.  Beth will craft a statement that reaffirms that appointees should be committed to the spirit of the requirement. 
  5. Course approval forms:  Karl passed out draft course approval forms.  Please review them for next week’s meeting.
  6. Draft motions from Personnel committee:   The committee reviewed the draft of the motion regarding appeals.   The phrase “material violation” (something that has a bearing on the outcome) was unclear to some readers. It was agreed that the term should be defined in the guidelines.   We discussed the need for a pool of people who would be experienced in reading and judging personnel files and how to build that pool.  We agreed that an election may not be necessary if “retirees” from FPC automatically form the pool for the three years following their FPC term.   Ruthanne will communicate EPAG’s suggestions to the Personnel Committee.   
  7. Affirmative Action and Allocations:  Lin Aanonsen joined the committee for the remainder of the meeting.  First we discussed the process for allocations considerations.   Ruthanne handed out a document for EPAG members to use as they summarize cases for full committee presentation.  In the past, job descriptions have usually been finalized after the allocation has been approved.  Our interpretation of the handbook language is that departments should submit a job description as part of their allocation request so that any concerns about the job description get addressed during the allocations consideration.  This also would allow the departments to move more quickly into the search process once the allocation is approved.  We discussed the need for consistency of information in all ads, regardless of which advertising venue they are placed.  We agreed that every alternate placement or edited version of an ad should link back to the Provost’s page for the full, official description.  Also for the sake of consistency, departments should cite departmental statistics from the Fact Book.  Gary will share the supplemental tables he has provided in the past, updated as necessary. 
  8. Affirmative Action general discussion:   The committee discussed the challenges of attracting a broad enough applicant pool.  Recruitment might be more effective if started earlier, perhaps in anticipation of openings years ahead.  For example, allocations could be approved 2 years ahead of the start of the search to allow for planning and recruiting.   There are attendant resource issues.   It was suggested that the College could seek endowment funds that would support the diversification of the faculty.   We might be doing a better job of broadening the applicant pool, but are we having a positive outcome in actual hiring?  The committee discussed the fact that there hasn’t been a concentrated discussion of affirmative action issues since the 90s.  Lin related some of her concerns about the position of the Affirmative Action officer and that person’s training and relationship to the faculty.

 

 

 

 

Adjourned 9:34 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Jayne Niemi, Registrar