To: The Faculty

From: Waltraut Deinert for the Advisory Committee

Re: Report of the Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee with the

Faculty, Sept 19, '00

24 members of the Faculty attended including three members of the Advisory Committee (Arnold Shilepsky, Chair; Beatrice Farnsworth; Waltraut Deinert).

Sandy Shilepsky opened the meeting at 4:40. He reminded those present that the purpose of the meeting was to bring up issues and concerns that they would like the Advisory Committee to address and work on. He announced that he had been elected Chair. Kent Klitgaard is our salary representative to the Ad Hoc Salary Committee and our budget representative, Beatrice Farnsworth is in charge of distributing travel and research funds and Waltraut Deinert is the committee's representative to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. At the Board/Faculty meeting on October 6 Leslie Miller Bernal will represent the committee since Waltraut Deinert will be out of town attending a meeting. Sandy Shilepsky will represent the committee at the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board.

He furthermore announced that The Bridge Committee in consultation with the Advisory Committee has most of section 4 and 5 of the Faculty Manual ready for discussion and provisional approval by the Faculty. The sections will be placed on the web for the Faculty's perusal in preparation for a vote on Tuesday, October 3.

Candace Collmer reported that she together with Leslie Miller Bernal, and Waltraut Deinert met with President Ryerson to discuss the topic for the Board/Fac meeting. It was agreed that the discussion should focus on long range site planning for Wells College. Sandy Shilepsky then opened the floor for discussion of any issue.

Two matters were addressed which had been raised by Faculty members in email to the Advisory Committee:

1. Transportation: right now the reimbursement of gasoline and mileage when using one's own vehicle on college business is a mere 22 cents per mile. The college charges substantially more for mileage when using a college van. Reimbursement should at least be 33 cents per mile. Those present expressed their support for the use of a more diversified pool of conveyances including college vans and private vehicles.

2. Phased Retirement programs:

Faculty members at the meeting recommended that various retirement program options for Wells should be looked into. Other colleges, it was pointed out, have developed such programs as working half-time with full benefits, including continuation of the college medical plan . Keeping healthcare insurance was seen as critical. In existing programs at other institutions, college support of healthcare insurance is maintained until Medicare kicks in. TIAA- CREF can be taken out at age 55. At Cornell University the retirement plan includes various options, one being phased retirement for five years at half time teaching with full pay and full benefits. The concern was expressed that for small departments retirement plans may present a problem, however, the positive aspect for the college would be the infusion of new professionals in various fields into the faculty.

3. A third issue was raised from the floor: site planning for Wells College. A strong sense of concern was expressed on the points below.

The views expressed included the following:

a) Healthcare is in a state of crisis right now. faculty salaries need to move significantly beyond IIB2 . Moreover, it is time to improve faculty benefits as well. These issues which are vital to the faculty do not seem to get the same attention as long range building plans which could cost anywhere from 100-200 million dollars in 23-30 years. One member present considered it obscene to talk about building plans in light of very low faculty compensation in comparison with other colleges, others saw the expensive projects as incredibly insensitive. In general, faculty members voiced their disappointment in strong terms that expensive projects were being planned when the salary raise we asked for this year was not granted. It was pointed out that the members of the staff need raises as well.

b) The academic program should get priority attention and increased funding. Presently we cannot hire instructors for courses we need. Priorities need to be reviewed, was the overall sentiment.

c) The faculty has not been consulted in earlier stages of site planning. The underlying premise on which the decisions are being made is really flawed. The premise should start with the curriculum and not with the buildings on campus. Curricular implications of long range site planning are of utmost importance and should be given primary consideration. One member thought that there is an "Alice in Wonderland" quality to the present site plans. The process should take everything into consideration including alternatives to razing and not start with assumptions. The view that the Faculty should have representation and input in all stages of planning received strong support. When Barler, Campbell and the library were built, consultation with faculty took place from the start. We need an on-going organizational structure in which students, staff and faculty are represented together with the administration, members Board of Trustees and the architect to discuss and make decisions during all the stages of site planning.

d) It was pointed out by one faculty member that the masterplanning idea was unveiled last spring as an evolving vision subject to changing needs and ideas. Others voiced their impression that certain assumptions seem to already be in place. The apparent limitation of square footage for the campus was cited as an example. Repeatedly, a strong sentiment prevailed that curricular needs should inform the shape of the campus. It was acknowledged that the requirements of the disability act demand modifications to present buildings, energy costs also need to be addressed as well as student life. One member of those present called attention to the fact that at all three large public meetings there was a feeling of dissatisfaction with the extensive building plans. The only structure which the students consider totally inadequate for instructional purposes is the science building. Another faculty member argued that the design plan of a new science building requires planning of the space around it and pointed out that APPC is engaged in this process. And yet another member asked that more details be released on specific inadequacies of buildings targeted to be razed which make their continued use even with modifications impractical. Attention was also called to the fact that with the technological revolution the modes of teaching being developed by various disciplines and faculty members are in a state of change. Can buildings and sites be planned when we do not yet know the spatial instructional needs of future decades?

d) The question was raised whether the architect has given due weight to the aesthetics of space especially in respect to existing buildings which seem to be targeted for destruction. The library is considered to be an aesthetically appealing building by other architects and has received high ranking as an architectural landmark. Moreover, it is in the Historic District Record. Visitors to the campus are always impressed by its beauty. It can in no way be seen as being ugly, nor can Barnes and Campbell which were conceived as a unit. Visitors to the campus consider it very attractive and welcoming, even beautiful.

The open meeting adjourned at 6:05 PM

And here is the Report from Beatrice for the Advisory Committee to the Faculty:

Open meeting of the Advisory Committee (Hereafter referred to as Advisory)

took place at 4:30, Tues. February

20, 2001, Professor Shilepsky, Chair of the Advisory Committee presiding.

Nineteen faculty were in attendance throughout. Twenty were there for

about 15 minutes.

The status of the early retirement plan was the first item raised. In the

course of the discussion it was noted that the Advisory Committee web site

contains information regarding early retirement. Professor Shilepsky

informed the group that we are awaiting

numbers from the administration. Before any plan can be offered, Diane

Hutchinson has to price it out. Presumably, the President and some

interested board members will then look at it. Advisory hopes then to have

something to bring to the board by the May meeting. Question: Does the

administration bring the early retirement plan to the board or does the

Advisory Committee?

A question came up: is this a permanent plan or a plan for a limited, fixed

time period. Advisory is not certain at this point but it is hoped that

the plan will be renewable and on-going. What we do know is that it will

be a plan designed for tenured faculty--which is what the administration

wants. The plan is not a fringe benefit that must be offered to everyone.

In reply to the question: might it be extended to librarians and staff,

advisory responded that we are not currently working on such a plan. Other

questioners wondered if fringe benefits would continue for a part-time

person taking advantage of the plan. Advisory hoped that health benefits

would continue since the majority of the faculty responding to the

questionaire found that critical. Some colleges continue TIAA/CREF

benefits as well. One faculty member expressed skepticism that the

retirement plan could be presented to the May meeting of the board, if a

plan is not yet ready and has not yet been discussed with the board. A

faculty member recalled that the previous retirement plan was simply

announced to the faculty.

The question arose: has the salary issue come up in Advisory Committee.

Advisory explained that neither Professor Klitgaard nor Professor Bailey

could be at the meeting but they are working on a plan to go beyond 2B2.

They are trying to get to what they consider a "fair standard." When they

come up with a plan, there will be negotiation. In continuing discussion,

the question arose as to when the salary for next year would be decided.

The answer was not known. Advisory asked whether there should be a special

faculty meeting if the percentage for a raise is deemed

unacceptable? Faculty members noted that retirement plan and new faculty

appointments would probably be competing with salary issues. Advisory

believes that the faculty should request both growth and salary increase.

Advisory noted that Diane Hutchinson promised a budget meeting for the

faculty.

Question of an education position came up. The group was informed that there

were over 50 people enrolled in education certification. Currently, the

only person being replaced for next year is Professor Stasz who will be on

leave.

Question: Do we have procedures specified for visiting positions? Advisory

noted that the committee did not always interview for visiting positions.

Question: are staffing requests generated at the department level or by a

call from the Dean?

Discussion ensued concerning this question and also desirable

responsibilities for a visiting professor. As for part-timers, was it a

beneficial policy for the college to have short-term part- timers who do

not have the commitment of permanent part-timers.

Advisory recommends that no one be at Wells longer than two years without

being reviewed so that in case that visiting position becomes tenure

track, there will be a written record.

A faculty member regretted that the Dean's Council seldom meets and expressed

view that it was in this forum that new positions ued to be discussed. The

view

was that divisional chairs now have diminished input concerning new

positions. They also do not have sufficient contact with each

other. The view was expressed that the function of a chair was not clear.

The suggestion was made that the budget be worked on in the fall so that

the decisions on positiion requests could be made earlier and searches

could be conducted at national

meetings. Advisory explained that the budget used to be determined by the

size of the incoming class and the size of the overall student body--hence

the frustratingly late budget. If we are now out

of crisis, would it be possible to go to a fall budget meeting? Or will

the administration believe that they are still uncertain as to income flow

in the fall semester?

Advisory noted that we are looking at the faculty evaluation process as

well as salary, fringe benefits and retirement program. Consensus was that

the faculty evaluation form needed to be revised and faculty were requested

to send Advisory any supplemental forms they may have

devised.