Present:	Karen Brucks, Glen Fredlund, Peter Geissinger, Joyce Kirk, Pat Kissinger, Kris Ruggiero, Daad Saffarini, Kathleen Wheatley
Excused:	Sukanya Banerjee, Eduardo Douglas
Guests:	Art Brooks, Bob Jeske, Connie Jo, Kim Romenesko

1. Call to Order -- The chair, Peter Geissinger, called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in Holton 241.
2. Procedural Matters - None
3. Automatic Consent
   1. Approval of Minutes #5, 2007-2008 (January 28, 2008) -- There were no corrections to the minutes; they stand approved.
4. Old Business
   1. Spousal and Target-of-Opportunity Hiring - Peter Geissinger introduced Bob Jeske, the current chair of Anthropology, and Art Brooks, prior chair of Biological Sciences. Bob and Art attended the meeting to discuss their departments' experiences with spousal and target-of- opportunity hiring. Peter told them that the committee is interested in learning whether or not these kinds of hires have affected academic planning. Have spousal and target-of-opportunity hires altered the way departments are run? Have they affected the focus of departments?

      Bob Jeske reported that eight out of twenty faculty (four couples) are the result of spousal hiring in Anthropology. Anthropology also has experience with target-of-opportunity hiring. Bob said the department has hired only people that fill programmatic needs in the department, and that these hires went through the full interview process. In the few cases when the department turned down a spousal or target-of-opportunity hire, it has been for programmatic reasons, not because the person in question was not qualified. He said that tenure consideration could be a trouble spot if one person in the couple does not have as strong a case as the other. Peter asked whether or not these hires have affected future hiring in the department. Bob said that it was made clear that future hiring would be placed on the back burner if the department went forward with the spousal and target-of-opportunity hires.

      Art Brooks said that Bio Sci has made seven spousal arrangements and, overall, these hires have worked out extremely well. Couples have not been hired in the same year; one spouse has been hired a year or two after the other. Thus, the couple will not go up for tenure in the same year. Art said that spousal hiring has strengthened some areas in Bio Sci. He believes that departments have to be accommodating to get the best people. Bio Sci's main concern has been requests for spousal accommodations from other departments. Another issue they face is space. New faculty need offices and facilities. Bob Jeske said that Anthro shares the concern over space.

      Kathy Wheatley said that when asked to consider a spousal hire, departments are not given assurance that the hire will not affect future hiring of the department. Thus, if the spousal hire does not fit a departmental need, the department is probably not going to risk taking the person.

      Karen Brucks said that the Math Department is very happy with the two couples they hired. She said Math did not compromise their hiring direction--they got excellent people in the areas that were needed.

      Bob Jeske's parting recommendation was that hiring committees remain flexible, but that they should not take a hire just to get a hire. Art said his main concern is whether or not Biological Science's spousal hiring will affect future hires that are in their planning document.
   2. Budget Discussion - Though the committee has not been able to come up with solid ideas for solving the college's budget problems, they decided to keep this item on the agenda, given the state budget revenue shortfall.
   3. Discussion of the Master Planning Process
      1. Memo sent to the Provost and University Committee - A motion to reaffirm an e-mail vote to send a memo of concern about the master planning process to the Provost was moved, seconded, and approved.
5. New Business
   1. Review of Centers' Reports - Committee members had many questions and concerns about the Centers' reports. They felt that the reports do not provide the kind of benchmark data that is needed to evaluate whether or not Centers are doing what they are supposed to be doing. What kinds of resources do Centers have? How much of their resources are funded extramurally? How many students are served? How many lectures or events were sponsored? Is the Center focused on research, instruction, or service? What makes a Center a Center? For the next meeting Connie said she would look to see if there is any kind of policy on what constitutes a Center.
6. Adjournment - The committee adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Romenesko
Senior Administrative Program Specialist
Letters and Science Administration

 

Distribution: Dean G. Richard Meadows
Associate Deans Gajdardziska-Josifovska, O'Bryan, Schuster, Swain
Assistant Deans Weslow, Jo
Secretary of the University

Minutes #6, 2007-08.apgc