The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

LAGER Committee Minutes 11/12/15

November 30th, 2015

Final LAGER Committee Minutes 11/12/15


Meeting began with a moment of silence, 8:40am


Present: Kyle (chair), Stephanie, Suzanne, Damon, Lavon, Caleb, Drew (recording)


Regrets: Melanie, Jennie, Dale


    1. Reviewed, edited, and approved 11/5 minutes


  • Action item – Drew will post to Moon Room site


    1. Discussion of plan for Jan Term Faculty workshop
      1. What would the content/plan be?
      2. Are we in a position to execute this at this point?
      3. What faculty will be available, willing to attend?
      4. If Jan Term event not viable at this time – suggestion to roll that budget line into other things – travel to Feb. conference, etc.


  • Approved idea of sending Lavon, Stephanie, and Suzanne to the Feb. conference – will follow up with full committee next week


    1. Models
      1. Discussion of 3 vs. 4 credits
        1. SACS focused on non-traditional hour structure
        2. difficulty of balancing the amount of out of class work for 4 credit courses
        3. practical issue of moving faculty from a 3-3 to 4-4 workload
          1. added prep/workload
          2. resistance anticipated
        4. student credit hour formula would need to be changed
        5. issue of transfer credits
          1. many students transfer in 3 credit courses
          2. transfer credits often not equivalent – low or high
            1. three credit course for a required 4 credit
            2. two three credit courses for a required 4 credit
          3. articulation agreements, especially with community colleges
      2. idea to anonymize models
        1. pull out the distinct structure/qualities
        2. not list as based from individual institutions
      3. Trends
        1. themes
          1. unifying theme
          2. multiple theme tracks – problem based
          3. cohort promotion across courses
        2. many moving towards more breadth requirements, less core
        3. a few small schools strengthening core
        4. several models no distribution requirements – handled entirely through advising
        5. Intentional linkages with majors
        6. classics driven
        7. outcomes based model
        8. Wellness – whole being
        9. value of distributing GenEd throughout the four years – not just the first two


  • Action item – Kyle and Drew will work on way to present model conversation for next week


  1. Meeting ended with a moment of silence

Curriculum Committee Minutes, November 10, 2015

November 29th, 2015

Curriculum Committee-Minutes


November 10, 2015

Present: Mylene Dressler, Michael Dutch, Edwins Gwako (Chair), Martee Holt, Norma Middleton, Michele Malotky (Recorder), Beth Rushing, Karen Tinsley, Marc Williams

  1. The meeting opened at 1:03 pm with a moment of silence.
  2. Approved minutes from the November 3, 2015 meeting with minor revisions.
  3. Sustainable Food Systems Proposal: There was continued discussion of the issues surrounding the SFS major proposal.
    1. In regard to procedures/protocol for proposing new majors, it was noted that the draft of the Faculty Handbook-Appendix G, which circulated through the committee this week, has not passed the corporate faculty and therefore, cannot be used to guide our decision…we are in uncharted territory.
    2. The major was recognized as potentially providing valuable contributions to the institution in regard to reflecting the institutions mission and core values, enhancing the utilization and potentials of the farm, providing community-based principled problem solving opportunities in an area recognized as a food desert and serving to recruit and retain students.
    3. Concerns remain regarding both staffing and the lack of syllabi that are required for the major. This major represents the first new major proposal in recent history where a program is submitted and reviewed that requires an area of teaching expertise not currently available at the college.  This presents a conundrum, as standard practice has required sample syllabi for all required courses for a proposed major that are not currently in the catalog.  Suggestions were made about how this major might move forward without prior course approval.
    4. A significant concern was raised about the uncertainty as to whether a full time hire would be possible. It is the committee’s understanding that staffing concerns are not the purview of the committee as they deliberate about a program, however it is difficult to uncouple these concerns given some of the current staffing issues across campus.
    5. After significant discussion, the SFS major was approved with the following conditions:
      1. Syllabi for the three required courses should be submitted to curriculum for approval within the first semester of being offered. They can be offered as a special topics course the first semester, but should apply for a permanent number before being offered again.
      2. A sunset clause that the program approval will expire if the program is not launched and the required position is not staffed within two years.
  • Recognition that the unusual circumstances surrounding approval of the major without normal documentation constitutes an exceptional case and should not be used as a precedent for future programming decisions without strong justification.
  1. The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 with a moment of silence.


Admissions Committee Minutes, November 16, 2015

November 29th, 2015

Ad hoc Admission Committee Meeting

November 16, 2015

8:30-9:30 a.m., Career Center, King 108

Attending: Steve Shapiro, professor of physics, Michael Dutch, professor of business management, Alfonso Abad Mancheno, associate professor of foreign languages, David Hildreth, professor of education studies, Arlene Cash, vice president for enrollment management, Erin Kelly, director of admission, Cyndie Basinger, assistant to vice president for enrollment management

Steve opened the meeting with a moment of silence.  The discussion reviewed the recent Admission Open House on Sunday and Monday, November 8-9 and non-matriculant research prepared by Credo.

Overall response by faculty to the recent Open House was positive.  Lunch in the cafeteria appeared less organized than the October 23 event.  Faculty and students were not sure whether they should go to the Gilmer Room or eat in the main dining hall.  Also, table tents with names and departments would be helpful for faculty we know plan to meet students for lunch.

The library location for the academic department fair continues to be popular. Suggestions for improvement to the fair include clustering tables by division and providing maps for faculty and students.  Magnetic name badges for faculty with academic credentials would add a professional look and be well received.  Arlene would like larger first name font with academic program information added.

Invites to the fair will be sent to department chairs and copied to the division heads.  Where gaps by departments exist, division chairs will be asked to help fill in the blanks.

It would be helpful for all faculty and staff to see the schedule of activities in advance.  Possibly include an announcement in the Buzz with a link to the day(s) activities.  In addition, a short email with bullet points of call to action items for faculty could be sent to the department chair.

Hosting the event on a weekday gave families the chance to see current students mixing between classes, interacting at lunch, and class sessions.  There will continue to be positive energy from faculty if we can continue to host these events on a weekday.

Erin encourages faculty to help plan dates for next year’s Open House events.  The first Open House will be held during Homecoming on October 1, 2016.

Open house follow-up includes a hand written note from a tour guide, a phone call from an admission counselor and a thank you email for visiting.  The email is sent to parents and students with a link to Survey Monkey to provide feedback.  Comments from the November Open House indicated that the classroom experience and academic fair provided a good sense of how academic life works at the College.  The majority of respondents were more interested in Guilford after their visit.

Steve spoke to a parent who is experienced in the college search process.  His comments were that Guilford stood out from the rest of the schools he’s visited due to the Quaker ethos on campus and the faculty interaction felt genuine.  It made for a memorable visit for the family.

Next year, Erin plans to provide more activities for overnight students and more parent activities for Monday Open Houses.  She would also like to include more experiential learning experiences for class options.  She felt the academic fair in the library and offering a mega tour were positive changes for the programs.  David suggested offering time for parents to have coffee with faculty. Steve suggested timing Open Houses with other campus events such as an astronomy event or theatre production, and encouraging student organizations to host activities during afternoon hours.   Erin is working on incorporating these suggestions for spring.

Arlene presented research from the recent Credo review for 2014-2015.  These results were shared at the Budget Committee to help inform the discussion on tuition and room & board.

Almost 60% of non-matriculants are attending other private colleges.  Ninety-two percent of students would have enrolled if they had received greater than $6,000 in additional aid.  Financial and fit were reasons 25% of students said they chose to not attend.  What we need to do is help students see ways they can fit at Guilford.  Utilizing student organizations to host activities during open houses may offer prospective students opportunities to see how they too can fit at Guilford.

Comments from the research point to concerns stemming from the negative publicity over the budget deficit and faculty cuts, customer service, financial aid, and facilities.

A reduction in tuition can be perceived as desperate so we need to do a better job to educate families about the actual cost of a Guilford education.  While CCE students pay less, we don’t advertise the reduced price.  Arlene would like to be straight forward with adult pricing strategies.  If adults pay less to help Guilford serve our community, why not other underserved groups?

Arlene is in the process of designing a scholar program for merit scholarships.  The program will incorporate funding with a programmatic aspect.  Scholars would receive merit aid and value such as shadowing or working in their area of interest.  As an example, the Presidential Award would be called Mendenhall Scholarship for Integrity and students presented this award would be known as Mendenhall Scholars.  This program is similar to what David is working on with the President for Education Scholars.

The next meeting is November 30 at 8:30 a.m. in King 108.



Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes

November 24th, 2015

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, November 17, 2015 10:00 am

In attendance:  Dave Dobson (Clerk), Gwen Erickson (Recording Clerk), Sarah Estow (Social Sciences), Bill Grubbs (Business, Policy, and Sports Studies), Sadie Hunter (Community Senate), Lisa McLeod (Humanities), Alex Ricks (Student Government Association), Beth Rushing (Vice President for Academic Affairs & Academic Dean), Steve Shapiro (Natural Sciences & Mathematics), Kathryn Shields (Arts and recorder for this meeting).


  1. Gathering and Moment of Silence began at 10:06
  2. Approval of Minutes from November 10, 2015

Typo fixed.  Not responding to applicants about research proposals at this time.  3A Jan’s budget responsibilities. “Tracey”


  1. For Discussion: Faculty Response to concerns raised by students of color

Walk-out on Thursday and a number of demands articulated.  They have not been formally presented.  A group of students have asked for a meeting with Jane and Senior staff with refined list of demands.  Not sure when the meeting will take place.  Two meetings last week in response.  Two more this week.  Will also add an evening session, maybe after Thanksgiving.

Issues coming forward.  

Faculty response around the environment in classes.  Faculty behavior/statements and student behavior/statements.  Classroom does not always feel like a safe learning environment.  Question of requiring Understanding Racism, and the wisdom of it.  Work we need to do to sensitize ourselves around classroom environment and sensitivity for students of color.  Something we need to do, regardless of the demands.

Need to get a group of faculty together to come up with a plan for what we do.

How do students report that they have a concern?

Course evaluations not the right format to record concerns in these situations.

A faculty thing to do, not an administration thing to do.

    • Experience with concerns about sexism:  let students know that they may not see the response, but assure them that it will happen.  Follow-up could be a sense of concern.
    • Students don’t necessarily trust the anonymity.  They know/feel that someone could track the comment.  Doubt the benevolent faculty taking the concerns in a desired direction.  May be underreporting, but it would start an environment of beginning of awareness.  
    • Clarity about the fact that this issue will be a process.  A way to address the possibility of making mistakes, and avoiding that move toward creating an environment of safety so students could talk about their concerns in a safe way. No quick fix.  Work on it as a community working together.
    • TRAINING-move quickly.  Find out options. Implement in the fall.
      • Understanding Racism workshop as mandated would not be desirable: necessary resources, tenor of that experience would change.  What percentage of faculty have done the Understanding Racism Training?  All of the people who are most willing to go have gone.  Tends to be learning on the part of white participants by the placing a burden on members of the community who are persons of color by continually asking them to share their experiences.
      • Classroom training for faculty, especially white faculty.  Students don’t want that to be the requirement.  What needs to be required of faculty needs to be related to the classroom.  Would be great if all did the Understanding Racism workshop or went to speak outs, but that is not necessarily the answer unless they WANT to be there.  Maybe a whole new thing that is focused on faculty of color.
      • Bystander training.  Modeled after the sexual assault bystander training, general bystander training.
      • More of these types of opportunities are better.
        • Would have to figure out the mandatory part, especially for part-time faculty.  
        • Before the term begins in the fall.
        • Maybe eventually spring instead of fall (or in addition to an opportunity in fall), in January before classes begin.
        • Between the end of exams and graduation.
        • Staff and/or whole community at some point, too.
      • Maybe come up with smaller units than the whole faculty, grouping together people who address race, class, gender in deep ways.  Departmental groups may not be the most beneficial groupings for all these discussions.  Gathering people with other affinities across departmental lines might be desirable.
      • Maybe a stipend available for doing these workshops.

Information Gathering for Beth:

Meet with Faculty Development about opportunities.  Maybe it becomes a focus for them.  Fundamentally about being effective in the classroom.  Diversity Action Committee has various subcommittees.  Mechanisms for disseminating information from the work they do are not entirely clear.  Talk to people who attended the last mandatory workshop on racism of this type in 1998-99 (not successful, too many people, not a productive space for constructive discussion, not organized well).

      • Discuss at faculty meeting.
      • Discuss with Irving
      • Sarah and Alex get some feedback from students about what would make them feel comfortable about reporting.
      • Anonymous (or self-identified) place to report incidents.  Could then be evaluated (from names included). Shared anonymous with the community as a way to make the concerns public.  Beneficial to see concerns that we don’t always have access to.
      • Perhaps pilot in a few classes.
      • To be determined
      • Invite ideas
      • Knit-In.  Idea for community building.

Follow up on concerns about SAASA and sexual assault issues, that seem to have fallen through the cracks with administrative changes and past active students graduating.

  1. For Approval: New major in Sustainable Food Systems
  • Concerns about the sunset clause.  Is it the purview of Curriculum committee.  How long do we keep programs. Lack of clarity about our guidelines.
  • Cannot implement it without a faculty member.  Start date is impossible without that.  Potentially in spring, 2016 we could identify a two- or three-year temporary appointment then we could start the program in fall 2016.  We do not have a person with the necessary background and degrees.  
  • Problematic if we did not staff the position and students are in the program.  Concerns of programs like PECS would likely come back into the conversation.
  • Exciting opportunity.  Could the administration commit to the three-year appointment before it comes to faculty meeting?  If we could get this program approved, looking at applications, deposits, retentions.  February/March looking towards fall outlook.  If the enrollments and budgets are looking bad at that time we could not do it.  If we could invest in this general feeling it will be successful.  Brings shape to many initiatives we already have in progress (Bonner, CPPS, ENVS).
  • Concern about the handbook supporting interdisciplinary majors.  Related to Appendix G to be approved  by the corporate faculty?
  1. For Discussion: New Faculty Development Associate in Inclusive Pedagogy

Generally supportive of the proposal.  A few clarifications needed.

  • Should it be in the handbook?  Should other faculty associates be listed?  What about their compensation structure?  Not part of the survey.  Should be investigated.
  • Handbook:  Clerk’s confirms Associates that Faculty Development appoints.  Meet with the committee and they have 2 year terms.
  • Dave will ask faculty development to clarify term length (they should update the handbook to match what they want to be doing).  We recommend that they consider folding this appointment into the nominating process.  Who are the current associates?
  • Future:  FDC to manage all of the research applications.
  1. For continued Discussion at our next meeting:

Possible items for Faculty Meeting Agenda for December 2

    1. Gen Ed revision report
    2. Compensation committee report
    3. Sustainable Food Systems Proposal
    4. IRB committee – approval with changes to handbook
    5. Other handbook changes as requested by Adrienne
    6. Anything with service compensation or departmental restructuring?
    7. Other issues?
  1. Did not discuss:  continued discussion of faculty service and academic administrative structures

Close in silence at 11:20

Clerk’s Committee Agenda for November 24, 2015

November 24th, 2015

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda – Tuesday, November 23, 2015 10:00 am
1. Gathering and Moment of Silence – 3 minutes
2. Approval of Minutes from November 17, 2015 – 2 minutes
3. For Discussion: Concerns raised by students of color and others – 20 minutes
a. Student events in last few weeks
b. Open letter from Alex Ricks
c. Request for shifts in staffing of committees this year
d. Request for changes to committee membership for future years
4. From Budget Committee (and others): Idea for Guilford Guarantee – 5 minutes
5. For Discussion and Approval: Faculty Meeting Agenda for December 2nd – 20 minutes
Options could include:
a. Gen Ed revision report (5 minutes, according to Kyle)
b. Compensation committee report (if desired by committee)
c. Discussion of student and faculty concerns on matters of race both in the\ classroom and in college governance
d. Sustainable Food Systems Proposal
e. Discussion of faculty hiring, allocation and priorities (from letter of concern regarding CNS major)
f. Standing IRB committee – for approval
g. Other handbook changes as requested by Adrienne
h. Anything with service compensation or departmental restructuring? Survey results?
i. Guilford Guarantee idea
j. Faculty Development Associate in Inclusive Pedagogy
k. Other issues?
6. For Discussion: Concern about uneven promotion and advertising of campus events and initiatives, and editorial procedure for Beacon (see letter from faculty member) – 20 minutes
Close in silence

Clerk’s Committee Minutes – November 10th, 2015

November 17th, 2015

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2015

10:05 – 11:30 AM

Academic Dean’s Conference Room, King 101

Attending: Dave Dobson (Clerk), Sarah Estow (Social Sciences), Bill Grubbs (Business, Policy, and Sports Studies), Sadie Hunter (Community Senate), Lisa McLeod (Humanities), Alex Ricks (Student Government Association), Beth Rushing (Vice President for Academic Affairs & Academic Dean), Steve Shapiro (Natural Sciences & Mathematics) and recorder for this meeting, Kathryn Shields (Arts).  Not attending: Gwen Erickson (Recording Clerk).

  1. The Committee convened and began with a moment of silence.
  2. The Committee reviewed the minutes from November 3, 2015 and suggested some minor changes. The recorder of those minutes will make the recommended changes.
  3. Beth Rushing informed the Committee of some upcoming changes:
    1. Jan Prillaman will be retiring. Her last day will be on November 25, 2015.  She does not want a party in her honor.  She will not be replaced at this time.  Jan’s budget and HR responsibilities will be reallocated.
    2. In January, the Academic Dean’s office will move to Founders Hall (co-located with the Office for Student Affairs). Tracey Fisher will be the executive assistant for both the office for Student Affairs and the Academic Dean’s office.
    3. Experiential learning offices or representatives will move to the first floor of King Hall. Some details are in the process of being determined.
  4. Review of Faculty Meeting November 4, 2015.
    1. Mixed feedback on the exercise where faculty separated into large groups and identified words that described the Guilford educational experience. Some faculty felt that this activity was not a good use of faculty meeting time (nor was the space conducive to such large group discussion).  Maybe we could hold breakout meetings in a different space.  Poll Everywhere is a tool that could be used to include more people in discussions.
    2. Some committee members reported that younger faculty members appeared to be excited about the same sort of things that more senior faculty members had been excited about when they had first come to Guilford (e.g., community, support from colleagues).
    3. The Committee discussed the possibility of holding Faculty Meeting at another location (e.g., Gilmer room (poles in the way, would seem like one was attending a wedding), Community Center (poor acoustics), Joseph M. Bryan, Jr. Auditorium (poor acoustics, fixed seating), Choir room in Dana (large step onto the stage)).
  5. Beth will check with Norma Middleton (Registrar) about the next steps required in the approval / implementation of the (November 4, 2015) faculty-approved Cyber Security major.
  6. The Committee discussed the conversation that the Clerk had with a faculty member who had indicated prior to the faculty meeting that they planned to “stand in the way” of approval of the Cyber Security major because of concerns about departmental staffing policies / inequities. The Clerk will follow up with this faculty member. The committee continued the discussion about the process that the committee used in first reviewing the proposal for the Cyber Security major given the concerns about its design.
  7. Review of Minutes for Faculty Meetings on October 7 and November .
    1. October 7, 2015. The Committee made no suggestions.
    2. November 4, 2015. Kathryn will find out whether the faculty member whose husband recently died would like to be identified in these minutes and how, if at all, the faculty member would like to be “held in the light” by the community.
  8. For approval: Institutional Review Board committee language.
    1. After additional minor editing, the Committee approved the Institutional Review Board committee language.
    2. This section will be placed in Chapter 1 of the Faculty Handbook.
    3. The Committee will bring this proposal to the Faculty at the December 2, 2015 Faculty Meeting.
  9. Faculty Meeting Preparation
    1. Because there is no Faculty Meeting in January, the Nominating Committee will solicit nominations for the next Clerk beginning with a public announcement at the December Faculty Meeting. The ballot (if necessary) will be in February.
    2. Requests for committee preferences will be solicited early next year, perhaps in January.
  10. For initial evaluation: Research funds request (early for Feb. deadline).
    1. The proposal considered is eligible for the Dean’s Research Funds.  The Committee will review all applications at the same time after the February deadline.
  11. For discussion: Faculty Forum topic for November 18.
    1. Liberal Arts General Education Revision will use the Faculty Forum time.
  12. Continued discussion of committee and academic administrative structures.
    1. The Committee discussed preliminary results from the Faculty Service Survey.
  13. The meeting closed with a moment of silence at 11:30 AM.

LAGER Committee Minutes 10/29/15

November 16th, 2015

Final LAGER Committee Minutes 10/29/15


Kyle (chair), Lavon, Caleb, Melanie, Drew (recording), Damon, Suzanne, Dale, Jennie, Stephanie – present


    1. Meeting opened with a moment of silence
    2. Welcome to new members – Caleb Anderson, Dale Koch
    3. Update on budget
      1. Dean has approved some elements of the budget – document updated to reflect
      2. travel to AACU Summer Institute in Boston approved
      3. travel to AACU GenEd conference in February not approved


  • Jennie will discuss possible funding from PPS with Mark
  • Melanie will discuss possible funding from Faculty Dev. with Kathy Adams


    1. Update on grant possibilities
    2. suggestion to work with Dean to determine other GenEd related work being done on campus
      1. concern about multiple groups working without coordination
      2. concern that this will impact LAGER committee’s work in future
      3. need for a document/timeline of all projects going on that may affect GenEd


  • create document to keep track


    1. Keyword whiteboard activity
      1. members shared keywords pulled from the following:
        1. Academic Principles/Quaker Education
        2. General Education Revision Committee Notes (2014-2015 committee) & faculty survey report
        3. DQP/LEAP
        4. AAC&U/LEAP
        5. Grants
        6. Mission Statement/GELO’s/Core Values/Website
      2. common themes/keywords that appear
        1. Global/Local – ‘Glocal’
        2. Community
        3. Guilford/distinctive
        4. Values/Principles/Quaker
        5. Engaged/Experiential/Active
        6. Sustainability & Community
      3. what’s missing?
    2. Discussion of activity for Nov. Faculty Meeting time
      1. create word cloud


  • Damon will create table of keywords and their origin documents – will send to committee members for review
  • Kyle will contact Dave about committee’s plan for meeting, will get approval for student members to attend


    1. Other action steps:


  • Kyle will contact Joyce to get powerpoint from Jane’s presentation


  1. Discussion of calendar moving forward will be moved to next week
  2. Meeting closed with a moment of silence


LAGER Committee Minutes 11/05/15

November 16th, 2015

LAGER Committee Minutes 5 November 2015


Kyle (chair), Lavon, Caleb, Melanie, Damon (recording), Suzanne, Dale, Jennie, Stephanie – present. Drew (regrets)


    1. Moment of Silence
    2. Minutes for 29 October approved.
    3. Review of past action items:
      1. Discussion of travel budgets. Outside funds are limited. ACTION ITEM: Next week update from those people interested in going to the February AAC&U GE conference and potential funding sources. If we need to flag funding from our $50k budget, we can.
      2. DEFERRED: Working with faculty away from campus.
    4. New Topics
      1. Debriefing from the 4 November faculty meeting:
        1. Concern over lack of student perspective. ACTION ITEM: Stephanie will look into the Student Perspectives survey for Princeton Review, or NSSE for ways to get that.
        2. Some ambiguity or confusion over the different valences of the answers from the faculty meeting, e.g. our lived experiences vs. our aspirational experiences.
        3. Concern over survey / self-reflection exhaustion.
        4. Questions over how these documents (internal / external) govern or inform our work.
        5. DEFERRED: Create a reference card or statement based on the keyword activity that will guide us as we move ahead.
      2. Planning and calendar (20 minutes)
        1. Reviewed the draft calendar (available in Google drive folder). Conversation moved to point IV.C. DEFERRED: approve a draft calendar and planning process
      3. Select an activity for our faculty forum on 11/18 (15 minutes)


  • ACTION ITEM: Kyle will notify Clerk’s Committee that intended activity for 11/18 will be a discussion of different GE models (from other institutions). We will use the incubator time (1:30-2:30) AND continue the conversation in the Forum Time (3:45-5:15).


      1. ACTION ITEM: Everyone will begin to look for GE models from other institutions to contribute to folder “Gen Ed Models.”
      2. ACTION ITEM: Melanie will handle the publicity for this event (Buzz, etc.)
  1. Closed with a moment of silence


The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life