The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

Parameters to consider in hiring

February 29th, 2016

Clerk’s committee has compiled the following list of parameters to consider in evaluating positions. These would apply both to tenure-track and non-tenure-track hiring. We have compiled these from our past practices and from comparison with those used at other schools.

What we’d like from you is:

  1. Tell us whether the items on this list are appropriate. Are we missing anything we could consider? Is there something here which should not be here? Can you suggest different language or a different focus for a priority we have listed?
  2. Tell us which of these parameters should be prioritized, and which should be given less weight or eliminated.

Here are the parameters we’ve come up with, listed in no particular order:

a) Existing or future staffing patterns, including a list and count of current faculty, history of class sizes, and ratios like student credit hours per faculty member and majors per faculty member

b) Current extent of reliance on adjuncts and visiting faculty to cover the program’s curriculum

c) Enrollment trends over time, including number of majors and graduates

d) Departmental curricular needs (including general education courses provided by the department)

e) Consideration of the College Mission Statement and planning documents.

f) Personnel planning related to future retirements or possible departures of current faculty

g) Promotion of new programs approved by faculty

h) Recent departures or loss of program participants

Note: There will be no request for proposals for tenure-track hiring this year. Jane has decided that while we are in budget deficit, we cannot add people to potentially permanent positions. If your program has a need for additional teaching, please contact Beth about adding temporary positions to cover your needs.


UPDATE: We thought that last year’s solicitation for proposals for tenure-track faculty hires might be of interest. It is here: Position Request Memo

Data requested at Faculty Forum on Compensation

February 25th, 2016

From Christine Riley:

As promised, I’m sending along the website where you can find the CUPA data we referenced. CUPA is the gold standard for staff salaries in higher education, and they are the only organization [that I know of] that surveys faculty salaries by discipline. This information is publicly available.
Look for the link for “Executive Summary” on this page.  There are also reports from the past 7 years, if you’re interested. Drilling down into this data requires institutional membership [which I believe we are getting.]
Also, Damon asked how many faculty are in each rank at Guilford:
Instructors: 11
Lecturers:   17
Asst Prof:    33
Assoc Prof:  29
Professors:  35
These include those with ‘visiting’ in their titles.
UPDATE: Here’s a document that lists visiting vs. tenured/tenure-track faculty: Faculty list

Clerk’s Committee Minutes from February 16, 2016

February 23rd, 2016

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes

Tuesday February 16, 2016 1:00 pm

 Attending: Dave Dobson (Clerk), Gwen Erickson (Recording Clerk), Sarah Estow (Social Sciences and recorder for this meeting), Sherry Giles (Business, Policy, and Sports Studies), Sadie Hunter (Traditional Student representative), Lisa McLeod (Humanities), Alex Ricks (CCE Student representative), Beth Rushing (Vice President for Academic Affairs & Academic Dean), Steve Shapiro (Natural Sciences & Mathematics) and Kathryn Shields (Arts).

  1. The meeting opened in silence at 1:03.
  2. Approval of Minutes from February 9, 2015

The minutes were approved with minor corrections.

Dave will post a list of lost committee functions to the Moon Room

  1. Review of Faculty Forum on Feb. 10 – next steps?

The sense is that there was enough positive response to map out in more detail how the points policy would work as it relates to compensation.  There would need to be a list of what would earn points and how many points.  We probably don’t want to radically alter compensation in the first year.

LAGER members are all getting a course release, but this money doesn’t come from the pool that this compensation system would draw from.

Advancement fellows were supposed to get a course release each.  The FYS program may be under the purview of a faculty member in the future, but the Dean needs to work out the money.  The Writing Director position will be taken off the list because that isn’t a position that earns an extra stipend or course release as it’s a position held by a non-tenure track faculty member and the money she receives is really just her salary and the tasks she undertakes are just her job.

It needs to be made clear that we’re not radically shifting the role of faculty service by having a “floor” that must be reached before additional compensation can be earned.  The idea is still that faculty members are expected to serve.  And the issue of individual proclivities would not go away.  Fine-tuning differences in compensation for different committees can be problematic so the scheme will be tweaked and reworked as data are received.

One issue raised at the forum is conceiving of this scheme as part of a bigger picture and including advising, scholarship, and course loads, etc.  We already have a system in place for people who teach overloads and we have money for stipends for certain positions and it gets very complicated once we add in these other things that currently don’t have additional compensation.  Scholarship, in particular, is really difficult to assess in this way and isn’t always a successful model.

Our current system rewards people for teaching overloads at the possible expense of service to the College so maybe there should be in place a discounted teaching rate if they are below the service floor.

Moving forward, we’ll keep the model to be about service alone, Beth will tweak the point system plan, and Clerk’s will be presented with a rough draft of the plan next week. If Clerk’s is okay with it, we’ll bring it to faculty to approve for use beginning next year as a one-year pilot.

One issue with this scheme is that, while increasing equity and transparency, once points are assigned to tasks, it could negatively impact our culture. A concern was raised that people might become mercenary about joining committees rather than join them because of actual interest and investment, and then may coast while on the committee.  Committee reports may be a place that this could be addressed.

It was suggested that “writing letters of recommendation” be added to the “Would Not Count” column for calculating service points.

Some training sessions aren’t part of the duties of certain positions, so there was discussion about which of those should or shouldn’t count for service credits.

We’ll work on the language of the service credits policy and consider further what we think should and shouldn’t count for points.

There was no clear mandate about division structure in the faculty forum.  One possibility is to make incremental changes rather than starting from scratch.  Another is to ask people which groups they’d like to be joined with or allowing individuals to align with different areas while still maintaining departmental groups.

  1. For discussion: Staffing policy for departments and programs

The policy presented represents topics that have been discussed but this document would provide a written set of guidelines which worked well at Beth’s previous institution.  There is a tension between needs of strong departments with many majors that are understaffed (a.k.a., victims of their own success) and small departments/programs that are struggling to get students because they don’t have enough faculty members.  This topic will be carried over for discussion until next week.

  1. For approval: New committee proposal: Enrollment Committee

Approved.  This will be brought to the faculty for approval at the March faculty meeting to allow Nominating Committee time to staff it.

The meeting closed in silence at 2:25.

LAGER Committee Minutes 2/16/16

February 23rd, 2016

Final LAGER Committee Minutes 2/16/16

Present: Kyle (chair), Lavon, Melanie, Jennie, Stephanie, Suzanne, Damon, Dale, Drew (recording)

Regrets: Caleb

ACTION ITEM: Teams will select convener/lead contact person and every team will compile a list of goals for all LAGER teams and review at our next meeting

    1. Old business
      1. Minutes of 2/9/2016 approved – Drew will post to MoonRoom site
      2. LAGER’s presentation of footprint at Feb. faculty meeting is available on the  MoonRoom.
      3. AAC&U application has been submitted and budget approved to take eight members to the summer AAC&U institute: five faculty division reps, Jennie, Stephanie, and Beth.  Many thanks given to the application team.
      4. Assessment committee excited to be a part of the ongoing assessment piece of revision
      5. Feb. 24th: Extended faculty lunch + Idea Incubator (11:30-2:30 pm) in Gilmore Room.  
        1. Will determine coverage at this meeting at our next faculty meeting.
      6. Kyle encouraged divisional reps for discussion of footprint to division, departments, and/or individuals.  Lavon and Damon have such meetings arranged.
    2. New business
      1. email from Senate president
        1. request to add another student to the committee in order to address lack of diverse representation
        2. email was shared with committee
        3. chair discussed possible solutions with the Clerk of faculty
          1. replace current student rep.
            1. this decision would be made by Senate
          2. invite student(s) to consult with the Access/Inclusion/Diversity/Student Success team
            1. would fit in with current idea about the teams created, that each team should be working with a variety of groups around campus
            2. speaks to a larger point – we could involve perhaps multiple students, traditional and CCE in consultation with the working teams
          3. add third student to committee roster
            1. this would require complete restructure of committee schedule, team assignments, etc
            2. would require going back to Clerk’s committee for approval
            3. larger committee would create more logistical challenges to an already large committee
        4. As we have discussed before, this is a reminder to keep all lines of communication open outside of this committee
        5. Committee was in consensus on solution b) above


  • Action Item: Chair will email Clerk and Senate President to invite multiple students to participate in this process


      1. Agenda for Feb. 24th Faculty Lunch/Idea Incubator
        1. This session is for feedback primarily – for conversation
        2. Suggestion to try to avoid letting discussions fall into high levels of detail and policy, but to focus on larger ideas
          1. discussions of detail and policy could bog down discussion
        3. Agenda
          1. Share the link to the podcast
          2. Share a draft of the one-page summary


  • Action item – committee members will work on googledoc to create – Damon will share narrative used in podcast as a starting point


        1. Reminder of general timetable for work
        2. Share plan for focus team work this semester
        3. Open discussion and feedback
  1. Meeting ended with a moment of silence 10:24am

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda for February 23, 2016

February 21st, 2016

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda                                                                Tuesday February 23, 2016 1:00 pm

  1. Gathering and Moment of Silence – 3 minutes
  2. Approval of Minutes from February 9, 2016- 2 minutes
  3. For approval: Nominations for Nominating Committee and review of slate – 5 minutes
  4. For discussion: Staffing policy for departments and programs – 10 minutes
  5. For approval: New committee proposal: Enrollment Committee – 5 minutes
  6. For approval: LAGER Footprint document for faculty meeting – 10 minutes
  7. For approval: New Master’s program in Criminal Justice – 20 minutes
  8. Agenda for Faculty Meeting March 2, 2016 – 10 minutes
    • Draft nominating slate
    • Clerk elections
    • Jane’s report on executive compensation
    • MA – Criminal Justice
    • LAGER document
    • Enrollment committee
    • Other possibilities
      • Service compensation
      • Departmental restructuring
      • Compensation (forum on Wednesday Feb 24th)

Close in silence


Ad hoc Admission Committee Minutes, February 8, 2016

February 21st, 2016

Ad hoc Admission Committee Meeting

February 8, 2016

8:30-9:30 a.m., Bauman 210-C

Attending: Steve Shapiro, professor of physics, Michael Dutch, professor of business management, David Hildreth, professor of education studies, Kami Rowan, associate professor of music, Heather Hayton, professor of English, Arlene Cash, vice president for enrollment management, Jeannine Harrell, student representative (traditional), Cyndie Basinger, assistant to vice president for enrollment management

Steve opened the meeting with a moment of silence.  Since Fall 2014, the Ad hoc Admission Committee has worked to facilitate communication between faculty and Enrollment Management.  The committee was formed from a perceived disconnect between faculty and the work of admission.

Today’s discussion focused on whether the group would like to proceed with the proposal to the Clerk’s Committee for standing committee approval.  If so, this proposal would be sent to the full faculty for the March meeting.  Steve suggested the sooner this is sent to Clerk’s Committee the better to allow for any questions that may need to be addressed.

Comments included:

  • Ad hoc status for the long term would result in less than optimal results.
  • Is it possible to merge this group into existing faculty committees for efficiencies sake given the recent committee reductions? If so, the focus would not always be on enrollment and retention.
  • Enrollment Management needs faculty to serve in an advisory role/partnership to develop a strategic enrollment plan. This committee is ideal since it encompasses a broad range of faculty who bring input from other departments/divisions.
  • Without a set committee focused on enrollment, Enrollment Management would need to gather ideas/research from department meetings, division meetings and other faculty committees along with individual appointments.
  • The advantage of this committee is the shared knowledge and expertise overtime about enrollment and retention processes, which is then communicated to the faculty at large. If the ad hoc group is absorbed into another committee, that advantage is lost.
  • The ad hoc committee has built momentum on campus and formed a needed relationship between admission and faculty. This momentum is crucial during this time of transition as we build our enrollment and increase retention.
  • The continuity of existing faculty from the ad hoc group would benefit the standing committee.
  • As we develop a new general education curriculum, that committee needs to be informed on what is marketable to high school students.

Heather and Steve gave background information on research they did three to four years ago about athletic recruiting and academics.  The research indicated that athletic recruiting was successful due to direct interaction with students and coaches and time spent building relationships.  This resulted in exploring ideas on how that strategy may be applied to academic departments and student recruitment.  The result was a plan (commonly called road runners) that would hire recent graduates who would then recruit by academic discipline.

Another idea generated was to use Faculty Fellows to visit high schools and act as mentors to visiting students.  This could be presented as an option whereby faculty who were interested in the program would receive a course release.

By consensus, it was agreed to pursue a standing Enrollment Committee.  Steve will update the draft memorandum to the Clerk’s Committee with comments from this discussion and send it to the group for review.

The meeting was adjourned.  The next meeting is scheduled for February 22 at 8:30 a.m. in Bauman 210-C.


Information on books from the bookstore

February 18th, 2016

I was asked to share the following from Virginia Rogers in the bookstore:

I am writing to let everyone know that the Guilford Bookstore will have to return all remaining books for spring the week after Spring Break. Please pass along to faculty and ask that they encourage students to purchase their books before this week. Especially, those students in the Second Half of the Semester or those that will not be using material until the latter half of Spring Semester.
Summer book Adoptions are due March 15th, 2016. I would like to keep any books that will be used for summer, and may do this by having summer book adoptions. Faculty can use the online site to adopt books or they may contact me at for assistance.
Thank you for your time!


Virginia Rogers
Course Materials Manager
Guilford College Bookstore
Tel:(336) 316-2962 Fax: (336) 316-2469

LAGER Committee Minutes 2/9/16

February 16th, 2016

LAGER Committee Minutes 2/9/16

Present: Stephanie, Caleb, Lavon, Kyle, Drew(recording), Dale, Damon, Suzanne, Melanie(via skype)

Regrets: Jennie

Meeting began with a moment of silence, 9:10am

    1. Minutes from 1/28/16 approved
      1. Drew will post on the Moon Room site
    2. AAC&U Summer Institute Application
      1. feedback received from the Dean
      2. Melanie will submit by Friday, 2/12/16
    3. Discussion of ideas for moving forward – following faculty meeting presentation from 2/2/16
      1. structure
        1. breaking committee into thematic teams in terms of the Footprint
          1. Gateway course (place-based learning model, introduction to Guilford/Greensboro)
          2. Foundations courses (entry-level competencies necessary for major & communities)
          3. Communities of practice (experiential learning, breadth, signature work, peer mentoring)
        2. other team possibilities
          1. General Education Learning Outcomes (GELOs) and assessment
          2. Schedule, administration and policies
          3. Transition and succession planning
          4. Inclusion and student access
          5. Fundraising and resource needs
      2. The number of teams presented could stretch the LAGER committee a bit thin
        1. each member could serve on two
        2. Do we begin to include members of the community outside the committee at this point?
      3. J-term
        1. possible scenarios
          1. will no longer exist
          2. will no longer exist in its current form
          3. will continue as is – seems unlikely based on current model
        2. future of Jterm – will impact GenEd
      4. Workload consideration
        1. 3 vs 4 credit courses
          1. discussion of document on workload submitted by Jerry Joplin
            1. breaks down workload into FTE’s, not credit hours
          2. presents some options
          3. could also create resistance
        2. the team working on schedule and administration
          1. discuss 3-4 credit workload
          2. discuss one course at a time
      5. moving forward
        1. goals for each team
        2. membership of each team:
          1. Curricular Teams
            1. Gateway courses (Melanie, Drew, Jennie, Damon)
            2. Foundations courses (Suzanne, Dale, Stephanie, Kyle)
            3. Communities of Practice (Damon, Lavon, Caleb, Jennie)
          2. Secondary Teams
            1. GELOs & assessment (Stephanie)
            2. Schedule, administration & policies (Damon, Lavon, Caleb, Kyle)
            3. Transition and succession planning (DEFERRED)
            4. Access, inclusion, diversity and student success (Damon, Dale, Drew)
            5. Funding, institutional capacity and resource needs (Melanie, Suzanne, Kyle, Stephanie)
        3. suggestion that some of these teams goals may be more time constrained than others – not all sections are as pressing – work may need to start on
        4. Another way of looking at teams – use the Goals from the AAC&U Summer Institute Application
          1. – Developing learning outcomes for, and addressing logistical challenges of place-based gateway course. (Gateway course)
          2. – Exploring best practices in delivery of foundational competencies to ensure development and integration into curriculum. (Foundations)
          3. – Addressing the challenges of experiential learning and community engagement in terms of faculty workload and the student experience. (Communities of Practice – CP)
          4. – Developing ways to integrate non-college community members more fully into the educational experience of the college. (CP)
          5. – Developing a curricular structure which supports team and interdisciplinary teaching. (CP)
        5. Funding piece needs to begin now
          1. pursuing Melon
          2. other funding/grant sources?
        6. meeting times
          1. small groups will have fewer scheduling issues
          2. large group may not need to meet every week
      6. committee spent time dividing team members onto the different Curriculum Teams and Secondary Teams


  • Action Item – Teams will fill out right hand column “Goals” on the LAGER Team document


      1. full committee will discuss goals next week
      2. Teams should also consider who else on campus they should include in their discussion
  1. Meeting closed with a moment of silence 10:20am

The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life