Feb. 8, 1999
1. The minutes of Feb. 1, 1999 were approved as corrected.
2. Discussion of the common lunch hour resumed. Linda Stanhope reported on faculty
responses to her e-mail. Of the 19 responses, 9 faculty were in favor of change and 9 were
opposed, and one had some suggestions. Josh Mondlick proposed that Tuesday and Thursday
labs begin 10 minutes earlier in the morning. Bonney MacDonald noted that students are not
willing to take early and late classes, which forces classes into the middle of the day.
Barbara Danowski suggested that afternoon classes (not labs) start at 2 p.m., that maybe
we should increase early and late classes, that we schedule common hour at a non-eating
time, Linda Stanhope suggested opening up another lunch space. Dwight Wolf reported on the
history of the common lunch hour and on classroom usage during the morning hours. Seth
Greenberg proposed that a small group meet to consider the various suggestions. Josh
Mondlick proposed that 8:40-9:45 a.m. be the GenEd hour and 9:55-11 a.m. be the common
meeting. Barbara, Josh, Danette and Steve will meet to develop some suggestions.
3. Linda Cool reported on the calendar discussion by the Trustees.
A. The Board is neutral, interested in a broader report and discussion before they deal
with the issue.
B. The Board wants to encourage dialogue on campus. Until the Board receives and
digests the self-study for Middle States, the Board is not interested in entertaining a
proposal about a calendar change. The absolute earliest time for a proposal to come to the
Board would be one year from now. The final proposal should be driven by institutional
strategy plans that are identified by the president and during the accreditation
self-study process.
C. The Board requests that any proposal address how the College would deal with study
abroad and undergraduate research.
D. The Board requests that whatever comes forward to them must be supported broadly by
the faculty. Unless there is overwhelming support, the cost of change is expensive and
would result in a “sideways” move.
E. They ask that we explain why we cannot deliver a semester in one term under the
trimester system. If the issue is that our standards or expectations of the workload of
students have been lowered over the years, the faculty under the direction of the senior
faculty must decide why this is the case and work to change it, whether there is a change
of calendar or not. Why should the Board believe that the faculty could deliver a semester
on a semester system?
F. The Board suggests we do not send forward the financial review sheet. The Board
notes the financial review and understands that there would apparently be no negative
financial impact of a calendar change and indeed that there might be a slight financial
advantage to the semester system. But, $500,000 in an $81 million budget is not a
significant amount. And, if a calendar change is to occur, it should not occur for
financial reasons, but for pedagogical/academic ones.
G. The Board would like a sense of what the departments feel about the change. How
would it affect extracurricular activities?
4. Ken DeBono will report on the external review of the Psychology Department.