I. PRELIMINARIES

A. Attending: Belzer (Chair), Bosworth, Das, Dean, Devine, Jones, Kruger, Kunicki, Lung, Nitse, Pehrsson, Wabrek

Excused/Absent: Enos, Fisher, Hjelm, Paulson, Price, Egger

Guest:  Shanahan

B. Introduction of Mark Lung, a doctoral student in Biology. Mark has been approved by Dean Tate but has not been approved by the Faculty Senate, so he was not permitted to vote.

C. Discussion of faculty development grant application to be reviewed by this committee. Patricia Dean will read. Nancy Devine volunteered to read as well. Discussion indicated that not all members of the council were aware of the Innovative Teaching Grant.  Questions were asked about where the grant was advertised.  Phil Nitse commented that this was
an example for why a Center was needed and just one of many issues that
had been neglected.

D. Approval of the CTL minutes for December 3, 1999

MOTION: Moved by Devine.  Second by Pehrsson.  To approve minutes with the following changes:
 -  Sharolyn Belzer proposed to meet the third Friday of the month this semester. Subsequent semesters can be decided upon by the committee.

 -Bob Pehrsson noted he was excused for the meeting on 12/3.

 -Nancy Devine noted her name was misspelled (Devine is correct, Divine is incorrect).

 ACTION: Unanimously passed.

A. Report from Task Force on proposal for Teaching and Learning Resource Center

Task force members: Sharolyn Belzer, Philip Nitse, and Ken Bosworth

 Sharolyn reported on the following recommendations:

1.  Full-time director salary should be no less than $60,000; 12 month contract.
2.  some clerical support
3.  announcement out in Fall; position to start in Spring or Fall at the latest.
4.  expert on Center development (Ex Jim Isman sp?who they met at the Lily conference)
5.  $10,000 budget the first year; Money in the budget to be determined thereafter. Money to be used for travel, membership to organizations, money for events etc.
6.  obtain description of Barbara Lawrence’s position  John Jones reported that there never has been a description of this position for the Center.
Sharolyn reported on discussions with Alan Egger and Jennifer Attebery regarding these proposals.

Both Faculty Senate and the Academic Vice President must endorse the Center proposal.  As a Council, we need to articulate why there is such a pressing need for a Director for the Center for Teaching and Learning.  In other words, we must indicate why it is more important to hire a Director for the Center than spend money on another budget item.

Budgetary issure should be considered carefully and justified.  Is it better to pay for a full-time Director for the Center than provide them with a small budget (title but little leverage?  Would it be better to hire a part-time Director and provide them with more resources?  Is it possible to hire a full-time Director and provide them with more resources?

During their April 26, 1999 meeting, the Faculty Senate approved the following recommendation in the Report from the Ad Hoc Task Force to review the Council for Teaching and Learning: 1)  In cooperation with the Council, seek funds to increase and enhance Center resources and programs.  2) Find and maintain a location for the Center.  Faculty Senate deleted the recommendation for a full-time director for the Center from the list of approved recommendations.

Sharolyn suggested that the Council could make a recommendation to Faculty Senate on the needs of a Center and how the Center should be staffed.  The Council could, for example, make a recommendation to support a Director for the Center through a reallocation of resources
of by seeking new resources.  Sharolyn further suggested that if the Council supported hiring from inside the institution, we might also want to make a recommendation concerning the impact that reassigning duties for a tenure track faculty member has on a department or college.  For example, Linda Hill, Alan Egger, and Terry Lay all serve in dual capacities.

Ken Bosworth commented on the impact for the Math Department in particular.

Discussion ensued regarding CTL needs, funding, how to staff, and whether to hire from within or externally, whether to have a faculty or an administrator or someone who straddlesboth environments, full-time or part-time director, responsibilities of a director, and a CTL mission
statement.

Suggestion made that it would be wise to include research responsibilities in the position related to teaching and learning.  Emphasized that important for faculty to have a resource person on
educational issues in their own disciplines.

Suggestion made to check on a request for funds to initiate a Center made by the University of Idaho that was declined.

Following the next task force meeting, Sharolyn agreed to email members of the council some information on goals and rationales for Centers.  It was agreed that goals and a rationale for the Center would be decided upon prior to writing the job description for the Center Director.

B. Assessment Policy

Sharolyn indicated that she could find no additional information on assessment policies.  Sharolyn asked for discussion on the old verses new (revised) versions of the Policy on Assessment.

A question on the assessment policy was raised regarding the statement "in accordance with advice regarding accreditation standards from the Office of Institutional Research".

If assessment should have a level playing field and consistency across campus, so that all
departments are in compliance, then departments should be in agreement with accreditation standards.

No motion was made to change the wording regarding the statement "in accordance with guidelines established by the Office of Institutional Research".

Bob Pehrsson indicated that the title was too vague because the policy only included programatic assessment.

Joe Kruger suggested adding "Program" to title ("Program Assessment")

MOTION: Moved by Nitse. Seconded by Kruger to approve revision of draft and add ‘Program’ to title of revision.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

MOTION: Moved by Kruger. Seconded by Kunicki. To report to faculty senate that the committee has reviewed the Assessment Handbook and finds it is an acceptable and reasonable tool for program assessment.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

C. Other Agenda Items

Discussion occurred regarding agenda items that had remained on the agenda for several months without being discussed.  In preparation for the next meeting, Sharolyn suggested that members review the Goal 9 Report, consider whether or not any goals should be assessed this year,
revisit summaries form last year's discussion groups, and determine which discussion groups might meet this year.

Cathy Kunicki indicated that the council should still consider how the council ought to be involved in the assessment process.

Joe Kruger asked that future meetings begin at 3:15PM, so that he could be on time.  All members present agreed to delay the meeting time by 15 minutes.

Adjourned 4:00PM.