|
Goddard College Board of Trustees October 27-28, 1995 Meetings
2. Presidential Evaluation In response to a question, Jane Sanders explained that the process for reporting to the full Board on the Executive Committee's yearly Presidential evaluation happens in executive session at the annual meeting, and this year that will be handled at the February Board meeting retreat. Jane read the official evaluation procedures aloud to the group.
2. President's Report President Richard Greene gave his report to the Board on events since the last Board meeting (attachment A). He spoke to the need to become a national leader in education, to reclaim the position of "the most unique college in America" quoted in a 1955 issue of Parade magazine (attachment B). Some of the ways to achieve that are as follows: generate more resources for students and faculty, increase diversity, maintain fiscal stability, maintain a national Board of Trustees, provide quality academic programs, allow for mastery of technology, support faculty on progressive ideals and new program development, cultivate an institution-wide commitment to change, create a positive atmosphere, support shared leadership, clarify governance structures, improve facilities, and propose ideas such as the Center for the Study of Progressive Education. Richard's goals for the 1994-95 year included collaborating with CEC on the budget process, bringing new Trustees onto the Board, improving Goddard's image locally and nationally, working on the foundation for a long-range plan, and being involved in the daily life of the college. In addition to meeting these goals, other accomplishments for the year included satisfying NEASC's goals, increasing enrollment, hosting the Chopin piano concert, adding $72,000 to the endowment, increasing development income, and creating a more integrated approach to student services. Other accomplishments to note are that faculty member Eric Zencey's book Panama is a major success, and the local senior citizens group has been eating lunch on campus on a regular basis. Richard's goals for the 1995-96 year include working with the Governance Task Force to clarify roles and responsibilities on campus, working with the faculty on criteria for faculty evaluations, pursuing the grant proposal for the Center for the Study of Progressive Education, fiscal management, academic program development, and working on a long-range plan that incorporates the current Priorities Plan. During comments on these goals, Richard agreed to include a statement on public outreach and fundraising. A suggestion was made to be more clear about the Board's priorities for the President, and to have goals that can be quantifiably evaluated [emphasis mine]; it was also pointed out that an evaluation is not an opinion poll. The evaluation procedures were read again, and this will be a topic for clarification in February. Jane Sanders stated that the 1995-1996 goals in the President's Report will be what Richard will be evaluated on for the year, and thanked Richard for his complete report and his performance over the past year.
A. Nomination Procedures The Committee considered the conflicting procedures for selecting five constituency Trustees to join the Board. The group agreed to follow procedures that allow for a one-step election process, where the constituency Trustees (faculty, staff, campus student, off-campus student, alumni/ae) are elected by their constituencies to the Board (instead of the constituencies' votes serving as a recommendation to the Development Committee), and that they be assigned mentors before their first meeting. There is still a contradiction in procedures, because the governance report specifies that these Trustees are elected by the entire college community; Lynn recommends that the Governance Task Force address this issue.
Tom reported that the Governance Task Force has been meeting and their charge from Richard Greene is #1 on page 21 of the governance report - to review with the community the present governance system and recommend changes that promote clarity and consistency with Goddard's philosophy and mission, eliminate redundancy, and ensure the establishment of a non-adversarial dispute resolution system. The Task Force has discussed the following issues: identifying omissions, redundancies, and conflicts in the report; proposing changes consistent with the mission; proposing a process for amending the report; and which College policies and procedures (including the grievance procedures and the student judicial process) to include as part of the report.
35 community members, including students, staff, faculty, and alumni/ae introduced themselves, and 12 of these people made presentations to the Board. Some of the issues presented were the desire for a stronger sense of community and communication, what democracy is about, alternative organizational structures for the Board of Trustees and other parts of Goddard, the search for the new Academic Dean, community involvement in decision-making, the need to resolve governance conflict and concentrate more on education, people's love of Goddard, recent changes in the physical plant, and the desire for mutually collaborative employment and a mutually inclusive empowering process. Jane thanked everyone for bringing forward their concerns in a constructive way, and encouraged people to continue to come to Board meetings to share positive comments as well as their concerns.
After discussing issues in a closed executive session, the Board opened the meeting again and announced the following decisions: By consent, the Board: agreed to discuss the following items at the February 1996 Board Retreat:
By supermajority vote, the Board: agreed to continue to use the current Presidential Evaluation procedures to evaluate the President. There were 15 votes in favor of this motion, 4 votes against, and 3 abstentions. 13. Hiring Process for Dean for Academic Affairs By supermajority vote, the Board.
By supermajority vote, the Board: agreed that the President will work with the faculty in hiring the new Dean for Academic Affairs, but the final appointment will be made by the President and the Dean will report to the President. The Board will be clarifying the governance roles involved in this decision. There were 16 votes in favor of this motion, 5 votes against, and 1 abstention.
 |
