I. Call to Order – 1:01 – meeting attended by Jane Finan, David Massaro, Jennifer Cromer, Amanda Van
Lanen, Claire Davis, Cara Thompson, Jenny Scott, Travis Osburn, Clarence Griffin, Alex Bezzerides
II. Chair’s Report
a. Explanation that the faculty affairs committee has now subsumed the responsibilities of the faculty
development committee and the administrative procedures committee. The faculty development work
will be at the forefront this semester as there are two rounds of faculty development. It would be helpful
to streamline the process and make the system a bit more cut and dry. Jane has experience with
application processes (ie. INBRE fellows) that have objective sections with point values and subjective
sections. It would be helpful to have more of a form for applications to make them easier to compare.
Discussion today about the ranking process and then have applications ranked next week.
III. New Business
a. Discussion of how to rank applications
i. Current round
1. Need to decide if we should fund all presenters up to the total amount they’re asking. If
we’re going to award a fraction of the requested amount (ie. 80%) then there is an issue
about the wording in the proposal process. Some individuals have only requested
$1,000 even though there total expenses are greater than $1,000. If they were aware
that the maximum award would only be 80% of a request up to a maximum of $1,000 then
they likely would have requested more than $1,000 understanding that it would get
knocked back to $1,000. For now, let’s fund presenters up to $1,000 and work to rank
the other proposals. Also, while ranking this time, keep in mind which kinds of information
would be helpful to have as part of the application for future rounds of professional
ii. Future rounds
1. Discussion about whether or not rank should be a part of the equation. Does the greater
need of assistant professors to be professionally active weigh in the decision process?
2. Should recent professional development application history play a role in the process?
There is a system in place for sabbaticals by which you can only apply if X number of
years have passed since last award. Could we use that kind of system for professional
3. Should divisional funding and external funding sources play a role? If an individual is
going to receive money from another source, should that be involved in the discussion?
4. There has been an issue about the originality of the proposals. Even if people are
submitting as part of a team, proposals should be written individually in each author’s
IV. Adjournment – motion by Cara, seconded by Amanda, unanimous vote
Next meeting Friday, September 19, 1:00 PM