COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION REGARDING FORMATION OF AN ENGAGED UNIVERSITY COUNCIL

A motion to go into a Committee of the Whole to discuss the formation of an Engaged University Council was automatically on the floor. MOTION PASSED without objection.

Professor Kavenik assumed the chair, as called for by UWPF 1.04(3).

Professor Greenfield summarized the history of the engagement effort on campus, beginning with an August 1998 meeting at Wingspread involving about 50 faculty/staff members. Since then, the Directors of the Center for Community Partnerships, the HUD grant, and the Teaching Center have met regularly to develop the proposal under discussion. A team of faculty/staff members attended an AAHE conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards in January and another team will attend the AAHE Annual Meeting later this month. The proposal under discussion has been presented to all of the major governance committees and has been modified on the basis of input received.

Ms. Letven described the compendium that has been compiled of faculty/staff activity in the community. 350 data sheets were submitted and have been sorted into five categories: community-based learning; outreach programs; interinstitutional partnerships; professional service; and public service/civic engagement.

Professor Statham described a set of objectives for the Council during the coming year: to identify and consolidate appropriate university resources; to inventory ongoing community-based learning techniques; to establish ways of sharing/improving practices; to establish affinity groups around issues/problems; to establish a central coordinating process; to integrate faculty/staff development into current activities; and to develop a plan for measuring success based on student learning outcomes.

Professor New asked for an example of something that could be done better through the Council. Professor Greenfield cited the example of a faculty member who would like to develop community-based learning experiences for students, but who doesn't have connections in the community. Chancellor Keating cited the example of presenting the university's involvement in the community in a coherent fashion. Professor Statham said she has noted that students learn better in a community-based setting.

Professor Saffioti-Hughes said that faculty/staff in the humanities tend to study/learn more independently and said that if they are less engaged, they may not benefit from the Council. On the other hand, those who are engaged may be asked to put forth more effort to participate in the Council. Professor Greenfield said that the focus of the Council, as he sees it, is on student learning and that it will facilitate, not create obstacles. Mr. Redford said he also felt the Council would smooth the way, make things simpler. Professor Statham felt the Council would be very useful to many faculty/staff members ouside of the social sciences. Chancellor Keating felt the Council would facilitate learning and would provide support services for those who wish to use them. Associate Vice Chancellor Singer said that the Council should be structured to help, not hinder, and that involvement with it must be voluntary.

Dean Cress said it was important to maintain the value of traditional forms of service that don't involve the community. Professor Greenfield said he felt the Council would support service as much as teaching/learning.

Professor Gellott asked how large the Council would be and how it would function. She wondered if it would simply sap energies. Ms. Letven said the Council would be large and that it appeared subgroups would need to be formed to function.

Professor Saffioti-Hughes reassured Dean Cress that traditional forms of service would continue to be valued and questioned instead whether nontraditional forms of service were being valued. She went on to ask what the cost of the Council would be and how it would fit into the structure of the university. Professor Greenfield said that he felt that we can't afford not to form the Council; we may even gain resources by doing so. Chancellor Keating said he would only make very limited short-term support available. Ms. Letven said funding would often derived on a cost-of-service basis.

Professor New asked how the Council would facilitate and what it would facilitate. She said suspicion surrounds what a colleague refers to as the troika. Faculty skepticism regarding this Council is based on negative messages delivered in recent University Planning Council meetings. Although faculty have not openly rejected the need for coordination, questions regarding the operations of this Council persist. She went on to say that connecting theory and practice is clearly of value and should be supported. Professor Greenfield observed that the Council would help give faculty the credit they were due. Chancellor Keating again said the Council would be supportive and would stress effective teaching/learning. Professor Statham didn't feel the Council would be doing the work of engagement - just facilitating it. Chancellor Keating observed that applied experience helps graduates find better job opportunities.

Professor Gellott asked what the role of the Council's intake person would be and was told this person would help people connect with one another, on and off campus.

The discussion concluded with general agreement of those present that fiscal questions need to be addressed by the Engaged University Council and by the University Planning Council.

The Committee rose without report on the formation of an Engaged University Council.

The Chancellor declared the meeting adjourned at 5:00.