The Meeting was called to order at 3:50 by Vice President, Bob Everhardt. Guests included Steve Warshaw, Sandy Rothschild, Sally Adkin, Kathy Allen, and Joan Barber.

Announcements: Rebecca Leonard, Prom Advisor, announced that the Prom will be held on May 2, at Museum of Life and Science. She invited faculty to assist in several ways, including decorating, attending, and chaperoning. Contact Rebecca, Kay Chung, Co-Advisor, or Kevin Cromwell SAB Coordinator to volunteer.

Accreditation process: We were first accredited in 1992, using the standard SACs procedure. We have just completed the five-year review. SACs has phased out the process we used in 1992 and replaced it with two new options. The first is the Senior High School Improvement, which is much like what we did in the past. This is still a ten-year cycle with a review at the end of five years. Much of the process seems to involve surveying needs, monitoring progress, and completing annual reports.

The second option, the School Renewal Process, seems less structured. Each year we would focus on one of the following five topics: school climate, staff development, communication, planning, or curriculum and instruction. Documentation for each year would be kept and there is a five and ten-year review process

The administration needs to make a recommendation to the Educational Policies and Planning Committee of the Board by May 1 indicating which process we will undertake. Dr. Barber indicated that she feels that the School Renewal process may fit in better with our structure and schedule. It would provide us a way to focus on one area each year. We will check with schools in the area that are using each method to determine which we will use.

Evaluation and Contracts: Dr. Warshaw and Sandy Rothschild reported that they have met with the Division Directors and the Evaluation Committee to explain their perception of the current contract renewal procedure. This arose when faculty members questioned whether we do indeed have "performance based contracts." Steve and Sandy both interpret our current policy to mean that we do. Steve stated this in interpretation of the Administration. He stated that if person is not renewed, reasons will be given, if the faculty member asks for reasons. Reasons for non-renewal are not required by the policy, however. Performance records do include summary sheets indicating any concerns the administration might have. If an individual has only positive summary sheets, renewal should follow unless school needs and resources have changed. With changing needs of school, an individual should have time to change to meet these changing needs. Teachers should be informed of these changing needs. Current contracts do not allow teachers to appeal on basis of competence.

Since the administration interprets the current policy to mean that we do indeed have performance-based contracts, it would seem to make sense that the wording of the written Board policy should reflect this. The Faculty Council liaison to the Personnel Committee should meet with that committee to ask for clarification in the wording of the policy. The administrators present stated that they did not see any reason why administration would not back a request to board to clarify this process, asking also that appeal based on performance and reasons given at time of dismissal. A vote was taken on the first part of this proposal, that of clarifying the wording of the policy. The measure passed by a 28 to 1 margin. A second motion, asking that reasons for dismissal should be provided, on request passed by a margin of 24 to 1.

This summer dept heads will look our examination schedule. The exam schedule is published each year with the school calendar. If any changes are to be made for the 1999/2000 school year, the process must begin this summer. The current schedule puts certain courses last in the process every third time. Other concerns include some built-in study periods and two difficult exams back-to-back. We need to share our concerns with Kathy Allen before this summer. is important

A draft outlining some measures being considered to improve the admissions process has been circulated to the faculty. Please look at these and react to Doug Gray. One idea is to involve faculty in recruiting. Faculty members could travel and speak about the school to various groups. An informal poll showed sufficient interest in this idea to pursue it.

John Kolena asked the faculty not to make any assignments that would be due the first day back from Spring Break. His motion was seconded. John stated that the SGA has asked for this. After some discussion a vote was taken 15 for and 3 against. John Kolena will email faculty that we voted on this. A second motion that no graded assignments due on day back. The vote on this motion was 11 for and 8 against.

John Kolena asked for one volunteer from each department to serve on a nominating committee. Departments should notify John by Wednesday, April 22.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 PM.