Announcements:
Dot requested volunteers for the nominating committee.
Faculty are invited to eat lunch in the cafeteria for free once a month.
Board Liaison
Reports:
Gretchen Skidmore reported that the Finance Committee of the
Board discussed the potential future purchase of a lot next to the lot
currently belonging to NCSSM on the corner of
Julie Sikkink reported that the
board has split the Finance Committee and that there is now a separate
Development Committee formed to support and promote the development programs of
the school. The committee, like all
others, contains representatives from all the different constituencies of the
school and will focus on the big planning and overall goals of development. For example, the school may soon choose to
run a capital campaign (only an idea, not a certainty at this point), and this
committee would have a role in proposing and supporting such a plan.
Discussion:
John Woodmansee - Amendments to the Action Plan Committee Recommendations for a Code of Conduct
The EPPC approved the APC document at the December board meeting. However, one board member at the March meeting expressed some concern about academic dishonesty being under both level 2 and level 3 because this did not clearly define what kinds of cheating were included at the different levels. He suggested that all academic dishonesty be listed under level 3. At the full board meeting, a motion was made to table the document for 30 days to make changes regarding this issue of academic dishonesty. The faculty was asked to support the presentation of a revised document to the board that would include the change that all academic dishonesty be considered a level 3 offense.
Level 3 violations would be brought before a hearing panel that would include a student, faculty member, SLI, and one of the two division directors. A formal hearing would be required of all level 3 violations. Theft is also included as a level 3 violation, along with cheating and harming others. Faculty questioned whether a charge that was found to be insufficient to warrant a level 3 could be sent down to a level 2 offense. The reduction of the charge would not be possible, although the hearing board can give any range of sanctions for a level 3 that would fit the violation.
Faculty noted any act of academic dishonesty or theft would prevent a student from being an RLA even if the sanctions were minor.
Could this change make a teacher less likely to be a part of the hearing process and instead more likely to handle the problem privately because the level of proof for any case coming before the hearing board would be high? Faculty expressed concern that the disadvantage of teachers approaching problems on their own is that members of the community then have no way of knowing if the student is repeating a pattern of behavior. Gail Hudson noted that suspicions of cheating can be relayed to the counselor where these concerns will be filed for future reference. A meeting can then be called for the student with parents and other teachers if there is an accumulation of concern about this type of behavior.
Faculty also questioned whether students are more likely to respond honestly about cheating if they are confronted by the teacher (rather than later by the hearing board) and suggested that dealing with the issue immediately sometimes allows a faculty member to teach a lesson that is more meaningful. John reminded the faculty that the hearing panel can give any kind of sanction it wants, and that students would not necessarily be dismissed for these types of violations.
Several members of the faculty council suggested that a future discussion should involve the issues of how faculty members should deal with academic dishonesty in its various forms. We expect SLI’s to report students when they violate rules, and faculty should develop similar standards.
This faculty council discussion was limited to changing the code of conduct to show that cheating is considered to be in line with other level 3 violations and that the faculty agree that it should not be considered a level 2.
John suggested this change to academic dishonesty as a level 3 could make a statement that academic honesty is one of the fundamental values of the community.
A motion was made to place academic dishonesty violations under level 3 in the Student Code of Conduct.
Yes: 34 No: 0 Abstaining: 2
Faculty applauded the efforts of John Woodmansee who has worked this year on the document.
Dot suggested that they faculty begin talking about what we want to accomplish in our academic program. How do all the pieces of our program fit together? What do we want the graduation requirements to be?
What are we already doing that accomplishes the goals we have? What is the role of work service and community service? What is the totality of the school’s program? How can we integrate the residential program into the discussion? Do we need more time with students? Can we be flexible enough to meet the needs of the various students in our program?
Phil suggested that the size of faculty council would make this discussion difficult. Dot asked the faculty if they agreed with the proposal of some faculty meeting away from campus for a day with a facilitator to make proposals to answers about the questions listed above.
Steve stated that the interdisciplinary committee of curriculum council has some ideas about how to answer some of these questions as well.
Faculty preferred to have one meeting to talk about these questions as a whole and then to send a group away to be able to think more broadly about how all the pieces intersect. Curriculum council will be asked to report on its work at faculty council as well.