October 4, 2001
4:15, ARH 318


Attending: Eliza Willis, John Stone, David Harrison, Lee Sharpe, Kelly Herold, Helen 
Scott, Bob Grey, Tinker Powell, David Campbell, Doug Caulkins


Helen began by giving the background and a brief history of funding for curricular 
development and curricular development workshops. 


Concentrations still have separate operating budgets.  ISC provides funding apart from 
the operating budget for curricular development.


In Fall 1997, the ISC budget was increased to encourage projects that would enhance 
diversity.  The budget is currently at approximately $86,000, plus up to $10,000 for 
second conferences.  The budget has not decreased.


Curricular development proposals were moved to a common deadline at the request of a 
number of faculty who wanted the process streamlined.  Setting common deadlines 
allows for one notification to be sent to all faculty members with all pertinent information 
rather than multiple emails with multiple deadlines.  


In 1999-2000, applications became web-based.  No paper copies were distributed.


From 1996-2000 there was a wide variance in yearly expenditures within concentrations.  
ISC's proposal to change the way funds are disbursed was intended to shift funds where 
the need was greatest. In the past, concentrations have had to deny proposals due to 
lack of funds or have had to "borrow" funds from another concentration that had less 
demand.  A centralized budget should help alleviate both situations.


The change in deadlines allows the ISC time to review the previous year's reports and 
make informed decisions about the recommendations from concentrations for curricular 
development funding.  The concentrations agree with the deadlines.


The ISC is not making changes in priorities for funding this year; the committee does 
intend to discuss priorities for the future.  Any such changes will be discussed with 
members of the faculty. 


Questions:
* What guidelines do concentrations use when setting priorities?
* Should they all have the same guidelines?
* Should ISC have guidelines for reviewing recommendations from 
concentrations?


Concentrations do not want uniform guidelines.


The ISC memo gave the impression that we would formulate guidelines as we went 
along and report on them in the year-end report.  As decisions are made, guidelines are 
implicitly set.  Any guidelines the ISC decides on will be communicated and then will 
begin the following year.


Concentrations know best what projects are most beneficial and support being fiscally 
responsible.  


The ISC does not plan on spending less on curricular development.  The ISC will have to 
make decisions based in large part on priorities expressed by the concentrations.


Questions from concentrations:
* Can ISC send a memo to concentrations with language encouraging 
proposals and outlining our policy?
* Can ISC give a dollar range to concentrations each year of what they could 
expect to be funded?  
* Can we create a cycle of communication between ISC and concentrations?


Concentration chairs need to focus on what areas need to be enhanced and encourage 
application in that area.  Where do we need to enhance our curriculum?


Over time will funds be shifted?  It is the charge of the ISC to review priorities.  If, in the 
future, we discuss a change in priorities, we will include members of the faculty in that 
discussion.  The ISC is committed to communication.


Respectfully submitted,
Terri Phipps