I would like to say why I resigned at Chrisiiastime from
the Douglas Faculty Development Committee and ask several

questions which I think need answering.

As some faculty already know, Jim Sellers and Nick Mansfield
drafted a proposal over a year ago to rearrange the budgeting and
administrative structure of faculty development at the college.
This proposal, after going to the Faculty Development Committee,
the College Assembly, the Principal's Council, a sub-committee of
the Principal's Council, then back to the Principal's Council, was
passed. But it was never instituted. In the words of the October
25 memo prepared, I believe, by Don Porter, it was "re-considered",
"referred... to Executive Committee for study", came back to
Principal's Council and was defeated. The entire process took

approximately 16 months.

Three questions come to mind. Why, if the proposal was passed
by the appropriate body, was it never instituted? What caused
the Principal's Council to change their minds? Isn't the behaviour
of the Principal's Council in this matter inexplicably erratic?
The people best qualified to answer these questions are, it would

seem to me, the current members of the Principal's Council.

There are, also, some inaccurate statements in the October 25
memo which should: be pointed out. On the first page it is
stated, "The new Memorandum of Agreement explicitly states that
faculty are accountable to their respective directors for the
10-month period and the obvious interpretation is that what counts
as faculty development is that which is so approved by the
director." A careful reading of Article IV. 1-4 will reveal that

this is not, infact, explicitly stated.

The second paragraph of the first page states that the Faculty
Development Committee "indicated that they are unable to function"
for three reasons. This came about, in fact, because Lee Woodson
and myself put forward a motion that the Faculty Development
Committee should disband and not reconvene until the Sellers/

Mansfield proposal was instituted (since it had been duly approved)