It is good to hear that there are people who are excited about our project, but I am not sure if we are giving enough weight to the people who are going to make this happen. I am concerned by Melissa's posting and the concern that she described in the Fine Arts department. I think that we may have been looking at this more idealistically than we thought in terms of finding a Fine Arts person that is willing to advise our board.
I was thinking about revising the constitution, but I can't shake the feeling that I am writing rules for somebody else to follow through with. Nobody likes to have to abide by the rules of a governing body that they never knew or were able to give input to, and the direction that we are going in now is setting up the rules for someone else to do a lot of hard work. While this seems like the best way to really create a legacy for our question of religion and science as seen through art, I am beginning to wonder if we are biting off more than we can chew or even taking a bite that we are expecting others to chew in our absense.
I really want to see this happen and I think we need to rework the constitution in a more simple way that the fine arts department can take and make there own.
This could just be late night ramblings, but I am just concerned about selling these ideas in a way that will excite not only the higher up administration, but also the people who are going to have to invest their time in the future to make our plans a reality.