14 January, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

January 14, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend, Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  David Honeyman, Max Parker

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for January 14, 2002.

Correa moved and Clark seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2. Approval of the 12/10 Minutes

Corrections to the minutes of December 10 were recommended as follows:

a) Page 3, Information Items, Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, 2nd sentence:  “…graduate students after a department had recommendedadmitting a student.”

b)   Page 4, 2nd sentence, “He also serves as a member on the Shared Governance Committee…” eliminating “on the Committee on Committees that supervises all senate committees, and…”

Clark moved and Jones seconded to accept the December 10th minutes as modified. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as modified.

Discussion Items

1. Update on COE policy search and archive

Smith reported that the FPC was in a “wait and see” situation.  The standing committees were working on their assignments and action items were expected from the committees. He also reminded FPC members to remain on topic and limit conversations to the agenda items.

Smith updated the members of the council on preliminary findings of the archival search of the minutes of the Department Chair meetings of 1996-1997.  Listed below are the notes from Smith’s findings:

a)   A third-year review process for non-tenured faculty members was recommended.

b) The College Development Committee would serve as only a fact-finding committee regarding the tenure and promotion nomination process and the suggestion of a written college-wide policy was discussed.

c) A Sustained Performance Evaluation process in which annual reports would be required by all faculty members was discussed.  If no evidence of satisfactory performance were available, the evaluation letter would reflect an “unsatisfactory” performance by the faculty member.

d) A COE policy on culminating experiences during week 17 of the semester was discussed.

e) A discussion on tuition waivers and grants was noted in which tuition waivers were to be increased by 10% each year to offset increased tuition expenses.  Any grant would need to state that “the remainder of the tuition will be provided by the College…” with the college name indicated.

f)  Department Chairs were to consider service assignments of faculty members who serve on committees or task forces with the federal government.  These appointments would not count toward faculty workload service assignments.

g) Graduate teaching assistants’ assignments must be consistent across departments.  Also, twelve hours of student contact time per faculty member is a minimum, not a maximum as stated by the 12-hour rule regarding faculty assignments.

h) Search committees must consist of three faculty members from the department, one college representative, one university representative, one outside representative, one student and a chairperson.”

The goal of the archive search being conducted by Smith and Correa is to document past policies and procedures of COE, which will be reviewed and compared with current policies, and procedures.

Allington stated that there are four sources of policy and procedures that should be reviewed:

a)   Database of Administrative Council and Department Chairs minutes;

b) University Board of Regents policies  (which may no longer be in effective);

c) University of Florida and the Collective Bargaining Agreement policies; and

e) Departmental policies.

Allington suggested that, parallel to the archive search process, two other searches be developed – one on departmental policies and one on university policies.  Correa supported Allington’s suggestion and commented that the parameters of the old BOR, University of Florida, and COE policies be researched for clarity.

Although the university is experiencing a tremendous amount of transition and change including the newly established Board of Trustees, a new administration, and changes in the graduate school and division of sponsored research, it is hoped that the review of past COE policies and procedures will assist the FPC in developing new policies and provide a new dean some guidance in implementing the COE policies.

As an example of policy investigations, Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of interviewing department Chairs regarding their Tenure and Promotion guidelines.

There was discussion of the January 23rd meeting, which will include the Provost, deans, FPC members and department chairs.  It is scheduled from 1:30 – 4:30 pm in Room 158 Norman Hall.

2. FPC procedures (suggestions from last meeting)

Smith handed out procedural guidelines on how the FPC would consider action items from standing committees or from non-FPC members during the meetings.  The first guideline stated that, “All committee reports should not exceed two minutes in length.  After each committee report, time will be allocated for clarification of the report.  No new items or discussion should occur during committee reports.  As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda for the next FPC meeting.”  This guideline was modified to read in the last sentence, “As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda.”

The second guideline stated that, “To request an action item on the FPC agenda, or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, faculty should provide a written request to the FPC chair.  This guideline was modified to read, “To request that an action item be placed on the FPC agenda, and/or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, non-FPC members should provide a written request to the FPC chair.”

Smith will rewrite the two guidelines and present them to the FPC for a vote at the next meeting.

3. Upcoming Spring elections

Smith will request that Dr. Loesch develop a timeline for the Spring elections and present it to the FPC as soon as possible.

Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting

Smith did not communicate with Dr. Anne McGill-Franzen and requested that the item remain tabled.  Jones suggested that the item on linking with the College’s Staff Council remain tabled and she will report on this item at a later date. Clark suggested that the FPC remove the tabled items from the agenda until a report was available for review.

Information Items

Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue reported that the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee would meet with Dr. Ken Gerhardt, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, on January 17th to discuss the GRE and Praxis assessment as a requirement for admission to the College of Education.  FPC members suggested the following questions also be discussed with Gerhardt:

What is the University’s policy regarding the GRE?

How can the COE model itself after other units that may have different admissions criteria?

To what extent do multiple policies exist?

How many graduate credits are students allowed to transfer into a graduate program?

Could criteria for graduate students in certification only programs be different?

Following the meeting with Dr. Gerhardt, the committee will have their normally scheduled meeting to discuss recommendations and suggestions made by Dr. Gerhardt.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of investigating the faculty workload across departments.  This committee also will address the issue of intellectual property.

Research Advisory Committee

Smith reported that the Research Advisory Committee is in the process of discussing the consistency of the language in the Graduate Catalog regarding the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. degrees.  This committee also will review grant proposal deadlines, the dissertation review process which now flows through the Graduate Studies Office, and the role, function, and purpose of the Center for School Improvement.

Smith stated that two items would be included at the next Agenda Committee meeting: (1) revisiting the purpose of the Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee, and (2) reviewing the process of the Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committee.

Long-Range Planning Committee

Allington reported that this committee will be meeting today.

Clark announced that the next University Senate meeting was scheduled for Thursday and minutes would be posted on the web.

Clark moved and Correa seconded that the meeting be adjourned.  The FPC members unanimously voted to adjourn the FPC meeting at 10:50 am.