,

17 November, 2003 FPC Meeting Minutes

November 17, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present:     Jennifer Asmus, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Craig Wood, Danling Fu (alternate for Elizabeth Yeager)

Members Absent:      Elizabeth Yeager, James Archer

Others Present:          Dean Kranzler

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes


1. Approval of agenda for November 17, 2003

Lamme made a motion to approve the November 17, 2003 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron.  Echevarria-Doan seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the November 10, 2003 minutes

Lamme, Campbell, and Wood made several corrections to the minutes. Campbell made a motion to approve the November 10, 2003 minutes with the changes requested.  Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1.  FPC Agenda Committee Meeting

The next Agenda Committee meeting is December 1, 2003, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon.

2.  College Conversation Hour

Dean Emihovich will hold a College Conversation Hour on December 8th from 11:45 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. in the Dean’s Conference Room.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

Conroy was delayed in arriving at the meeting so no report was given.  The next meeting is scheduled for November 24, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in the Dean’s Conference Room.

2. Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee

The Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee met on 11/17/03. Echevarria-Doan reported that the committee is discussing the voting rights of non-tenured faculty.  The committee is considering a two-tiered system:

a. Full time, non-tenured accruing and department affiliated faculty, which includes clinical faculty, lecturers, and assistant scholars. These individuals are more clearly aligned with departments. A faculty wide vote would occur for approval.

b.  Professional track faculty, which includes PK Yonge, Dean Affiliated faculty, Graduate Assistants, Teaching Assistants, and visiting scholars. This change would be considered in the second phase. A rationale would be developed explaining how these individuals are part of the faculty.

Campbell suggested that the committee limit their recommendation to UF lecturer lines only initially pending review by the college for appropriate positon classifications or titles.

Kranzler clarified that currently voting rights were based on whether the faculty member is eligible for graduate faculty status.

Waldron stated that sufficient time needs to be allowed for this process to occur since it would require two meetings, approval of faculty, and a constitutional change.

Kranzler suggested that in-unit and out-of-unit faculty may need to be considered.

Wood asked for clarification as to what these faculty would earn access to (i.e., what voting rights).

Waldron stated that they would be able to participate as equal members in the College wide votes and faculty governance committee participation.

Waldron asked that committee develop a recommendation for the full FPC to consider.

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Asmus stated that the Committee is currently waiting for doctoral dissertation mentoring information.  Dr. Webb has been asked to clarify the committee’s role relative to lectures and seminars.

4. Long Range Planning Committee

Lamme stated that the Committee is developing a proposal to share at the December 1st meeting.

5. Research Advisory Committee

Wood stated that the Committee is meeting electronically. The committee will be meeting with the Dean to begin the process of searching for the director of the OERI. The Research Advisory Committee approved the position for the coordinator and the director.

Wood expressed concern that the director search was not connected with the revenue generating effort.

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions& Petitions Committee

The next meeting is December 5, 2003.  The Committee will look at graduate enrollment and recruitment.

7. Technology Committee

The committee is proposing a set of technology security procedures for the College.  The current policies need to be more secure so that use of the web can be restricted to those using it for University business and those currently employed by the University.  It was suggested that John Donaldson, the College of Education Webmaster, be consulted for ideas.

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Research Requirements

Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee discussed the possibility of eliminating the doctoral research tracks. There would be two sets of courses: qualitative research and quantitative research. All doctoral students (i.e., Ed.D. & Ph.D.) would be included. All doctoral students would have to complete 12 hours. Substitutions would be approved by Kranzler’s office. The committee will try to finalize the document at the 11/18/03 meeting.

Report from the Dean

No report

New Business

1.  Constitutional requirement for annual review of Dean Emihovich

COE Constitution, Article III, Section 1

“The service of the Dean shall be reviewed annually by the faculty.”

Waldron stated that there has not been an annual review of the Dean in the past several years. As stated in the Constitution, the performance of the Dean should be reviewed annually. This review is not intended to be a formalized personnel review. The review should provide the faculty an opportunity to give feedback and information to the Dean about the College and her performance in fulfilling the dean’s responsibilities. The scope of the review and the process and procedures need to be developed prior to completing the review.

Wood suggested that a faculty survey be completed.  It was thought that the results should be brought back to FPC and that it be determined at that time what should be done with the results.

Lamme asked what has been done in the past.  Kranzler stated that Dean McDavis was not evaluated and a vote of no confidence was given to Dean Gonzalez before he left.  The results of the Associate Deans’ evaluations are currently not shared.   This review would be different from a personnel review since the Provost would do that type of evaluation of the Dean.

In the Agenda Committee the Dean had stated that she welcomed the review.  Currently the review would only come from faculty, but the FPC would be able to ask the Dean’s office staff for feedback.  Most other Colleges at the University of Florida have no constitution so there would likely not be a procedure for evaluating and reviewing of Deans that would be available from other Colleges.

Wood stated that sharing the results with the provost would be an option.  Lamme stated that the next step should be to decide what FPC wanted to achieve from this evaluation and the way it should be done.

A Committee was formed to discuss this review and how it should be handled.  Members of the committee are Linda Lamme, Nancy Waldron, Maureen Conroy, Craig Wood, Jim Archer, and Dale Campbell (chair).

Asmus made a motion for the formation of this committee to consider options and procedures for the evaluation of the College of Education Dean. Koro-Ljungher seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved.

2.  Holiday Proposal

A proposed policy was distributed suggesting that the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, which is the high holy day of the Jewish religion, be recommended to the University as a University holiday.  Lamme suggested that the College would work to urge the community at the University level who develop the calendar to reconsider the holy day of Yom Kipper. Scott asked for clarification for how the process would work. There was a discussion that included whether this was a good idea due to the issue of separation of church and state. In addition, a point was made that the winter break is not considered a religious holiday even though it always includes Christmas. There was also a discussion regarding the number of other religions on campus that have religious holidays that are not honored by the UF calendar.  Campbell recommended that this issue be referred to a committee to determine the appropriate avenue for consideration. Waldron decided to table the issue until she could determine the appropriate committee and process for considering this proposal.

3.  Follow up to Dean’s Budget Report

Conroy stated that she has not heard back from the Dean at this point.

Adjournment

A motion was made by Echevarria-Doan for adjournment and seconded by Wood.  The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

/by
,

10 November, 2003 FPC Meeting Minutes

November 10, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present:        Jamie Algina (alternate for Jennifer Asmus), Dale Campbell, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Maureen Conroy, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Craig Wood, Elizabeth Yeager

Members Absent:        Jennifer Asmus, Nancy Waldron

Others Present:            Dean Emihovich, Dotti Delfino

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:08 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for November 10, 2003

Echevarria-Doan made a motion to approve the November 10, 2003 meeting agenda as submitted by Conroy.  Algina seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the October 6, 2003 meeting

Algina made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2003 meeting. Campbell seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich explained components of the budget. She explained there are 2 primary sources of funding for the College of Education (i.e., recurring and nonrecurring). The information she presented in the current budget is recurring. Most of this budget is state funds that are fixed, with approximately 90% of funding in salaries. Nonrecurring funds are funds that are obtained through research overhead accounts and foundation accounts and have restrictions according to how they can be spent (e.g., research overhead funds can only be spent on research activities).  She explained that the funds in the tuition waiver category have been overspent due to a number of factors including the significant increase in graduate tuition and lack of sufficient funding. Dean Emihovich explained that in several departments, such as Development and Alumni and the Lastinger Center, funds for salaries and operating expenses are paid through the foundation and do not come from the College of Education budget.

Conroy asked how the deficit in tuition waiver funds of $120,000 would impact faculty and students. Dean Emihovich stated that this was a university-wide problem. However, the University does not have any extra tuition waiver funds; therefore, this deficit could mean that the College will need to cut back on instruction or deliver instruction in a more efficient manner (e.g., web-based courses, increasing teaching loads). Algina asked how we could generate more tuition waiver funds so that we will not have to cut graduate assistants. The Dean is discussing this problem with the Chairs, but no decisions have been made.

Wood and Campbell asked how the budget links to the College’s long range plan as well as UF’s long range plan. Dean Emihovich responded by explaining that there is little discretionary funding in this current budget. However, the research account funding could be used to help develop innovative programs. In addition, she suggested that departments could use salary saving funds to develop innovative programs.

Lamme asked how the current budget deficit impacts summer salaries of faculty. Lamme said that in the past, data was provided by individual faculty members and Lamme agreed with the Dean that this would not be a good idea. This is especially problematic for faculty who are going to retire, because their retirement is based on their average salary over the 5 years prior to retirement. Dean Emihovich explained that state funds are declining and the summer budget is a place where budget cuts can be made. Dean Emihovich explained that she cannot guarantee summer budget for faculty due to deficits and suggested that faculty write grants or develop on line courses that generate “off book” funds to be used for summer salaries. Lamme stated that faculty salaries in the College of Education were lower than other comparable colleges on a national level and asked how administrator’s salaries in the College of Education compare to other Colleges of Education on a national level. Lamme asked for data comparing the amount of salary being spent on administrators as opposed to faculty. In addition, Lamme and Wood asked how a cut in summer courses would influence the College’s FTE. The Dean explained that if summer courses were cut, the loss in FTE could be made up in the following fall and spring or by teaching “off book” courses.

Wood explained that 45% of the expenditures in the current budget appear to be going to centers or departments that are not generating revenue and asked the Dean to explain how funds are generated in these departments. He added that the current budget as presented is difficult to understand because it does not clearly explain which departments are generating funds. The Dean explained that many of these departments are critical to the College, because they help support instruction and students within the College. Wood asked the Dean for further information about the overhead costs of the College. He suggested that providing a historical overview of the available funds generated by the College and how those funds were spent across the College would be useful information. The Dean stated that she is in the process of collecting this information. In addition, Wood suggested that more detailed information about nonrecurring budget and the current faculty, roles, and funding sources of related departments, such as Alliance, Lastinger Center and so forth, would be helpful to assist the FPC in further understanding the budget. Dean Emihovich will provide a short narrative of faculty, roles, and activities of each of these departments and their operating budgets.

Lamme suggested that we may want to consider presenting data on how individual faculty generate funding. Dean Emihovich stated that using this type of economic model would not be beneficial.

Dean Emihovich suggested that faculty should consider how we deliver our teacher training program. Presently, our teacher training program runs on an expensive model. She suggested that there may be more efficient service delivery models.

Algina asked the Dean to explain the faculty who made up the 8.25 FTE in administration on the current budget. The Dean did not have that information to present, but will include this information in the narrative.

Dean Emihovich explained that the budget is constantly changing and that she is working to generate additional funds that could be used to support faculty salaries in the summer. Conroy suggested that as changes in the budget occur and budgetary decisions are made, the Dean may want to consult with the Budget and Faculty Affairs Committee. Algina stated that the College’s constitution states that the role of the FPC is to provide feedback about how the Dean is spending funds.

Dean Emihovich explained that she is investing funds to help build an infrastructure for the College that will help to generate further funding. For example, the Dean has installed a new server for the College. This server will provide opportunities for generating more funds.

Campbell stated that we need to clarify how grant incentives are used and that a specific policy for grant incentives would be helpful information for faculty.

Wood suggested that the Dean consider cutting the budgets of resource units that do not generate funding prior to cutting the summer salaries of faculty and instructional departments.

Adjournment

A motion was made by Scott for adjournment and seconded by Campbell.  The meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m.

/by