30 August, 2004 FPC Meeting Minutes

August 30, 2004
Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy,

Hazel Jones, Ester de Jong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott, Larry Tyree

Members absent: None

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Deans Jeri Benson & John Kranzler

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for August 30, 2004

Lamme made a motion to approve the August 30, 2004 meeting agenda with an addition as requested by Conroy.  Tyree seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as amended.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the May 10, 2004 meeting

Campbell made a motion to approve the May 10, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Tyree seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.


1. Fall Faculty Meeting

Conroy announced the fall faculty meeting would be held September 13, 2005 in the Terrace Room from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.  She reported that the meeting’s main purpose would be to work on feedback regarding the faculty climate survey and to introduce of new faculty.

2. 2004-2005 FPC meeting Dates

Conroy announced the Faculty Policy Council meeting to be held September 13, 2005 (on the same day as the faculty meeting) will be shortened to one hour, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.  She reviewed the list of Policy Council Meeting dates provided to members and reminded members to contact their alternates in advance if they cannot attend a meeting.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported that faculty survey data is available on the College of Education Website under the FPC area.  There, anyone can look at data from the College of Education’s faculty surveys.  The President’s Website (http://www.president.ufl.edu/facultysurvey/) provides access to all the data for the entire university broken down by rank and by gender.  Dean Emihovich urged FPC members to review this information.

Dean Emihovich informed FPC members of a meeting on October 13 in which the deans will report to the president the steps they are taking to address the issues raised by the faculty survey.  She would like to get as much information from as many people as possible. She provided three questions from the president to frame discussions of the University’s strategic plan:

·         What would you like to keep?

·         What would you like to change?

·         What would you like to add?

Dean Emihovich reported that the evaluations of the department chairs will also be on the FPC Website, under the College Governance heading. Faculty access will be limited to the evaluations of their own department chairs. Comments are not included.

Dean Emihovich reported efforts on behalf of the administration to make discussions of leadership more transparent.  She noted that the faculty survey indicated leadership issues at all levels including within departments.  She expressed a need for better definition of what it means to have a leadership role and how to build capacity for the next generation of leadership. She reported that the president feels strongly about shared faculty governance, which is dependent on a productive dialogue.

Tyree asked about the timetable of the faculty union election. Dean Emihovich reported that it looks like this will occur around January.  This represents a delay due to questions on how the bargaining unit will be defined. She indicated that the president thinks all units should be involved in the bargaining, but this issue will be reviewed this fall.

Dean Emihovich reported on the Provost’s and Faculty Senate’s Task Force on Quality of Life Issues for Faculty and provided a handout of its executive summary recommendations.  This information is available on the UF Faculty Senate website.

Dean Emihovich informed members that she would like to reconstitute the Dean’s Advisory Committee to make it more tied to faculty input.  She will provide a draft of a different Advisory Committee composition at the next meeting.  She is also developing more leadership positions.  She reported that John Kranzler has decided to step down at the end of this year to return to the faculty.  She envisions his position turning into three positions: an Associate Dean of Research, a Director of Technology, and a Director of Graduate Studies.

Dean Emihovich reminded members of centennial celebration preparations already

underway.  She noted that a celebration committee has already been formed, and that

the celebration will kickoff simultaneously with the capital campaign.  She would

like to have one faculty member from each department to head up planning activities

for the centennial.  The major planning work would go on this semester.  She asked

members to go back to their departments and see if anyone is interested in working

on these.  There will be a meeting on September 15, 2004 at 3:30 in the Dean’s

Conference Room.  Diane in the Dean’s Office is coordinating it.

Dean Emihovich announced a new development director, Margaret Gaylord. Gaylord comes from the Queen of Peace Church where she helped to raise $9 million for a new building. Dean Emihovich also announced a new PR director, Larry Lansford.  He will be contacting people and working with different departments to make the college more visible.

Dean Emihovich provided a draft handout of the Faculty Senate ad hoc Joint Committee on Tenure Report.  Conroy suggested that this document might be available on the Faculty Senate Webpage. Dean Emihovich pointed out three major areas of the report that will be controversial.  1) Language about stopping the tenure clock (page 13).  2) On page 16 of the report, item number 4 suggests there be a formal letter regarding progress toward tenure, but it is not clear who writes this letter.  3) On page 19, the definition of distinction is being debated.  The word distinction lacks clarity.  Also on page 19 the senate recommends a vote. Dean Emihovich noted that any college wide vote is a matter of public record due to the Sunshine Laws.  Conroy asked whether this is also true at the department level. Dean Emihovich responded that if the vote is recorded, then it is public information.  Conroy asked about the timetable of this report.  Amatea responded that she understands there is a desire to move this along pretty quickly.

Dean Emihovich reminded members about the upcoming UF Presidential inauguration and passed out a brochure about it.  She stated that two people from

the College of Education will be at the president’s roundtable.

Action items

1. Assignment of FPC members to committees

Conroy reminded members that part of serving on the FPC is serving on a committee as the liaison between the committee and FPC. As members of the committee their responsibility is to call the first meeting and that with the exception of the College Curriculum Committee, FPC member should not chair the committee if possible. A list of committees was provided.

Conroy requested volunteers for committees.

Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee:  Esther DeJong

Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Ellen Amatea

The Long-Range Planning Committee: Linda Lamme

Conroy added that an immediate agenda item for LRPC would be to discuss the Faculty Survey.

Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg

Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Tracy Linderholm

Technology Committee.  Terry Scott

Dean Emihovich announced a meeting at the Hilton on October 7 to discuss strategic plan issues.  She would like to have the Dean’s Advisory Committee, the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee, and the Long Range Planning Committee involved.  Jones noted that the Long-Range Planning Committee needs to get started right away.

College Curriculum Committee:  Jones will serve as chair of this committee as part of her duties as secretary of FPC.

Elections Committee:  Currently needs three new members.

Agenda Committee: Need to elect an FPC representative.

Dean Emihovich asked about non-tenure track committee members who are not able to vote.  Conroy responded that the constitution does not state that non-tenure track faculty cannot be there.  Dean Emihovich questioned the fairness of asking people to work on a committee when they have no voting rights.  Jones responded that they input is valued and they are volunteering.  Conroy concluded that there are many procedures that need to be clarified. These will be agenda items for the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs committee.

Conroy added that an issue has also come up regarding assigning committees so that there is some continuity of membership from year to year. Right now there aren’t any guidelines for developing committees.  There are still some things in FPC that haven’t been worked out, but on these committees, everyone has an equal say.  It is important that everyone sees their fellow committee members as equals.

2. Nominations for Agenda Committee

Conroy informed members that the Agenda Committee meets once a month and sets the agenda for the Faculty Policy Council.  It looks at the agenda items and assigns agenda items to the entire FPC body, or to committees, or decides it is not appropriate for FPC.  It also met last year to do the Dean’s evaluation.  Campbell served on the Agenda Committee last year.

Tyree volunteered for the Agenda Committee.  Conroy solicited other volunteers. There were none.  Campbell moved to nominate Tyree and Amatea seconded the nomination.  All were in favor.

Informational Items

1. Faculty Feedback on UF Climate

Conroy informed members that she, Dean Emihovich, Jones, and Dean Benson met to brainstorm ways to get faculty involved in discussions about the climate survey and providing feedback to the Dean.  By October 7, faculty need to have responses prepared for the three questions posed by the president (as discussed in the Dean’s Report).  To accomplish this goal, the aforementioned group decided to hold the fall faculty meeting early.  They plan to focus that meeting on getting faculty feedback.  The group also decided to ask the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Long-Range Planning Committee to provide recommendations.  Finally, the group also decided to create an Open Faculty Forum for those who couldn’t make the other meetings.  Conroy added that if a faculty member cannot make any of the meetings, he or she could email her directly.  She emphasized the importance of getting as many people involved as possible.

Lamme suggested that departments also review the survey data.  Dean Emihovich responded that department chairs have already had the survey data for two weeks and were asked to discuss it at their department meetings.

De Jong asked if all the faculty discussions needed to occur by October 7.  Conroy and Dean Emihovich answered affirmatively.

Amatea suggested a structured format for involving people during the faculty meeting, such as breaking out into groups.  Lamme added that the grouping should not be by department.  Dean Emihovich informed members that she will also introduce new faculty at the meeting.  To frame discussion of the climate survey, she plans to present the changes that have already been made which show some significant movement forward.  She stressed the importance of keeping people thinking about the future.

Dean Emihovich pointed out difficulties in communication.  She believes people want to know why things happen and how to help shape the direction of what’s happening.  They should be able to have this without being involved in doing all the work.  Conroy stated that faculty may feel like they are not being informed about what FPC is doing.  If posting the minutes on the Web after every meeting doesn’t do it, what will?  If FPC members don’t share what gets discussed, who will?  In the special education department FPC members are on the agenda at every department meeting.

2. Plan for change in mail servers

Kranzler reported that the College received $250,000 for technology. Half of these funds went to upgrade the PC, Mac labs and half of which went to upgrading servers.  The new servers are ready to go but transition has been delayed because of the PeopleSoft implementation.  Now the college is planning to upgrade mail servers at the end of September.  Users will need to make sure they have a Gatorlink account and an updated password. On the transition date new mail will come in on the new server.  Users can get mail as soon as their systems are converted.  Each user will need to work with a tech.  Users can sign up ahead of time for an appointment.  After conversion, users will have enhanced features such as daily file backup, automatic program updates, increased security, automatic address book updates, and the ability to unsend a message.  Dean Emihovich added that these features are all optional.  Kranzler went on the explain that the only problem he anticipates is for users of antiquated email systems. People who use Outlook or Entourage should have no problems.  Conroy asked how the changes will affect everyone.  Kranzler responded that until users get converted, they will only be able to access mail via Webmail. He added that users will be able to access their desktops with wireless laptops.  Scott expressed concern that anyone with his password could access his desktop.  Kranzler affirmed that anyone who knows the username and password can get in.  Lamme asked if it would be easier to convert to Entourage from Eudora before this switch.  Dean Emihovich responded that it would be and emphasized the increased functionality of the new system.  Conroy asked if there was a better way to get faculty to switch earlier.  She stressed that warning faculty about this ahead of time would help them avoid stress. Jones suggested that faculty be taught to use Webmail to ease the transition. Dean Emihovich reviewed the merits of a Web-based email server.  Tyree suggested a simplified approach to communicating technology concepts.  Lamme indicated that she does not know how to get into Gatorlink.  Kranzler stated that he would be sending that information out via email.

3. Issues & Activities for 2004-2005

Conroy discussed the minority recruitment and retention plan and the need to put closure on this plan in the fall.

Conroy stated that the PFC was also asked to consider a plan for a secondary minor.

Conroy discussed the issue of participation of non-tenured faculty in FPC.  The decision had been made that non-tenure track faculty cannot participate but this issue recently reemerged as a topic of discussion.

Kranzler discussed computer policy.  He stated that currently different faculty at different levels have access to different areas of the computer system. This policy changed who could put what on which computer.  Now a tech person needs to come to a computer if someone can’t load what he or she would like. Some people don’t want to do that step.  He indicated that there is a clear policy on this, but they have been getting complaints.

Conroy stated that the FPC would consider policy regarding indirect costs from grants and how costs are shared across departments.

Conroy stated that the research advisory committee looked at a new policy for the B.O. Smith endowed professorships and has made recommendations for its use. Dean Emihovich explained that it is essentially an endowed research fund that can be used for a GA, travel etc… Although a single professor has held this professorship in the past, after reviewing the endowment, Dean Emihovich has decided to restructure how the fund is allocating. Currently she is considering gearing the research professorships toward associate professors and would like to be able to appoint two people starting in the spring semester. She related this position to the president’s goal of raising money to support faculty research.  She stated that the college is currently underfunded in terms of the research support the faculty receives.

Conroy stated that PFC members need to review the procedures for evaluating the Dean.

Conroy discussed last year’s merit money and the lack of a policy on how to use merit money.  She stated that last year administration relied on procedures created by each department.  Productivity over three years was considered, as well as compression in relation to productivity.  Raises for assistant professors did not come from the merit money.  No one should feel that this compromised his or her raise.  Tyree expressed concern that the president was quoted in the paper as saying that faculty received 4% raises when this is not true.  Dean Emihovich explained that the 4% figure was reduced by 0.33%, which went to a pool of funds, and then they set aside 3.67% of faculty base salary for raises.  She stated that the president was very clear to the deans that it did not mean that 3.67% would be handed out across the board.  Each chair was given a pool of money based on the faculty in their department and made decisions on ranking of faculty within their department.  Conroy explained that many people were not working during the summer, but decisions needed to be made.  There was not a lot of faculty input.  She would like to revisit this issue.  Unfortunately, people didn’t realize that the raise was based on merit.  Dean Emihovich responded that the president and the provost were very clear on the fact that it was merit money.  Campbell stated that state employees usually get a fixed rate of increase and expressed concern that faculty can end up getting less money appropriated for raises overall under the merit system.  Dean Emihovich commented that there has been no state raise.  She stated that there are some faculty who are extraordinarily productive and highly compressed and that she needs to take that into consideration.  She expressed the need for a college-wide policy shaped by FPC. Conroy stated that the agenda committee would look at that.

Benson asked how it is decided what goes to committee and what gets discussed in FPC. Conroy responded that all items for consideration come to the Agenda committee. The Agenda committee decides how matters are handled, by forwarding appropriate actions to the administration, to appropriate committees, or by establishing ad hoc committees to deal with issues that cannot be addressed elsewhere.  The Agenda Committee reports to the FPC about the disposition of all matters referred to it.

Conroy summarized the last three issues on the agenda:  Communicating better with faculty senate representatives, space, and faculty senate awards.  She stated that she will let PFC members know which committees will get certain items.  Anyone can submit ideas by emailing herself, Jones, or Tyree.  She made committee notebooks from last year available for members to give them to the new chairs.  Unfortunately, three committees did not turn in their notebooks.

Lamme suggested that discussions of the faculty survey should not end in October.  She suggested that it continue on the FPC agenda.  Dean Emihovich affirmed this idea. Tyree asked whether there will be a follow up survey.  Dean Emihovich affirmed this.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Tyree motioned to adjourn. Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda,  (2) FPC & COE Committee Membership 2004-2005 (draft), (3) Report of The Faculty Senate and ad hoc Joint Committee on Tenure (draft), (4) Provost’s and Faculty Senate’s Task Force on Quality of Life Issues for Faculty Executive Summary Recommendations,  (5) Faculty Policy Council Minutes May 10, 2004 (draft), (6) University of Florida Constitution, (7) COE Faculty Policy Council Meeting Schedule 2004-2005, (8) College of Education Operating Procedures Guide, Standing and Operating Committees