4 April, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes
DRAFT 4/13/05
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
April 4, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall
Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Ester deJong, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Larry Tyree
Members Absent: Hazel Jones, Terry Scott
Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich
Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
Agenda and Minutes
1. Approval of the agenda for April 4, 2005
Conroy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Campbell asked to add an item to the agenda regarding summer school. The addition was made. Amatea made a motion to approve the agenda. Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the minutes of the March 7, 2005 meeting
Tyree made a motion to approve the March 7, 2005 minutes as submitted. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.
Announcements
1. Change in date of last FPC meeting – April 25, 2005
The last FPC meeting of the 2004-2005 academic year was scheduled for May 4, 2005. The proposal is to change the date to April 25, 2005 from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. The newly elected FPC members and continuing FPC members will attend this meeting.
2. Faculty meeting – April 18, 2005
The agenda committee met to discuss the agenda for the Spring Faculty Meeting. The COE strategic plan and vote on COE constitutional changes are the main agenda items. The Faculty Meeting is scheduled during a time that the FPC would typically meet; therefore, the faculty meeting will replace the FPC meeting.
3. Committee reports – Due April 25, 2005
Conroy will ask FPC committee chairs to develop a summary report. The purpose of the reports is to communicate the committee’s accomplishments did last year. This will provide information needed for new committee members in the subsequent year.
4. FPC elections – nominations due March 31, 2005
Conroy asked if each department/school had submitted names for consideration on the FPC ballot. Several departments expressed that this task has not been accomplished. FPC representatives will check with the chair of their departments regarding this matter.
Report from the Dean
1. Strategic planning outcome
Dean Emihovich reported that she had a productive strategic planning meeting with the four strategic planning groups:
1. Outreach scholarship;
2. Curriculum and program development;
3. Research initiatives; and
4. Student and faculty recruitment and development.
She asked them to come up with a list of two important actions that they would like to see enacted next year. Out of those lists she and Jeri Benson will choose one or two to put emphasis on next year. There are two proposed actions that had support from multiple groups, so those will probably be the ones chosen.
Dean Emihovich also reported that she will put together a planning group to go forward with the actions in May or early summer. Her meeting with the Provost is April 20th, where her team will present the budget for the College of Education.
Rankings came out recently. The college is still in the top 25, but some departments have fallen out of the rankings. Other departments have remained the same.
The college has recently made four new hires: Quinnen, Crockett, Cavanaugh, and Sandler. It was pointed out to the dean that the COE has one of the best records on campus for attracting and recruiting diverse applicants.
The dean reported that there are a few items coming down from the state: (1) the college will need to develop alternative preparation paths for certification – i.e., educator preparation institutes; (2) there will also be a heavy focus on outcomes, so we will need to demonstrate the effectiveness of our results.
Committee Reports
1. College Curriculum Committee: No report.
2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee will meet next week. Merit pay and promotion recommendations are currently being considered.
3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee would like to have a graduate level teaching award, open to all tenured or tenure-track faculty (see below).
4. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that members of the long-range planning committee were trying to get onto each strategic planning group. This process is not working well because not all committee members have strategic planning groups that interest them.
5. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee reviewed nominations for the B.O. Smith Research Professor award.
6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that there was a discrepancy between the rank list of fellowship nominees recommended by this committee and the students who were offered fellowships. The committee met with John Kranzler, discussed the issues and determined that the committee would not be responsible for this task in the following year.
7. Technology Committee: No report.
Report from the Faculty Senate
Amatea reported that the senate discussed a proposed assembly for administrative staff. This report was tabled. Another item was the discussion of the rank order of positions for scholar, lecturer, and so forth.
Discussion Items
1. Feedback on FPC Recommendation for constitutional change of the membership of FPC to include non-tenure accruing faculty
A vote on proposed changes to the COE constitution regarding the inclusion of non-tenure accruing faculty in the FPC will occur at the April 18th faculty meeting. Conroy has heard informally that there are several concerns. She asked each FPC member to go back to his or her department and discuss whatever concerns there are with members of the faculty. She also plans to send another email out to ask about concerns with the proposed changes. Lamme reported that her department discussed and expressed some continuing concerns. The School of Teaching and Learning has so much less representation than the other departments, adding non-tenure accruing faculty to the FPC makes STL even less represented. She suggested that the issue is not about whether non-tenure accruing faculty should be included in the FPC, but more a concern about the model of governance used in the FPC (i.e., the Senate vs. House representational model of FPC).
Linderholm reported that the Educational Psychology department questioned whether non-tenure accruing faculty would be able to vote on issues that only affect tenure-accruing faculty members. Campbell reported that his department had similar concerns. Counselor Ed was supportive of the constitutional change. deJong commented that the changes would affect college-wide votes, adding a few additional votes (15 people currently). Conroy clarified that if the constitutional changes passes, non-tenure accruing faculty would be eligible to participate in FPC. Lamme expressed concern that the tendency might be to encourage non-tenure accruing faculty to participate in FPC because faculty members may feel they do not have time to participate themselves. Tyree suggested that one way to get around this potential problem is to create two seats on FPC specifically for non-tenure-accruing faculty.
Action Items
1. Graduate Teaching Award Recommendation
Amatea reported that the committee would like to have a graduate level teaching award, open to all tenured or tenure-track faculty. She provided a list of the requirements for the application. This is an award that people would only be able to earn once in their career. Dean Emihovich suggested that the award would most likely be a recognition of distinction, with no monetary award associated. Others indicated that even a small monetary award would make the award seem more valuable. The difficulty is that other similar awards do not provide a stipend and doing so for one might send the wrong message.
Emihovich wondered if there should be criteria or indicators related to student outcomes. Ross expressed concern that there may be an advantage for faculty who teach doctoral level students or smaller classes. The ability to self-reflect should not be the only indicator of quality. deJong questioned one of the criteria requesting research and publications related to graduate teaching. If graduate teaching is not on someone’s research agenda, they would be at a disadvantage. Ross commented that the criteria should to be broad enough to accommodate a wide variety of teachers – not just those who research teaching. Koro-Ljungberg also questioned the need to include student comments in the application. Lamme suggested that the number of students in their classes, the level of the students, and whether the class was required or not should be considerations in the award. deJong also requested a change to four years of data rather than five. This issue was tabled and Amatea will take the feedback to her committee.
2. Summer School Issue
Campbell presented information regarding a discrepancy in summary school pay over the past several years. He obtained information on how summer school pay was
calculated for the last few years and received several different responses. He provided a list of previous methods for calculations. There has been some changes and he asks: “Why is there variance in the calculation?” Dean Emihovich suggested that it may be a conversion issue. Campbell would like to get clarification on what that means. Emihovich stated that she would check into the potential problem.
Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Tyree motioned to adjourn. Amatea seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:40 pm.
