13 November, 2006 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
November 13, 2006

Members present: Elizabeth Bondy, Elizabeth Yeager, Jamie Algina (for Rod Webb), Zhihui Fang, John Kranzler, Mary Ann Clark, Sondra Smith, Cyndy Griffin, Jim Doud, Bernie Oliver
Members absent: Diane Ryndak

Meeting called to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. The agenda was approved.
2. The October 9, 2006, minutes were approved with no corrections.
Action Items

Mentoring Policy for Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty:
Buffy said she received one email comment that the proposal was too prescriptive and suggested deleting the part about mentoring roles from “such as development of…” to “the demands of academic life” (about 4 lines). Cyndy said the proposal had been through several iterations with opportunities for faculty feedback; Jamie said that the proposal had not been discussed in Ed Psych but that there was some faculty opinion that the prescriptive aspects of the proposal could discourage faculty from taking on a mentoring role. John raised another issue: whether the policy as written is appropriate for both tenure and non-tenure track faculty. Buffy suggested we vote. Jamie moved that we strike the four lines of text; John seconded. In discussion, Cyndy asked if it was proper for us to revise the proposal and approve it without sending it back to the faculty. Mary Ann, Jamie, and Jim all expressed concern that this prescriptive language could be very problematic for department chairs. Jim called the question on Jamie’s amendment. The amendment to strike the language Jamie suggested was approved unanimously. In further discussion, John raised again the issue of stipulating that only tenure-track faculty be assigned to mentor new tenure-track hires. Jim suggested that this issue stay within the individual departments. Buffy asked for a vote on approving the amended policy. Jamie motioned for another amendment: A non-tenure track junior faculty will have access to a mentor for six years or until s/he receives promotion, whichever comes first. Jim seconded the motion. Buffy asked for a vote; the motion was approved unanimously. Buffy then asked for a motion to approve the amended proposal; Jim so moved and Jamie seconded. The proposal was approved unanimously.

Information Items

1. COE response to UF shared governance effort – Buffy discussed the October
17 workshop that she and Elizabeth attended. Buffy got a message from Danaya
Wright about updating our progress on governance; she has already responded to
Danaya with this information. The ad hoc assessment committee for evaluating shared governance already has met and developed a proposal that will be a
discussion item for the December FPC meeting.
2. Guidelines for promotion of full-time lecturers and scholars – Buffy said
the COE guidelines have been updated to reflect UF policy. Jamie and Jim wanted more information on this and wanted to see documentation from Jeri about why the policy had been updated in certain ways.
3. Buffy said we are in the process of revising the COE Annual Report form in order to let faculty highlight their work in shared governance more prominently.
4. Buffy reminded us to get on the agenda for our department meetings to talk about FPC matters.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Committee – Elizabeth discussed the course approvals and deletions
from Ed Admin that were addressed at the October meeting.
Faculty and Budgetary Affairs – Smith reported on behalf of the committee. They have held two meetings. They adjusted the guidelines for promotion of non-tenure track faculty (approved last spring) to align the policy with UF policy. They are now working on a timeline for addressing criteria for tenure and promotion of tenure-track faculty in the college.

Lectures, Seminars, Awards (Diane) – no report

Long Range Planning – Bernie said the committee is working on getting someone
to chair it. They also want to start collecting strategic planning data from other institutions. Buffy suggested that the LRP agenda may be related to Barbara
Hill’s visit.

Research Advisory – Mary Ann discussed the review criteria for Opportunity Fund proposals funded by the Office of Research. Paul is clarifying a few details on this and will be sending out a memo. There may also be a review of the CRIF
criteria. Buffy suggested the CRIF issue be addressed in the next FPC agenda committee meeting.

Student Recruitment – John said the committee is discussing whether to continue
or disband. They have met with Thomasenia and will meet with Mike Bowie to
find out more about what their offices are doing.

Technology (Rod) – no report

UF Faculty Senate Report

Cyndy discussed Kim Tanzer’s efforts to get faculty more involved in the
Senate; to remove faculty who have excessive absences; and to appoint
temporary senators when necessary. The Senate has a new Compensation Committee that will be added to the UF Constitution. Stephen Smith is a new member of the UF committee that deals with tenure and academic freedom issues.

Also, Buffy announced that Jean Crockett was recommended to serve on the ad hoc UF curriculum committee.

Dean’s Report

Catherine said the Centennial Conference was very successful and well-attended.
She then suggested that we focus on what the COE will be known for in the next
100 years, and said that she has talked with Dr. Barbara Hill of the American Council of Education about preparing a proposal to be shared with an appointed COE steering committee and department chairs, so that we can move our work into more of a state and national scene. This will not be a strategic planning activity; it is a structured conversation among faculty about making explicit our connections to larger issues in the educational landscape and about how to drive the agenda for addressing these issues in the 21st century. Catherine will be in touch with us when she hears from Barbara Hill; at this point we do not have a proposal or specific dates. Faculty will be involved in the proposal and the structure of this activity.

Discussion Items

1. Buffy asked for future agenda items and encouraged us to bring concerns to
FPC from our departments.
2. Buffy asked if the FPC Elections Committee should oversee UF Senate
elections as well. There was no opposition to this idea.
3. Chris Sessums discussed developments in distance education since he came aboard in March. The budget is in the black with some “rainy day” funds. He has met with Catherine and Jeri about our financial model (we get 95% of matriculation fees) and is now meeting with chairs about how departments can use the funds. He has developed handouts for faculty meetings to give an overview of what is happening in distance ed (guidelines for creating a course, etc.). He is also working on a format for reviewing current online courses and on acquisition of collaborative software for conferencing, PPTs, whiteboards, etc. He has talked to faculty about services they would like to have. He also emphasized that the distance ed office does not have control over course content, but it does
need to do the scheduling through UF’s system so that the COE can get the student fees from enrollment. Online courses do not have to be eight weeks only.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 pm. The next meeting is December 11th.