22 January, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
January 22, 2007

Members Present: Jamie Algina (alternate for John Kranzler), Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Sondra Smith, Rod Webb, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Jim Doud, John Kranzler
Non-Members Present: Marylynn Hall, Tom Dana

Meeting began at 2:06pm

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Ryndak moved to approve agenda and Yeager seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the December 11, 2006 FPC meeting minutes. Webb moved to approve the minutes and Griffin seconded the motion.

Suggested amendments:

  1. Webb asked to strike the last line of the technology committee report and replace it with “The chair will reconvene the committee in  January.”.
  2. Ryndak asked to replace references to “Benson” with “Dean Benson”.

The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager reported that the committee has not met. They scheduled to meet again on the 29th but this meeting has now been postponed due to search activities on that day.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported that the FBAC met and split into two sub-committees to work on two separate issues: 1) Faculty load; and 2) Faculty role in budget. FBAC will have a separate meeting to go over sabbaticals. There is also an ad-hoc committee working to clarify the criteria for tenure and promotion of tenure track faculty in the COE. Mirka Koro-Ljungberg is chairing the ad-hoc committee.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak
Ryndak reported that the committee has not met since the last FPC meeting. Mary Kay Dykes, chair of the LSAC, has arranged to meet with Dean Benson to develop the committee agenda.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver
Oliver reported that the LRPC has an ad-hoc committee working on a survey to get COE faculty views of shared governance (chaired by James McLeskey). The LRPC is also working on length of terms for committee members and the dean’s evaluation. Griffin was invited to the last LRPC meeting to talk about her and Holly Lane’s work with the dean’s evaluation last year. We don’t know who will lead the dean evaluations this year. Associate and assistant deans are on a two-year cycle, so Paul and Theresa are up for review as well. Their reviews may need to be redesigned because their roles are different than other deans’ roles. Griffin encouraged the committee to reuse the dean’s evaluation from last year.

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark
Clark reported the RAC met January 10 to work on research opportunity seed grant proposals. Three complete proposals came through, so the committee rank ordered them, gave the applicants feedback, and pushed two applications forward. CRIF is the next project.

Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions (SRAPC) John Kranzler
No report due to Kranzler’s absence.

Technology (TC) Rod Webb
Webb reported that the TC has a meeting planned for January 26th at 10:00am.

UF Faculty Senate Report

Griffin reported on three items being discussed in the Senate:

  1. Currently there are three admissions dates: Early decision, Regular I, and Regular II. Early decision candidates that don’t get accepted are dropped from consideration. These candidates are sometimes more qualified than students who get accepted in Regular I and II. President Machen would like to allow the people who don’t get in during early admission to be rolled over.
  2. There was discussion of an academic enrichment program to supplement low tuition.
  3. The administration plans to hire a dispute resolution officer. This person will have faculty credentials and will report to Kyle Cavanaugh. He or she will inform the faculty about dispute resolution procedures and assist faculty in resolving disputes. The chair of the faculty senate used to deal with these disputes. The Union is supportive of this new position.

Dean’s Report


CADREI stands for Council of Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions.
A group headed by Associate Dean Jeri Benson and Linda Hagedorn submitted a proposal to CADREI to help redesign the professional practice doctorate. We were one of
the 20 institutions selected. Several faculty members were involved in developing the proposal and Dean Emihovich named them all and thanked them. This award does not carry money, only prestige. It will be a 3-5 year initiative. Perhaps some of this work could flow through one or more FPC committees.


The COE, along with the Early Childhood Initiative Foundation (ECIF), will receive a grant from the Kellogg Foundation to restructure the curriculum of the Miami-Dade County School District, preK-3rd grade. The COE will receive $5 million through the Lastinger Center and David Lawrence’s ECIF will receive $5 million. There will be a photo op where the Kellogg Foundation will hand a big check to President Machen. This grant improves the COE’s national prestige and standing within the University. The Kellogg Foundation was impressed by our scholarship of engagement work. It is an indicator that systemic, district-wide change is where the field at large is moving. Now that Kellogg has funded this first proposal, the COE is starting to think about our second proposal. The topic is: What does the college of education of the future look like? And how could we serve as a model? Kellogg wants us to be rethinking the entire college of education concept. Faculty members interested in developing the proposal should talk to the Dean. This has the potential to become another multi-million dollar grant.

Salary Equity Review

Dean Emihovich reported that as part of the collective bargaining agreement with the Union, the University must have funds for salary equity adjustments—no less than .0025% and no more than .0075% of the total university budget. And each unit has to fund this themselves. Two faculty members have already requested salary equity reviews. Dean Emihovich does not want to act until she gets input from FPC and departments. Ultimately it is an administrative decision, but she wants to make the review process transparent. The salary guidelines being used are from the Oklahoma State Salary Survey (OSSS). Anyone who thinks their salary is compressed must use the OSSS to make their case. If someone is extremely productive and compressed, he or she is a strong candidate for an adjustment. The Provost has a document suggesting a process for equity reviews. There is also a document outlining the process used by CLAS. Dean Emihovich handed out these documents to FPC members. She asked members to read both documents and provide feedback. She will ask for feedback from department chairs tomorrow. A discussion followed, wherein the following points were raised:

  • About ten years ago the college used a process for alleviating compression. It was completely transparent. Algina found this policy and brought it to Dean Emihovich during the meeting.
  • Asking individual units to allocate this money is not the most efficient way to handle the problem. Could cause conflict.
  • There should be either: 1) a consultant or 2) a college-wide committee to make review decisions. Doing it by department is a bad idea (too much potential for conflict).
  • There is not enough time to bring in a consultant
  • What about extra pay for extra duties? It is an important issue not addressed by this process.
  • These salary adjustments have to be funded out the COE budget. The only place the money can come from is vacant faculty lines not being filled or from the Provost. Dean Emihovich can’t use carry forward money to fund rate.
  • Dean Emihovich needs feedback pretty quickly so that she can have process in place by spring break (March 12).

All agree that a college-wide committee to come up with the criteria, review the salary data, and make initial recommendations is a good idea. Maybe there should be an FPC committee to manage this process every year. Possibly six members on the committee, one from each of the five departments and a dean’s representative. Dean Emihovich and Bondy will work together to choose committee members. Bondy thanked Dean Emihovich for bringing this issue to the FPC. The more these processes are transparent, the better.

Scholarship of Engagement Celebration
There will be one person selected from each department for a Scholarship of Engagement award. Departments will come up with their own selection procedures. There will still be a campus award, a school district award, and a community award. The celebration is at 6pm on April 25th at Emerson Alumni Hall. Student scholarship participants and donors get free tickets. Other people buy tickets. Dean Emihovich uses funds from ticket sales to build discretionary funds for supplementing scholarships and helping students in dire financial or other emergency circumstances.

Discussion Items

1.   Revising FPC committees: number and responsibilities of committees; staggered terms on committees Bondy provided members with a copy of the COE constitution. On page 5 of the constitution is the list of the committees. A discussion on the number and responsibilities of committees followed. Points were:

  • Committees were planned seven years ago and can be adjusted if necessary.
  • FBAC is a really busy committee. It makes sense to divide it into the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Budgetary
  • Affairs Committee. Smith will ask FBAC for a few sentences defining the new committees.
  • FBAC is planning how they will interact with the Dean on budgetary issues.
  • The Budget part of the FBAC role could go to the LRPC.
  • Perhaps the FPC can eliminate the Student Admissions and Petitions committee. We are waiting to hear from John Kranzler.
  • There needs to be some way of monitoring student petitions. If the committee gives up that monitoring role, they may regret it in the future.
  • Every year there is a whole new crew on each committee, so staggering the membership seems important.
  • People like the idea of a two-year term, but the first year you have to stagger some way. Clark suggested that at the end of the year, the committees decide who stays. Webb suggested that each department be assigned to have a two-year person on certain committees.
  • Based on this discussion, Bondy and Yeager may put together a proposal for the next meeting.

2. Elections committee: appoint members immediately for Senate and FPC elections
The Faculty Senate has new guidelines about how senate elections will be handled. The COE needs a nominating committee to identify eight nominees for the four positions that need to be filled on the Faculty Senate. The nominating committee needs to represent the academic interests in the COE, so having representatives from each department makes sense. Bondy will be approaching people and asking them to serve because we need to get this started right away. Later on we’ll be dealing with how we handle FPC elections, and the new nominating/elections committee can help there too. Bondy asked if there were objections to the agenda committee selecting people for this nominating/elections committee. There were no objections.

Future Agenda Items

Bondy reminded members to let her know about cross-departmental issues that would be important for FPC to consider.

Meeting adjourned at 3:59pm

Next Meeting: February 12, 2007


12 February, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
February 12, 2007

Members Present: Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, James Doud, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, John Kranzler, Holly Lane (alt for Diane Ryndak), Bernie Oliver, Sondra Smith, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Diane Ryndak, Rod Webb
Non-Members Present: Associate Dean Jeri Benson, Tom Dana, Dean Catherine Emihovich, Marylynn Hall, Chris Sessums

Waiting on Quorum (2:00-2:06)
Meeting began at 2:06pm

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Yeager moved to approve agenda and Lane seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the January 22, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. Lane moved to approve the minutes and Clark seconded the motion.

The minutes were unanimously approved.


  • Market Equity Review Committee
    Dean Emihovich sent a Feb 7 message to COE faculty and chairs to explain the market equity review process. There is now a college-wide committee consisting of full professors from each department.
  • Elections Committee
    The constitution requires an elections committee to handle elections for the UF faculty senate and the tenure and promotions committee. Elections committee members have been appointed for this term and the committee will meet with Bondy on March 1.
  • Revisions to annual report format
    Jeanne Starobin has been working on the annual report format. Now we have a new opportunity to highlight shared governance work in the report.
  • Increasing collaboration among faculty, chairs, and deans
    Dean Emihovich raised a concern that there are some issues that require collaboration between faculty members, department chairs, and deans, but the three groups don’t regularly meet all together. When these issues arise, we will put them on the FPC agenda and make more effort to get more people together.
  • Plan for discussions of the professional practice doctorate: steering committee, 3/21 lunch meeting
  • Paul Sindelar’s office recently sent an email announcing a hour-long lunch meeting on March 21st to kick off a discussion of the professional practice doctorate. Bondy, Lane, and Linda Hagadorn are starting a steering committee for this project. Bondy asked FPC members to discuss the lunch at department meetings.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager said the committee has nothing to report. Feb 26 will be the next meeting.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported that the FBAC developed language by email to divide itself into two committees (see Discussion Items). It met separately as those two committees to work on faculty load and budget issues. The FBAC also developed sabbatical review criteria and will meet again to go over the criteria.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak
No report due to Ryndak’s absence.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver
Oliver reported that the LRPC has not met since the last meeting but will be meeting soon.

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark
Clark reported the RAC has not met since the last FPC meeting. The committee will work on CRIF next.

Graduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions (GRAPC) John Kranzler
(Formerly Student Recruitment, Admissions and Petitions)
The GRAPC voted to retain its status as a committee by a vote of 4-2. It also developed language to revise its role (see Discussion Items).

Technology (TC) Rod Webb
No report due to Webb’s absence.

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich reported that:

• The newly formed market equity committee will meet on Feb 21st. It is an advisory (i.e. not policy making) committee so the FPC will not review its recommendations.
• She is working on identifying a chair for the Scholarship of Engagement Committee and on the call for nominations. Each department will have its own internal process for selecting award recipients. She has also hired a new development director: Robert Penning (?? ). The entire event will be restructured.
• There are a number of searches going on. The quality of the applicant pool has been impressive. Judging by the applicants’ comments, our college’s work is becoming more nationally visible.
• The PR piece on the Kellogg grant will be out March 5.

UF Senate Report

Griffin reported that the Senate hasn’t met again since the last FPC meeting. It will meet on Thursday of this week (2/15).

Discussion Items

1. Proposals for restructuring FPC committees: two issues (see handouts)

First Issue: Which committees do we need or not need?

Bondy passed out two documents for FPC members to read:
a) A memo on the status of the Graduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee (GRAPC); and
b) Proposals for FPC committee changes.

Handout A:

The GRAPC affirmed its own reason for being and redefined its mission (see memo). However, FPC members still have questions about the committee’s roles. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised:
• Faculty should play a role in student affairs, but is this where it is needed?
• Maybe the GRAPC should focus on minority recruitment.
• The committee has undertaken recruitment in the past.
• Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the committee to be a recruitment, admissions, and retention advisory committee.
• The graduate coordinator committee is already a college-wide committee working on recruitment.
• The GRAPC used to look at fellowships, but departments had different criteria for fellowships and it made more sense for departments to handle this themselves.
• What role does this committee give faculty that they don’t already have through their respective departments?
• To have a committee with an ill-defined function can become problematic.
• The FPC can vote to sunset a committee because it no longer meets needs.
• What policy could this committee develop that would apply across departments? The GRAPC should provide a valuable service to students and faculty or disband.
• The jobs of the committee are redundant.
• The technology advisory committee collaborates with COE Technology staff. Perhaps GRAPC can collaborate with COE Admissions staff.
• Bondy and Yeager will meet with Kitty Fallon to represent the views of FPC and discuss next steps.

Handout B:

Several language changes are proposed. First, FBAC proposes to split into two committees: 1) Faculty Affairs Committee and 2) Budgetary Affairs Committee. New committee roles have been proposed. The FPC considered the proposed role of the Budgetary Affairs Committee and the following discussion ensued:
• Perhaps we should give the budget role to the LRPC.
• Committees work best when they have a clear goal to accomplish.
• Long range planning is important, but there may not need to be a standing committee. We appoint task forces for strategic planning.
• If we didn’t have a long-range planning committee, would having a budgetary affairs committee be useful?
• The budget subcommittee of FBAC is considering what faculty would want to know about the budget. Taking a proactive role in budgetary issues helps faculty to be become more knowledgeable, but faculty will still not make budget decisions.
• Departments may still have more impact than a budget committee.
• A budget committee might create more tension than necessary.
• It is important for faculty to help develop priorities for the college.
• Faculty should understand the budget process and be more informed. If everyone agreed that it was all clear, we wouldn’t have this push for a new committee. Committee wants to be a platform for transparency and accountability.
• Department chairs should already keeping faculty informed of budget issues.
• There are so few degrees of freedom. Salaries take up almost all the budget. Then operational money (i.e. paper, copying, money for travel). Then instructional money (used to hire people to fill in where we don’t have full-time faculty). The money left for any new initiatives is very small. The only other resource is lines. There has been no new money from the Provost’s office except for lines.
• There might be further clarification of what the budget role would look like because there is currently a subcommittee working on it.
Next, the FPC considered the proposed role of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the following discussion ensued:
• Taking the minor budget role out doesn’t appear to lighten the load of the committee.
• It may be that there will not be enough time this year to draw conclusions. Maybe we are not ready.
• Smith wants to take FPC comments back to the FBAC and make certain the entire committee approves of the proposed language. The group meets again on March 1st.
Doud motioned to accept the proposal of the FBAC to split into two and to proceed with further language adjustments as necessary. Yeager seconded. A yes vote supports the creation of a budget committee. The committee voted, with 7 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion passed.
Next, the FPC briefly discussed a proposed Shared Governance Committee. There is an expectation that every year the FPC will give feedback to the Faculty Senate on the progress of shared governance. No discussion ensued.
Next, Yeager moved to discuss a suggested change to the constitution for the elections committee (#3 on the handout), Kranzler seconded the motion. The following discussion ensued:

• Previously the Tenure and Promotion Committee (TPC) has been appointed, not elected.
• Half of the college TPC has to be elected now.
• Perhaps the language should be more broad so that the constitution doesn’t have to be changed every time.
• Lane suggested an amendment to replace the words following “for conducting elections…” with “for conducting college-wide faculty elections in the college of education.” All were in favor. The language changes were passed as amended.

Next, the FPC discussed item #4 on the handout, a suggested deletion of language related to distance education in the Technology Committee role.

• Sessums doesn’t believe it is appropriate to link distance education only with technology. There are also non-technical issues such as compensation and course quality.
• An instructional technology advisory committee might be more appropriate.
• Sessums suggested a task force to help get distance ed up and running as opposed to a standing committee.
• They need people who would have an interest in this, and a task force relies on interested volunteers. An elected committee is not always the most interested committee.
• There is a desire to make distance ed more visible.
• What kind of help would be most useful help?
• There has been very little activity for two years in the technology committee.
• FPC inserted the word “advisory” to make it clear that there was a need to collaborate with the technology director.
• The issue across the board seems to be, is the committee a platform for raising questions or a policy-making committee? A number of these committees could generate policy.
• When the FPC first formed it tried to determine where there would be a need for committees. Now it looks like a lot of them aren’t needed. Perhaps we need to go back and eliminate some committees and replace them with task forces focused on needs as they arise.
• Technology is an important committee. It helps us get frustrating technology issues resolved.

Meeting needs to wrap-up. Bondy handed out a proposal for COE Tenure and Promotions Committee. She needs to hear from FPC members soon and asked them to please email feedback. She also asked members to review a document on staggered committee membership.

Next Meeting: March 19, 2007