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.
Announcements
- 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
