December 10, 2001
Room 158 Norman Hall
Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Peter Sherrard, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend
Members Absent: David Honeyman
Other Present: Ben Nelms, RodWebb
Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m.
1. Approval of the agenda for December 10, 2001.
Clark made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Stephen Smith. Jones seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.
2. Approval of the 11/26 Minutes
The minutes of November 26, 2001 were approved with revisions by a majority of the FPC members through e-mail vote. Correa provided an overview of the revisions as follows:
a. The new chairperson of the Research Advisory Council is Tracy Linderholm, not Holly Lane as stated during the meeting of 11/26/01.
b. Jones corrected the first item on page two to read, “…Committee. It was suggested that….”
c. On page one, Courtney Johnson was changed to Courtney Williams.
d. On page four, in the “Update on Budget by Dean Nelms,” now reads, “…the Provost approved the method of responding to COE budget cuts…” not “approved the COE budget cuts…”.
A discussion followed regarding addressing items for discussion or action on the FPC agenda. If a faculty member would like to have an action item placed on the FPC agenda, he/she must provide the Agenda Committee with a written request. Smith said he would draft a clearer explanation of this procedure and present it to the FPC.
Clark stated that the committee reports should last approximately 2-3 minutes. If the report presents an action item, it will be discussed at a future meeting per policy/procedures of the FPC.
Jones requested that the minutes of the various committees be provided to FPC members.
Correa agreed to make additional editing revisions to the minutes of 11/26/01 and have them posted on the web.
1. Update on COE Policy Search and Archive.
Correa reported on the COE policy search and archives. She began her review of the Administrative Council meeting minutes for 1996-97, which consisted of approximately 61 meetings and two retreats. Correa summarized her impressions of the policy search after reviewing the minutes of the first 19 meetings. Statements regarding “culminating experiences and office hours” were noted, however pertinent attachments were not found with the electronic version of the minutes. Correa stated that she planned on locating the paper copies of the minutes in order to locate any documents that might have been attached to the minutes. Correa also reported that procedures for COE incentive funds and COE indirect funds along with the Cost Accounting Standards were discussed in the minutes of 1997. The 1996 minutes contained information presented by Longstreth regarding the appointment process, annual evaluations, tenure and promotion, and contract renewal. The 1996 minutes also contained information regarding upper division faculty loads in which each faculty member was trained to advise between 12-15 students per year. Although Correa found the minutes to be informative, they did not contain clear policy statements. The minutes were found to have some historical value.
Clark reported he could provide a brief report on the Faculty Senate meetings.
Smith reported that he reviewed the Chairs Committee Meeting minutes for 1996-97 in which he located information on the college restructuring. Smith stated that a discussion would be beneficial regarding policy (statement of intent), procedure (e.g., training of faculty advisors), and history of the college.
Clark stated that a final product is needed, for example, a policy/procedure manual for the College of Education.
2. Goal-Setting Retreat (12/5).
Nine members of the FPC attended the Dean’s Goal-Setting Retreat. Nelms distributed an outline of the goals developed at the retreat and reported that the retreat was productive. However, he felt that a second retreat in January would be beneficial. He also stated that he felt there was no need for an outside consultant at the next retreat. Nelms reported that he was working on the mid-year report for the Provost.
In a discussion of the research goals, Allington commented that the College should lobby the Provost to change the DSR procedures for dividing the 8% indirect cost rate. He suggested that we should advocate for higher IDC from the state, and create an infrastructure that would support faculty to submit grants with higher IDC rates.
Nelms stated that he was currently working on the mid-year report, long-range planning committee, and next year’s budget with the assistance of the Budget Advisory Committee. Nelms also stated that he would clarify the goals for the next retreat with the Agenda Committee.
Clark suggested that we focus on 6-8 long-range goals at the next retreat and that faculty need to talk past departments and focus on the college as a whole.
3. Next Semester’s Meeting Time for FPC
Smith stated that the meeting times for the FPC during the Fall Semester 2002 will occur on Mondays from 2-4 pm as per the new college-wide policy on meeting times. However, meeting times for the Spring semester 2002 will continue to be held on every other Monday from 9 – 11 am. The first meeting will begin sometime after January 7th. Smith will email the committee members as to when the first FPC meeting for the Spring semester will be held.
Sherrard will confer with Dr. Daniels regarding the meeting times scheduled for Fall 2002.
Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting
1. Discuss how TAs/RAs will voice concerns under new governance structure.
This topic was tabled again. Smith will speak with Ann McGill-Franzen and request that she provide the FPC with a written statement regarding the TAs and RAs. This written statement will be submitted to the Agenda Committee and will then return to the FPC following approval of the Agenda Committee.
2. Discuss how linkages can be made with the Staff Council.
Jones suggested this item also be tabled.
Smith-Bonahue moved that the above two items be tabled until reviewed by the Agenda Committee. The motion was seconded by Jones and approved unanimously by the FPC.
1. Committee Reports
Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee: Franks reported that committee members are struggling with their purpose. She inquired as to whether the Constitution had limitations as to who could serve on this committee. Smith stated that the Constitution could be amended and that advice could be sought from other people. The question of due process for undergraduate students was brought up. Because drop/add and admissions decisions occur within departments, a meeting regarding admission of undergraduate students does not occur at the college level. Questions related to students right to appeal a department’s decision were discussed. Currently, a graduate student can appeal a departmental decision to the Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee. The undergraduate committee felt it did not want to create a parallel system.
Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee: Jones stated that members of the committee questioned their role in denying admissions of graduate students after a department had recommended them for admissions.
After a good deal of discussion, Clark moved that the functions of these two committees be reviewed by the Agenda Committee and be brought back to the FPC. Smith-Bonahue seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by the FPC.
Faculty Affairs Committee: Townsend reported that Nancy Waldron was the new chair of the committee.
Long-Range Planning Committee: Allington reported that Jeanne Repetto was the new chair of the committee. He reported that committee has met with Nelms and reviewed both the 1996 strategic plan and the past report of the college’s task force to study doctoral programs. The next committee meeting will be held on January 14th.
Clark reported that he sits on the Faculty Senate and stated that the minutes of the Senate can be reviewed on the web site. He also serves as a member on the Shared Governance Committee that is encouraging all colleges to look at the COE constitution as a template for faculty governance. Clark also reported that the Faculty Senate is also grappling with defining the department as a unit and budget reduction issues.
Allington requested information on how the college creates a new department. The Constitution provides clear guidelines on how departments can be created, abolished, or consolidated in the college (see Article IV, Section1A). According to Article IV, Section 3 of the University Constitution, a change in departmental structure in the college would require an approval vote of two-thirds of all tenure-accruing faculty who attend the voting meeting. The proposal shall then be sent to the proper University bodies for action. This question will be reviewed by the Agenda Committee and brought before the FPC.
Clark moved and Allington seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 am.