October 1, 2001
Room 158 Norman Hall
Members Present: Richard Allington, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy (alternate), Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, David Honeyman, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Joe Wittmer
Members Absent: Hazel Jones, Jane Townsend
Others Present: Rod Webb, Dean’s Office
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 9:07 a.m.
Clark moved and Honeyman seconded to accept the agenda. The agenda was accepted by unanimous vote.
Clark moved and Correa seconded to accept the minutes of September 17, 2001. The minutes were accepted by unanimous vote.
1. Budget review from the Dean at October 15, 2001 FPC Meeting.
Smith requested that the agenda for the October 15th FPC meeting remain clear for the Dean’s review of the budget.
2. Review Selection of Student(s) for Student Recruitment /Admissions Committee
Smith-Bonahue questioned the process by which students would be selected for the Student Recruitment/Admissions committee. She suggested that the Student/Admissions Committee should go ahead and schedule an initial meeting. Meanwhile, Smith-Bonahue will contact the Education College Council for nominations of undergraduate student(s) and contact Department chairs or Doctoral student organizations for nominations of graduate student(s) from their departments to serve on this committee. During this initial meeting, the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee will review the list of nominees and select students to serve on the committee. These names will then be forwarded to the FPC for final approval. It also was clarified that there is no language in the constitution related to voting for the standing committee. Students serving on this committee serve to advise and make recommendations on policies related to recruitment and admissions but will not address individual student concerns.
Smith-Bonahue and Correa (Chair, College Curriculum Committee) will coordinate the process for selecting student members. The CCC also needs to select undergraduate and graduate student members. Student members of the CCC do have voting privileges.
3. Review Procedures Guide for Committees from FPC
Smith reviewed minimum expectations that should guide all FPC committees as they begin their work. These include:
a. All committees meet at least two times per year.
b. Each committee will include a dean’s representative who will serve as a non- voting member.
c. At the completion of each Spring semester, each committee will provide the FPC with a three-ring binder of the committees’ procedures, agenda, and minutes.
d. Each committee, whether operating or standing, will also provide the FPC with a written executive summary at the completion of each Spring semester.
e. To ensure continuity, the committee will elect the chair for the following year.
There was much discussion about guideline(s) for electing a chair for each committee for each upcoming year. It was suggested that the FPC member on the committee be in charge of convening the new committee in the fall of each year and elect a chair at that time. It was also suggested that the “newly elected” committee be convened in late spring, after the final meeting of the academic year to select its chair. [Note: clarification on guideline (e) will be needed]
Smith stated that he would refine the committee guidelines and present them to the FPC for further discussion, revisions, and final approval.
A question arose regarding the duplication of minutes and procedures in writing and on the web. The FPC felt that redundancy was necessary regarding FPC procedures and minutes and that both written and web copies would continue to be generated.
4. Dean’s Search Document
A draft of the Dean’s Search document from the fall faculty meeting was distributed to FPC members. There was concern raised about the list of desired characteristics, and it was suggested that the list be edited and given to all faculty for consensus building. It was clarified that the list was generated by the faculty during a spontaneous discussion and brainstorm session and was not representative of faculty consensus. Allington requested that the draft document be edited prior to submitting it to the search committee and offered to make those changes and submit them to Smith by Friday, October 5th. Some FPC members felt that if the list was edited or revised it would not be representative of what faculty stated at the fall faculty meeting. Allington moved and Wittmer seconded that the FPC edit the current draft of desired characteristics of a dean and have faculty rank order the desired characteristics. The committee opposed the motion, with one vote in favor, one abstention, and seven votes opposing the motion.
A suggestion was made to have Smith deliver the document of desired characteristics, search procedures, and promoting the college to Paul George, Dean’s Search Committee Chair. Clark moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded that Smith submit the existing draft of the document to Paul George for review by the Dean’s Search Committee and extend the FPC’s willingness to assist with the Dean’s search. The motion was approved by unanimous vote.
An additional suggestion was made to send a letter to the Provost from the FPC thanking him for his selection of the Dean’s Search Committee. Smith will draft the letter and asked that FPC members review it for suggestions and revisions. The final draft of the letter will be distributed to members for signature and forwarded to the Provost.
It was also suggested that each FPC representative take time at their department faculty meetings to discuss the Dean’s search and updates from the FPC.
Discussion Items From September 17 Meeting
Some concerns were voiced about the need to have more information regarding the two discussions items related to:
q how TAs and RAs will voice concerns under the new governance structure, and
q how linkages can be made with the Staff Council
Although some issues were discussed related to TA and RA concerns, it was recommended that McGill-Franzen (STL, alternate) provide the FPC with more information on the topic. Additionally, it was recommended that Hazel Jones discuss her views on the linkages with the Staff Council. Allington moved and Wittmer seconded that the two discussion items from the September 17th meeting be tabled until the October 29th meeting. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
Two items identified for policy review were presented to the FPC. Both items were addressed at the Agenda Committee on September 27th ? and it was recommended that they be forwarded to the Student Recruitment and Admissions Standing Committee for review. The items related to graduate admissions and were part of last year’s College Curriculum Committee minutes as indicated below.
Item 1. “The Department of Special Education and the School of Teaching and Learning should have the option of using the PRAXIS II as an alternative to the GRE for admissions decisions for the M.Ed. and M.A.E. (exclude Ed.S.).” This motion was passed 7 to 1 vote (CCC Minutes, 10/2/00; CCC Minutes, 11/6/00).
Item 2. “The College should continue to require the GRE for admission to doctoral program in all departments; however, applicants to doctoral or master’s programs who hold professional or other doctorates from an accredited university in the U.S. may be exempt from taking the GRE, upon approval by department.” Motion passed 7 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention. (CCC Minutes, 10/2/00).
The Agenda Committee recommended that issue related to the approval of the graduation list be sent to the College Curriculum Committee. The CCC will discuss the procedures at their first meeting on October 1.
Clark moved and Allington seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 a.m. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.