February 18, 2002
Room 158 Norman Hall
Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Lamont Flowers (alternate for David Honeyman), Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend
Members Absent: Joe Wittmer
Others Present: Rod Webb
Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.
1. Approval of the agenda for February 18, 2002
Correa moved and Franks seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the February 4, 2002 Minutes
Modifications in the minutes were discussed: (a) Elections Committee Procedures [Page 6, Attachment A, #2]: this statement should read “One member of the COE shall be appointed chair of the committee by the COE Agenda Committee,” (b) The correct name of the reporting committee is “The Elections Committee” and should be modified in the minutes and on the attachment to reflect the correct name with “NEC” being removed from all sections, (c) the FPC suggested extending the duties of the Election Committee so in the future they could be considered the “Nominations and Elections’ Committee,” (d) Page 5, The vote under #4 was “8 against and 1 abstention”.
Clark moved and Jones seconded to approve the minutes of February 4, 2002 as modified. The FPC unanimously voted to approve the minutes.
3. Approval of Elections Committee Procedures
Smith suggested that the Elections Committee procedures: (a) under “Elections”, # 1, “a minimum of four (4) work/business days” be modified to read, “a minimum of seven (7) work/business days.” Also, it was suggested that under “Ballot Counting”, #5, “runoff election to commence within one week”, the wording should be modified to ensure that a four-week time frame after the nominations procedures was adequate for voting and runoff procedures; (c) the official name of this committee is the “College Elections Committee (CEC) not the Nominations and Elections Committee (NEC) and will be corrected throughout the document. Jones moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded that Attachment A of the minutes be accepted with modifications. The FPC unanimously voted to accept this document.
1. Constitutional Revisions
Possible amendments were discussed:
(a) Departmental chair eligibility on committees
Smith reported some concern related to more than one chair serving on committees. Clark suggested that a conflict of interest might occur if more than one chair was on a committee. Franks stated that the FPC should review what each committee does to avoid a conflict of interest.
(b) Rename Elections Committee to the Nominations & Elections Committee and extend the function for all elections in the College.
B. Elections Committee – Each year, an Elections committee of three persons shall be appointed by the Agenda Committee (who shall not appoint themselves). Its duties are to set the time, procedures, tellers, and other mechanisms for conducting elections to the Faculty Policy Council.
Section 5 – Elections. Elections for faculty representation on the Faculty Policy council shall be held in the spring by ballot. Newly elected members shall take office immediately after the last meeting of the academic year, according to the procedures set forth under Elections Committee above (Article II, Section 4(b).
(c) Need language in the duties of the Faculty Affairs Committee section to include faculty load issues.
(d) Need language added to all standing committees’ work to include “or other duties as recommended by FPC”.
(e) Need to change the language on the College Curriculum Committee from Associate Dean of Graduate Studies to Associate Dean for academic Affairs.
2. Status of Tabled Items
Smith spoke with Ann who will attend the next FPC meeting and discuss her tabled item. Jones stated that her item is still tabled.
3. Dean’s Search
Smith reported that the faculty should have more access to the Dean candidates than before under the new FPC format. It was suggested that an informal round-table discussion be scheduled with each Dean candidate for faculty members to ask questions and meet the candidates.
4. Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee
Smith distributed an email from Dr. Ruth Lowery, Chair of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee. Smith-Bonahue reported that two things were considered at the meeting:
(a) A discussion regarding the PRAXIS: Committee members visited the graduate school and were informed that the reason the graduate school turned down the proposal for substituting the PRAXIS for the GRE was the college did not provide sufficient evidence that it is a suitable substitution for the GRE.
(b) A report on the status of alternative admissions test for entry into Proteach masters program: Committee members received information from ETS and they have suggested that the PRAXIS should not be used as an alternative test for the GRE. Committee members will be getting additional information on another test (the PPST) that is being used for admissions by other universities.
(c) With respect to other graduate admissions decisions, the committee proposed the following:
1. Recommendation to the FPC to consider a policy that places responsibilities for graduate admission decisions at the level of the departments and within the policies of the graduate school. The Committee also recommends that the major responsibility for the Petitions committee be defined as representing due process review in cases of denial.
2. Recommendation to the FPC that for students who do not meet the graduate school entrance requirements yet are admitted to an entry level graduate program, departments will specify that their admission does not guarantee admission to the doctoral program.
3. Although not a recommendation, the Committee would like to encourage departments to consider raising the minimum GRE score for admission to doctoral programs to reflect and promote excellence in our doctoral programs.
The FPC discussed how to communicate these issues to the faculty and to make them action items on the next agenda. Clark suggested that the FPC submit these recommendations as proposed, discuss them at department faculty meetings, and have department chairs respond by email. Faculty can also attend the meeting at which these recommendations will be discussed as an action items and voted on.
FPC members stated that appropriate wording and guidelines regarding the University’s policies about petitions for admission were necessary prior to communicating these proposals to the faculty. Clark stated that the FPC needed the current University policy and the current College policy regarding admissions. He also stated that we should notify the Graduate School that the FPC was considering a policy change that would place responsibility for graduate admission decisions at the departmental level.
Smith and Smith-Bonahue will draft a statement by Wednesday, February 20th, which will be communicated to the faculty. The statement will ask the departments to discuss the issue and provide the FPC with a departmental response by March 13th. Smith also will make sure the faculty understand that departments will need to develop additional administrative procedures related to admissions (e.g., sending materials to the Graduate School), 10% of all admission may be waived on one or both exceptions, and departments may make “Masters Only Admission” decisions. However, in other cases, departments may admit students conditionally (e.g., “No grades of “Incomplete,” maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or above over the first two semesters of coursework”).
Agenda Committee Report
Smith reported that the Agenda Committee was having some difficulty meeting. Agenda Committee business had been successfully completed via e-mail. The Agenda Committee requested that Webb and Witt offered assistance to Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee to redefine their charge and to change the language of their duties. In an email from Ryndak (as reported by Franks), the wording might state, “or other duties as recommended by the FPC.” The committee might serve to handle due process upon a student’s denial of admission. Jones suggested that the committee change its name to “Undergraduate Petitions Committee.”
Long-Range Planning Committee
Allington reported that the committee plans to draft a document for public comment in the near future. Issues being considered are what the College of Education at UF might do to enhance their national reputation. The committee is considering multiple recommendations based on the college’s strategic plan and the previous report on doctoral studies.
There were no other committee reports. Allington moved and Clark seconded to adjourn. The FPC unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:50 am.