September 9, 2002
Room 158 Norman Hall
Members Present: Jim Archer, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Maureen Conroy, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Lamont Flowers, Bridget Franks, Jane Townsend, Nancy Waldron, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Paul Sindelar
Other Present: Associate Dean Rod Webb, Dean’s Representative
The meeting was called to order by Vivian Correa at 2:35 p.m. Correa announced the newly designed web site for FPC, education.ufl.edu/committees/fpc. The web site includes the following: Constitution, Membership for Operating and Standing Committees, FPC Minutes, Calendar, and Archives.
1. Approval of the agenda for September 9, 2002.
Yeager made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Correa. Franks seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the Minutes of August 26, 2002.
Townsend made a motion to approve the minutes of August 26, 2002, which was seconded by Yeager. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Report from the Dean
Associate Dean Webb was attending FPC for Dean Emihovich. Webb reported that Emohovich was meeting with the department chairs to discuss allocation of faculty lines and future plans for the College over the next four to five years. Webb reviewed new university procedures for allocating faculty lines, stating that faculty lines no longer stayed within departments or colleges. Instead, as faculty lines become open they revert back to the Provost’s office and are reallocated based on the university’s strategic plan.
Correa commented that the issue of increasing faculty diversity as new positions become available was also under discussion.
1. Update on FPC Members and Committees
· College Curriculum Committee. Waldron stated that one more departmental member was needed to complete this committee. As soon as that member was designated, meetings for the CCC would be scheduled.
· Undergraduate Admissions Petitions Committee. Franks reported that this committee has not met.
· Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee. Echevarria-Doan announced that this committee would be meeting on Monday, September 16, for an organizational session.
· Faculty Affairs Standing Committee. Townsend reported that one member was on sabbatical this semester and this committee had not met yet. Correa stated that guidelines needed to be discussed in situations where a member, who will be absent over a period of time, would need a substitute. The FPC approved a substitute from the same department in this particular case.
· Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee. Yeager stated that this committee will meet on September 26.
· Research Advisory Committee. Conroy announced that this committee would have its first meeting on September 18 from 2-3 pm.
· Long-Range Planning Committee. Archer stated that this committee has not met.
2. Discussion of Lastinger Center Concept Paper with Don Pemberton (September 23, 2002).
Correa reminded FPC members to review the Lastinger Center Concept Paper prior to the September 23rd meeting. Correa stated that Pemberton has asked the Dean’s Advisory Council to also review this paper.
Webb stated that the concept paper was written for multiple audiences, not just faculty. FPC members should keep this in mind as they review the paper.
Correa stated that Pemberton is looking for college-wide input regarding the paper. Feedback will be used to revise the paper and inform discussion at a meeting of the Lastinger Center Advisory Council that is scheduled for October 4. It is expected that the concept paper will go through a second review process.
1. Nominations for the 2002-2003 Elections Committee
Correa stated that the Elections Committee is in charge of the spring elections. Last year this committee consisted of Loesch, Campbell, and Gregory. The Agenda Committee selects the three members of the Elections Committee. Correa asked for nominations from FPC members. A suggestion was made to retain the current members for continuity. Correa stated that she would approach the existing committee members to request that they serve another term. If one or more choose not to serve, the Agenda Committee will select a faculty member to serve on the Elections Committee. Clark suggested that department faculty members rotate on a three-year cycle to serve on this committee.
Webb suggested that all other College elections should be held at the same time. Correa noted that the spring election slate could include all committee elections in the college.
2. Nominations for the 2002-2003 Parliamentarian
Correa reported that the current Parliamentarian is Candace Harper. Correa said she would approach Harper and request that she serve a second term. The specific responsibilities for the Parliamentarian are not identified in the Constitution. In the past, the Parliamentarian has advised the chair on Robert’s Rules during COE faculty meetings, and also counted votes taken at college-wide faculty meetings. The issue of responsibilities should be reconsidered and clarified as changes are proposed to the Constitution this year.
Webb distributed copies of Robert’s Rules to FPC members to share with chairs of the FPC Operating and Standing Committees.
3. Graduate Admissions Proposal (Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee)
Correa reviewed the Graduate Admissions Proposal that was considered by the FPC last year. The proposed policy would place responsibility for graduate admissions decisions at the department level, within the guidelines of the Graduate School. Related points that were also discussed by FPC included:
· The need to develop additional administrative procedures related to admissions,
· 10% of all admissions in the College may have double or single exemptions, and
· Departments can make “Masters Only Admission.” In other cases departments can admit students conditionally (e.g., no grades of “Incomplete,” maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or above over the first two semesters of coursework).
Departments were asked to provide a written response to the proposal after discussion within department faculty meetings. Responses to this request included:
Department of Special Education voted unanimously to support the FPC proposal to give the final responsibility for graduate admission to the departments and that oversight of admission by a COE committee is discontinued. However, the COE committee would remain in place for students to petition when denied admission at the department level. Additional discussion addressed possible alternative tests that might be used as an admission criterion and the need to monitor the 10% admission rule for double and single exceptions. The faculty will also review its policies for petitions and admissions.
The consensus of the Department of Educational Psychology was that:
· Removing the College level committee does not remove the need for a review after it leaves the department,
· Removing this function of the College level committee also makes the decisions by individual departments less public,
· If the committee is not functioning well now, that does not mean that it should not serve this function. Instead, we should deal with the more important issue of the function, process, and selection of faculty to participate on the committee, and
· A Master’s degree in another area should not be used for admissions into doctoral study.
The School of Teaching and Learning supports the recommendation that responsibility for graduate admission be placed at the departmental level within the guidelines of the Graduate School. The T&L also supports the Graduate School policy that “Applicants with a previous graduate or professional degree or equivalent from a regionally accredited US institution may be exempt from the GRE and undergraduate GPA requirements.” The ST&L recommends that the appropriate committee draft some guidelines about what kinds of things might need to be monitored by the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and that the Associate Dean develop procedures for such monitoring.
The Department of Counselor Education favors the adoption of the proposed changes. The only point of concern is that students in the Department of Counselor Education are admitted to an M.Ed./Ed.S. program; therefore, the language regarding “Master’s only” needs to make provisions for CED’s students.
No response was received from the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Foundations.
Correa stated that a motion to divide this proposal into three sections was approved at the April 29th FPC meeting. FPC members spoke in favor of sending this new proposal back to the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee for review. The proposal designates three admission policies to consider, (1) Proteach master’s, (2) other master’s, and (3) doctoral programs. The Student Recruitment & Admissions Committee was directed to discuss where specialist programs should be considered, either with (2) other master’s or (3) doctoral programs.
Webb reminded FPC members that changes in this policy would have implications for relationships with the Graduate School, the Provost’s office, and may also effect U. S. News &World report rankings. Part of the rankings are based on GRE scores for entering students.
Correa stated that no recommendation had been made to dissolve the Admission and Petitions committee, only that this committee would serve a different function — that of a due process for students to appeal an admission decision if the department has denied them.
Last year there was also discussion with the Graduate School about alternative assessment measures used for admissions. The Graduate School asked that the College keep data for one year on the correlation between the GRE and alternative measures and present this for further discussion.
Correa stated that, under the Constitution, the FPC may refer any policy decision to the faculty for a college-wide vote, or the FPC could make a decision within itself.
4. Associate/Assistant Dean Review
Correa reported that a two-year review for Associate and Assistant Deans is called for in the COE Constitution. The FPC needs to decide how these reviews will be carried out and the criteria that should be used. Clark suggested that it would be important to poll the COE faculty as part of the review process. Correa recommended that the FPC work with the Dean on criteria for these evaluations. Clark stated that a review of the positions descriptions would be helpful.
Correa suggested that an ad hoc committee be assembled to conduct these evaluations. Clark suggested that these evaluations should not be held each year, and that a method for evaluating the Associate and Assistant Deans needs to be developed. Correa stated that past surveys need to be reviewed by the FPC. Clark suggested that two reviews be held — one by the faculty and the other by the Dean. Criteria needs to be developed for these reviews in collaboration with the Dean for continuity, not separately. Criteria for these reviews need to be acquired from the Dean in order for the faculty to evaluate what the Associate and Assistant Deans job functions are.
A temporary ad hoc committee was convened: Clark, Webb (non-voting member), Townsend, Emihovich, and Correa.
5. Tenure and Promotion Procedures (Faculty Affairs Committee)
At the end of last year the Faculty Affairs Committee put forward a proposal to the FPC about tenure and promotion procedures in the college.
Waldron stated that the intent of this review was to provide consistent procedures for T&P across the College. The FAC spent last year collecting and reviewing information from each department and soliciting faculty input. One part of the proposal is the requirement for a three year review of untenured faculty. Townsend stated that the proposed three-year review would be part of a mentoring process for junior faculty. This review is not an adversarial review, but a supportive review.
Archer stated that the criteria for T&P has changed over the years and needs to be clarified for junior faculty. The College criteria should parallel the University criteria.
Waldron stated that the intent of this proposal was to consider the procedures for the T&P process in the College, as opposed to criteria. The task given to FAC clearly specified the need for consistency of procedures and equity across departments in the College.
Concerns were expressed about how faculty, particularly junior faculty, would react to the idea of a three year review. Correa stated that the proposal should be posted on the web and some of the wording should reflect that the review is to assist junior faculty and provide feedback to them. Townsend stated that the terms, “three-year progress report” might be used in lieu of a “three-year review.”
Waldron stated that the cover sheet to the proposal was not included today and this may provide better information about how the proposal was developed. This information will be forwarded to FPC members.
The FPC accepted the report from the Faculty Affairs Committee and Correa stated that it would be discussed as “old business” at the next meeting. The wording of this proposal will be reviewed. The proposal should be considered a “draft”, forwarded to the faculty for feedback, and discussed at a future FPC meeting.
Clark moved that the meeting be adjourned. Townsend seconded the motion. The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 pm.