November 8, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Dale Campbell, Mary Clark (alternate), Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott

Members Absent: Ellen Amatea, Larry Tyree

Others Present: Associate Deans Jeri Benson and John Kranzler, Faculty Senator Paul George, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

  1. Approval of the agenda for November 8, 2004

Jones motioned to approve the November 8, 2004 meeting agenda. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2004 meeting

Scott motioned to approve the October 25, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Koro-Ljungberg seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Conroy reminded those present that members can send agenda suggestions to herself, Tyree, or Jones.

Committee Reports

  1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee has not met since the last report.
  1. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee has not met since the last report.
  1. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Clark reported that the committee has not met since the last report.
  1. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group met online. She presented a document that summarizes concerns. The consensus is that the charge to the committee needs to be better defined. Are they to ask for more space, or deal with existing space? Benson is taking action to see what has already been done.
  1. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee has not met since the last report.
  1. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the group met once. They are creating a rubric to help decide how alumni fellowships should be distributed. They will have a proposal by December. They are also working on the criteria for graduate admissions.
  1. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee met and spent most of the time discussing the new director of technology position.

Report from the Dean

Associate Dean Benson shared a list of the vacant faculty positions within the college. There are ten tenure-track positions plus an alliance director position. The college is advertising these positions in several print media outlets. deJong noted that her department has already filled the posted lecturer position.

B.O. Smith awards: Benson reported that Dean Emihovich will publish the criteria for these positions soon and that they will be awarded in the spring.

Benson provided a handout announcing a new program, the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, designed to recognize faculty who are also exemplary teachers. The university is looking for senior associates who have a record of teaching accomplishments. They will only select five members in the inaugural year. This academy is the first step towards having a group of scholars on campus who focus on teaching.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Faculty Feedback on Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure

Faculty Senator Paul George reported that there were mostly tenure-related items discussed at the last Senate meeting. There will be one more meeting for discussion, then a vote. The biggest issues under consideration are:

1)      A possible three-year review to assess progress towards tenure; and

2)      The question of whether colleges will have six or seven-year tenure reviews.

Concerns discussed included:

  • The importance of flexibility among colleges, i.e., allowing each college to choose for themselves whether to review at six or seven years.
  • How the three-year review will be used, i.e., as an opportunity for mid-period feedback, or as a tool to fire people. Ideally the three-year review should be helpful for faculty by allowing them to assess their progress and plan appropriate goals to reach tenure. There is currently a three-year review process in place in the COE and faculty are optimistic that the College of Education would be able to institute a three-year review process fairly.
  • Concern was also expressed about the three-year review being kept in the faculty member’s file and used to help make future decisions. It was noted that the College of Education policy is to place the review in the personnel file. Another issue discussed was that three years might not be enough time to get an accurate representation of a faculty member’s productivity because it takes a few years to get things published.
  • A question was raised about why the minimum number of peer-review letters was raised to five. Benson explained that this number is within a range used by AAU universities, some use a minimum of three and others use a minimum of eight.
  • George also reported that  a “tenure when ready” approach within a seven year period is being discussed by the senate.
  • A question was asked about where the letters from the faculty mentoring program go. George reported that the Senate did not discuss mentoring much.

Information Items

Fall/Winter Faculty Meeting Dates: November 22, December 13, January 10, January 17


Conroy asked for feedback on potential dates for a faculty meeting. She suggested that faculty meet soon to help Dean Emihovich develop a transition report for the new provost (memo on the transition report provided as a handout). It was decided to hold the meeting on November 22.

New COE positions

·        Associate Dean for Research

The position description was provided as a handout. Conroy reported that the special education department brought up two issues regarding the description:

1)      The description mentions an administrative stipend. Some people thought an administrative stipend might not be as attractive as an overall pay raise; and

2)      There is a concern about the research office needing to be self-sustaining. This is a position that has been vacant for a long time, and the faculty are interested in getting this position filled as soon as possible. If potential applicants need to worry about sustaining their office within three years (as rumored), they may be less interested in the position.

Benson stated that the rumor that the office should be self-sustaining within three years could be pretty damaging. It could not be truly self-sustaining in the beginning. Eventually some of the indirect money that grants bring in might be used to support the office. Over time more money will flow through the office because of the increased number of grants. The Dean is investing in this position to increase the number of grants the college is getting.

·        Director of Graduate Studies

The director of graduate studies is a less well-defined position. It is part of an ongoing discussion. Benson believes it is critical that faculty have a say in what this position looks like because this person will be serving faculty. Conroy encouraged FPC members to email the faculty they represent to get feedback on what they would like to see in this position. Conroy asked Kranzler to provide her with a description of his duties so that faculty have a starting point to discuss what the new duties might be. It was mentioned that there have been several failed searches around this position and the college needs to make administrative positions more attractive so people will want to take them.

  • Director of Technology

The Director of Technology position is getting close to being posted. Kranzler has already submitted the position description to various people to get feedback. Some decisions still need to be made about whether the search will be national, regional, internal etc. Advertisements should go out in early spring and hopefully someone will be hired no later than in the fall.


Transition Report for the New Provost

As previously noted, the faculty meeting on November 22 will address the transition report. Dean Emihovich will come to each department and discuss the transition report too.

Other items

Jones asked Kranzler to make follow-up comments on the technology issues discussed at the last meeting. Kranzler reported that a FAQ is being posted on the Web soon. They are still planning to make and provide the comparison of different email programs to faculty members.

Jones motioned to adjourn. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:27 pm.

Note: The FPC meeting for Monday, November 22 will be postponed so that a faculty meeting can be held on that day.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda, (2) Draft of the October 25, 2004 FPC Minutes, (3) Memorandum from David Colburn on Preparing for the Transition (re: new provost), (4) College of Education Associate Dean for Research Position Description, (5) Email regarding the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, (6) List of positions available within the College of Education (printed from the COE Website)