October 25, 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, Larry Tyree

Members Absent: Ellen Amatea

Others Present: Associate Deans Jeri Benson and John Kranzler, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:06 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

  1. Approval of the agenda for October 25, 2004

Tyree made a motion to approve the October 25, 2004 meeting agenda. Benson seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the October 11, 2004 meeting

Campbell made a motion to approve the October 11, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Linderholm seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Conroy reminded those present that the next agenda committee meeting will be on November 15. Members can send agenda suggestions to herself, Tyree, or Jones.

Committee Reports

  1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee has met twice since her last report (August 30). The committee is discussing the GRE requirement for doctoral students and the EDS requirements.
  1. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee is finishing its work on the faculty climate survey. They are also working on the role of non-tenure accruing faculty in governance and will come up with a proposal for the next FPC meeting
  1. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: No report due to Amatea’s absence. Conroy expressed concern that some issues may be time sensitive. Kranzler replied that there are no time sensitive issues for this committee at this time.
  1. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group has not met.
  1. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that they are continuing to review the selection criteria for the B.O. Smith professorship and the Associate Dean for Research positions.
  1. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the group met once. They are continuing to discuss the nomination procedures for Alumni and Presidential Fellowship awards. They have discussed specific recommendations. She asked if the committee should present a formal report for the FPC. Conroy confirmed that they should. Linderholm added that this committee is also collecting data on recruitment.
  1. Technology Committee: Scott reported that their next meeting is November 3. The issue of administrative access to faculty computers is still being discussed. The committee also needs to finalize their recommendations for the position description for technology director.

Report from the Dean

Associate Dean Benson provided a summary of faculty feedback as edited from the original version she presented at the FPC meeting on October 11. She made the changes she thought were needed and incorporated some of the feedback provided at the last FPC meeting. Benson reported that it was not yet clear how the president would use the information. The college would like to see these recommendations implemented and there are plans to follow-up with the president.

As a newcomer to the FPC and the College of Education, Benson asked what type of information the Dean typically provides in the Dean’s report. Tyree gave a summary of the Dean’s presentation at the September meeting.

Benson reported that Dean Emihovich is out fundraising and following up on donor gifts. Half of the Dean’s job is to bring in new resources. She reported that the Dean has delegated a lot of the day-to-day operation of the college to the Associate Deans. One of Benson’s concerns is hiring an IT director to interface between faculty, IT staff and the Dean’s Office. She also reported that the new Dean’s Advisory Committee has met, and will meet again soon. They provided input on the faculty survey.

Benson discussed the search for an Associate Dean for Research and confirmed that this will be an internal search. Jones asked Benson when the position would be posted. Benson was not sure. Kranzler said there would be a search committee, and a full search process. Dean Emihovich is in the process of setting up the committee now. Conroy asked what changes will be made that will make the search more successful than it was last year. Kranzler reported that the position has been clearly crafted as a Dean’s position. The college is searching for a technology director, so that portion of the job will not be there, which makes the job much more attractive.

Jones asked about the IT director search. Kranzler reported that they are using a position description from another university to give people an idea of what is needed, qualifications of perspective candidates, etc. The position description has been sent to the technology committee and the educational technology faculty for input.  He anticipates that enough time will be taken to formalize this position. It is an important position for the college so it needs to be considered carefully.

Benson reported that the search for the Associate Dean for Research might end in January and the search for a technology director might start in January. Kranzler reported that the search for a technology director might become a national search.

deJong asked about the Dean’s evaluation and how the Dean plans to respond. Benson reported that she spoke to the Dean about it, and the Dean would like to know more of what the FPC expects. Conroy reported that she plans to meet with the Dean on this matter. Conroy discussed possible changes to the evaluation process for the Dean and Associate Deans such as evaluating them separately for each of their different roles and looking at the amount of contact a faculty member has with the person he or she evaluates.

Campbell mentioned that it is not widely understood that half of the Dean’s job is fundraising which may be a problem when trying to evaluate her. Benson reported that the Dean has been interested in how to show the results of her fundraising efforts. Conroy agreed that fundraising is important and the effects of her efforts may not be seen in the short term, but that information on fundraising progress might be helpful to faculty members because it affects them over the long term.

Report from the Faculty Senate

There is no report at this time, however Conroy stated that she met with some Senators and discussed whether they are comfortable meeting directly with Benson. There did not appear to be any objections to this idea. Senators do not plan to attend FPC meetings unless there is a burning issue to discuss. Currently the senators are sending reports to the faculty through e-mail.

Information Items

UF Strategic Plan – College of Education – Faculty Feedback


This item was discussed during the Dean’s Report.

DAC/FPC Retreat – Report & Next Steps

Benson reported that at the Dean’s Retreat the Dean asked the Advisory Council: “What would you like this college to look like in five years?” The Dean has compiled that feedback. At the fall faculty meeting, they will collect more feedback and begin using it to form a basis for the college’s strategic plan. Conroy reported that the date for the next faculty meeting would hopefully be toward the end of November.

Transfer to COE New Server – Faculty Feedback

Conroy provided a handout of feedback presented to Jones and herself on the issues with the recent technology changes. Lamme also provided written feedback from ST&L. Conroy asked that the members look over the two documents and then discuss issues or concerns that aren’t represented.  She opened the floor for discussion.

The faculty raised several additional issues and concerns.

  1. Some  faculty are concerned that when they receive tech support, the person helping does not know about how something works for the Mac.
  2. Although training is being offered, the same problem has occurred when Mac users participate in training. The person conducting the training cannot tell them how to use the software with a Mac.
  3. Many faculty feel they do not have enough information to make a decision about which e-mail program to use.
  4. The faculty is receiving more spam than usual.
  5. E-mail accounts for non-faculty (e.g., doc students, accounts that go to a particular machine for office purposes) were not being provided.
  6. The disruptions are still evident every day.
  7. Sending in tech requests has been problematic because it is not clear when tech staff are available.

Linderholm reported a list of issues:

1)      Her department chair found that people could schedule things on his calendar without him knowing;

2)      Autofill is not working for email addresses;

3)      Faculty are having problems with opening email attachments at home; and

4)      In the contact spreadsheet an important phone number (Sylvia’s) is incorrect.

Kranzler provided some explanations for many of the problems and questions:

1.   Entourage allows users to do more with the server in calendar than Outlook. The migration also seemed to be easier for Macs. One of the difficulties with the migration is that everyone has a different way to handle their email. They had problems with filtering and moving saved emails.

  1. The spam filters were not put on right away but they are on now.
  2. A number of training sessions are now being offered.
  3. In response to item 5 above, Kranzler replied that a computer security plan was passed a year ago. Some of the things that were happening were against UF policy. He has had to override UF policy in some instances so that people can work the way they are accustomed to working. But it is important to realize that we are in a new era. If you can get on a machine with the right username and password you can get to a lot of information. A current student can get an account, but former students should not have access.

Suggestions for possible solutions were discussed.

Jones suggested a posting of pros and cons of using Eudora, Entourage, etc… so faculty can make an informed choice. She emphasized the need for unbiased advice. She stated that no one she knows cares about the calendaring function.

Lamme reiterated the need for information (as suggested by Jones) so that faculty can make rational decisions about what to do.  The tech people don’t seem to be sure what works on a Mac.

Conroy asked whether tech staff could be better trained in the necessary areas. Kranzler explained that some tech staff have better training than others and that there is no way to anticipate exactly what skills will be needed when. He stated that he plans to share the feedback document with the tech staff.

Linderholm asked if the best course of action is to fill out a tech request. Kranzler confirmed that it was, but also stated that lots of people call directly and cut and line, depending on the importance of the issue. Jones reported difficulty logging on to the tech support page. Benson mentioned that they are considering moving the tech page to the COE home page. Members agreed this was a good idea.

Lamme reported that there were some very positive comments and some negative comments about tech support staff.  Clark reported that some faculty like their new ability to access email through the Web.

deJong mentioned that there is a lot of frustration about what should have happened that did not happen. The college needs to acknowledge that people have been inconvenienced and move on from there.

Conroy summarized that the faculty aren’t seeing the benefits related to the costs of this migration. To have resources set aside and not see benefits is problematic. There is also a communication problem between faculty and tech staff.  Kranzler thinks the tech staff members are trying their best and he wants faculty to let him know of specific problems with tech staff.

Benson thanked everyone for the feedback and Kranzler stated that he appreciates the constructive nature of the criticism.

Committee Membership Update

There isn’t a chair for the Long Range Planning Committee or the Lectures and Awards Committee.

deJong asked about agenda items for the next meeting. Conroy replied that there are not any at this time.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Clark motioned to adjourn. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:30 pm.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda, (2) Draft of the October 11, 2004 FPC Minutes (3) Summary of College of Education Faculty Feedback on UF’s Strategic Plan (4) College of Education FPC & COE Committee Membership 2004-2005 (5) COE Faculty Feedback: Technology Issues and Concerns 10/25/2004 (6) Comments about the Technology transfer from the School of Teaching and Learning 10/29/2004