Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the February 14, 2011 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158

Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), James Algina (SHDOSE), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), and Twyla Mancil (Graduate Assistant)

Time called to order: 2:07 p.m.

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Agenda Unanimously Approved

Approval of November 15, 2010 Minutes: Editorial amendments suggested; Jeff Hurt moved to approve, Stephen Smith seconded, unanimous approval.

Related Action: Twyla L. Mancil will make the above changes and then submit minutes to John Donaldson for uploading to the FPC website.

Dean’s Report

Budget Update
The mid-year budget reviews were completed. All units are projected to have an overall carry-forward balance in the neighborhood of $900,000. In addition, some money is available through the DOCE fees, separate from Distance Education tuition. However, there is a limitation on this money—can only be used to support Distance Education instruction. Overall, the COE has a $1.4 million carry-forward for the next budget year.

The Business Office estimates that approximately $20 million is needed to run the College at current levels. After $1.5 is allocated to alumni fellowships, we’re left with a gap of about $2 million. Last year the gap was made up with what was available in reserves. Now there is nothing in reserve. After we apply the 1.4 million in carry-forward funds, next year’s budget falls short by approximately $600,000. One option suggested was that DSR taxes (about $500,000) be paid from the OER/IDC account. If OER/IDC funds are used in this way, and there are no budget cuts from the state, the COE will be solvent for the upcoming year. However, there are no other new lines for hiring faculty in the budget so new hires in the next year would have to come from retirees and resignations. In essence, the COE will be able to maintain the status quo, but not support growth.

Discussion ensued regarding clinical vs. tenure-tracked faculty, and the possibility of moving individuals on and off line to free up funds, such as in the case of faculty having grants. No losses among support staff are being assumed.

$385k has been allocated for Summer school (which almost exactly matches the previous summer allocation), and directors have been asked to turn in projections for Summer A, which
are due on February 15, 2011. It will be discussed in DAC and allocations will be made accordingly. It will be important for Directors to maintain SCH generation, which may mean they will have to hire others besides faculty.

The Dean proceeded to discuss the National Council of Teacher Quality survey. In the past this group targeted the COE Reading program and gave it poor reviews, which led to the COE having to respond as to why they got it wrong. This organization has now teamed with US News and World Report. A number of Deans have resisted this. All the Provosts were supportive of the COE, and the chancellor will be writing a letter as to why UF does not need to participate in this given the strong accountability measures already in place. Overall, it is a very contested issue and is raising a lot of alarms across the campus.

Report from Associate Dean of Academic Affairs

External Program reviews are occurring within graduate programs across the College. New Graduate School Rules require that all graduate programs receive an external review every 7 years. Programs that were reviewed by the NCATE/DOE review process may use that review; other programs (there are 25 of those within the College) must schedule an external review. The purpose is not to have an evaluation of the program that goes to the Provost. The external review is part of an internal review process. Each program will use the reviews as their own self-study.

The Board of Governers has tasked the SUS Provosts to look at programs with low enrollment. The Provost indicated he wanted to close three of our programs –the middle school education bachelor’s degree, the specialist degree in REM, and the specialist degree in college student personnel higher education (to which students are not admitted but is used for those who decide not to complete the doctorate degree). This will be a process as the semester goes on and included in the final decisions whether programs should be closed or phased out over time. The COE has been proactive in closing programs that are no longer active, so relatively few programs should be impacted by this review. Several other degree levels in the college have been either no or low graduates or enrollment, and we might be able to do a little curricular cleanup in that process. Discussion ensued regarding whether this is a cost-cutting catalyst. This will not really reduce cost, but to those outside the University, such as legislators, these efforts will save perceptions. It is a way of avoiding duplication of programs across the state as well. Thus, it is both a PR and duplication issue. These efforts are occurring across the country. Regarding other institutions, many are only now beginning to feel the budget crisis that the UF COE has been feeling. During the program review process, this might be something to add to help justify our programs’ existence. Regarding the duplication issue across the state, there is always the opportunity to make an argument to maintain a program, although one needs to be careful on which programs are defended.

Associate Dean for Research search. We do not have significant numbers of new applications. The search committee will meet next week to decide next steps.

COE Website Architectural Modification. Tom Dana provided data from first 11 days of the new website, which assessed the number of users accessing the COE site, the top content, the top keyword searches, links to sites, and so forth. Overall, the architecture of the website has
changed so decisions about web pages can be made. It is a marketing website, and therefore program-centric. You should be able to access information about specific programs from the website. The publishing system is WordPress, which allows for multiple authors and means everyone can be the author of his/her own page. Faculty/Programs can still submit a request for an update/webpage change through John Donaldson.

Discussion ensued regarding whether this change will reduce spam. It was indicated that this would not necessarily reduce spam because “crawlers” can still crawl the website for email addresses. However, the COE does have diagnostic tools to study this, including a team that can manage the servers remotely.

Further discussion ensued regarding the movement to a new website format, with specific concerns noted on the lack of communication to individual faculty concerning such a major change. It was indicated that this was a 2-year process with involvement from multiple levels, including Directors. There was a transition team working for the last several months that included people from different programs. Faculty may not have been aware of the impending change, but Directors were aware. Training for those who want to go through the process will be announced, and there is also the option of submitting a request to John Donaldson. However, it was also noted that this topic did not come through the FPC over the past 1.5 years, and there was a disconnect regarding the flow of information to the bulk of the faculty. The Dean’s Office indicated that the decision was made to go through the school and program directors and rely on them to filter the information to faculty. It was noted by FPC members that there is an ongoing need to improve the flow of communication from administrators to faculty. Further discussion at the DAC was indicated.

Action Items

Summer Compensation Model
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)

Discussion:
Tina Smith-Bonahue opened with a brief overview of what occurred at the last FPC meeting. The BAC went back and looked at whether new data would change the motion. They decided they did not want to change anything and so the motion remains the same.

Paul Sindelar read the motion aloud regarding the Proposed Guidelines Consistent with UF Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 17 Summer Appointments and Assignments, Section 17.5cde Compensation. “The faculty member shall receive approximately the same total salary for teaching a course during a Summer appointment as received for teaching the same course or a course similar in credit hours and content during the academic year regardless of the length of Summer appointment. For each three credit hour course assigned during the Summer, the faculty member shall receive 12.5% of the faculty member’s academic year rate of pay. Compensation for courses more or less than three credit hours shall be prorated accordingly. Other credit generating activities, such as thesis or dissertation supervision, directed individual study, supervised teaching or research, or supervision of student interns as well as research or service activities may be assigned during Summer term. However, no faculty member shall be required to undertake such assigned other credit generating activities or assigned research or service activities without compensation for that specific activity in addition to the compensation provided to the faculty member’s summer instructional assignment. Faculty members who have not been assigned a Summer course shall not be required to undertake committee work without compensation for such.”

The motion was offered up for discussion. Clarification was gained regarding taking on students for additional work beyond the 100% and in cases where there is no money for the work. It was indicated that this would be up to individual Directors and would not change from previous years.

Motion: 10 in favor, one abstention; motion approved.

Tina Smith-Bonahue indicated the FPC’s gratitude to the BAC for their efforts.

Discussion Items

Strategic Planning Update

Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar (FPC Secretary, SESPECS)

There was a meeting on Friday in which the two facilitators, including Jodie Gentry, the Steering Committee, and concept paper work group chairs and second members. The meeting also was open to all faculty. Roughly 20 people attended. Two items were discussed: a) the purpose statement and b) concept papers. We seem to be on the right track now, though consensus was not reached regarding the purpose statement. Six of the seven groups reported on concept papers. Some are farther along than others. The concept papers are due 10 a.m. on March 11th so they can be distributed a week before the full-faculty retreat on March 18th. Papers should be about five pages long, can be developed as executive summaries with bullets, and should be designed to share the thought processes of each group. Elements of the concept paper include: contact, strategic direction, big ideas, concerns, and recommendations. Also there was a discussion of keeping personal agendas out of reports and that was agreed upon. The two facilitators seemed impressed with the content and work of the groups and were upbeat about where we are in the process. From our side of things, the March 11th deadline seems short, but performance is good at this point.

Constitutional Revision—Ad Hoc Committees

Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)
Discussion:
One of important roles of FPC is to help funnel faculty service so that it is as efficient, yet undemanding as possible. One thing that often comes up is the need for ad hoc committees (e.g., the productivity task force from last year, the strategic planning steering committee this year). However, it seems as if faculty are being asked to contribute at different times and rates throughout the year. If there is a way to review the constitution and use some of the standing committees to do some of the things that ad hoc committees are being used to do, it seems
advisable. Specific language regarding this constitutional change was discussed, as was ensuring that certain committees were not overloaded with work. Stephen Pape also indicated that he still has not heard from most of the committees regarding their review of the constitution and indicated he would send out an email again.

Annual Evaluation of the Dean

Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)

Discussion:
There is a an FPC constitutional responsibility to evaluate the Dean annually. This year it is only Dean Emihovich. For the last several years, David Miller has managed the data from the survey and is willing to do that again. In preparation for the discussion, Tina Smith-Bonahue met with the Dean. She indicated from her perspective there are three areas of performance resource generation, budget management, and presenting the public face of the college. Upon a review of the survey, there are a number of questions that generally look at these items, but few items were of very little importance to faculty based on last year’s results.

The FPC members decided to conduct the evaluation as a whole group rather than form an ad hoc committee. Decisions to be made include deciding on a time line, a master list of faculty, and determine what to do with the results (i.e., how to analyze them, summarize them, and with whom we share them—though that is somewhat limited). The FPC members decided to use the same questions as last year after a discussion on the process of developing the survey, including input from the Dean. However, adding a “Comments and/or Recommendations” section was agreed upon so as to provide specific feedback.

Discussion ensued regarding what to do with the results of the survey. Historically, these results were used as part of an internal method of evaluation. However, the results from the previous year were provided to the Provost to be used in an evaluative way, so due to concerns raised by UF general counsel, the data were not shared to all faculty members. Further clarification on whether or not a summary of the results can be shared with all faculty members while also providing the results to the Provost in an evaluative manner is needed. The procedures for giving feedback to the Dean based upon the results of the survey were also discussed. Traditionally, the chair and secretary of the FPC meet with the Dean and provide feedback. A vote on treating the survey as an evaluation and sending it to the Provost was withdrawn due to a need for further information, especially that pertaining to whether or not the results could be summarized and shared with all faculty members if the survey is used as a formal evaluation of the Dean. Setting a timeline was postponed until the next FPC meeting (March 14th) to provide time for gathering additional information regarding the use of the survey as an evaluation.

Related Action:
Tina will contact Barbara Wingo, of the UF general counsel’s office, to find out if a summary can be distributed to faculty, as well as sharing the results with the Provost in an evaluative manner, and will summarize the conversation via email with FPC members; FPC members will further communication on the topic via email.

Committee Reports

Budget Affairs Committee (BAC)
Name of Reporter: Cyndy Griffin, SESPECS

The BAC is continuing to work on the concept paper. Issues around understanding the costs of programs, developing a framework for considering all the factors of operating programs (e.g., quality, etc.), and understanding how research activities factor in are being considered; strategic mission contributes to that. At the last meeting, Naomi and Catherine shared a mid-year report and indicated they were on-track. However, the BAC was concerned that the data were not complete regarding the Dean’s expenses and so want more information in that area.

College Curriculum Committee
Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar, FPC Secretary, SESPECS

Discussion:
Met on January 24th and discussed the Early Childhood Policy and Advocacy course. Two new courses were also considered, though a vote was not taken because the syllabi needed additional work. However, revisions to the syllabi were provided within one day and, based upon a straw poll, things are looking positive. The CCC is going to review the Graduate SLO proposals for completeness and appropriateness in submitting the documents. The CCC is meeting on Wednesday to put together the agenda.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Everyone is reminded to attend the film series on diversity. Not many faculty or classes signed up the previous week.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

Discussion:
At the last meeting, pre-tenure review was discussed. Many people do not understand the process and so it was clarified. In addition, promotion guidelines for clinical faculty were also discussed (a document regarding these guidelines was shared). The FPC will need to consider and hopefully vote on these guidelines at the next FPC meeting on March 12th with the FAC in attendance.

Related Action:

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee
Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Decided to take on the work for the graduate student awards. We received the applications today and will be moving forward with them.

Long Range Planning Committee
Name of Reporter: Cirecie West-Olatunji, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Already addressed.

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Nothing to report.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

Name of Reporter: Jeff Hurt, STL

Discussion:
Holding off on meeting until SPC is finished.

The meeting adjourned at: 4:07
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the November 15, 2010 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158

Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), James Algina (SHDOSE), Shelly Warm (STL), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), Dan McCoy (DE Associate Director), and Twyla Mancil (Graduate Assistant)

Time called to order: 2:07 p.m.

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Hours for Strategic Planning Retreat listed on the agenda were changed from 3:00-5:00 to 9:00-5:00; unanimous approval

Approval of October 11, 2010 Minutes: Suggested changes to BAC report: Cyndy Griffin is not the BAC Co-Chair and move the last sentence from the first paragraph (i.e., “The committee…”) to the end of the report from BAC, following the last paragraph; correct spelling of Koran; Jeff Hurt moved to approve with suggested changes, Stephen Smith seconded, unanimous approval.

Approval of Fall Faculty Meeting Minutes: James Algina moved to approve, Jeff Hurt seconded, unanimous approval.

Related Action: Twyla Mancil will make approved changes to October 11, 2010 minutes and submit minutes to John Donaldson for uploading to the FPC website.

Announcements
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair, SESPECS

The structure of FPC meetings and the roles and responsibilities of FPC members were discussed, especially as they relate to the procedures followed during FPC meetings and the participation of guests. The FPC constitution and Robert’s Rules indicate that only elected members are to participate in discussion, except as resources or when called upon by the Council. The contribution of guests to FPC meetings and issues was stressed, as was the need to maintain order of the meeting so as to keep non-members from having access to the floor and essentially taking over the meeting. The priority of ensuring that everyone, including members and guests, feel comfortable in expressing themselves during meetings was emphasized. In summary, members of the larger UF community will be asked to come as a resource, and members are okay with that as long as the meetings are held to order as guests are important sources of input to the whole Council.

Questions about the location of the Strategic Plannin Retreat were addressed. No location has been established but there is a possibility of it being held off-campus.

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich announced that the UF President approved an interdisciplinary UF Center of Excellence in Early Childhood Studies, a long-standing dream of early childhood faculty. Pat Snyder will be the Founding Director. The center will be provided with two years of funding, with hopes of an endowment to follow. Strategic planning in the Spring will outline proposals and initiatives for the center.

Dean Emihovich also briefly discussed the Annual Faculty Research and Engaged Scholarship Showcase, as well as the Conversation with Critical Friends, both of which occurred on November 4th, 2010 and details of which can be seen on the COE website.

The Dean also brought up an issue that has come up among the Board of Governers, which focuses on increasing the emphasis placed on possible system-wide collaborations within the state. The COE’s involvement in such collaborations was discussed, including shared courses in severe disabilities.

Budget Update

No new news on budget. This year’s allocations were allotted based on recommendations from the Budget Summit. The BAC will propose a summer compensation model and allocation process for future budget decisions. Dean Emihovich indicated that she will be working with Naomi on mid-year review just to make sure units are staying where they need to be.

Search Update
Regarding the PKY Director search, the search committee sent four names to the Dean for consideration for possible on-campus interviews. The pool was deemed insufficient, and, as a result, the search was reopened. It was felt that there was a lower response because the search opened in the Spring, which is relatively late. Consideration is being given to hiring a search firm at a cost of approximately $30,000-$40,000 of which PKY would pay a significant portion. The point of hiring a search firm is to broaden the applicant pool. Given that it is highly unlikely that someone will be in place before the current Director, Fran Vandiver, retires, Eileen Oliver will be shadowing and will serve as Interim Director from April 1, 2011 until, hopefully, July 1, 2011.

Regarding the OER Associate Dean search, a meeting was held on Friday, November 12, 2010, and the ad should be posted within the next couple of days. The ad is essentially the same as before, with a greater delineation of responsibilities.

Report from Distance Education and Technology Office OER and the Development Office
Name of Reporter(s): Dan McCoy, DE Associate Director

Discussion:
Mr. McCoy briefly introduced himself, including a synopsis of his background in the technology arena. Mr. McCoy’s primary purpose at the meeting was to broadly discuss entrepreneurial activities within the College, presenting ideas and viewpoints that might be appropriate or
helpful for COE faculty. A major portion of this discussion focused on views of/approaches to intellectual property, including the open-access approach and the proprietary approach. With the open-access approach, intellectual property is publically accessible, whereas with the proprietary approach such information is not freely accessible. Mr. McCoy indicated that current cultural trends show a change towards intellectual property being more freely accessible.

Discussion ensued around the two opposing approaches to intellectual property and how these approaches may/may not affect COE entrepreneurial activities. An FPC member pointed out that the technology to prevent the downloading of intellectual property does exist and is being used by other companies and institutions to protect intellectual property rights. Mr. McCoy indicated that decisions regarding approaches to intellectual property will be left up to the individual faculty member. Ways in which DE can help COE faculty were also discussed, including providing a learning platform, operational support, instructional support, and promotion/informal marketing. Mr. McCoy shared the Office of DE Annual Report with FPC members and provided examples of current entrepreneurial activities of faculty, such as establishing web-based continuing education units (CEUs).

OLD BUSINESS

Strategic Planning Steering Committee (SPSC)
Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar, FPC Secretary, SESPECS

Discussion:
Paul Sindelar and Dorene Ross met with Jodi Gentry, Human Resource Services Director, and asked her to submit a strategic planning proposal. Since then, the SPSC has met twice, once to discuss the possibility of meeting with Ms. Gentry and a second time to meet as a group with Ms. Gentry. At the first meeting, concerns with having HR involved and whether or not individuals would be comfortable with this involvement were discussed. It was decided to have a second meeting in which Ms. Gentry would attend. Upon this meeting, everyone on the committee approved of engaging her in this process. SPSC is meeting again on November 18, 2010 to discuss the details of the process, including the identification of work groups that would be charged with preparing concept papers and a final action/strategic plan for accomplishing our identified goals. Ms. Gentry submitted a budget, which was very modest–$2,000 for the entire year to go through May. This amount falls in the range previously discussed. One of the things that was appreciated about Ms. Gentry’s perspective is that she is amenable to midcourse correction and changing the process.

Discussion ensued regarding Ms. Gentry’s previous work. Ms. Gentry is expected to attend the Strategic Planning Retreat on December 13, 2010. Tina Smith-Bonahue asked other FPC members to encourage other faculty to attend the retreat and was open to suggestions regarding faculty emails eliciting faculty attendance at the retreat. Suggestions were made regarding email content, including explaining Ms. Gentry’s role in the process.

As a reminder, Paul Sindelar noted that he and Dorene Ross are co-chairs of SPSC, with representation from the Productivity Task Force (Tracy Linderholm) and each of the COE
Schools—Hazel Jones (SESPECS), Ruth Lower (STL), Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE), and the Directors.

Review of the Constitution
Name of Reporter: Stephen Pape, STL

Discussion:
Brief reminder of the task for individual committees to review the portion of the constitution pertaining to their committee and suggest/make changes.

Related Action: Stephen Pape (STL) will send out an email reminder to committee chairs.

NEW BUSINESS

No new business emerged from the agenda.

Committee Reports

Budget Affairs Committee (BAC)
Name of Reporter: Cyndy Griffin, SESPECS

Discussion:
BAC has met twice. At our October 18th meeting, we discussed sharing across Schools within the COE. School Directors were interviewed with a common set of questions that were fairly broad: what they thought should be encouraged/rewarded in the RCM model; what should be discouraged in terms of activities or under-rewarded in the current RCM model; what major assets do you think the College has that may improve our overall reputation and quality; what major assets does your school have that may improve our overall reputation and quality; what things should be increased to maintain/improve these assets; what role should the schools have in ensuring the financial health and overall reputation of the College; should each school be expected to contribute in similar/different ways; and then a final question about activities that might help improve the financial health/overall reputation of the College. Interviews revealed very different views across the Schools. Some would like the RCM to trickle down to program level; one School emphasized balance; and one school was highly invested in entrepreneurial activity. BAC meets next week and will continue the discussion on these broad based issues of allocation.

College Curriculum Committee
Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar, FPC Secretary, SESPECS

Discussion:
CCC met Monday, October 25th, 2010, the same day as the Fall Faculty Meeting so the CCC only met for one hour. CCC approved the UFTeach minors in math and science, and changed the name of the remaining Pathways to Teaching minors to Florida Teaching Minors. If faculty have proposals, they can still be placed on the agenda for Monday.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE (not present)

Discussion:
No report from this committee.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair (Shelley Warm, STL represented Alyson Adams, STL at the meeting)

Discussion:

Tina Smith-Bonahue read the following report provided by Alyson Adams via email: “FAC met on November 9th and continued discussing 3rd year review policy. We plan to make some revisions to the policy to strengthen it to provide more helpful feedback and follow up to junior faculty, and should be bringing that to FPC in January. We are also continuing to review promotion criteria for non-tenure faculty and should have that for FPC by February. We meet again in mid-December.”

Dave Miller is the FAC Chair.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
LSA continues to meet electronically. We are reviewing for the faculty Mentoring Award and will make a recommendation for the Doctoral Mentoring Award.

Long Range Planning Committee
Name of Reporter: Cirecie West-Olatunji, SHDOSE (not present)

Discussion:
No report from this committee.

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Next meeting is scheduled for November 18th, 2010. Agenda is to be announced.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

Name of Reporter: Jeff Hurt, STL

Discussion:
Met on October 27th, 2010 and elected Shelly Warm (STL) as the Chair of the committee. TDEC unanimously agreed that ex officio representation on the Distance Education Task Force should be afforded the committee. In light of this agreement, Shelly Warm was selected as the Committee representative, with Swapna Kumar the alternative. Jeff Hurt contacted the members of the task force to inform them of the committee’s decision. In discussing the goals of the committee beyond the role of liaison relative to the Distance Education Task Force, the committee discussed the following issues: a) what technical support is available from the College for faculty involved in grant writing and research?; b) are there/should there be College personnel who are available to support faculty in technical matters relating to grant writing and research?; c) could the College provide faculty with an organizational chart showing who is in the College to provide technical support?; d) who can put websites on the College server and what are the restrictions?; and e) what technology is available for College faculty, especially as it relates to grant writing and research and what needs to be included in grants?

Discussion ensued over what was meant by the term “technology”. It was indicated that “technology” referred to software and hardware, as well as human support. A large portion of technology includes web-based technology, but it was reported that TDEC is not limiting the discussion to such.

The meeting adjourned at: 3:45
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the September 13, 2010 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158
(Approved by FPC on 10/11/10)

Members Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Bernie Oliver (SHDOSE), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), Allison Adams (STL), James Algina (SHDOSE), Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE), Hazel Jones (Guest, SESPECS), Twyla L. Mancil (Graduate Assistant)

Time called to order: 2:00 p.m.

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Stephen Smith moved to approve, Stephen Pape seconded, unanimous approval.

Approval of April 26, 2010 minutes: Stephen Smith moved to approve, Nancy Corbitt seconded, unanimous approval.

Announcements
Welcome to Naomi Castillo.
Naomi is the Business Manager who joined the COE over the summer. Naomi has been instrumental in helping the COE implement RCM and will be meeting with BAC and other faculty groups as we develop new models for allocating and acquiring resources.

FPC Website
Thanks to help from Rosie Warner, the FPC website is coming along. This year will involve a great deal of transition and decision-making; the website is a means to allow faculty to follow along with discussions that occur in FPC and committees. FPC representatives to committees are asked to please convey to the committee chairs the importance of posting committee meeting times and minutes to the website. John Donaldson knows to expect to hear from us, and has agreed to help post material in a timely way.

Old Business

Evaluation Task Force (Summer) Report
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Related Action: In accordance with action by FPC at the April 26th meeting, 2 meetings were held between a delegation from FPC and the Provost were held over the summer. The discussions lasted between 45 minutes and an hour and included talks about leadership issues and the future of the college. At the second meeting, it was determined that having the Provost share information directly with the faculty would be helpful. As a result of these meetings, arrangements were made to have the Provost address the faculty at the COE on September 24th, 2010.

New Business

Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) Report
Name of Reporter: Naomi Castillo, Business Manager

Discussion:
The University’s inception of RCM as the new business model was addressed, as well as the goal of transparency as it relates to RCM. The incorporation of both revenue and overhead assessments within the RCM model was also discussed. Colleges will now be responsible for paying for their own overhead assessments. For the current year, the College of Education (COE) has paid for the overhead assessment upfront. The total amount that was charged to the COE was $6,978,719.00, which has also been broken down by individual units. The decision to pay upfront was made in part because there was a reserve in the College that had that amount and the College had access to carry forward balances as a result of Distance Education (DE) balances. Other colleges across the University have yet to pay for overhead assessments for the current fiscal year. Previously, before the RCM model was adopted, the core offices (e.g., the President’s Office, the Provost’s Office, etc.) would receive the money from tuition returns and state appropriations, take what they needed to run their core offices, and then disperse the rest throughout the unit. With RCM, they quantify the activities based on student credit hours to generate revenue, give the revenue to the colleges, and then charge assessments to run their core offices.

Two major challenges were discussed in relation to RCM: a) ensuring that all data from the Provost’s Office is correct given the merges between the schools and b) implementing systems that account for overhead assessment for future terms because it is likely that the COE will not have such a large reserve in future fiscal years (e.g., if state appropriations undergo a cut).

In regards to Distance Education (DE) activities, such activities no longer enjoy a separate revenue stream; they are now tied into RCM, tuition, state appropriation activities, and student credit hours that feed into the overall student credit hour amount generated at the college level. The previous agreement was that the COE would receive 95% of the revenue and the Provost would receive 5%, whereas under RCM you may receive up to 70% for students who are majors in your courses and 30% for students who are not majors but are enrolled in your courses.

Discussions ensued regarding making budgetary information more readily available for faculty to review. This information was distributed to School Directors at the Budget Summit and DAC members have the data. Concerns regarding how helpful it would be to share all data were discussed, and a consensus was reached that in order to ensure transparency all faculty should have access to this information. It was emphasized that a recurring theme for the present fiscal year is “hold everyone harmless this year” so that operations across the College can be maintained in the black and then work can begin on an equitable model of allocations for next year. It was agreed that progress had been made regarding coherency, but that dissemination was still an issue.

Allocations to individual units should be finalized by September 21, 2010. The main focus at present is to set the budget for this year so School Directors know what they have to work with for the rest of the year. Emphasis was placed on moving forward in a uniform manner with open communication between schools and the Business Office to ensure operation at the College level as an organized unit.

Discussions also addressed the inclusion of student credit hour activities within the RCM model, but its exclusion of research activities, as well as the encouragement of entrepreneurial activities, both on-book and off-book, under the RCM model. For off-book activities, the College receives 100% of the revenue and are taxed at a rate of 11.8% (the following year), which essentially make off-book activities like grants. The advantage of off-book activities is that they are not tied to state appropriations, which can be subject to budget cuts. However, there is a need to maintain or increase student credit hour generation so as to ensure the College gets the same proportion of state appropriations. The message was conveyed that all new programs should be tried off-book first, but that a balance should be sought between the generation of student credit hours and off-book activities. Questions arose regarding who can do off-book activities, as well as who makes the final decisions regarding off-book activities, and it was posed that this should be addressed in November during Dan McCoy’s visit. At the FPC meeting in October, Ana Puig from OER and Matt Hodge from the Development Office will discuss grants and development activities, and Dan McCoy will address DE and off-book opportunities in November.

Ideas to move the Business Office toward an analysis (vs. process) driven model were also discussed in relation to assistance with cost analyses for individual faculty and schools.

Related Action:
FPC Chair will pose that the information regarding budgetary data be made more readily available to the COE Dean, Catherine Emihovich, and Associate Dean, Tom Dana, including FPC secretary and BAC co-chairs in the communications. It was suggested that such information be available on the COE’s webiste.

Provost Meeting with COE Faculty Report
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair

Discussion:
As a result of an outgrowth of meetings this summer, the Provost is coming on September 24th at 2 p.m. in the Terrace room. The Provost indicated his agenda for that meeting is to discuss the COE position in terms of the University and state contexts and to talk about what we should be doing as a college to move forward for the future.

Questions were raised regarding opportunities for faculty members to ask the Provost questions during this meeting, as well as regarding the attendance of the COE Dean and Associate Dean. It was indicated that the Provost stated he would entertain questions and that because the meeting was an open one, the Dean and Associate / Assistant Deans would make their own decisions regarding whether or not they attended. Efforts to promote constructive communication between FPC, the Dean’s Office, and the Provost’s Office were discussed. The importance of faculty attendance at the meeting with the Provost was also stressed.

Related Action:
FPC Chair will send out an email to faculty regarding the meeting.

Strategic Planning
Name of Reporters: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair
Hazel Jones, 2009-2010 LRPC Chair, SESPECS

Discussion:
In email communications and during the summer meetings, the Provost suggested hiring an external consultant to help the College engage in strategic planning. Further, he offered funds from the Provost’s Office, thereby furthering the efforts of the Productivity Task Force from the Spring. One major task discussed was identifying a group from the College who could lead the strategic planning effort. It was suggested that the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) seemed the logical FPC committee. Because the LRPC only has six members, further discussion ensued regarding the need to add members to ensure certain units are represented. It was also suggested that the budget needs representation on the LRPC and that having representation from the Productivity Task Force from the previous year would be beneficial. Clarification of the role of the external consultant was also discussed, as well as the process of strategic planning. Some members were concerned that climate issues needed to first be addressed and wanted to ensure that the work of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) and the Productivity Task Force from the previous year not be abandoned in relation to strategic planning. A need was identified regarding devising a way to make decisions about monies for the College and individual units that do not polarize the schools. Concerns about the involvement or lack of involvement of COE leadership, including the Dean and Associate Dean, in the strategic planning process were also discussed. The strategic planning process was viewed by some as a way to formalize the principles of COE Schools so as to aid in the hiring process of future deans.

Motion: (Cyndy Griffin) Ask the LRPC to explore the abovementioned issues: to look at the FAC proposal, anticipate the role of a consultant in this process, delineate the scope of the “planning” or activity, plan who should be on the committee, and outline the constitution of the committee. The motion was seconded by Bernie Oliver, and unanimously approved.

Fall Faculty Meeting (Oct 25th at 3:00)
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair, SESPECS

Discussion:
Addressed the need to re-evaluate based upon the meeting with the Provost. Two topics of discussion related to budget included addressing how the money was distributed this year and how will things look in the future—to what extent will individual school efforts be kept in the school (vs. a more cooperative structure). Summer pay was also suggested as a topic for discussion. The method for paying for Summer A 2010 was discussed.

Related Action:
Feedback regarding agenda items will be communicated to the Dean and Associate Dean at the Agenda Committee to see what they propose by way of their presentation. BAC members will offer input regarding facilitating conversations about the budget.

Collective Bargaining Agreement Report
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair, SESPECS

Discussion:
The new collective bargaining agreement has implications for the COE. The need to develop policies or change existing policies to be in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement was addressed. It was suggested that FAC be charged with this task.

Related Action:
Ask Associate Dean to give FPC an overview of the collective bargaining agreement.

Constitution issues
Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar, FPC Secretary, SESPECS

Discussion:
Concerns were raised at previous Curriculum Committee (CC) meetings regarding anomalies in relation to the FPC constitution, including the existence of two versions of the constitution on the COE website and procedural issues. Based on these concerns, it was proposed that the constitution as a whole needed to be updated. Discussion ensued regarding the College vs. University CC decision-making process. Concerns voiced about items never getting pushed through the University CC once decisions are made at the college level. The committee recognized need to do a close reading of the constitution. It was suggested that an ad hoc committee be formed to do a close read of the constitution and recommend possible amendments

Motion: (Allison Adams) To form an ad hoc task force to look at the constitution just as it relates to committees. The motion was seconded by Bernie Oliver, and unanimously approved.

Related Action:
Request for FPC members to recommend members for the constitution task force

Committee Reports

Budgetary Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Cyndy Griffin, BAC Co-Chair, SESPECS

Discussion:
Working on setting a time up to meet. Will look at coming up with principles faculty believe should guide future budget decisions, as well as ways to keep faculty informed and aware. Summer compensation plan is due in November. Nancy Waldron and Doreen Ross are co-chairing.

Curriculum Committee
Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar, FPC Secretary, SESPECS

Discussion:
Have met once and took action on 11 proposals that were mostly holdovers from the Spring that were kicked back from the University level. The schedule of meetings and deadlines for submitting new proposals have been circulated among faculty and posted on the CC website.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Have not met but are in the process of scheduling a meeting. Ended the previous year with the idea of having a diversity series and started inviting faculty from across campus and other places. Currently looking at ways to fund those efforts. Dean suggested trying to coordinate efforts with those of the
Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Are in search of a committee chair and will meet soon because the first set of awards and papers come will be coming out on October 1st.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

Discussion:
Meeting October 11th with FEO applications as the first task. Also review sabbaticals in the Spring, FEOs twice a year, have been charged with 3rd year review/tenure promotion process, and looking at how the collective bargaining agreement is affecting policies. Still an issue is the Clinical Professor promotion criteria that was presented in April and didn’t go to vote, so that will likely be reported on in October and voted on in November.

Long Range Planning Committee

Addressed above

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Will be contacting members to schedule a meeting time. Also, will be considering COE policies relating to fellowships.

Related Action:
Contact Troy Sadler regarding a related report on fellowships and contact Ana and Matt in anticipation of their presentation in October.

Distance Education and Technology Committee
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair
(Jeff Hurt had to leave the meeting)

Discussion:
Have not yet met.

Related Action:
Contact Dan McCoy in anticipation of November presentation .

The meeting adjourned at: 4:06
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil; approved at the regular FPC meeting on October 11, 2010.

Faculty Policy Council
January 11, 2010

Present: Catherine Cavanaugh, David Therriault, Tina SmithBonahue,
Troy Sadler, Cynthia
Griffin, Harry Daniels, Alyson Adams, Mary Brownell, James Algina, Thomas Oakland, Cirecie
WestOlatunji,
David Miller, Tom Dana, Anne Ogg

Not Present: Catherine Emihovich

Agenda and minutes

1. Approval of the agenda
   Motion to move the Dean’s report down,
   Mary made the motion
   Seconded by Cathy
2. Approval of December 14 minutes
   Mary made the motion
   Seconded by Jamie

Announcements

1. Faculty Salary Equity Program

a. Initiated by individual faculty, similar to T&P dossier
b. Reviewed by School Director
c. Reviewed by COE T&P Committee
d. Reviewed by Dean
e. Either goes across the street or not
f. Line of appeal, first Catherine, last Provost

Old Business

1. Status of FPC Resolution
Resolution was reviewed by Academic Policy Council, modifications made to the
language, got legalized, put to a vote by the council and supported unanimously; now it
will be reported out by APC, becomes an actionable item for the faculty senate, either
this month or February.

New Business
Discussion items

1. Differential Load Policy
After a lengthy discussion about the origin of the differential load policy and a
discussion about the committee best suited to examine the documents related to the
matter, the Long Range Planning Committee agreed to step in.
2. Rank and Productivity Task Force
3. Associate Dean for Research
The two committee reports were combined. A document of objectives are being
drafted to include benchmarks for success. Middle of February will be the last task
force meeting. BAC to be involved in ADR search. FPC will check with the Dean’s
office to determine which dean is the liaison to the BAC. Contingency plans will be
put into place for the ADR.

4. Committee Reports

a. Budgetary Affairs – Cyndy Griffin
BAC will communicate with the Dean’s office about meeting to ensure faculty
input in the process. RCM professional development in the works.
b. College Curriculum Committee – Tina SmithBonahue
No meeting since the last FPC meeting
c. Diversity Committee – David Miller
Discussions on identifying people for lectures/seminars but no formal plans, yet.
d. Faculty Affairs Committee – Alyson Adams

i. College Climate Consultant
List of six or seven individuals for college climate consultant and estimate
of cost will be forthcoming. This is a college investigation, including
administration, faculty, and staff, if they want to participate. Goal: have
Jan/Feb for finalizing candidate choice, Mar and April for work following
NCATE. Organizational in nature and emphasis on looking forward.
ii. Review thirdyear
review Procedures
Third year review guidelines were reviewed and determined clear. Issue
may be implementation and communication.

Sabbatical applications due at the end of this week, meeting next week for review
and recommendations
Evaluating guidelines for clinical assistant professor line.
e. Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee – Tom Oakland
No meeting since last FPC meeting. Collecting data for review of nominees of
various awards
f. Long Range PlanningCirecie
Final two names have been contacted. Will have a meeting shortly and report.
g. Research Advisory Committee – Troy Sadler
No meeting since last FPC meeting. Working on semester calendar for meetings
h. Technology & Distance Education Committee – Cathy Cavanaugh
Working on guidelines for student computer use, social media use, working with
new assistance director of distance ed office for faculty outreach initiatives.
5. Other none

Dean’s Report

Spring enrollment – up 3% in total enrollment but down 8% in grad2, doctoral
level. NCATE Dept of Ed visit most important thing coming up in the college. Unitwide.
Feb 7 reception and showcase. Each coordinator of program area has been
asked to put together a small display. On Feb 8 and 9, everyone in the college is
asked to be available. Classes that are held on those days are subject to be visited.
Four DOE reviewers and 4 NCATE reviewers and multiple reviewers because we are
the first school to be streamlined. Off sight review report just came in – not great but
better than getting the questions the day NCATE arrives.
Market equity, sabbatical applications, third review reviews, post tenure review
all coming up. College T&P has left the college; questions may be coming from
across the street about that. CPED from Carnegie presentation will be coming up.
Doctoral fellowship allocation coming up, and the way in which they are distributed
is changing.
SUS Deans called together by State Senator Lynn –to reduce redundancy and
increase efficiency across the system. Board of governors will get together to
determine what might be combined. There is much reluctance from the Deans. Each
university is going through some kind of process to determine what we want to be
where we want to go. The Deans have been talking about the implications of the
Research position, and drafting responsibilities of that position.

Action items
1. Establishing date to conduct COE Deans’ Evaluations

a. Dean of the College
b. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
c. Assistant Dean for Student Affairs

A motion was made to evaluate Catherine, Tom and Theresa using the same instruments
as the past, with an opportunity for faculty to respond will be 2/24 to 3/5. Survey will be
done online.
David M. made the motion
Seconded by David T.
All agreed

Comments from the floor
None

Adjournment

Tom O. made a motion to adjourn
Seconded by David T.

Next meeting: Monday, February 15, 2010 at 2pm

Faculty Policy Council
Abbreviated Minutes
November 9, 2009

Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue, Troy Sadler, Catherine Cavanaugh, Cynthia Griffin, Harry Daniels, David Therriault, Alyson Adams, Tom Dana, Catherine Emihovich, Cirecie West-Olatunji, Mary Brownell, Thomas Oakland, Anne Ogg
Not Present: David Miller, James Algina,
Agenda and minutes

1. Approval of the agenda
   Adams motioned to approve
   David seconded
   All agreed
2. Approval of October 12 minutes
   Cathy motioned to approve
   Troy seconded
   All agreed

Announcements

1. Tom Dana monthly update on NCATE – program visits will be in Feb, finalizing documents. Department approves the program, NCATE approves the unit as a whole.
   Activity now – getting everyone on the same page.
   a. Series of 15-20 minute presentations – different parts of NCATE expectations, invite people to present, sometime in January we need to get faculty together to discuss some of the parameters
   b. Focus on candidate performance, measured in terms of their impact on learner
   Determined through formal means – ability to assess students, collect data, after intervention
2. Dean:
   a. International Educator Awards – Edil Torres Riveras senior level award, Cirecie West-Olatunji, junior level award – will be honored at a reception next week.
   b. Faculty colloquium Monday, Nov 16, 11am-1pm– for faculty interested in internationalizing the curriculum. Wednesday, Nov 18, international day celebration with Dean Sammons (new dean of International Center) as the speaker.
   Faculty panel in place to discuss what they are engaged in, push to get more involved in international activities

Dean’s Report

Budget – no additional information, State and University continue to be in a holding pattern, offshore drilling leases, if they are approved by the legislature, will change the budget picture substantially, no RCM budget yet – discussion on how that will be implemented, and there has been another change in how the budget will be put together.

Searches – all positions have been posted except HDOS director, working with search committee on refining the position description and hope to get it posted next week.
Assoc Dean for Research – working out the details with Productivity Rankings group and RAC on November 19 to get their sense on what kind of person we need, and how the search ought to proceed.
No update on union negotiations with administration.
Innovation grant meetings with Dr. Sandy Cho – next step, joint meeting of all participants – discuss some commonalities Dr. Cho saw in some of the proposals.

Development – will exceed second campaign of 20 million – target will move. Most of the money is earmarked for special programs. Some is tied up in bequests so it may not be immediately visible, but shows support.

US News rankings – asked for faculty feedback, none yet…needed to send in to contribute to the rankings. This is an opportunity to add to the information, to let them know whether or not we think we have the top programs.
Second round of renovations begin in the spring. First round furniture will be in by Thanksgiving. All first round of faculty moves completed by Dec 22.

State level – Last year, Senator Evelyn Lynn, who controls appropriations – SUS Colleges of Education – asked what are we doing to improve education in the state of Florida – last year she asked for a coordinated statewide

plan – who is doing what, where – Deans did not respond – not clear what she wanted. She has brought it up again. This time we will respond; how we articulate our role, vis-à-vis the community colleges. We think she is interested in teacher production. We are trying to give her the bigger picture. We are trying to get her and legislature to realize the broad role that colleges of ed play.

Informational items

1. Status of FPC Resolution
   Presented to faculty senate steering committee – generally well respected, some questions – word choice questioned by legal counsel, expediency and exigency – refer the committee to the academic policy council – subcommittee of the faculty senate to look at the way we use the words, will be submitted to but general tone was positive.
2. Discussion about the RCM model
   Faculty senate has a budgetary affairs committee – working with CFO to come up with RCM model

Discussion items

1. Rank and Productivity Task Force
   Identified top ten colleges of education and developed guiding questions. Information collected will be available on a website available to interested persons.

Committee Reports

a. Budgetary Affairs – Cyndy Griffin
Nancy Waldron has nothing to report – needs to get back to the committee about scheduling a meeting with chairs – will do in November

b. College Curriculum Committee – Tina Smith-Bonahue
University has not publicized change. Special topic courses need to be formalized

c. Diversity Committee – David Miller
Absent – David has a class at the time of the FPC meeting.

d. Faculty Affairs Committee – Alyson Adams
No decision about FEO’s because they are not allowed
Two main topics – define clinical professor, promotion criteria, and college ecology.
Holly was tasked to find names of consultants.
After much discussion, a motion was made to formalize the charge for FAC to pursue the study with the faculty, investigate getting a consultant to assist with the study the ecology of the college and the formulation of a strategic plan to move forward, and report back to FPC with its findings and the potential cost for such a consultant. Subsequent addition to the motion was to be sure language is clear when talking with the consultants. FAC will report back at the December 14 meeting.
Cathy made the motion
Seconded by Cyndy

e. Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee – Tom Oakland
Six nominees considered for the dissertation award.
Committee will discuss its role in the selection of lecturers at the College.

f. Research Advisory Committee – Troy Sadler
Recommended approval to eliminate edf 7639 as a required course
Research requirements for the EdD program allow for substitutions
Faculty involved supported the move (read the request)

Request
The College’s current research requirement is appropriately aligned with the research doctorate but not the professional practice doctorate. The request regarding the research requirement for professional doctorate programs awarded via the EdD is a follows:
1. Adhere to the current 12-credit research minimum with acknowledgement that any program may require additional research credits
2. Allow students the following option (set of 4 courses) to satisfy the minimum research requirement:
a. Quant 1: Foundations of Research Methodology for Practicing Professionals I (3 credits)
b. Quant 2: Foundations of Research Methodology for Practicing Professionals II (3 credits)
c.Reading, Designing and Conducting Qualitative Research (3 credits)
d. Program specific course (3 credits)
The first three courses are relatively new courses developed by Research Methodology faculty. It is expected that the courses will be vetted for college and university approval in the near future.

One abstained, the rest of the committee voted to accept the motion from RAC’s report. Tina will send the recommendation to John Kranzler.

A suggestion was made for RAC to focus on what is meant by the need for support for infrastructure. A summary will be provided in the year-end report.

g. Technology & Distance Education Committee – Cathy Cavanaugh
Responded to request from faculty for systems for web conferences that are available.
Updated computer policy for students may include a social media section.

Action items

1. None

Cirecie moved to adjourn
Thomas seconded

Next meeting: Monday, December 14, 2009 at 2pm