,

14 February, 2011 FPC Meeting Minutes

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

,

10 January, 2011 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the January 10, 2011 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158

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), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), and Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs)

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

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Paul Sindelar moved to approve, Bernie Oliver seconded, unanimous approval.

Approval of November 15, 2010 Minutes: On second page under the Dean’s Report, it should be the “UF Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies”; Editorial comments will be provided by Paul Sindelar to Twyla Mancil. Paul Sindelar motioned to approve, James Algina 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.

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

Dean’s Report

Budget Update
Mid-year budget reviews will begin with each unit. In particular, there is a need to assess the amount of carry-forward to facilitate budget decisions for next year. Appropriation and tuition together did not cover salaries and operating expenses for the Summer. Last year, the shortfall was made up with Distance Education funds that had been held in reserve. There is a possibility of budget reduction from the state, but that information will not be available until May. Reviews will be looking at how much carry-forward exists, as well as will start to run revenue projections for next year based on estimated 18-month or three-year average and will also look at how much revenue was earned from Summer of last year. This scenario does not take into account any scenario around budget reduction. State agencies have already been asked to plan for budget reduction, but we do not know if that will extend to higher education or not. More information will be available sometime in February when the state budget is presented to the Legislature. However, the final numbers will not be available until well into May when the Legislature finishes its budget work. The Legislature is working with a $3.5 billion deficit. More information will be shared as it becomes available, but this outlines the process. Once the Summer compensation issue is resolved, work will start on allocation models for next year. This does not
deal with the larger questions of how money is allocated back to the Schools and what kind of model is used.

Discussion ensued regarding how much of the $775,000 for the summer is available for Summer A this year. It was indicated that about $385,000 would be available, but that number includes money for all three Directors and Associate Directors and payment for faculty who work on dissertation and supervise committees. The projected numbers for going into the summer was about $50,000-$60,000 for faculty involvement and administrative assignments.

OLD BUSINESS

Budget Advisory Committee (SPSC)
Name of Reporter: Nancy Waldron (Co-Chair of BAC) and Naomi Castillo (COE Business Manager)

Tina Smith-Bonahue briefly introduced BAC reporters, Nancy Waldron (BAC Co-Chair) and Naomi Castillo, as well as the present purpose for reviewing the BAC proposal. The BAC proposal was submitted by Tina Smith-Bonahue to FPC members on Friday, January 7, 2011 via email. The BAC has been working on this proposal for several months, though the information necessary to play out all possible scenarios has not been readily available and are still in flux. The purpose in talking about the proposal at the present meeting is not to vote on it, but to provide opportunities for questions and for the BAC to possibly make adjustments. However, a vote will be necessary at the February meeting. Tina Smith-Bonahue opened the floor for discussion.

Discussion ensued regarding faculty assignments and Summer compensation. The general policy is 100% is the maximum effort anyone can have. The general preference has been for faculty to decide how their time is distributed. The understanding is that those decisions have been made at the School level with the School Directors in terms of specific assignments. If you are 100% effort on a grant, you cannot take on additional assignments because you have to show 100% to that grant auditor. Regarding the number of courses faculty may teach during the summer, it is an FTE-based decision. So, for example, two courses in Summer C would be about .67 FTE, so that leaves another 33% and you could potentially teach another course in the summer.

The present proposal from the BAC reflects the BAC’s understanding of past practices. A lot of weight was placed on what is in the collective bargaining agreement. So in looking at that and talking with the School Directors, it seems generally the same. Again, it was the BAC’s understanding that individual faculty loads and assignments and how they distribute their time in the summer has been a School-based decision with the Directors, which the BAC reinforces should continue to be done because they best know the needs of the program, the instructional needs, and the faculty members involved. There is some sense that individuals have been paid differently in the past for courses based on specifics to a course (e.g., enrollment being very low and going ahead with offering the course or enrollment being high and getting extra support at times through a GA), but that again has been negotiated through the School Directors.

Information regarding the number of courses supported with the previous budget, as well as the amount of the previous budget was not readily available. Members indicated that not having that information makes the policy more abstract. The BAC members indicated that was a challenge throughout the process as the data has not been accessible. Previously, decisions were different about how people assigned to instruction were entered into the system. Therefore, the present database doesn’t answer the present questions, which are many of the questions the BAC continued to ask. From the BAC perspective, the Summer was regarding as being really different from now on. The only change the BAC considered was a cap on highly paid professors. Other Colleges do have caps, such as $12, 200 for the summer for a course, and they do that based on percentile ranking of professor’s salaries. The BAC looked at this as anticipating policies since financial circumstances change all the time.

Clarification was given on the proposal statement, “Faculty members who have not been assigned a summer course shall not be required to undertake committee work.” It is the BAC’s understanding that statement refers to any other assigned service or committee work besides supervisory committee work since the paragraph before refers to supervisory committee work. Such a differentiation is also in the bargaining agreement. If assigned a summer course, it is the BAC’s understanding that other committee work would be negotiated at the School level. The present proposal also indicates that a professor may accept less than there typical salary. It was the BAC’s understanding from talking with Directors that there have been individual negotiations with faculty based on other factors in the past, such as very low enrollment. However, that is the only thing of which the BAC was made aware and nothing was consistent across the board. Regarding Directors using a low budget as a condition to negotiate individually, the BAC was informed by Directors that they have informed individuals at time that they did not have enough summer money for higher-paid faculty to teach courses if they had a choice for someone who was paid less. The BAC policy does not include language prohibiting the Director from negotiating with people to make a budget. The policy does include a statement regarding the number of credit hours (i.e., “for each 3 credit hour course assigned during the summer, the faculty member shall receive 12.5%”). Concerns regarding the flexibility for Directors in mounting programs and for individuals to participate were noted.

Further discussion ensued regarding statements in the BAC minutes about each School within the College having different practices for instructional assignments. For example, the College has previously provided some money to pay faculty for participation in research supervision of doctoral students. Specific distribution policies for this money have generally been determined at the School level. However, the present proposal states “other credit generating activities, such as thesis or dissertation supervision, directed individual studies…may be assigned during the summer term.” It was indicated that faculty may continue to take on such supervisory roles without compensation such as in cases where they are already employed 100% and are doing so to help out a student. However, if faculty are not employed 100%, there would be compensation for those supervisory activities. It was the BAC’s understanding that faculty would be compensated for supervisory activities if they are credit-generating activities. Such decisions regarding how much money is available and assigned for such activities have traditionally been made at the School level. This does not apply to Fall and Spring activities because faculty are on salary during these periods. Also, it is the choice of individual faculty members on whether they
decide to take such an assignment during the Summer for pay or whether they take it on to support students.

Clarification was also offered regarding dissertation hours. Faculty have the right to refuse to take on such assignments. In the past, students would sign up for dissertation hours with their chair and then the hours and work would be distributed out. The new rule is that if the student signs up for dissertation hours it must be with the individual chair. There is no more collective. So if there is no funding to pay you and if you decide you do not want to work with your doctoral students during the summer, your doctoral students will be unable to register for dissertation hours because they cannot be assigned to anybody else.

Further discussion ensued regarding the discussions the BAC had about balancing the need for such a policy and the need to allow for flexibility for negotiations among Directors and faculty. The BAC members indicated that faculty did not want to have different types of compensation. There were proposed ideas that maybe there could be a flat rate and that was not something the committee supported, which is why the present document came to be. The need for further language in the proposal regarding faculty accepting lower salaries was also discussed. Concerns over whether such a statement would lead to negotiations that would result in compensation at the bottom level were discussed. It was indicated that the BAC discussed the need for a minimal compensation based on a standard course and generally consistent with the total salary of the faculty member for the academic year. This led to the BAC discussions about a cap for the total year. Other Colleges at UF have caps, but the caps recognize different intake or salary, especially regarding high-stake members in the College. Such caps are typically graduated. The BAC did not observe any use of a flat-dollar amount. Questions regarding language in the collective bargaining agreement about establishing an equal opportunity to teach during the summer so as to preclude such a negotiation were raised. However, it was stated that there is no individual faculty right to teach during the summer and no inherent claim that summer teaching be offered.

In response for elaboration on the use of flat or percentage rates by other Colleges at UF, the BAC members indicated that no College was using a flat rate. However, a cap was used by a couple of Colleges. CLASS, for instance, uses a cap at the 75th percentile of full professors. They use 12.5% as the base for a single course and would take the 75th percentile of a full professor’s salary in the College that year to calculate the cap. As such, they projected the cap for this year to be $12, 200 for a single course. There are some Colleges, like the Business College, that make adjustments based on class size or enrollment. However, the BAC did not notice any College that was not using the 12.5% as a foundation.

Regarding issues raised by faculty members about summer employment, the BAC members indicated that there is a sentiment that faculty wanted to be reimbursed in a similar way as they had been in the past and there was not strong support for a cap. In addition, faculty indicated they want to know if it is comparable with the budget so they may plan ahead.

A discussion then ensued regarding what may happen if the budget is not compatible with the 12.5% cap and whether or not such a situation would result in the cancelling of courses. The BAC members indicated that information regarding the Summer budget would be available in February, but also emphasized that budgeting is a year-long process. So such information would
be helpful for the immediacy of the summer, but for the future that really is not an answer because the cost/credit hours should be a part of the model that is used for the whole year. This means looking at what is necessary and needed in the Summer in relation to the whole academic year. Presently, the BAC is looking at a certain amount of money and seeing if it is self-sustaining. That is permissible in the short run, but is also one of the reasons the BAC moved to a more general policy of what it thought the foundation for faculty compensation should be.

The Dean elaborated further on this issue. The College runs on a fiscal year, which includes a three semester period. So if $17 million is needed to run the College and the Fall and Spring only generate $15 million, $2 million must be generated in the Summer through teaching to have sufficient funds to run the College. In addition, it is not just about paying expenses; investment must also be considered. It’s not just making our expenses; we also have the whole issue of investment. Any money left over after covering expenses would be used for investment in new people, which would need to occur year after year.

Overall, the ultimate responsibility for faculty is to ensure the maintenance of the academic integrity of their programs and be aware and recognize the fiscal reality. It is concerning that, in order to be revenue-generating, the cheapest people may be hired to teach courses. However, it is an open question whether we can maintain the academic quality of our programs through such practices. As such, there may be a need for revenue-generating activities that might be separate from the degree programs that could be offered in the summer or other ways to generate revenue to protect the academic integrity of our programs.

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

Discussion:
Paul Sindelar indicated that everyone received a copy of Jody Gentry’s report on December 23rd, 2010.
The report was a rather comprehensive report to the point where all the group work for all the groups is laid out probably in the language it appeared on the worksheets. In it, Ms. Gentry points out one of the issues the SPSC is working on, which is that we never really reached a good purpose statement for the College. It was unclear as to what exactly Ms. Gentry was looking for in a purpose statement. Paul Sindelar and Doreen Ross have met with Ms. Gentry and discussed this issue and in the report there is a list of questions we are supposed to ask ourselves to develop a good purpose statement. The SPSC will also be working on this issue. There were 70 people or so at the kick-off meeting, which have been organized into eight or nine work groups depending on the quality group (there were two quality groups, nine groups at the session). On February 11th, there is going to be a mid-point check in for the work groups to report on their progress. The concept papers the work groups are working on are due around March 1st. We are going to be getting together on March 18th for half a day for the first envisioning and goals session. There is a second one scheduled for April 15th. At some undetermined day in May, we are going to get together for comments on the final report. In the mean time, SPSC is working on the purpose statement and Doreen and I have done syntheses of all the information Jody had in her report. We tried to get it organized to identify themes. We are going to run that by SPSC before we
distribute it to everybody. So that related to the key accomplisments, which was the first part of the discussion, lessons learned, and the SWAT analysis. So that is the current status. You are probably all on a group and busy, I hope. I’d be happy to answer questions.

Discussion ensued regarding the completion of the strategic planning work. It was indicated that the goal is for the strategic plan to be in place this year, but for it to continue to be a part of the College’s work. Ms. Gentry will be working with the College through May 2011.

It was also indicated that there is a need to keep the momentum and work moving forward as it relates to the concept papers and group meetings. It was suggested that the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC) support such efforts. Tina Smith-Bonahue opened the discussion up for ideas for ways in which existing infrastructure could be used to get relevant work done. For instance, the BAC is heavily represented in the economics group concept paper work. The LRPC representative indicated that the LRPC seemed unsure about what it should be doing and that involving the LRPC in this way could give them a very focused task. It was suggested that the LRPC could put in place some procedures to ensure that activity is ongoing and that people are meeting to work on concept papers. It was also suggested that the LRPC could assist with helping groups review the report regarding suggestions for writing concept papers.

Further discussion related to how information will be drawn from the concept papers to be used in the final plan. It was indicated that Ms. Gentry would be better suited to answer such questions about the process. However, it was also indicated that everybody will receive every concept paper and that every concept paper will be used in what Ms. Gentry refers to as the visioning and goals statement. Supported recommendations from each concept paper will be identified.

Comments regarding the importance of this work and hopes that it will fold into existing committees or create new committees were also made. The idea is that this planning work is not going to be done and then not used. It was suggested that conversations need to take place regarding looking forward beyond May and how this work can be incorporated in future committee efforts.

Related Action:
Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE) will check with the Chair of LRPC to discuss its role in helping monitor activity on concept papers.

Role of the Lectures and Awards Committee
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)

Discussion:
Historically, the College has given awards at graduation. However, because the COE no longer has its own separate graduation those awards will now be given at the Recognition Dinner, which is in March and typically where the scholarship recipients and donors are recognized. The Commencement Committee used to decide who got the awards. Though the Commencement Committee is no longer necessary, there is a need for someone to decide who gets the awards. At the DAC meeting, we debated how many awards to give and of what types. The decision was for
two undergraduate awards—one to an Early Childhood student and one to an Elementary ProTeach student (those are the two programs that receive bachelors degrees from us). Those two awards will be determined by the programs to simplify things. The sentiment at the DAC meeting was that we didn’t want to give only one graduate award and we didn’t want to divide the awards among the three Schools. As such, it made sense to continue giving awards for Excellence in Research, Excellence in Teaching, and Excellence in Leadership. But if we do give three College-wide awards, then we need a College-wide committee to determine who gets those awards. In the past, the Lectures and Awards Committee has always only addressed faculty awards, but I have never been on that committee so I am open to input from anyone who knows differently. But this committee did seem like the most relevant standing committee to consider awards for graduate students.

Discussion ensued regarding the role of the LAC in previous years. It was indicated that the LAC was asked to review some of the student awards last year at both the graduate and undergraduate level and that it seemed like appropriate work for the committee. As the LAC representative, James Algina indicated that he would like to go back and find out from John Kranzler how many Spring awards already exist that the committee must consider so as to determine the existing workload of the committee. In addition, it was indicated that there exist problems in generating nominations for the student awards. As such, it was suggested that as part of a review of committee responsibilities the LAC take on the responsibility of encouraging nominations for faculty and student awards.

Related Action:
James Algina will check with John Kranzler regarding the number of Spring awards the LAC is presently responsible for considering.

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

Discussion:
Stephen Pape indicated that he has heard from two committees regarding the review of the Constitution. Stephen urged the FPC members to encourage their committees to look at the Constitution and provide feedback on any differences between what is in the language and what is being practiced. After such information is gathered, it will come to FPC to then develop the charge for the committees.

NEW BUSINESS

Committee Reports

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

Discussion:
Cyndy Griffin indicated it was reassuring to hear the Dean indicate that as new data emerges it will be shared with the BAC. Something that came up in our meeting is that the landscape
changes frequently. The BAC put out proposed guidelines for the summer compensation model and yet things change on a regular basis so we would like to be able to have those data pass through us so we can either modify or decide if it is relevant before the proposals come to FPC. Another issue that came up is in regards to the budget allocation model. The BAC is somewhat frustrated over the fact we have spent a lot of time trying to understand the budget and still don’t feel completely comfortable and feel like the Dean’s Office and the Directors are much more on top of the economic situation, maybe even more so than the BAC. We think it is almost impossible to understand the economic budget situation well enough to generate a plan. We are thinking that it may be that our group may be serving the faculty and College at large better if we respond to proposals from the Dean’s Office, Directors, and maybe others. So it is something that might need to be worked out. For the BAC to generate a budget allocation model from the bottom-up is looking more and more difficult. This is a significant issue. There was some discussion even today among the faculty members about letting go of the ground-up power that we have at this point. Should we be responsive to plans that come to us or should we actually be generating? The majority seem much more wiling to respond to plans generated perhaps from the Dean’s Office or Directors rather than trying to generate a budget allocation model from nothing. One of the BAC’s major tasks for the rest of the semester will be to try to integrate the work of the BAC with the economic concept paper and the COE strategic planning effort. So we are trying to be as efficient as possible.

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

Discussion:
In what turned out to be a very popular move, the CCC did not meet in December. Tom Dana and Paul Sindelar are meeting on January 19th to set the agenda for the Monday, January 24th meeting. Anyone who is submitting has until January 19th to get it in to the CCC for it to be considered for this month. The CCC has not responded to Stephen Pape’s request regarding the review of the Constitution, though the CCC recognizes it has a lot to do because the Constitution was written before the electronic submission process. The CCC now has to reconcile the language in the Constitution with the actual process used in submitting proposals. That will be on the January 24th agenda.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Bernie Oliver indicated he was not at the last DC meeting in December but that two things cam out of that meeting, one being a film series and the other included work on a survey of diversity in the College. Bernie was not aware if they had completed the survey, but indicated the survey would be submitted to students and faculty when completed. Regarding the film series, all faculty and students are invited to attend.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

Discussion:
The FAC is meeting tomorrow. The FAC have one sabbatical application to review and will continue and hopefully finalize the pre-tenure policy that will then be brought to the FPC. The FAC will also continue working on the clinical professor promotion guidelines.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
The LSAC finished the doctoral mentoring review. Two people went forward. It is assumed that they have been forwarded from John’s office to the College and probably are over at the Graduate School now.

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

Discussion:
No news to report.

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Stephen was not at the last meeting because of a conflict of interest regarding a research grant. Stephen plans to follow up on that meeting. Stephen also indicated that proposals have been reviewed and several have been moved forward.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

Name of Reporter: Jeff Hurt, STL (not present)

Discussion:
Nothing was reported.

The meeting adjourned at: 3:28 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

,

15 November, 2010 FPC Meeting Minutes

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

,

11 October, 2010 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the October 11, 2010 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158
(Approved November 15, 2010)

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), Alyson Adams (STL), James Algina (SHDOSE), Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), Ana Puig (OER), Matt Hodges (D&AA Senior Director), Kara Dawson (STL), Cathy Cavanaugh (STL), and Twyla L. Mancil (Graduate Assistant),

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

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Paul Sindelar moved to approve, Stephen Pape seconded, unanimous approval
Approval of September 13, 2010 Minutes: Stephen Pape moved to approve, Alyson Adams seconded, unanimous approval.

Related Action: On Agenda, “in lieu of” changed to “in relation to” under Distance Education discussion item; Twyla L. Mancil will submit minutes to John Donaldson for uploading to the FPC website.

Announcements

Dean and Associate/Assistant Dean participation on FPC committees.
Discussed updated list of faculty and Dean’s representatives on FPC committees, as well as the need to inform committee chairs of the Dean’s representative on their corresponding committees to ensure their representative is included on any correspondence and invited to meetings.

Dean’s Report
Annual Report
Annual report is expected to be sent out at the end of the week; report describes the research funding, private funding, and all activities in which faculty and students are involved. The report is shared with COE deans across the country, policy makers, state officials/legislators, those at the university level at UF, faculty, and key alumni.

Budget Update
The COE budget for 2010 – 2011 has been finalized. Deans will begin thinking about how to construct next year’s budget. Pressing tasks include developing a summer compensation model and developing allocation strategies for allocating the 2011-2012 budget.

Search Update
The COE will continue with a few searches: 1) senior faculty position in the STEM area, funded by money from the Provost Office through the Jump Start Initiative (Troy Sander is chairing that committee); 2) Assistant/Associate professor search in Counselor Education; and 3) en external search for Associate Dean of Research (ADR). Issues related to how the ADR search is possible given current budget concerns were discussed, including the critical importance of the search and flexibility of the budget. Dean Emihovich also addressed qualities desired in the candidate, including a strong quantitative background, ability to manage increasing research contracts, ability to manage increasingly complex work ( for example, including Lastinger Center initiatives), and the ability to coordinate for other funding sources.

Discussions ensued regarding the possibility of hiring from within REM and the foreseen role of the Associate Dean of Research, including this individual’s role in working with the Lastinger Center and exploring funding opportunities through existing relationships/activities. The Dean also discussed how specific faculty needs (e.g., helping faculty start grants) would be addressed, not necessarily by this person, but by OER. The Dean anticipates getting the committee formed this week; Tom Dana will be chairing the committee.

The Dean also related that there will not be a search for a Dean of HDOSE this year (Dale Campbell is willing to continue as Interim Director). The search for PKY director, which is at the point of reference checks, is still in process and may be re-opened. The search for an Alliance Director is on hold for now.

Report from OER and the Development Office
Name of Reporters: Matt Hodges, D&AA Senior Director and Ana Puig, OER Director

Discussion:
Ana and Matt have met several times to discuss initiatives that are in place and things that can be done to gain traction for the office. Matt and Ana discussed their intention to increase involvement with faculty, as well as address faculty needs conveyed in the recent survey. They also discussed planning and organizing open forums and faculty input for these forums. They identified the first step as coming up with a plan for communicating OER and the Development Office goals to faculty. Efforts are being made to create opportunities for faculty to discuss funding sources more readily with Matt and Ana. Brief discussion ensued regarding securing federal and private funding, as well as ways to initiate conversations between Ana and Matt and faculty. NSF outreach and funding for program officers was also briefly discussed and a desire for additional outreach ideas was expressed.

Old Business

Budgetary Affairs Committee

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

Cyndy discussed previous BAC goals, including work on the summer compensation issue and to come up with long-term plans/principles for budget allocation. However, the BAC articulated broader goals, including a) understand current budget scenario and rationale, b) be able to share what they learned with other faculty, and c) be able to analyze allocation process.

At the next meeting on 10/18/10, the BAC will fully discuss all the information Tom Dana will be sharing. On 10/25 at the Fall Faculty Meeting, the BAC is on the meeting agenda and would like some feedback from FPC on what might be helpful for the BAC to share with faculty.

Discussion ensued regarding the BAC’s possible overlap with the FAC given that the BAC is looking across Schools at assignments, as well as a reminder for the need of transparency. Also briefly discussed University evaluation plan for RCM, which is up to each College to ensure it supports the vision/mission of the University. Decisions regarding how RCM will be pushed down and how far it will be pushed down have not been made. Discussion ensued regarding a plan for evaluation being built in upfront to ensure units are implementing RCM in ways that align with their strategic plans and goals.

Discussion also ensued regarding the BAC’s work on developing guidelines for governing the allocation process. The BAC is still in the data gathering and reviewing phase. Dean reiterated that the decision was made this year to hold individual units harmless and fund schools without considering their relationship with revenue streams. The challenge for the BAC is to decide whether to maintain the same allocation structure (i.e., the four-box model: state and tuition revenue; contracts and grants revenue; salary savings and ITC; and private money and entrepreneurial activities) or adopt a new structure. Units will have to assess both revenue and overhead assessment together. Comments arose regarding the possible lack of understanding of RCM among faculty and the need to address this at the Fall Faculty Meeting. It was suggested that providing an update or “cheat sheet” for faculty regarding RCM, as well as an providing an open door policy and posting information on the website would be helpful to faculty. The Dean encouraged FPC members to go to their individual units and discuss possibly inviting Naomi to their unit to discuss RCM. Tom Dana discussed creating an RCM information document in conjunction with the BAC for faculty.

The committee wants to get data from within Schools in order to develop rules/principles for coming up with a model for summer compensation—looking minutely at what is happening in individual units (e.g., teacher assignments and service assignments), not individual faculty per se but averages.

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

The Long Range Planning Committee (LRC) met after the Provost meeting with faculty to discuss a structure for beginning strategic planning. A Strategic Planning Steering Committee was discussed as means of helping the COE move forward with this work. Dorene Ross and Paul Sindelar were recommended as co-chairs as they both have strong backgrounds in budgetary affairs and long and respected history with the College. Other recommended members include each of the School directors, as well as professors with strong budget backgrounds and a representative from each of the schools and the Productivity Task Force: Tracy Linderholm (Productivity Task Force), Hazel Jones (SSESPECS), Ruth Lowery (STL), and Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE). Kathy Long (Dean of Nursing and Associate Provost) and Tina Smith-Bonahue will also serve as ex officio members to the steering committee.

Questions were raised about the mission, vision, and strategic planning of the subcommittee. It was determined that vision and strategic planning would be the focus as a mission statement already exists. The Provost’s Office recommended Jodi Gentry (Human Resource Services Director) to help the subcommittee in identifying an external consultant and defining the external consultant’s role. A brief discussion ensued regarding the responsibilities of the LRPC given this new subcommittee.

Motion: (Cirecie West-Olatunji) To form a Task Force to work with the LRPC and charged with defining the goals of the College; motion was unanimously approved.

Fall Faculty Meeting
The following items will be discussed at the Fall Faculty Meeting: state of the College, including faculty searches; budget discussion; the OER and Development Office efforts; and strategic planning.

Review of the Constitution
Nobody volunteered to take on this work. Issue that recently came up is the notion of expanding the nature and roles of the Lecture and Awards Committee—suggestion was made that this committee could take on another role of helping Schools identify opportunities to host lectures and help publicize lectures/awards across the College and University. This could be another constitution committee task. A brief discussion of internal and external award nominations also ensued. Making the work related to the constitution part of the LRPC tasks was also discussed.

NEW BUSINESS

Distance Education
Name of Reporters: Tina Smith Bonahue (FPC Chair, SSESPECS)
Kara Dawson and Cathy Cavanaugh

Faculty concerns brought to the Agenda Committee raised a number of issues related to Distance Education (DE), which have policy implications. As such, it makes sense for FPC to participate and lead in these conversations. Among these issues are: a) the need for a clearly articulated mission for DE; b) the development of a number of policy and procedure issues, (e.g., author fees); and c) the need for a well-informed group to have serious conversations about these and other long-term issues. While these tasks are related to the mission of FPC’s Technology and DE Committee (TDEC), the tasks exceed the normal work of the TDEC.

It was recommended that task force be formed that includes faculty representing all major online programs in the College, those who are thinking of having online programs, and department representations. Items like course caps and qualifications of instructors need to be discussed. The Dean also indicated that items such as these also have clear budget implications and recommended this group thinking of this conceptually then make recommendations to another group to consider budgetary issues and make decisions. Input from faculty and DE administrators was recommended. Discussions ensued regarding faculty needs related to DE and links between budget and DE curricular decisions.

Discussions also included the mission and constitution of the TDEC, as well as the lack of understanding of the tasks of this committee. The traditional view of the TDEC’s mission was to look at ways of disseminating technology, which was appropriate when the committee was first formed but may have changed given the present DE concerns. A point of order was called in relation to identifying the current roles and procedures of TDEC. Current tasks identified for the TDEC: a) to interface with Trace Choulat, Tom Dana, Dan McCoy, and John Donaldson and b) to conduct a needs assessment among faculty with the assistance of Kara and Cathy.

Further conversations related to DE issues included a) curricular guidelines (e.g., integrity of the curricula we offer), b) policies and procedures (i.e., identifying the issues and then checking with administration and sorting those administrative issues from policy issues); c) faculty implications; and d) budgetary implications. Concerns and discussion related to forming another separate task force from an existing committee ensued. Suggestions were made for the task force to follow along the lines of the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) operating under the LRPC. Faculty involvement in making DE decisions was stressed given that otherwise administrators will then make these decisions, as well as the importance of announcing at the Fall Faculty Meeting the FPC’s involvement in these matters.

Motion: (Alyson Adams) To charge Cathy and Kara with forming a task force that will answer to the TDEC, identifying individuals who will participate on the task force and identifying individuals who will work in consultation with the task force; the task force will be charged with addressing the four issues outlined above (i.e., curricular guidelines, policies and procedures, faculty implications, and budgetary implications); motion seconded by James Algina, motion was unanimously approved.

Related Action:
TDEC will meet with Kara and Cathy regarding next steps.

Committee Reports

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

Discussion:
Met on 9/27 and dealt with some old business, including approval of a course title change and our ongoing effort to have our special topic and individual work courses approved at the University level. The University is asking for syllabi and we are trying to find someone to help coordinate these efforts at the University level. Approved the Educational Psychology concentration in the Ph. D. degree in Research Methodology and terminated several programs—Middle Level Education (Bachelors degree) and two Counselor Education Ph. D. degrees (Marriage and Family Counseling and Mental Health Counseling—they had requested these be terminated because they are moving the three programs into one). CC will meet next on October 18, 2010.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Maria Cody was elected chair. Two new business items centered around having conversations about a College response to the burning of the Koran and recent violence against gay students. At the next meeting, the Diversity Committee will try to put together a survey to assess diversity in the COE among staff, faculty, and students.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Communicated electronically. Maryanne Nelson is the Chair. There were no applications for the International Educator awards because we haven’t received any applications for review. The next applications will be Doctoral Mentor awards.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

Discussion:
Met today (10/11/2010) and ranked FEO applications and reported to John. Also began talking about the third year review policy. A few questions for the FPC arose, including how to reconstitute the committee and who to talk to regarding related questions. Tom Dana referred the committee to the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs in the Provost’s Office for further guidance.

FAC also wants further information regarding the noted problems with the third-year review process. It was indicated that such a review was at the request of STL and Buffy Bondy.

Kara Dawson was selected as the Chair and Linda Lombardino as the Secretary.

Related Action:
Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS) will share correspondence with Buffy Bondy with FAC regarding third-year review issues.

Long Range Planning Committee

See above

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Will be meeting on October 19, 2010.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

See above.

The meeting adjourned at: 4:00
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

,

13 September, 2010 FPC Meeting Minutes

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.

,

15 February, 2010 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council
February 15, 2010

Present: David Therriault, Tina SmithBonahue,
Troy Sadler, Harry Daniels, Alyson Adams, Mary
Brownell, James Algina, Thomas Oakland, Cirecie WestOlatunji,
David Miller, Cyndy Griffin, Tom
Dana
Not Present: Cathy Cavanaugh, Catherine Emihovich, Anne Ogg
Agenda and minutes

  1. Approval of the agenda
    Tom O. made a motion to approve the agenda
    Seconded by Troy
    All in favor
  2. Approval of January 11 minutes
    Jamie made the motion
    Seconded by David T.
    All in favor

Announcements

  1. COE Deans’ Evaluations – 2/24 – 3/5
  2. a. Dean of the College
    b. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
    c. Assistant Dean for Student Affairs
    Election for the Deans, Catherine, Tom, and Theresa, will be posted on February 24, and opportunity for
    faculty to finish voting by 5:00 close of business on March 5. Email message will go out reminding
    them to evaluate and how to access the forum. On the 23rd, an email will go out with the links to the
    actual assessment instruments. Faculty will have 10 calendar days to respond.
    Tom D. will send a copy of the instruments used previously.

  3. Formation of Elections Committee

Harry sent out an email to the unit heads about the formation of an elections committee. Heard from
STL and HDOES, still waiting to hear from SUSPECS.

Talk with chair of committee that members of FPC serve as liaison; we will need an annual report of the
activity of the respective committees. Oral presentation at the faculty meeting, followed by something in
writing for a report to be archived.

Dean’s Report

Tom Dana: NCATE is finished. There are a few of areas for improvement which I will be reviewing
with program coordinators, but for the most part they are benign. We received comments from NCATE
about strengths. We are also an NCATE pilot institution for the stream lined process and will be working
with other institutions to make the process better. Thank you to everyone involved.
We have 5 open positions in the college. The STL and Ed Tech offer is out to those people. HDOES
director closing date has not arrived yet. Search for the Alliance Director yielded zero applicants so we
will regroup with that one. Summer compensation, new collective bargaining agreement indicates that
the policy be written at the college level regarding summer compensation. Committee met, Dean’s
prerogative, will kick in March 15, status quo, same as its been every summer. Profits turned in last
summer. $60,000 less than last year, we can cover summer A, but summer B is smaller.
Associate Dean for Research – we are ready to roll on that, sign off on position description. Hopefully
the whole college will be involved. We have a lot of good applicants for the position but it will take all
of us. We have August 1 as a start date, but it’s pretty late right now. People moving into this kind of
position have a variable time line, different from the rest of us. It doesn’t matter if it’s spring semester or
fall semester. Budget from the state perspective; we think it looks stable. We’ve heard rumors of a
decrease from traditional sources. State budget is usually the last day of the session. Best projections
will be the same, so we are happy to go with that. There is an early childhood; I need to review those
before you get to the point of extending invitations.
I will share with all of the program coordinators tomorrow the results of the DOE/NCATE review.
There is one concern that applies to all programs and that is the coordinated nature of the assessments
that are used in the units. What do we look at across the entire unit to make determinations to make
changes to unit operations or assess overall quality. We have done a good job of coordinating program
level assessments and they are tied to annual SACS, but how does the individual program examining
their own programs lead to global or unitwide
changes. DOE did not ask for it so we did not present it.
The other concern that cuts across programs is that we are expected to assess the impact of our graduates
in their first year of employment on learning or development of pupils. One idea we tried to sell, within
a school somebody is using some type of measurement to draw a conclusion of the effectiveness of the
teacher or counselor, a tool used by the principal to measure. But we really don’t know how we are
going to do that. FCAT’s are probably not a direct measure of teachers’ impact. We are working with
DOE and the Race to Top. The SUS deans have been meeting with (George?) to see the model he has
developed. A sophisticated tool used by the folks at DOE. So we are deciding on whether to invite him
in as a consultant to chat with. We probably should put a work group together.

Old Business

  1. Status of FPC Resolution
    Resolution will be voted on at the Feb 25 meeting of the faculty senate.

New Business
Discussion items

  1. Formation of ad hoc committee to consider collaboration with SFC-
    Aftermuch discussion, questions raised. The ad hoc committee should look at issues of capacity,
    capacity to be involved, and if we do have that capacity, what is the focus of our efforts, organizational
    structure to guide those efforts, be a prosperous revenue stream – what are the budget and revenue
    concerns about how that would be managed.
    Motion made by Jamie, seconded by Tom O. for purposes of discussion:
    To look at the fiscal possibilities of collaborating with SFC. The capacity, people to do it, is it
    profitable, energy well spent, what would be the organizational plan if it were in place to pull this off?
    Final Resolution: to establish a fact finding committee that will report back to the FPC. Report back at
    their earliest convenience. One person from each school. I will ask heads to suggest a volunteer.
    Committee of four. 

    All in favor say Aye? No ayes
    Opposed?
    Abstained?

    Motion that Jamie put on the table did not pass. No votes cast. No one abstained.

    Alyson made a friendly amendment to the motion suggesting a callout
    for those interested in forming an
    ad hoc committee to explore the collaboration with SFC.
    Seconded by Mary
    Final Resolution: Put a callout
    to people interested in serving on this committee, meet at a certain time,
    have feedback by the end of the year, the April meeting.
    Ayes have it
    Two abstentions.

  2. Review of policy/practices related to mentoring of Fellows – RAC
    David M. made a motion that the review of the policies and practices relating the mentoring of Fellows
    be assigned to RAC.
    Seconded by Tom O.
    Question whether or not collegewide
    or program level guidelines in place. Explore what is already out
    there.
    Ayes have it
  3. Formation of committee to propose policy for summer compensation – BAC
    Standing fallback position, Dean’s prerogative. Addressed in Dean’s report above.
  4. RCM, COE, and School budgets – FPC
    Transparency and openness continue.
  5. Update on Associate Dean for Research Search
    Combined with the Productivity Task Force
  6. Productivity Task Force
    Next step is getting the approval for the Associate Dean Research position
    Move to get a final description of the position. New description will be circulated and voted on at the
    special meeting. Questions include, funding source, tenured position, job responsibilities.
    The PTF is meeting on the 18th to draft a suggested plan for FPC and a report completed by March 15.
  7. Committee Reports

    a. Budgetary Affairs – Cyndy Griffin
    BAC met with Catherine and Marsha – presentation on the budget. Out of that grew a
    smaller group to deal with the summer compensation issue. Have not scheduled another
    meeting.
    b. College Curriculum Committee – Tina SmithBonahue
    Nothing new
    c. Diversity Committee – David Miller
    Working on a policy for retention and bringing people in but not completed yet
    d. Faculty Affairs Committee – Alyson Adams

    i. Review thirdyear
    review Procedures
    This has been done. The committee discussed the 3rd year review in place but not
    followed consistently
    ii. College Climate Consultant
    Finished interviews with 3 external consultants. Report will be drafted with details
    presented at the special meeting. Report to include pool of consultants and
    information about each consultant.

    e. Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee – Tom Oakland
    Rolling along, big work load in the next month
    f. Long Range Planning
    Committee met and voted Hazel Jones as chair. Discussion whether assignments were core
    or relevant to LRP. Counter recommendations made. Differential load is not central to LRP,
    sympathetic to FAC, but that differential load be ad hoc under FAC, and someone volunteered
    from LRP to chair that, but does not belong under LRP. Name will be passed onto to Alyson.
    Productivity Task Force should meet with LRP and that PTF under LPR rather than ad hoc to
    FPC.
    g. Research Advisory Committee – Troy Sadler
    Will be meeting in the next couple of weeks – next item applications for UFRF
    Harry: we assigned the practice of reviewing the mentoring of fellows to RAC.
    h. Technology & Distance Education Committee – Cathy Cavanaugh
    No report at this time.

  8. Other
  9. none

    Action items

    Comments from the floor

    FPC members
    Harry thanked everyone for what they do
    COE faculty and students
    No comments

    Adjournment

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

,

11 Jan, 2010 FPC Meeting Minutes

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

,

14 December, 2009 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council
December 14, 2009

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

1. Approval of the agenda
Tom Oakland moved, Jamie seconded
2. Approval of November 9 minutes
Alyson moved, Tina seconded

Announcements
none
Dean’s Report
It appears the state budget is stabilizing, somewhat. At the University level, RCM budget about to be rolled out; they are still working on it. When I get what appears to be the final version, I’ll meet with BAC about moving forward, allocations in the future. There are some important decisions where BAC plays an important role such as how we want to think about cost shifting, people on state lines to non recurring moneys, people on annual contracts; how do we want to create salary savings, tuition return money and IDC money, whether it is to support college-wide goals, or not.

I want to pass out a poster that is going to be in the Chronicle Jan 8. President Machen is being aggressive about this because UF has gone through 3 years of budget reductions, while other universities remain struggling, haven’t done hard decisions about thinking about reducing budgets and layoffs, UF has already gone through this. Also, UF will get substantial revenue base with tuition increase, partly because tuition was low to begin with, and we now have the legislature approval to raise tuition. Other universities don’t have this option because their tuition is already high to begin with. President Machen wants us to be aggressive about seeking out new faculty.

How we are funding the positions in College of Ed:
• STEM – funded by tuition differential, positions bid by Deans to get permission for new lines from administration
• Alliance – funded by Provost money – independent of college budget
• Early Childhood Studies – funded by the Director’s decision in each of the schools from ops money – will be covered by ops and expense – could be a number of things, tuition return $, salary savings, IDC, decision made internally, freed up money for a faculty hire
• Teacher Ed and Professional Development – half money funded by Lastinger Center, co-sharing the position
• Ed Tech- vacated line we are allowed to keep
• Director of HDOS – vacated line we are able to keep

We’ve hired a senior development director, Matt Hodge, formerly VP for advancement Seminole Community College. He will head up the entire Development office. He raised 11M for buildings at SCC. We want to do renovations to Norman Hall, build an Experiential Learning Complex for teaching and learning in the 21st century, and an early childhood center, his expertise in that kind of fundraising is valuable. Half of his salary is paid out of foundation, half out of what we raise. He is expected to raise 1M a year. Nakita has done a good job but Matt is a senior position, good mentor.

Money for Summer AC is now a separate allocation, but as of July 1, money for summer B and C has to be carved out of budget we receive. In the past we get allocation from Provost and separate allocation for the summer. That will no longer be the case. Summer will be carved out of the entire moneys we receive. July 1, I’ll know what my RCM Budget is. There is a Union issue about summer pay. Minimum will be $5000, and could float up 12.5 % of faculty salary’s nine month salary. Will involve careful planning of directors and faculty because Summer will have to pay for itself. If a faculty member wants to teach a course that is important to take, and the enrollment is low, the school will have to balance that against the revenue from another part of the college in order to be able to afford that. It is going to be different, and require planning.

Tom Dana: NCATE update

National accreditation and State program approval, important because it gives us the ability to offer programs that lead to certification in the State of Florida. NCATE institutional Report went to the committee, part of the offsite review, we’ll get a feedback report, we can produce a rejoinder so that the onsite visit is focused. We think we are OK in most areas. We don’t have the data from all of the programs. Those reports must be complete by each program area; we are submitting by the end of this week. Share reports with all faculty in the program. Have faculty sign off on reports, and chair will sign off. Elayne, Theresa and I will review the reports and send them on. Time for program to personalize so that people are aware of the names of forms we use. Feb 7-9- onsite visit. We are asking folks to reserve Monday the 7th for interviews.

Old Business

1. Status of FPC Resolution
Hopefully have something to report in January 2010

New Business
Discussion items

1. Tenure and Promotion Procedures Review
Charge to FAC:
Review College T & P document with special look at the inclusion of letters and statements about specific details about performance, striking a balance between hopefulness and candor, and 3rd year review policy, College’s mentoring policy, to provide to FPC any consideration for change or modification.

2. Deans’ Evaluations
Action item at January 2010 meeting to move the evaluation up so it is underway during the spring semester

3. Productivity Task Force –Mary and Cyndy

• Notes from meeting with Deborah Ball, Dean of UMichigan will be posted online.
• Next task force meeting January 14, 2010, 12:00 pm.
• Completed document to include strategic plan for improving research
• Positioned as a priority for the College
• Discussions on funding the position to continue
• Cyndy to ask Dorene to resend the meeting date so that others can attend, i.e. Harry, Catherine
• Correct the acronym for SHDOSE in Associate Dean for Research position

4. Committee Reports
a. Budgetary Affairs – Cyndy Griffin

• BAC to make contact with the Dean so that RCM can start planning for next fiscal year, include the chairs in the meeting
• Make request from CFO office for Professional development for BAC to understand RCM

b. College Curriculum Committee – Tina Smith-Bonahue
Status quo
c. Diversity Committee – David Miller

• Looking up a past FPC policy about diversity to review
• Talking about a survey to faculty and students about diversity climate in the college
• Locating funds for a speaker on diversity.

d. Faculty Affairs Committee – Alyson Adams

• There is consensus for an external consultant.
• Ongoing investigative work on who that consultant might be.
• Next meeting is Jan 5, 11:00am in room 105
• Additionally, FAC has sabbaticals, FEO’s are on hold from the fall, but hope this will open up, define the clinical line, clarify the promotion criteria for that, and given the charge to look at the 3rd year review guidelines.

e. Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee – Tom Oakland

• International educator award awarded
• The major work of this committee takes place in the spring.
• Harry: Diversity committee is seeking funds for a speaker, you might contact
• Five nominees for doctorate mentoring award made and forwarded onto John.

f. Long Range Planning – Cirecie

• Names from 2 of the 3 schools.
• Need to get third, pick a chair and move forward

g. Research Advisory Committee – Troy Sadler

• Involved in conversations with PTF in drafting Dean search.
• MaryAnn Clark is chair
• Steve Pape is cochair
• Competition sponsored by DSR, forward two proposals.

h. Technology & Distance Education Committee – Cathy Cavanaugh
Cathy is absent

5. Other – none

Action items

Comments from the floor
Harry: I want to thank everyone on great work, the energy expended by this group is amazing. I wish you every success and have best of holidays

Adjournment
Cirecie made a motion to adjourn
Seconded by Jamie

Next meeting: Monday, January 11, 2009 at 2pm

,

9 November, 2009 FPC Meeting Minutes

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

,

17 March, 2008 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council
Abbreviated Draft Minutes: March 17, 2008

Members present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, David Miller, Elizabeth Yeager, Sondra Smith, Diane Ryndak, David Quinn, John Kranzler, Edil Torres-Rivera, Ester de Jong (alternate).
Members absent: Ruth Lowery, Bernie Oliver
Non-Members present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Fran Vandiver, Dale Campbell, Jade Coutts

Meeting began at 2:06pm.

1. Approval of the agenda: Yeager asked for a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was approved and seconded. The agenda was unanimously approved.

2. Approval of February minutes: The motion was approved with minor adjustments and seconded. The minutes from February were approved.

Information Item: FPC elections update

  • Elections committee has been established (Dixon, Dawson, Sadler) and names have been submitted for the election. We needed 6 nominations, but we currently have 3 to run that have been forwarded to the senate. The committee is working to get departments to get people for the FPC slots. In April, more specific information will be available about voting.

Information Item: COE Spring Faculty Meeting update

  • The Spring Faculty Meeting will take place on April 14, 2-4pm in the Terrace room. Ferdig will chair this meeting in Yeager’s absence. The Deans and department chairs will give presentations on main issues and events from the past year and we are also asking FPC liaisons to be prepared to talk at the meeting about their committee accomplishments.

Discussion Item: Role of PK Yonge in COE shared governance (Fran Vandiver)

  • Currently there is one person from PKY who sits on the senate. PKY does not feel they need to be involved in how the departments are making decisions. PKY has separate governance through UFF and COE. The current relationship is collaborative and they are happy with that type of relationship. The two seats at faculty senate designated for PKY will not always be filled but it was discussed that PKY keep one seat and the other be allocated to COE.

Dean’s Report/Discussion and Action Items: (Dean Emihovich)

  • Last Friday an announcement was made that Janie Fouke, the Provost was resigning on June 30th of this year.
  • The Dean proposed that the COE add more faculty members (those with better understanding of money flow) to the budget discussions with the BAC for now and possibly for next year. All of the 5 members are members of FPC (Oliver, Crockett, de Jong, Torres, and Kranzler). Each of the members (excluding Oliver who was not present at the meeting) accepted this temporary membership. The meeting will take place this Friday from 11:30-1pm and lunch will be served.
  • >>Action requested: Ask FPC to approve additional members on ad hoc basis: there was a motion to approve the additional of ad hoc members to the discussions with the BAC regarding budget issues. The motion was approved and seconded. It was discussed whether these members will not be voting members and will be asked only for guidance during the discussions or if the five elected members are considered voting members and will continue their roles and the ad hoc members role beyond this year will be reconsidered. It was decided that the ad hoc members will attend the May meeting and then some people will be carried forward on the committee beyond that meeting. Guidelines for next year need to be established and there are at least two current members who are willing to serve again next year. There was a motion to approve the addition of five ad hoc members for BAC until 2008. The motion was approved, seconded, and unanimously approved.
  • At this time, the Dean cannot discuss any plans for reductions in writing or verbally. The College of Education 2008/2009 Allocation/Proposed Budget sheet was distributed. This Friday there will be a meeting and more information will be given regarding the budget. Potential ways to work with the current budget deficit were discussed. The President said SCH (student credit hours) cannot drop because we are a formula funded university and if SCH drops, they will cut us even more. Consolidating departments could save money. There are not a lot of good options but these discussions do not have to lead to decision-making right now. Next year there will be more discussions and different recommendations will be made.
  • The Dean proposed a new task force focused on departmental review (as specified by UF and FPC Constitutions): Once every five years, the departments must be reviewed. The task force should include some elected members and some appointed after the elections by the Dean. The FPC should decide the processes to occur and discussions that should take place among the task force. This does not have to be decided by this Friday’s meeting with BAC. The Shared Governance Committee suggested that all the departments should come back with plans to address money issues. The Shared Governance Committee also recommended “Each Department be charged with forming a faculty committee to explore strategies to address the projected budget shortages including exploring departmental mergers, eliminating programs and other options and present their recommendations to FPC by October 1st.” This was shared in a handout from Campbell. Sometime next year an FPC task force will look at this issue and the information will be presented to the Dean. There was a motion to approve what the Shared Governance Committee proposed. The motion was approved and seconded. The motion was unanimously approved with minor changes including that the departmental information be decided by the October FPC meeting (not
  • October 1st) and that there will be an additional open discussion college wide either at the October FPC meeting or in a special meeting. It will be determined in August which format will work best.
  • >>Action requested: Ask FPC to approve creation of task force: This will be presented to Faculty Affairs to get a better plan for how to progress. No voting will take place.
  • FPC Constitution, Article 4, Section 1(C): The work of the departments shall be reviewed and evaluated at least once every five years, in accord with Article VI, Section 3(D) of the University Constitution, which states: “Because the department is the fundamental unit of academic and administrative organization within the University, periodic evaluations of each department shall be conducted.”

Committee Reports

  • CCC (Ferdig)- Educational Administration and Policy petitioned to remove the seven-year recency policy on transferring credits for Ed.D. students. CCC reps have been asked to seek feedback. Departmental feedback will be discussed at the next CCC meeting in a couple weeks and then presented to FPC in April.”
  • The other committee reports and the faculty senate report were postponed and will be discussed in April.

Motion to adjourn. Motion was approved and seconded. Meeting adjourned at 3:58pm.

Next Meeting: Monday, April 14, 2pm in the Terrace Room (Spring COE Meeting)