Faculty Policy Council
Abbreviated Draft Minutes
February 11, 2008

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, David Miller, Elizabeth Yeager, Sondra Smith, Diane Ryndak, David Quinn, John Kranzler, Bernie Oliver, Edil Torres-Rivera, Ester de Jong
Members absent: Ruth Lowery, Stephen Pape
Non-Members Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Jade Coutts

Meeting began at 2:05 pm.

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

Motion to approve minutes. The motion was approved and seconded. The minutes from January were approved.

Dean’s Report
UF Budget- there are no updates currently because the meetings are all tomorrow. Updates from Jane Adams will possibly be announced after the meeting. The summer budget was received and it cannot carry forward. The chairs have been informed about their summer school offerings and have been given roughly about the same budget that they had last summer. Faculty members have submitted 5 proposals for additional courses and these faculty will be contacted at a later date. These courses are hoped to attract new students through distance education and to encourage students to take summer courses. There was a special funding meeting for renovations for Norman Hall and it is moving forward. The ELC is not going to part of the proposal. There are some renovations monies that have been received so that money might be used to renovate space on the third floor. Currently there are 3 classrooms that are assigned to the ELL program and the college is asking that those classrooms on the third floor be reassigned back to the College of Education. These classrooms would likely be relocated near Turlington.

Action Item – COE Tenure and Promotion Rotation Plan
The ad-hoc committee (John Kranzler, David Miller, and Elizabeth Yeager) drafted a proposal. A motion to approve the proposal was made and it was approved and seconded. The X’s refer to and it was stated that the X’s on the proposal are the selected departments where voting will take place during the current year. The representatives would be from a college wide vote and those two people would continue and the other departments would have elections in the years following. Each elected person would serve three years. Current members will continue to serve through this year. The three-year commitment was decided ultimately to prevent small mistakes that would not likely be made by long-term serving committee members. The proposal was approved and will now be part of the policy effective Fall 2008.

Discussion Item – COE policy on the GRE
The policy that was approved was sent to Thomasenia Adams and she sent a reply to Yeager. The parts of the policy that were approved included the introduction and the two sections on minimum requirements. The fourth and final paragraph was removed after the final vote. Education scores that would be used.

Discussion Item – Additional issues on T&P process raised by FAC
The ad-hoc committee created a document on T&P Criteria Revision and some of these things have been or are being discussed at the Chair meetings. The mentoring policy is fairly new and was approved last year.

Information Item – Upcoming FPC Elections
The voting system will be online and new FPC reps will be voted on. Names will be referred for UF Senate. The elections committee will be in touch with department chairs. Kara Dawson is heading up this committee. The COE needs to decide if they are electing two or three senators.

Information Item – Role of PKY in COE shared governance
Fran Vandiver (director at PKY) will attend FPC in March to discuss where PKY faculty want to be involved in COE shared governance.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Rick Ferdig

• The committee has moved electronic. Things are working out now but because it is electronic and it’s easy to send stuff back. A bunch of stuff has been return with minor mistakes. The CCC forms are more descriptive and they want a new form. The new CCC form will be sent out in the next few days. This is for undergrad and grad. The website will reflect these changes.

Budgetary Affairs Sondra Smith

• The committee sought information from the Dean Emihovich, Benson and Paul about current budget practices. They are now waiting for answers on what faculty want to know and how they want to be involved in budgetary affairs. The discussion is still ongoing. These two items are being asked within departments by the committee members. There should be a representative from each department. Jane Townsend (STL replacement for Tom Dana) and David Honeyman (EAP) missed the last meeting. Next meeting on February 25th. De Jong proposed reaching out to the faculty via email to get more responses and to give more information about the process. The committee created questions for certain parts of the budget process.

Faculty Affairs John Kranzler

• In the process of reviewing sabbatical applications. They are currently being ranked. The sabbatical is funded through the college or department level. Last year, the university was funding them but now it is through the college.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Ruth Lowery

• Ruth was not present and her alternate did not have anything to report.

Distance Education Task Force David Quinn

• Have not met. Nothing to report currently. Chris Sessums job is being redefined and the team is currently in flux. Those earlier discussions will continue once things settle.

Research Advisory Diane Ryndak

• The B.O. Smith recipients were announced. UFRF (March 3) and CRIF (April) research grant funding information is out.

Shared Governance Task Force David Miller

• Both surveys are moving forward. The dean survey has been slowed so she can make a statement. Crockett asked if information would be available. Yeager will follow up to see how results will be out and disseminated.

Technology Edil Torres-Rivera

• Times and meetings have been set for the committee. A hired consultant (Tues and Wed) is coming in. Three candidates for Uzma’s job have been selected for interviews. One is internal, two are external. They are looking for someone to work with faculty and are restructuring in DE to hire someone to work only with the budget. The DE workshops are 4:15 not 1:15 and one-on-one workshops can be arranged. The DE office is very busy and most courses that are being developed have been graduate level. The committee will meet 1 time per month and by next meeting they hope to have charges. There have been issues with how the DE money is generated and how much they make. It is not clear now.

UF Faculty Senate Report Jean Crockett

• There were three discussion items, three action items, and information items. The President talked about a reduction of $16 million between Jan-June but Spring money had been spoken for. There will be $48 million less next year in funding than this year. Reductions will start in July. The Deans have to propose cuts and those with minimal impact on academics will be favored. The Healthy Gators Initiative, which uses federal dollars to target a set of national health objectives designed to promote health and prevent disease in the UF community, was described. The Civil Safe and Open Environment Committee was put together (4 faculty members and 4 students) and this committee will look at the taser incident as well as 1st and 4th amendment issues. A report and recommendations will be made. A draft forum will take place to get feedback. Turf Grass Management has had a name change and the motion was passed. The language of the constitution was approved and will be updated to reflect T&P information. The meetings are 1 time per month (3rd R of every month 3-5pm).

Motion to adjourn. Motion approved and seconded. Meeting adjourned at 3:41pm.

Next Meeting: Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2pm

College of Education (COE)
Draft Faculty Policy Council Minutes
December 10, 2007

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, David Miller, Edil Torres-Rivera, Elizabeth Yeager, Sondra Smith, Ruth Lowery, Diane Ryndak, Bernard Oliver, David Quinn, John Kranzler,

Members absent: None

Non-Members Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Nancy Dana, Thomasenia Adams, Jade Coutts

Meeting began at 2:04 pm.

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

Yeager motioned to approve the November 5, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. Crockett asked that her name be spelled correctly at the end of the minutes and that changes be made under the UF Faculty senate to reflect that she reported. Dean Emihovich proposed that the minutes be revised in a more formal format for publishing on the website and Yeager proposed that she, Ferdig and Jade would discuss it further. Ryndak moved to approve the minutes and Ferdig seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Information Item- Update on Associate Dean search (Dean Emihovich)

• Dean Emihovich said the committee has presented findings and she is expecting to make a decision before the holidays.

Information Item- Update on panel discussion (Edil Torres-Rivera)

• Regarding hate crimes, an email was sent to the psychology department, anthropology department, and law school in an effort to prevent hate crimes on campus and in order to tie this to education and research. It will also help to make it more cross disciplinary. Many people have said they will participate but planning is difficult. Ryndak asked if a representative was being sent to represent the college. Torres-Rivera chose a representative and the discussion was recorded. Copies are available upon request.

Discussion items

Center for School Improvement, Nancy Dana

• Dana passed around two handouts. One on the Center for School Improvement and another with the mission, staffing and other important information regarding the
Center for School Improvement. Dana introduced the core staff and COE faculty who have worked with the center. Faculty have worked with the center through grants and to enhance teaching. Districts who have worked with the center were noted as were funding sources including North East Florida Educational Consortium and Fred Shewey Excellence in Middle School Education Endowment. It was also noted that the proposal for the NBCT Center has not yet been approved. Dan acknowledged that other funding sources that were not awarded were not listed on the handout. It was explained that On STAAR is an online system to support teachers and provides a resource storehouse so knowledge is shared and used to build on. The difficulty is that the state Dept of Education requires them to provide documentation of professional development and this is one of the places where districts are struggling. Dana stated that they are working on it. The center works mostly with the development of workshops delivered over the school year (see handout for example). Additionally, workshops are offered online and the money from NEFEC has supported these workshops. The teaching, inquiry and innovation showcase will be a 2-day event and it will be Friday night (April 18, 2007) or Saturday morning (April 19, 2007) or both. The Inquiry Institute is new this year. Currently they charge a registration fee and hope to generate money for the Center in future years. Each year they publish a monograph that will be out in February. Dana discussed the CSI database, which has a lot of data and is one of the few searchable websites in the nation of its kind. The database can be searched by school, topic, grade level and many other indicators. The other items on the handout that were briefly mentioned included the partnership with Lastinger Center, recent awards, current research projects, and the many opportunities for faculty and graduate students at the CSI. Yeager asked if there were questions and Ryndak looked at the secure letters and asked about the process for a grant template and mentioned that she is writing a grant where she wants to add a teacher inquiry component. Quinn wants to support the collaboration between the faculty and students so they see research happen and break down barriers between departments.

Dean’s Report, Catherine Emihovich

• Next year’s budget: passed out document on the budget to overview. The document is the 2007-2008 budget to show what was done. Starting with page 3, Dean Emihovich discussed the totals for the departments. Dean Emihovich reported that departments were cut across about $267,000. The alliance is not included because they have their own budget line. CSI and Lastinger were noted as receiving no operation money from the college. Miller asks if there is any logic for why some departments decrease or increase. Dean Emihovich says it has to do with where the cuts are made; instruction, expenses, etc. STL got hit hard with expense money getting cut but they are getting distance education money to balance it out. If the state side is cut, they may get money through other ways. Quinn asked if it includes lines. Dean Emihovich says no. The total budget cut was 4.26%. Kranzler wanted clarification of the differences. Dean said the reason is to ensure that all departments have operational funds to keep going. Someone mentioned that this information would have been more helpful previously to make connections to the conclusions. Dean Emihovich said she will provide a rational if she is presented with questions but
that cannot be done in a spreadsheet. She knows of resources (grants, foundation money, distance education) to take into account to release and to take back. Quinn said that his department also would like to have the clarification. It was explained that departments who have brought in more external money have been cut less and that this is a trend for this current budget cycle. Ryndak clarified that we need to find external funds now because of budget cuts. Dean Emihovich added that we cannot look to the state now (68% is on state support; COE in Oregon is 32%, UVA is 11%). It is a trend around the country. Ferdig asked for total for UF and Dean Emihovich estimated about 40-50% total. If you look at national rankings you can see the differences quickly. In the chair meeting it was said that there is a need to make reductions and all chairs were there. The discussion moved to page 4. Dean Emihovich pointed out two errors. The first is that on page 3, EP reflects a negative difference therefore the Increase/Decrease column should say “decrease” rather than “increase.” The second error is that there are two copies of page 4 reflecting allocations and budgets. On page 4, the first column is salary distributed 16 million. The carry forward balance was $454,000, which saved the college. Dean Emihovich stated that the college was already faced with making up deficit. Next year, we start with reduction in base budget by 678,000. Then, the impact of a further cut of 4.26% was projected (could be more), which equals $1.2 million. If expenses are the same, we will end up with an additional $350,000 in the hole. Ferdig asks if 4.26% will be same cut over next year. Dean Emihovich said that this is an estimate and that the numbers aren’t known but that there will most likely be another cut. All state institutions have been told to expect another cut. The only place left to get money with the deficit is in the salary line because nothing else can be cut from OPS or other expenses. All cuts have been done this year in that area. Salary line does include resignations and retirements if there are any. Retirements are already built in but are not reflected on the chart on page 4. Known resignations include Associate Dean Jeri Benson, Mary Kay Dykes and Rod Webb but there are other potential retirements to include. The second place for funds can come from staff moving to grant budgets. Another place to hold the line is in distance education. Also on the non-tenure track side some people are leaving. Dean Emihovich does not see faculty who are tenured being impacted because we are becoming proficient in distance education budget lines. Money for hiring is from the provost dealing with class size. It is like a gift that wasn’t expected with plans to hire a faculty member for elementary math. The hired faculty must be from critical shortage area. This is where we are now. Ferdig asks where grants fit in. Dean Emihovich says grants produce indirect revenue for PIs and produce salary savings at departmental levels. All chairs are aware if a real crisis happens, that money from salary savings would come back to the Dean’s office. Grants for faculty are an advantage for travel and supply as well as GA funds which have been cut. Funding for fellows are independent from this. Dean Emihovich explains that the college had some surplus from last year to cushion us. Distance education is really helping and is growing in two, possibly three departments. Not a happy picture but it could be worse. Dean Emihovich will be presenting for a possible donor who has expressed an interest in disabilities research. The research in COE is receiving great attention from corporations and individuals. The message that is coming across is that we need to move toward “floating your own boat” model.
Crockett said UF is a land grant institution and she wants to know what that has to do with our outreach mission and our activities. She asked how this situates us and Dean Emihovich responded that public universities are feeling the accountability that they are responsive to communities and schools. Accountability in higher education is a pressure stemming from the federal government to the states. Foundations are also shifting fund raising in that direction and are asking what impact is coming from funding. Publication is not what they are looking for.

• UF policy on fellowships: We have a new grad dean from UNC who was associate dean for the graduate school there for 10 years. Henry Frierson is nationally known for his ability to secure funding for increasing graduate enrollment. He has been charged to look at alumni fellowship awards. This is the first time they have been pegged to graduation rates. He met with all deans and presented data. It only refers to PhD not EdD because these are for full-time students only. Adams will share information on how this will be implemented but she wants to wait until she meets with all graduate coordinators. Adams will entertain questions to take. There are two questions currently. First, overall UF has the lowest rate of doctoral graduates than any other AAU school. This is the total number of actual PhDs across UF. Also, the time to degree issue is a problem because it is taking a great period of time for graduate students to graduate. Adams added that the time for our college ranges up to 7 years. Torres-Rivera asks where it starts and Adams said upon admission. Ryndak asked for clarification if they are a Master’s students and Adams said it starts when they are admitted as a doctoral student. In some departments, admission is counted after Bachelor’s rather than after Master’s. Grad 2 is first 32 hours. Quinn asks if we can change the admission time. Adams will ask at the meeting. It is noted that not all new doctoral students have their Bachelor’s and that programs with higher year averages may have outliers who are a result of not asking for progress/production. Oliver asks for departmental differences. Adams says there are departmental differences. Kranzler said there are big differences. Torres-Rivera wants this information. Dean Emihovich added that students who are covered on grants can get more money in this model. Ryndak asked about distributing assistantships across and Kranzler said you can add the top-ups. Ryndak wants to know this information before to recruitment. Adams said these conversations are happening in departments whether or not to give full fellowships or top-ups. Adams said 2002 was a good year so we need to stay at higher levels. Dean Emihovich said that there will be a meeting with chairs on Dec 20 to look at data and FPC should map out directions to be opened in January. What they are looking at are applicants, admission and enrolled students in COE graduate school. Adams stated that an application is considered to be an application when the fee is received. The data state that the college loses 50% in admissions. Adams proposes that we need to look at this and find out why students don’t enroll so we can increase enrollments. We are losing students. We need to question why students aren’t getting admitted and what criteria are denying students. For some programs it is criteria that is not flexible (counseling criteria characteristics). But, what are the reasons why for other programs? With the recent relaxation of the GRE, this is something we need to look at. Ryndak asks for clarification of special education data and state that they don’t match her recall of her students and other students enrolled. Dean Emihovich said this is data from the
departments. Ferdig asks about educational technology and whether is reflects online or face-to-face. Adams said it is just for doctoral students in the areas that were submitted from graduate coordinators. Dean Emihovich said that this data needs to be accurate at the departmental levels because that is where applications are. There has been some thinking about a centralized admission program to make it right. Yeager asks who to talk to in order to fix the discrepancies in the data. Adams said to talk with the graduate coordinator. Torres-Rivera asks if there is a breakdown of ethnicity, race, gender and Dean Emihovich said the graduate coordinator should have this data. Soon this data will be tracked. If we take distance education out, we would be in deep trouble for graduate enrollment for the past two years. The papers passed out do not include DE. SCH dropped by 400 without DE. ProTEACH at the graduate level is has been the bread and butter but some students are leaving after 4th year and we need to worry about this shift. Oliver asks Adams about goals that are set for students to admit by capacity. Adams states that some programs have capacity limits (school psych and ProTEACH) based on faculty and accreditation. Quinn says educational leadership is having discussions about high FTEs and low faculty support numbers. Yeager asks for a wrap up. Dean Emihovich said this is one piece of data and discussion on Dec 20th will move to how we do what we are doing in the context of the current budget scenario and whether or not we need to make changes with less resources or get leverage to create new resources and or configurations. She will return in January with an update to share where we are going next and what role FPC should play and how. Dean Emihovich will be here for the Jan 14th meeting. Kranzler added that his department expressed concern about a focus on quantity rather than quality of training and Dean Emihovich added that professional practice doctoral students and research doctoral students need specific curricula items and we need to decide if they are different. Dean Emihovich also asked if we can we sustain large numbers in both if they are.

Action Item- COE policy on the GRE

• Adams said in October the graduate school sent an email with policy changes. The new GRE language score minimum has changed because the ETS position is that it is an inaccurate way to use GRE. UF’s policy is to use and publish minimums for program admissions. The graduate school left it open for programs to have multiple criteria to admit students so we don’t rely on piece of data. In regard to minimum, we have a range of 450 on both verbal and quantitative sections within departments however higher minimum have been proposed CE (550 for both) and research methodology (500 verbal and700 quantitative). For the college as a whole we can ask for 450 minimums on both but in program should scores be higher? Adams’ concern is that without something we will have everything (for example scores of 300). Do we want this for doctoral students? Ryndak asks if we differentiate between Master’s and PhD. Adams said STL minimum is 450, 450. Crockett asked if there is a petition function. Miller questioned where these numbers came from and Adams said it came from Grad coordinators. Quinn said the presented data from his department is old. Adams stated that this information should be put on websites for potential students. Yeager said not to go below 450 minimums. Ryndak is hesitant to vote because she is unsure of where the data is coming from. It was said that SE is waiting to see what college is doing. Ferdig asked again about petition process. Adams said it is still standing but that college will decide how low. Torres-Rivera said we should make individual cases and Adams said departments can do that. Oliver asked about range for the college and Adams said range doesn’t make sense because we don’t want to create maximums. The college minimum is not published and it should save time with applicants sent to departments. Kranzler reminded that the graduate school level was 1000 and that the level was minimized to 900 unless special circumstances were presented. Yeager asks if this is ok and if we can vote or if it will be put off until the next meeting. Miller said that discussion may not happen by next meeting. It is stated that this minimum only impacts departments if they try to go lower. Torres-Rivera says that anything below 500 on each section will affect national rankings. Yeager addresses scheduling again and restates that this cannot be put off for two months. Yeager asks if this can happen via another format? Miller suggests to proceed with it now because of time constraints. Ryndak said that resubmission may be looked upon poorly. Torres-Rivera brings up professional practice and PhD issues that will be looked at later on and states that this will be revisited later anyhow. Miller says below 450 is too low. Oliver asks if we can submit a pending decision. Adams said it is always changeable. Kranzler said what is in place is OK now we have a chance to change it and that we should get input. Torres-Rivera motions to postpone this vote pending discussion in departments. Lowery seconds. Postponement of voting pending discussion within departments is unanimously approved.

Action Item- Composition of COE Market Equity Committee

• Yeager if others discussed the Market Equity Committee. Kranzler said he did and they wanted to know what would go to committee. Yeager stated she doesn’t know. Kranzler asks to ask Dean Emihovich. STL feedback was that COE tenure committee could be tasked with this and the policy could be that departments have flexibility with those members of that committee. The thinking was that promotion work could be done in the Fall and market equity matters done in the Spring so it would balance the tasks out. Lowery confirmed this summary. It was mentioned that Associate Dean Jeri Benson wants to proceed because there is a deadline soon for applicants to be considered after the break. Oliver said last year there were 4 cases. Yeager asks if giving responsibility to tenure and promotion committee is approved. Torres-Rivera is on the committee and wants to know why this is their responsibility and not the Dean’s. Miller commented that committees were not department wide, rather the Merritt committee looked at it in his department. It is not clear who is deciding. Yeager asks if we should recommend that the Dean would decide who is on the committee with one representative from each department. Ferdig said that T&P is decided by election (3 members) and appointment (2 members) with a rotation. Miller said not all rights should be given back to Dean. Miller motions that COE T&P be given this task this year only and that in the future a formal process is put together to use from now on at the department and college level. Kranzler and Crocket second. Ferdig asks if the FPC should further discuss and Miller said yes. Motion carries all accept, with the exception of Torres-Rivera.

There was a motion by Yeager to address the discussion item below as well as committee reports at the next meeting in January. The motion was seconded. The motion was unanimously approved

Discussion Item- Do we need a COE policy on the definition of a course release at various levels for grant application?

Meeting adjourned at 4:15- motion by Yeager. Torres-Rivera seconded the motion.

Next meeting: January 14, 2-4pm

College of Education (COE)
Draft Faculty Policy Council Minutes
September 10, 2007

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, John Kranzler, David Miller, Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Edil Torres, Elizabeth Yeager, Harry Daniels (alt. for Sondra Smith), Ruth Lowery
Members absent:, Sondra Smith, David Quinn
Non-Members Present: Dean Jeri Benson, Marylynn Hall, Ester de Jong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Paul Sindelar, Linda Hagedorn

Meeting began at 2:03.

Yeager asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Oliver moved to approve agenda and Ryndak seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Yeager asked for a motion to approve the April 30 FPC meeting minutes. Miller moved to approve the minutes and Torres seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Dean’s report

• Dean Emihovich is currently in China. Dean Benson reported that she was asked to speak about the budget cuts. The college was asked to return 4.2% of its budget. This is effectively a 33% cut to the operating budget because salaries can’t be touched. The amount is around $678,000, which has already been given back. This is a permanent cut. Because the legislature is not meeting until October, we don’t know if this is the end of it. We could be asked to make more cuts. An anticipated 4% additional cut next year. We were fortunate that no one had to lose a position. Searches for the next few years are off, unless there are retirements.
• Dean Benson has announced her retirement as of July 1, 2008. There will be an internal search for her replacement. When Emihovich returns next month a job description will be finalized. Webb will chair the search committee. We hope to have someone named by the end of December. This timing will allow transition.
• Dean Benson discussed her new office website. The site includes forms, policies, and processes for academic affairs.

Information item

• COE Fall Faculty Meeting, October 8
  Yeager reported that the fall faculty meeting is on October 8. This is rescheduled since Catherine was unable to attend the other date. She wanted to be able to talk about the budget situation. Rick Yost from the Faculty Senate and Dick Gorsky from the UF Disability Center will be there.

Discussion items

• Update on tenure and promotion (T&P) criteria
  Koro-Ljungberg reported that she is chairing the T&P adhoc committee and de Jong is co-chair. The committee has met several times since January to discuss the criteria. Koro-Ljungberg emphasizes that the focus is not on the process, just the criteria.
  de Jong provided a handout with some history of the committee. The committee started last year at the request of the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee (FBAC). to revise the criteria. The procedures have already been revised in 2002. They sent an open invitation to all faculty to participate in the committee. They tried to get different ranks and representations from all departments. They started by looking at what other people had done. They took tenure and promotion guidelines from comparable institutions such as California, Michigan, Maryland. What do these other institutions do? Then they decided to tackle it by dividing it up by service, teaching, and scholarship – different groups looked at each piece. Then the language was brought back to the entire group for revision. Each document has gone through three revisions by the entire committee. They have three big parts to them. What do we consider scholarship, teaching, service defined as? What are some areas of distinction? How can distinction be demonstrated? The purpose of the list is not to be exhaustive. There will never be a full-fledged list. The piece that is not included yet is the introduction to the document. The committee has worked very hard, and worked well together.

Koro-Ljungberg invites faculty to give conceptual feedback. Assistant professors will have an open forum on October 12. Forum for all faculty will be on October 19. This will be in three one hour sessions (service, scholarship, research). Forum for faculty to participate in integrating the different parts of the document on October 26. Hopefully FPC members can encourage department members to participate in this process. FPC members can also pass along department feedback to the committee.

Ferdig questions … What are sources versus indicators of quality – Just being on committee is not a quality indicator. Chairing or strong participation on the committee is more an indicator of quality. More specific criteria is being added. They have tried to put the quality indicators in context. The list is still there, but more detailed reasoning is provided in the new version. Ferdig suggested sending the old document out for comparison purposes too. Benson suggested early notification of the meeting (save the date) so that people can get this on their calendar.

• COE Day Away summary and next steps
  Sindelar led the Day Away activities. The day was focused on budget issues. Handout represents the summary reports from four groups. Talked about how the college can expand and diversify funding sources. Groups talking about grants, efficiency, centers (how faculty members could engage in the work of centers to bring in additional funds), distance education group. The handouts are the final reports these groups made. Each group was charged to identify ways to increase and diversify revenue sources in their area. They committed to identify activities that could be instrumental for preparing for future budget cuts. They would like this to become an action plan.
  They will be talking about this at the October 8 faculty meeting. They would like to send out a narrative version of this to the entire faculty. These are the opportunities that are available to people in these three areas. A lot of these are departmental issues. This was a very fruitful session. People did not focus on the negative. The tone was positive. Ryndak really hopes that there is follow-through because people are ready to get started. There are some obvious next steps. FPC can organize information sessions for people around these topics. There are policy issues that might eventually have to be dealt with from these budget decisions. Yeager asked for suggestions for next steps. Sindelar suggested sending out information to all faculty. Ferdig wants to know who is responsible for each items. Open it up to everyone, but let people know who is responsible for what. Daniels noticed that the centers agenda and the grants agenda has a lot of overlap. It also seems that there is too much to do. What about prioritizing certain areas? Sindelar agreed that ranking activities is an important task. Ryndak discussed how the group members found that their interest areas could support each other. She thought immediately about grant proposals. Crockett discussed how her group thought about becoming self-sufficient – this is an entrepreneurial mission – a whole new way of thinking. Does that type of thinking help to redirect us? Are we moving towards self-sufficiency? Kranzler suggested that grant funding is great, but that is a long-term solution. Daniels brought up low IDC generating projects and how redirecting efforts might be advisable. There is already a structure for addressing distance education issues. Quinn has agreed to be liaison to this committee. Next steps will be getting these ideas out to the faculty and assigning responsibilities to different groups.
• Office of Educational Research resources and budget
  Yeager lined up center directors to talk at FPC meetings to get specifics about available resources. FPC members should take this information back to their departments. Sindelar reported on the resources available in the Grant Office, the budget, where the money comes and how it is spent. The office lost its fiscal person during the hiring freeze and haven’t been able to hire a replacement. They were able to hire a statistics person (Cyndi Garvin), in conjunction with ed psych, for consultation regarding research design and data analysis. They can help in finding potential funding sources. They have a research profile on everyone, which will soon be completely up to date. This is a searchable database. You can pick descriptors and get a list of people who have used those descriptors to describe their own work. They can help with all the aspects of getting grant funding. They can also draft IRBs from exisiting proposals (@80% of the work). Ana has been working with the fiscal people in each department to standardize budgetary reporting. Some of the IDC money has been used for seed money for project development. The office has been self-sufficient for the two years it has operated. A serious issue for the office is the nest egg. They are sitting on some IDC money. He is doing what he can to preserve it. This year they will probably tap into the nest egg. They have hired Angie Williams on an overtime basis and a second research assistant to cover what Devona Ferguson used to do. The expense budget is gone. Everything except staff salaries is covered by IDC. The research office share of Cyndi Garvin’s salary (50%) is being paid from IDC. If we are trying to diversify revenue streams, this IDC money is going to be instrumental,
  so spending it on salaries is not ideal. Brian can help with grants.gov and FastLane submissions. Sindelar feels well supported by faculty.

• Linda Hagedorn – Carnegie Professional Practice Doctorate update

Hagedorn has been accepted into the Carnegie program on the professional doctorate. In response to criticisms of colleges of education. In ed leadership, many graduates go into professional practice. Need to provide the appropriate training for people who are interested in professional work. There is no money attached to this work. This is about creating programs that will create more interest. The idea of the professional practice doctorate works well for their department. Practicums, for example,, are more important. They have put together a working group to guide this initiative. Hagedorn sees herself as the cheerleader for this initiative. They are trying to figure out how to make this happen. It is a three year initiative (first year complete) to create a college-wide program that is applicable to all departments. They have created a pilot program in the department of ed leadership. They have also hired a distance faculty member. It is more about being an effective administrator. Ryndak asked how this was different from the previous program of the EdD in Ed Admin. EdD is going to be off-campus on a part-time basis and the PhD is going to be on campus so students can work with faculty. She is looking to make the research piece for the Ed.D. students more applied rather than esoteric. Crockett looks at this as a way of addressing the research to practice gap. How can we cultivate a greater sense of research understanding. As a practitioner, you are an implementer. This would change what the dissertation experience would be like. Promoting critical thinking and academic curiosity is not necessarily the domain of traditional research. There is considerable competition in graduate and professional education. Distance education universities are getting stronger. If people go into practice, it doesn’t matter much where they get their degree. Convenience, time, and all those factors go into it. Phoenix isn’t cheap. We are not competing with Nova, because we will always be the university of florida. Does every department have an EdD? I think every department can have an EdD.

• GRE/Graduate Council policy update
  Thomasina cannot be here today. She forwarded information on the GRE changes. The University decided that the criteria for 1000 verbal+quantitative minimum score will be removed. The grad school is giving colleges leeway. Our college currently exempts below 1000 GRE with a masters from an appropriate institution. She is requesting feedback – do we want to keep the current 1000 minimum in our college? Kranzler reported that at one point, the admissions and petitions committee was allowing everyone who petitioned to get through. To address this, the deal was that nobody below 900 was accepted period. Some colleges are saying that they only accept 1200. The school psych program decided not to change its criteria. What should our next step be? The GRE discriminates against older students, minorities, and low-SES students. It is program-department-college-university. Rankings are of concern and quality of dissertations. The Dean’s office used to review dissertations because the graduate school was complaining about the quality of dissertations. There
  are superintendents who have trouble getting into UF because of the GRE score. Holistic admissions take into account other experiences that allow them to flourish in this environment. Difficulty getting through a dissertation is a problem with us. We haven’t prepared them well. Oliver argues against uses the GRE.

Action Item – FPC liaisons to FPC committees

Curriculum Rick Ferdig
Faculty Affairs John Kranzler
Budgetary Affairs Sondra Smith
Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Ruth Lowery
Distance Education Task Force David Quinn
Shared Governance Task Force David Miller
Research Advisory Diane Ryndak
Technology Edil Torres

FPC rep to Agenda Committee Jean Crockett

Meeting adjourned at 4:20 – did not catch the motion/second

Next meeting: COE Fall Faculty Meeting, October 8, 2pm, Terrace Room

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
January 22, 2007

Members Present: Jamie Algina (alternate for John Kranzler), Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Sondra Smith, Rod Webb, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Jim Doud, John Kranzler
Non-Members Present: Marylynn Hall, Tom Dana

Meeting began at 2:06pm

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Ryndak moved to approve agenda and Yeager seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the December 11, 2006 FPC meeting minutes. Webb moved to approve the minutes and Griffin seconded the motion.

Suggested amendments:

1. Webb asked to strike the last line of the technology committee report and replace it with “The chair will reconvene the committee in  January.”.
2. Ryndak asked to replace references to “Benson” with “Dean Benson”.

The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager reported that the committee has not met. They scheduled to meet again on the 29th but this meeting has now been postponed due to search activities on that day.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported that the FBAC met and split into two sub-committees to work on two separate issues: 1) Faculty load; and 2) Faculty role in budget. FBAC will have a separate meeting to go over sabbaticals. There is also an ad-hoc committee working to clarify the criteria for tenure and promotion of tenure track faculty in the COE. Mirka Koro-Ljungberg is chairing the ad-hoc committee.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak
Ryndak reported that the committee has not met since the last FPC meeting. Mary Kay Dykes, chair of the LSAC, has arranged to meet with Dean Benson to develop the committee agenda.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver
Oliver reported that the LRPC has an ad-hoc committee working on a survey to get COE faculty views of shared governance (chaired by James McLeskey). The LRPC is also working on length of terms for committee members and the dean’s evaluation. Griffin was invited to the last LRPC meeting to talk about her and Holly Lane’s work with the dean’s evaluation last year. We don’t know who will lead the dean evaluations this year. Associate and assistant deans are on a two-year cycle, so Paul and Theresa are up for review as well. Their reviews may need to be redesigned because their roles are different than other deans’ roles. Griffin encouraged the committee to reuse the dean’s evaluation from last year.

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark
Clark reported the RAC met January 10 to work on research opportunity seed grant proposals. Three complete proposals came through, so the committee rank ordered them, gave the applicants feedback, and pushed two applications forward. CRIF is the next project.

Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions (SRAPC) John Kranzler
No report due to Kranzler’s absence.

Technology (TC) Rod Webb
Webb reported that the TC has a meeting planned for January 26th at 10:00am.

UF Faculty Senate Report

Griffin reported on three items being discussed in the Senate:

1. Currently there are three admissions dates: Early decision, Regular I, and Regular II. Early decision candidates that don’t get accepted are dropped from consideration. These candidates are sometimes more qualified than students who get accepted in Regular I and II. President Machen would like to allow the people who don’t get in during early admission to be rolled over.
2. There was discussion of an academic enrichment program to supplement low tuition.
3. The administration plans to hire a dispute resolution officer. This person will have faculty credentials and will report to Kyle Cavanaugh. He or she will inform the faculty about dispute resolution procedures and assist faculty in resolving disputes. The chair of the faculty senate used to deal with these disputes. The Union is supportive of this new position.

Dean’s Report

CADREI

CADREI stands for Council of Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions.
A group headed by Associate Dean Jeri Benson and Linda Hagedorn submitted a proposal to CADREI to help redesign the professional practice doctorate. We were one of
the 20 institutions selected. Several faculty members were involved in developing the proposal and Dean Emihovich named them all and thanked them. This award does not carry money, only prestige. It will be a 3-5 year initiative. Perhaps some of this work could flow through one or more FPC committees.

Kellogg

The COE, along with the Early Childhood Initiative Foundation (ECIF), will receive a grant from the Kellogg Foundation to restructure the curriculum of the Miami-Dade County School District, preK-3rd grade. The COE will receive $5 million through the Lastinger Center and David Lawrence’s ECIF will receive $5 million. There will be a photo op where the Kellogg Foundation will hand a big check to President Machen. This grant improves the COE’s national prestige and standing within the University. The Kellogg Foundation was impressed by our scholarship of engagement work. It is an indicator that systemic, district-wide change is where the field at large is moving. Now that Kellogg has funded this first proposal, the COE is starting to think about our second proposal. The topic is: What does the college of education of the future look like? And how could we serve as a model? Kellogg wants us to be rethinking the entire college of education concept. Faculty members interested in developing the proposal should talk to the Dean. This has the potential to become another multi-million dollar grant.

Salary Equity Review

Dean Emihovich reported that as part of the collective bargaining agreement with the Union, the University must have funds for salary equity adjustments—no less than .0025% and no more than .0075% of the total university budget. And each unit has to fund this themselves. Two faculty members have already requested salary equity reviews. Dean Emihovich does not want to act until she gets input from FPC and departments. Ultimately it is an administrative decision, but she wants to make the review process transparent. The salary guidelines being used are from the Oklahoma State Salary Survey (OSSS). Anyone who thinks their salary is compressed must use the OSSS to make their case. If someone is extremely productive and compressed, he or she is a strong candidate for an adjustment. The Provost has a document suggesting a process for equity reviews. There is also a document outlining the process used by CLAS. Dean Emihovich handed out these documents to FPC members. She asked members to read both documents and provide feedback. She will ask for feedback from department chairs tomorrow. A discussion followed, wherein the following points were raised:

• About ten years ago the college used a process for alleviating compression. It was completely transparent. Algina found this policy and brought it to Dean Emihovich during the meeting.
• Asking individual units to allocate this money is not the most efficient way to handle the problem. Could cause conflict.
• There should be either: 1) a consultant or 2) a college-wide committee to make review decisions. Doing it by department is a bad idea (too much potential for conflict).
• There is not enough time to bring in a consultant
• What about extra pay for extra duties? It is an important issue not addressed by this process.
• These salary adjustments have to be funded out the COE budget. The only place the money can come from is vacant faculty lines not being filled or from the Provost. Dean Emihovich can’t use carry forward money to fund rate.
• Dean Emihovich needs feedback pretty quickly so that she can have process in place by spring break (March 12).

All agree that a college-wide committee to come up with the criteria, review the salary data, and make initial recommendations is a good idea. Maybe there should be an FPC committee to manage this process every year. Possibly six members on the committee, one from each of the five departments and a dean’s representative. Dean Emihovich and Bondy will work together to choose committee members. Bondy thanked Dean Emihovich for bringing this issue to the FPC. The more these processes are transparent, the better.

Scholarship of Engagement Celebration
There will be one person selected from each department for a Scholarship of Engagement award. Departments will come up with their own selection procedures. There will still be a campus award, a school district award, and a community award. The celebration is at 6pm on April 25th at Emerson Alumni Hall. Student scholarship participants and donors get free tickets. Other people buy tickets. Dean Emihovich uses funds from ticket sales to build discretionary funds for supplementing scholarships and helping students in dire financial or other emergency circumstances.

Discussion Items

1.   Revising FPC committees: number and responsibilities of committees; staggered terms on committees Bondy provided members with a copy of the COE constitution. On page 5 of the constitution is the list of the committees. A discussion on the number and responsibilities of committees followed. Points were:

• Committees were planned seven years ago and can be adjusted if necessary.
• FBAC is a really busy committee. It makes sense to divide it into the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Budgetary
• Affairs Committee. Smith will ask FBAC for a few sentences defining the new committees.
• FBAC is planning how they will interact with the Dean on budgetary issues.
• The Budget part of the FBAC role could go to the LRPC.
• Perhaps the FPC can eliminate the Student Admissions and Petitions committee. We are waiting to hear from John Kranzler.
• There needs to be some way of monitoring student petitions. If the committee gives up that monitoring role, they may regret it in the future.
• Every year there is a whole new crew on each committee, so staggering the membership seems important.
• People like the idea of a two-year term, but the first year you have to stagger some way. Clark suggested that at the end of the year, the committees decide who stays. Webb suggested that each department be assigned to have a two-year person on certain committees.
• Based on this discussion, Bondy and Yeager may put together a proposal for the next meeting.

2. Elections committee: appoint members immediately for Senate and FPC elections
The Faculty Senate has new guidelines about how senate elections will be handled. The COE needs a nominating committee to identify eight nominees for the four positions that need to be filled on the Faculty Senate. The nominating committee needs to represent the academic interests in the COE, so having representatives from each department makes sense. Bondy will be approaching people and asking them to serve because we need to get this started right away. Later on we’ll be dealing with how we handle FPC elections, and the new nominating/elections committee can help there too. Bondy asked if there were objections to the agenda committee selecting people for this nominating/elections committee. There were no objections.

Future Agenda Items

Bondy reminded members to let her know about cross-departmental issues that would be important for FPC to consider.

Meeting adjourned at 3:59pm

Next Meeting: February 12, 2007

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
December 11, 2006

Members Present: Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, Kathy Grotto* (substitute for Jim Doud), John Kranzler, Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Sondra Smith, Rod Webb, Elizabeth Yeager
Members absent: Jim Doud
Non-Members Present: Jeri Benson, Marylynn Hall, Jean Starobin*
* Not present for the entire meeting

Meeting began at 2:07pm

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Yeager moved to approve agenda and Ryndak seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the November 13, 2006 FPC meeting minutes. Griffin moved to approve the minutes and Yeager seconded the motion.

Dean Benson expressed concern that certain language in the minutes made it seem as though the Provost pressured the COE to align with University policy. The Provost made suggestions—not mandates. Dean Benson suggested removing phrases regarding directives from the Provost from the minutes. The minutes were unanimously approved as amended.

Information items

1. Betsy Creveling, PKY teacher, will replace Maureen Conroy on the Faculty Senate for spring semester
Maureen Conroy is leaving the faculty. Her seat on the faculty senate will be filled by Betsy Creveling. Two of the seven COE senators are supposed to come from PKY. There was only one senator from PKY on the senate this year so now Betsy will be the second. The first faculty senate meeting of the new year will be January 18.

2. CADREI proposal on the professional practice doctorate.
CADREI stands for Council of Academic Deans of Research Education Institutions. CADREI has joined with the Carnegie Foundation to focus on the professional practice doctorate (EdD). The COE may be invited to engage in a 3-5 year effort to enhance the value of the professional practice doctorate. The COE has submitted a proposal and we may hear in the spring if we have been selected. There is prestige, but no money attached to this project. A small number of faculty members would work with the group and representatives from other institutions.

3. Reviewing the Sustained Performance Evaluation policy
The Sustained Performance Evaluation (SPE) policy, developed in 1998, gives procedures for evaluating tenured faculty members each seven years following tenure or their most recent promotion. Bondy asked FPC members to look over the policy and solicit feedback from departments to see if updates were needed. The group discussed the following points:

• This policy is being reviewed because there are inconsistencies in the way departments conduct SPEs.
• Inconsistencies became apparent because two new department chairs needed help finding policies and some of the older department chairs did not know about the SPE policy.
• There may not be much flexibility to change the SPE policy because it was originally a merger of Tigert and union policy.
• If you have good annual evaluations, the outcome of the SPE is fixed. That is an inconsistency that will come up in a review, but may not be fixable since it was a provision of the union contract.
• Is there a policy for the annual review letters? Bondy will bring up annual letters with the Agenda Committee.
• SPE policy is not the process that results in a raise for full professors. That process is the Salary Pay Plan for Professors.

All agreed that it doesn’t make sense to review the SPE policy until after the union contract is finalized.

4. Update on COE consultant

At the last FPC meeting, Dean Emihovich talked about bringing in a consultant. Yeager and Bondy met to design a process for reviewing proposals from the consultant. They also identified emerging concerns about working with a consultant and presented them to Dean Emihovich. She was open to all feedback. If the faculty do not want a consultant, she would not use one. It looks like the COE is going to be invited to apply for a large amount of money. Could be as much as $10 million. Dean Emihovich suggested the consultant could work with faculty to prepare a proposal to get this money. This objective appears more focused and will perhaps be better received by the faculty. The proposal will be on a big, broad theme (kept under wraps right now). We should hear by the end of the year.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager reported that the meeting was canceled in November because there were no submissions. January 29th is the next scheduled meeting.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported on three items, two informational and one discussion item:

1. There will be changes to how sabbaticals are awarded this year. Previously they were awarded by the University. This year money will come from the college.
There will also be a shift in the committee. Last year the awards committee looked at sabbaticals, now it is the FBAC. FBAC will look at eligible faculty requests and make recommendations to departments. The dean is ultimately responsible for awarding sabbaticals. The group discussed the following points:

• Only eligible faculty applications would go to the committee.
• The criteria for reviewing sabbatical applications are few and vague.
• The department chair has to coordinate how positions would be covered for those on sabbatical (instruction/supervision duties).
• The chair has to write a letter as a part of the sabbatical application.

2. FBAC finalized an adhoc committee to review criteria for tenure and promotion of tenure-track faculty. The adhoc committee represents a cross section of departments and ranks. It will start next semester.
3. There is an open question about FBAC’s role with regards to the budget (see Discussion Items)

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak

Ryndak reported that Mary Kay Dykes will chair the LSAC. The dissertation and doctoral mentoring awards are done. Now the LSAC is waiting for information from Dean Benson. They are not sure how to proceed because they need more direction on all of the awards. They wonder if there is any money for lectures and seminars. Benson suggests the committee organize a meeting with her because there is a lot to do.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver

Oliver reported the committee is meeting next week to discuss two things: 1) They need to select a chair; and 2) They need to review the process for the Dean’s evaluation. There are also some outstanding questions about the role of the committee in strategic planning. Bondy suggested the LRPC should avoid redoing the work that was done last year by Holly Lane and Cyndy Griffin on the Dean’s evaluation. She will suggest some work for the LRPC later in this meeting (see Discussion items).

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark

Clark reported the RAC is working on Research Opportunity Seed Grants. Letters of intent came from nine different groups. Proposals are due Jan 4, the RAC gets them Jan 5, and reviews them on Jan 10. Each grant is worth $100,000 and up to 12 will be funded across the campus. The COE is able to submit two proposals for consideration.
Student Recruitment, Admissions, Petitions (SRAPC) John Kranzler
Kranzler reported that the SRAPC met in mid November and plans to meet again January 22nd. They are discussing whether the committee needs to exist and will make a recommendation after January’s meeting.

Technology (TC) Rod Webb

Webb reported that the TC elected a chair. They also began working with Trace Choulat and invited Chris Sessums to be an ex-officio member. The chair will convene the committee this month.

UF Faculty Senate Report

Griffin reported that the Academic Policy Council within the Senate made a recommendation that the University begin to use minus grades. The Senate will vote on whether or not to do this. It would become a university-wide policy. Griffin believes it will pass.

Dean’s Report

Dean Benson reported on three items:

1. Travel money for faculty and grad students has been moved to the departments this year. There is $1000 for graduate student travel, per department.
2. CRIF money is still in Paul Sindelar’s office. It may be useful for the FPC to invite Paul to a meeting to ask him what monies he has available. Sindelar gets the Dean’s portion of all indirect funds.
3. When the COE got our raise pool of 3.5%, we had to pay for promotions off the top of that money. That left 0.9% for average faculty merit increases. If you got more or less, there should be reasons for that. Next year we hope the Provost will fund promotions. Dean Emihovich is writing letters now to let people know what their raises are.

Discussion item

1. Annual report format for shared governance work

The COE would like to highlight the importance of shared governance. Jean Starobin was invited because she would like to get FPC feedback on the current format for inputting service online. She showed the portion of the annual report website called “Service to Department and College”. There is space for people to add accomplishments. The group discussed the following points:

• The intent is to get the individuals’ contributions above and beyond basic committee work. Some suggested adding “Your role on the committee” or “What was your specific contribution to the work of this committee?”
• FPC members should bring this up at department meetings to see what other categories are needed. What are the names of their committees?
• Jean will add a category for faculty mentoring.
• The Agenda Committee will meet with Jean in another month to review the changes.

2. Plan for evaluating effectiveness of shared governance (see proposal)

Every unit on campus was to develop a system of shared governance and some process for periodic assessment. COE already has shared governance, now we need to assess it. Bondy sent an email attachment with a suggested assessment procedure. When the agenda committee met, there was a strong sense that this procedure would not give much information. Bondy recommends that this go to the LRPC. She would like to see a Likert-scale questionnaire to assess whether faculty think the shared governance structure is effective. The group discussed the following points:

• Three years seems like a long time to go between evaluations.
• Every spring a small set of statements could go to the faculty to get their feedback.
• Possible to attach this to elections for FPC reps, the dean’s evaluation, or bring it to the spring faculty meeting.
• The LRPC could develop a plan for how we might do this and develop the survey.
• It should be brief and the FPC needs it by the end of February.
• B and C on the suggested procedure are very important.
• A is also important to do – provide information about what the FPC has done that year. How will people know about the impact of the policies?
• Are the policies making a difference? It would be good to measure this among the faculty at large.
• It would be good to get the information before the spring faculty meeting so that it could be presented at the spring meeting.
• We should present the data once it is collected.

3. Proposal to operationalize the budgetary role of FPC and FBAC (see proposal)

The FBAC has a proposal to further their role and involvement in budget work. They would like to make sure budgetary decisionmaking processes are transparent. Ester de Jong anticipates that FBAC will be charged with a budgetary template report. Bondy read key portions of the proposal to the FPC. The proposal was also sent to members by email. The group discussed the following points:

• It is important for us to know how our money gets allocated and spent.
• Should FBAC talk to the dean about what they would like to see in the budget report?
• How can they help structure a set of questions that both parties might prepare in reports? What questions do we ask?
• What information do we want to have and in what form?
• There may be a need to split the FBAC in two (Budget Affairs and Faculty Affairs)
Yeager motioned to vote on the FBAC’s new role. Diane seconded the motion. All were in favor of the proposed role. Sondra asked for suggestions via email.
Bondy asked for future agenda items. One suggestion:
• Eligibility for the UF research foundation professorship. If you got it before, when are you eligible to get it again? (In 5 years) Are department chairs eligible? (Yes)

Meeting adjourned at 3:55

Next meeting: January 22 (2/12, 3/19, 4/30; 4/16 spring faculty meeting)