11 February, 2008 FPC Meeting Minutes

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


14 January, 2008 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Draft Abbreviated Faculty Policy Council Minutes
January 14, 2008

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

Members absent: Ruth Lowery

Non-Members Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Thomasenia Adams, Tom Dana, Jade Coutts, Tom Dana, Luis Ponjuan, Ester de Jong

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 abbreviated version of the December 10, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. The motion was approved and seconded. The abbreviated minutes were unanimously approved.

Action Items

COE Tenure and Promotion Committee (Elizabeth Yeager): Since 2005, the senate has required that the faculty elect half of the composition and the other half be appointed by the Dean. We need a more systematic way of getting elected/appointed and to have some sense of the staggered terms. This matter needs to be decided before elections in late spring. An ad-hoc committee was proposed and Elizabeth Yeager, David Miller, and John Kranzler all volunteered to serve.
COE Tenure and Promotion Criteria (Luis Ponjuan and Ester de Jong): The committee was comprised of tenure ranked and department. It has been over a year that the document was reviewed. The document identifies what criteria are looked at when reviewing tenure packets. The FPC unanimously approved the document.
COE Policy on the GRE (Thomasenia Adams): University policy no longer uses the 1000 language for the GRE requirements. It has been decided that the GRE cannot be the only criteria for rejecting an applicant. The FPC is being asked if the college wants a college wide standard. John Kranzler is working on a revised version of the wording for the college policy. The discussion ended before a motion was approved.

Dean’s Report (Dean Emihovich)

• PECO list is almost done so faculty and others can help plan renovations for the building. We are expected to take another cut but the college is not sure how much or how it will impact. Summer school cut is one idea for a plan. For
faculty, the cut means they need to think about developing distance education courses to get summer monies. Cut will happen this year but it will be deferred until next year. Additionally, Tom Dana was hired as the associate dean.

Discussion Items

UF Alliance (Bernie Oliver): A copy of the document was sent out and the focus is on outreach in low performing schools. The alliance is trying to bond with schools and provide resources for success. Please contact Bernie if you have questions or if you are interested in participating. There is some money for travel and the schools are in Miami, Jacksonville, and Orlando.
Shared Governance and PKY (David Miller): The task force is doing a report and using a survey from last year. There was some concern that PKY was not on the list for shared governance.

Committee Reports

Curriculum (Rick Ferdig): The committee has had a few meetings; there is nothing new to report.
Budgetary (Sondra Smith): Currently looking at faculty participation. They have not met yet but the next meeting is scheduled. The current budget practice data is being collected although no policies have been made.
Faculty Affairs (John Kranzler): The committee met in December and discussed the criteria for sabbatical. There is a plan to continue in February.
Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (Ruth Lowery): No report.
Distance Education (David Quinn): No meeting yet.
Research Advisory (Diane Ryndak): The committee has reviewed applications.
Shared Governance (David Miller): Nothing new to report.
Technology (Edil Torres-Rivera): No meeting yet.

UF Faculty Senate Report (Jean Crockett)

• A financial group has been hired to assist the president on budgetary matters for the University. The Senate is currently revising the constitution to update the terminology used within the document.

**Meeting adjourned at 3:53 pm **
**Next Meeting: February 11, 2008 at 2pm**


10 December, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

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


5 November, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Draft Faculty Policy Council Minutes
November 5, 2007

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, John Kranzler, David Miller, Edil Torres-Rivera, Elizabeth Yeager, Sondra Smith

Members absent: David Quinn, Ruth Lowery, Bernard Oliver, Diane Ryndak

Non-Members Present: Associate Dean Jeri Benson, Steven Pape (for Ruth Lowery), Alyson Adams, Jade Coutts
Meeting began at 2:03 pm.

Yeager asked for a motion to approve the agenda with one correction to the budgetary affair. The motion was approved and seconded. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Yeager motioned to approve the September 10 FPC meeting minutes. Miller moved to approve the minutes and Ferdig seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Action Item– COE policy on the GRE (Dean Benson)

• Adams cannot be here today. She forwarded information on the GRE policy changes. Benson passed out a requirements sheet for the FPC to review and asked if there should be a 1000 score minimum. Currently, the college has no policy in place and individual programs can choose ranges for subpart requirements. If exemptions occur, the college wouldn’t know about them. Following a short discussion on exemption, Benson that programs need to think about how useful the subscores are to use as a screening system. She also questioned if the campus become too trusting of total score and if this works against our minority students. Benson said Thomasenia urges the committee to think about the college viewpoint. Miller said the interpretation is that the college does have exemptions. Benson says entrance into college should be more than one score on one day. Benson as if the FPC wants to think about a college point-of-view so we know what each department is doing. Yeager asks if this has been mentioned in departmental meetings. Torres-Rivera discussed how it effects rankings and confirms that it has been discussed at the departmental meetings. Kranzler says the GRE only comes into play on the college rankings. Yeager is struggling with a proposal for a specific policy because we are not sure what the Office of Graduate Studies is proposing. Benson proposed that each program profiles what students need to make application. Yeager thinks this is a good next step. We need this additional data to make any further decisions. Benson asks if it has been discussed. All members say that it has been discussed at departmental meetings. Yeager states that there isn’t any thing need to vote on yet and that the FPC will plan to look at the minutes and talk with Thomasenia. Benson and Miller say we need to discuss what the next step is. Benson says we should see
what the departments are saying about GRE scores and sources for criteria for application process. Pape mentions that his department has discussed new policies and that Colleen Swain has the document. Ferdig states that the action item is that we need to map out the levels and see what our programs are doing. Benson asks where we can get this information and states that websites need to be accurate for prospective students. The Dean’s office reports that the college should have some notion of what is going on. The graduate school is trying to open the door to look at the whole candidacy of the applicant. Crockett seconds that we need the acceptance information. Benson asks who is approving applicants and using what criteria. Additionally, who writes acceptance or denial letters? Benson states that the GRE is one of the pieces and that we need to open it up and look at the other criteria. Miller states that he doesn’t know if any minimum requirements can be set as a college using the requirements stated by the Graduate Council. He would like to know if we can set up minimum requirements and he personally would like to see something with respect to the different aspects of criteria. His department is concerned and wants sectional criteria but he isn’t sure if the wording is too restrictive. The Graduate Admissions requirements language is too loose referring to the cut off. We need provision and clarity of what can and cant be done. Follow up question for Thomasenia and the graduate deans were proposed. We need clarity in the language used on the admissions requirements. Torres-Rivera wants some clarity on boundaries. Ferdig points out that he is nervous about the wording as well. Benson states that we need appropriate reasons why we are turning students away. Yeager will take this information to Thomasenia for clarification and will help move things along if this is the next step.

Dean’s report

• Associate Dean Benson reported on the budget cuts and the market equity review. Dean Emihovich sent out an email stating we don’t have money now but that faculty are eligible through the contract with the union. The process is same as last year. Applications are due Dec 15, 2007. Currently there is not a standing committee to review these applications and FPC needs to decide if there should be a committee starting the spring. Yeager asked if departments and the Dean should appoint the council. Benson states that we need people who know what is marketable to sit on the committee. The committee last year was selected by Dean Emihovich and were full professors (Algina, Loesch, Steven Smith, Oliver). Kranzler says that this puts faculty in a difficult position and that the committee should be deans and chairs. This idea was rejected because chairs are considered in the union. The standing committee cannot be out of unit people and must be faculty members. Yeager proposes that voting takes place next meeting and that the team should be Dean appointed and department elected combined. Benson states that departments should discuss this matter. Benson asks if an FPC member should always be included. Yeager asks if everyone is OK with dealing with this as an action item at the next meeting after discussing. The FPC agrees.

• Benson confirms that the associate dean search applications are due today. Committee meetings are set and things are going. Crockett is a member and states
that there is a meeting Thursday. Benson assumes that there will be an announcement soon to meet with applicants.

UF Faculty Senate Report

• Crockett reported that they held a meeting at the Phillips center and the nature of the meeting was to talk about the museums and performing arts centers. Some name changes in departments were decided upon.

Discussion items

Budgetary affairs survey for faculty senate

• Smith passed out a handout that summarized the survey. She needs to know if there is a fair assignment and if the FPC approves it. Faculty senate has asked for FPC response to the survey. Yeager asks for questions or concerns. The council has none and recommends that it get passed back to the senate.
• Kranzler stated that it puts a positive spin on the spending and Smith stated that it represents what the FBACK did last year. Ferdig asks if we need to discuss implications for the college. Kranzler said his concern is that the problems are not being recognized and that the faculty isn’t having a say. Members are concerned that departments do not have a say in some budgetary concerns and that they have a more passive than active role. For example, Kranzler stated that faculty are not asked on how to spend discretionary funds. Yeager recommends that the passive nature of the faculty role should be included and that it is common across departments. Yeager suggests that revisions to the language be completed to reflect the FPC’s discussion and that the revised draft be sent to the FPC and this be discussed with departments. Miller proposes that the language get more concise.

Lastinger Center Resources and Budget

• Alyson Adams presented information to departments (special education, counselor education, and STL) to increase visibility and to invite people to play. Summary sheet was passed out. The mission is whole school reform centered on improving teaching, learning and leadership and child well being. The center has grant funding to support programs and is also a self-sustaining center. The biggest growth is in Miami-Dade with the Kellogg Grant. They are using a business model in Pinellas that is funded by the country and funded by them. There is high interest in Collier with low funding. Collier is the only county with middle school approach as well. Centers range from prek to 12. The center wants faculty help and has collaboration opportunities. They are welcoming anyone to come in and work. A handout was also provided on TLSI (Teacher Leadership for School Improvement) with some outdated criteria (GRE scores).

Follow-up on COE Day Away

• A matrix was provided with information added. Benson brings up the Center in Early Childhood and the funding activities. Dean Emihovich has been talking about
bringing people together across the college to bring ideas together that are similar that may lead to additional proposals.

Teachers College incident and racism on campus

• A Columbia University newspaper article was passed out. Torres-Rivera brought this up to see if this is something that we should respond to as a college. Yeager brings up a discussion that has taken place in counseling department on how to deal with this issue. Torres-Rivera states that we need to educate faculty and students on this matter and that we have a great deal of expertise on this matter at this college. Yeager asks if a brown bag lunch discussion should be sponsored and that Torres-Rivera could lead it. Kranzler agrees with an open forum. Ferdig agrees that a brown bag is a good idea and that we need to also explore research and find people in the college who are doing this work. Pape asks about the inclusion of gay/lesbian/transgender issues. Yeager will follow up with these ideas and see what type of forum can be put together. She will update the FPC at next meeting.

Action Item – FPC liaisons to FPC committees

Curriculum Rick Ferdig

• The CCC needs help with paperless forms for the CCC website. The Graduate Curriculum has put in place a new electronic method for graduate level forms and will shortly for undergraduate forms. If you need to do CC1 or CC2, you go online. CCC was bypassed this last October and some proposals were pushed over to the Graduate CC. Now, a new policy has been implemented so that the Dean will not go forward unless a memo is given from the CCC. Kranzler asked who would be moving the undergraduate system online. Ferdig stated that Dean Wubah would be doing so. Later this week, Ferdig will send out an email to the college regarding the new policy. Undergraduate is still paper-based. Instructions coming this week via email. Ferdig asks that FPC members will help to answer questions regarding this policy within their departments.

Faculty Affairs John Kranzler

• They are following tenure promotion meetings. The will finalize the draft and ship to FPC for approval. Kranzler says right now they are not looking at faculty load. They are considering concerns with non-tenure track review and other aspects. Smith said that load was something that was discussed last year and Kranzler said currently it is not on the agenda. Yeager received a report last year that has some information about load and she will check if that information was forwarded to Louise.

Budgetary Affairs Sondra Smith

• They met last week and had two charges. The first is what is the committee and the roles of the committee because it is new. The second is to respond to the survey regarding budget review and input. Initial conversations have been held.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Stephen Pape (Alt. for Ruth Lowery)

• No information given to pass along

Distance Education Task Force David Quinn

• David could not attend. No alternate present.

Shared Governance Task Force David Miller

• They discussed evaluating shared governance and what it is. They found that last year there were surveys developed to look at shared governance and are looking at these. They plan on using the same format used for the spring to evaluate the Dean. Ferdig asks if this is the same as the email they received. A response was not noted.

Research Advisory Jean Crockett (alt. for Diane Ryndak)

• Diane wanted to notify FPC that 2 of 4 programs are up and running. B.O. Smith and Opportunity Research Fund (Jan 4th, 4pm deadline). Paul’s office is resurrecting the Research Task force to look at the research doctorate to get a better sense of our current doctoral pathways.

Technology Edil Torres-Rivera

• Torres-Rivera hasn’t been able to meet with everyone. People are not answering their email.

FPC rep to Agenda Committee Jean Crockett

• No notes were taken.

Meeting adjourned at 3:40- motion by Yeager, Crockett seconded the motion.

Next meeting: COE Fall Faculty Meeting, December 10, 2-4pm


10 September, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

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


19 March, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
March 19, 2007

Members Present: Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, James Doud, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, Tom Oakland (alt for John Kranzler), Sondra Smith, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Rod Webb
Non-Members Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Marylynn Hall, Bob Henning

Waiting on Quorum (2:00-2:10). Meeting began at 2:10pm
Bondy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Griffin moved to approve agenda and Clark seconded the motion. The agenda was unanimously approved.

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the February 12, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. Yeager moved to approve the minutes and Clark seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Dean’s Report
• The Kellogg grant is giving the college lots of good press.
• The COE has a new development director, Bob Henning, who comes from California.
• The COE has met its original capital goal of $9 million. The new goal is $13 million.
• Several faculty searches are still ongoing.
• Pat Snyder from Vanderbilt will be the new Lawrence Professor (in Special Ed).
• At most there will be 2-3 searches next year apart from the Fein professorship. The Dean has been using the existing rate of vacated faculty lines for recent hires/searches. There may be 5-7 years before the next wave of searches, based on retirement projections.
• Approx. 40% of the faculty has been hired since the Dean started five years ago.
• Scholarship of Engagement process has changed. There was a university-wide winner and each department also had winners: Maria Coady (Teaching & Learning) Holly Lane (Special Ed), Mary Ann Clark (Counselor Ed), Nancy Waldron (Ed Psych), and Dale Campbell (Ed Leadership).
• There is a strong likelihood that Kellogg will want to take the Scholarship of Engagement to the national level.
• David Lawrence will be the keynote speaker at the Scholarship of Engagement Banquet. Money from ticket sales is used to fund students in special circumstances.


Update on Market Equity Review Committee
Yeager reported that the Market Equity Review Committee is working on a draft proposal via email. They are working on issues such as how faculty members can initiate the process and the role of the department chair. Stephen Smith is coordinating the draft.

Committee reports to Bondy by April 16: (a) Accomplishments (b) Ongoing activity (c) Next steps for Fall 2007
A brief annual report is due from each committee by April 16. It should include a statement of accomplishments, next steps, and ongoing activities. We need the reports to get the ball rolling for committees in the fall. A message will also go out to all FPC reps.

Elections committee work is underway (FPC, Senate, T and P)
Bondy is grateful to David Quinn, Holly Lane and Thomasina Adams for their work on this committee. The committee is taking nominations for faculty senate and FPC representatives. They will work to get nominees for the T&P committee once the committee structure is finalized. Anyone can nominate people by contacting the elections committee.

Committee Reports

Curriculum (CC) Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager reported the CC approved a change in an existing course (now School Evaluation). A new course, Crisis Management in Higher Education, was also approved. The next meeting will be March 26.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported that the ad-hoc Tenure and Promotions committee is drafting requirements for service, teaching and scholarship in three groups. The Faculty Affairs Committee will also be looking at teaching load. The Budgetary Affairs Committee is interviewing department chairs as an initial step to see what role the committee should take. The committee wants to include faculty more in budgetary affairs. The FBAC completed review of sabbatical applications. The next meeting is April 5.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak
No report due to Ryndak’s absence.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver
Oliver was absent. Nancy Dana sent a report. Dean Emihovich’s review is ready. Teresa Vernetsen’s and Paul Sindelar’s reviews are being edited and these deans will also be evaluated soon. The LRPC asked Bondy to send out the evaluation surveys from her email.

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark
Clark reported that the RAC will meet tomorrow to discuss research professorship applications. Next on the agenda is CRIF.
Student Recruitment, Admissions, Petitions (SRAPC)
Discussed during action items (below).

Technology (TC) Rod Webb
Webb was absent. Hazel Jones sent a report to Bondy discussing six items on the TC agenda: 1) The TC is working with Trace Choulat to investigate and address faculty/staff email issues. 2) Online survey support. Choulat is considering purchase of survey
software 3) Integration with distance learning office. 4) Concern of faculty/staff with new Vista operating system and possible upgrade. 5) The TC wants to review its charter and make recommendations by the end of the year. 6) A TC representative will attend the department chairs’ meeting to hear a collaborative software presentation by Scott Blaze.

UF Senate Report
The Faculty Senate passed a resolution supporting the academic enhancement program. It also passed a resolution to support an initiative called Focus on the Nation. Focus on the Nation is designed to heighten awareness of global climate change among universities with an event to be held Jan 31st 2008.

Action Items

Four-part handout: committee changes, staggering membership, COE T&P Committee membership, shared governance survey
Part I, FPC Committee Changes. Bondy reminded members of recent discussions about changes to committees. Some committees have too much to handle, others not enough. The proposal in Part I includes revised committees, new committees and a couple of committees on hiatus for a year.
Bondy asked for a motion to approve Part I. Griffin made the motion and Yeager seconded it. The following points were discussed:
• Bondy met with the SRAPC. Recruitment is handled at the department level. As long as recruitment is being addressed in this college, the SRAPC members agreed that they could go on hiatus. They liked the idea that a task force could address recruitment issues that could involve graduate coordinators. Sharing best practices in recruiting might be useful.
• The task force should also focus on geographic and ethnic diversity, including international students.
• There does not seem to be a coordinated effort within the College to encourage internationalization.
• Re: Distance education task force. It is still possible that a standing committee will be needed. But right now there are very specific issues that need to be addressed. Chris Sessums has identified three so far. The task force would report at FPC meetings. The Deans and Sessums together identified people who might have interest in being on the task force.
• Task forces build more flexibility into the structure of the FPC. It can enable us to be more responsive to issues that come up.
• There is no language in the constitution related to task forces.
• We will propose constitutional revisions next year if they are warranted.
• We are not dropping the functions of any committee.
• Should the technology committee handle distance education?
• Sessums felt strongly that there are distance education issues that are separate from technology issues.
• It may be unrealistic to expect the distance education task force to meet twice before the end of the semester.
• Some distance education issues need to be resolved before the fall. Something might be done quickly if there are people willing to do the work.
• An adhoc committee and a task force are one and the same.
A vote was called and Part I, FPC Committee Changes was approved unanimously.

Part II, Proposal for Staggering FPC Committee Membership. Committees need continuity from year to year and this proposal would achieve that. Yeager moved to approve the proposal. Griffin seconded. The following points were discussed:
• Staggering membership is not in the constitution but people are asking for it.
• Which two departments will elect two-year terms for the Shared Governance Advisory Committee?
• It makes sense to wait and see which members are agree to stay on the other committees.
• There might be trouble with the volunteer system if one department has multiple people who volunteer to stay.
• If special ed volunteered five people to serve an extra year on each committee it would be lopsided.
• We may be anticipating a problem that does not exist.
• Not every member of a committee is equally valuable. If we take volunteers we may get the people who are more valuable to the committee to stay.
• Do we want to set up the rotation or do we want the committees to set it up?
• Edit #1: Each of the committees will submit a list to “recommend the names of 2 members who could remain for a second year. Yeager will review the list to ensure balance between the departments.”
• Edit #2: “Based on department membership in other committees, Yeager will determine which departments should elect 1 year members to the Shared Governance Committee”.
A vote was called and Part II, Proposal for Staggering FPC Committee Membership was approved unanimously with the two edits mentioned above.

Part III, Proposal for Electing the COE T&P Committee. Recently the faculty senate required elected members on the college tenure and promotion committee. The Deans were worked on a proposal. This proposal is based on feedback from FPC members. Yeager moved to approve the proposal. Doud seconded. The following points were discussed:
• The T&P committee should choose its chair.
• Someone recommended that untenured assistant professors should all be required to serve on the college’s T&P committee.
• Is the T&P committee meeting public? Probably not.
• No one department can take command of this committee using this structure.
A vote was called and Part III, Proposal for Electing the COE T&P Committee was approved unanimously.

Part IV, Shared Governance Survey. Every unit on campus must implement and get feedback on shared governance in the unit. A subcommittee of LRPC submitted a survey
draft and it received faculty feedback. One criticism was that the survey assumed a definition of shared governance that made it synonymous with FPC. There might also be shared governance at the department level, for example. The new proposal is to use two open-ended questions (provided in handout). The following points were discussed:
• Why don’t we also ask—What is shared governance?
• We don’t want to invent a new term. We want to know the application of the concept to the college of education.
• Is there a definition of shared governance? Does Bernie Machen’s have one?
• If it is not defined in our constitution, it is unclear what definition should be used.
• A question like “What does shared governance mean to you?” might get a more personal response.
• We should provide a definition of what we think shared governance is.
• Shared governance needs to be further articulated in colleges and academic units.
• Griffin read a general definition of shared governance from the Faculty senate.
• Change suggested is to start with the language from the faculty senate.
• If there are open-ended questions, the survey may not get responses.
• This survey will give us some general information, but it will not be the same forever.
• If the survey is presented after an FPC presentation, the results will be different than out of context.
• The Dean would prefer a shared governance council that has all parties, not just faculty, working together – deans, faculty and chairs.
• We should ask about involvement in shared governance in different levels, college-wide, department, and program-level.
• A committee could analyze the results in the fall.
A vote was called and Part IV, Shared Governance Survey was approved unanimously, with the stipulation that Yeager and Bondy add a definition of shared governance.

Discussion Items

Plan for April 16 COE faculty meeting
Bondy is concerned about April faculty meeting. The constitution says we will have it, but there is no agenda yet. Maybe there should be a report from the committees, then faculty can fill out the shared governance survey.

Meeting adjourned at 3:59pm.

Next Meetings: April 16 spring faculty meeting in Terrace Room at 2PM; April 30 FPC meeting for new and returning representatives.


22 January, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

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 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.


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


12 February, 2007 FPC Meeting Minutes

College of Education (COE)
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
February 12, 2007

Members Present: Buffy Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, James Doud, Zhihui Fang, Cynthia Griffin, John Kranzler, Holly Lane (alt for Diane Ryndak), Bernie Oliver, Sondra Smith, Elizabeth Yeager
Members Absent: Diane Ryndak, Rod Webb
Non-Members Present: Associate Dean Jeri Benson, Tom Dana, Dean Catherine Emihovich, Marylynn Hall, Chris Sessums

Waiting on Quorum (2:00-2:06)
Meeting began at 2:06pm

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

Bondy asked for a motion to approve the January 22, 2007 FPC meeting minutes. Lane moved to approve the minutes and Clark seconded the motion.

The minutes were unanimously approved.


  • Market Equity Review Committee
    Dean Emihovich sent a Feb 7 message to COE faculty and chairs to explain the market equity review process. There is now a college-wide committee consisting of full professors from each department.
  • Elections Committee
    The constitution requires an elections committee to handle elections for the UF faculty senate and the tenure and promotions committee. Elections committee members have been appointed for this term and the committee will meet with Bondy on March 1.
  • Revisions to annual report format
    Jeanne Starobin has been working on the annual report format. Now we have a new opportunity to highlight shared governance work in the report.
  • Increasing collaboration among faculty, chairs, and deans
    Dean Emihovich raised a concern that there are some issues that require collaboration between faculty members, department chairs, and deans, but the three groups don’t regularly meet all together. When these issues arise, we will put them on the FPC agenda and make more effort to get more people together.
  • Plan for discussions of the professional practice doctorate: steering committee, 3/21 lunch meeting
  • Paul Sindelar’s office recently sent an email announcing a hour-long lunch meeting on March 21st to kick off a discussion of the professional practice doctorate. Bondy, Lane, and Linda Hagadorn are starting a steering committee for this project. Bondy asked FPC members to discuss the lunch at department meetings.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Elizabeth Yeager
Yeager said the committee has nothing to report. Feb 26 will be the next meeting.

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs (FBAC) Sondra Smith
Smith reported that the FBAC developed language by email to divide itself into two committees (see Discussion Items). It met separately as those two committees to work on faculty load and budget issues. The FBAC also developed sabbatical review criteria and will meet again to go over the criteria.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards (LSAC) Diane Ryndak
No report due to Ryndak’s absence.

Long-Range Planning (LRPC) Bernie Oliver
Oliver reported that the LRPC has not met since the last meeting but will be meeting soon.

Research Advisory (RAC) Mary Ann Clark
Clark reported the RAC has not met since the last FPC meeting. The committee will work on CRIF next.

Graduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions (GRAPC) John Kranzler
(Formerly Student Recruitment, Admissions and Petitions)
The GRAPC voted to retain its status as a committee by a vote of 4-2. It also developed language to revise its role (see Discussion Items).

Technology (TC) Rod Webb
No report due to Webb’s absence.

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich reported that:

• The newly formed market equity committee will meet on Feb 21st. It is an advisory (i.e. not policy making) committee so the FPC will not review its recommendations.
• She is working on identifying a chair for the Scholarship of Engagement Committee and on the call for nominations. Each department will have its own internal process for selecting award recipients. She has also hired a new development director: Robert Penning (?? ). The entire event will be restructured.
• There are a number of searches going on. The quality of the applicant pool has been impressive. Judging by the applicants’ comments, our college’s work is becoming more nationally visible.
• The PR piece on the Kellogg grant will be out March 5.

UF Senate Report

Griffin reported that the Senate hasn’t met again since the last FPC meeting. It will meet on Thursday of this week (2/15).

Discussion Items

1. Proposals for restructuring FPC committees: two issues (see handouts)

First Issue: Which committees do we need or not need?

Bondy passed out two documents for FPC members to read:
a) A memo on the status of the Graduate Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee (GRAPC); and
b) Proposals for FPC committee changes.

Handout A:

The GRAPC affirmed its own reason for being and redefined its mission (see memo). However, FPC members still have questions about the committee’s roles. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised:
• Faculty should play a role in student affairs, but is this where it is needed?
• Maybe the GRAPC should focus on minority recruitment.
• The committee has undertaken recruitment in the past.
• Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the committee to be a recruitment, admissions, and retention advisory committee.
• The graduate coordinator committee is already a college-wide committee working on recruitment.
• The GRAPC used to look at fellowships, but departments had different criteria for fellowships and it made more sense for departments to handle this themselves.
• What role does this committee give faculty that they don’t already have through their respective departments?
• To have a committee with an ill-defined function can become problematic.
• The FPC can vote to sunset a committee because it no longer meets needs.
• What policy could this committee develop that would apply across departments? The GRAPC should provide a valuable service to students and faculty or disband.
• The jobs of the committee are redundant.
• The technology advisory committee collaborates with COE Technology staff. Perhaps GRAPC can collaborate with COE Admissions staff.
• Bondy and Yeager will meet with Kitty Fallon to represent the views of FPC and discuss next steps.

Handout B:

Several language changes are proposed. First, FBAC proposes to split into two committees: 1) Faculty Affairs Committee and 2) Budgetary Affairs Committee. New committee roles have been proposed. The FPC considered the proposed role of the Budgetary Affairs Committee and the following discussion ensued:
• Perhaps we should give the budget role to the LRPC.
• Committees work best when they have a clear goal to accomplish.
• Long range planning is important, but there may not need to be a standing committee. We appoint task forces for strategic planning.
• If we didn’t have a long-range planning committee, would having a budgetary affairs committee be useful?
• The budget subcommittee of FBAC is considering what faculty would want to know about the budget. Taking a proactive role in budgetary issues helps faculty to be become more knowledgeable, but faculty will still not make budget decisions.
• Departments may still have more impact than a budget committee.
• A budget committee might create more tension than necessary.
• It is important for faculty to help develop priorities for the college.
• Faculty should understand the budget process and be more informed. If everyone agreed that it was all clear, we wouldn’t have this push for a new committee. Committee wants to be a platform for transparency and accountability.
• Department chairs should already keeping faculty informed of budget issues.
• There are so few degrees of freedom. Salaries take up almost all the budget. Then operational money (i.e. paper, copying, money for travel). Then instructional money (used to hire people to fill in where we don’t have full-time faculty). The money left for any new initiatives is very small. The only other resource is lines. There has been no new money from the Provost’s office except for lines.
• There might be further clarification of what the budget role would look like because there is currently a subcommittee working on it.
Next, the FPC considered the proposed role of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the following discussion ensued:
• Taking the minor budget role out doesn’t appear to lighten the load of the committee.
• It may be that there will not be enough time this year to draw conclusions. Maybe we are not ready.
• Smith wants to take FPC comments back to the FBAC and make certain the entire committee approves of the proposed language. The group meets again on March 1st.
Doud motioned to accept the proposal of the FBAC to split into two and to proceed with further language adjustments as necessary. Yeager seconded. A yes vote supports the creation of a budget committee. The committee voted, with 7 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion passed.
Next, the FPC briefly discussed a proposed Shared Governance Committee. There is an expectation that every year the FPC will give feedback to the Faculty Senate on the progress of shared governance. No discussion ensued.
Next, Yeager moved to discuss a suggested change to the constitution for the elections committee (#3 on the handout), Kranzler seconded the motion. The following discussion ensued:

• Previously the Tenure and Promotion Committee (TPC) has been appointed, not elected.
• Half of the college TPC has to be elected now.
• Perhaps the language should be more broad so that the constitution doesn’t have to be changed every time.
• Lane suggested an amendment to replace the words following “for conducting elections…” with “for conducting college-wide faculty elections in the college of education.” All were in favor. The language changes were passed as amended.

Next, the FPC discussed item #4 on the handout, a suggested deletion of language related to distance education in the Technology Committee role.

• Sessums doesn’t believe it is appropriate to link distance education only with technology. There are also non-technical issues such as compensation and course quality.
• An instructional technology advisory committee might be more appropriate.
• Sessums suggested a task force to help get distance ed up and running as opposed to a standing committee.
• They need people who would have an interest in this, and a task force relies on interested volunteers. An elected committee is not always the most interested committee.
• There is a desire to make distance ed more visible.
• What kind of help would be most useful help?
• There has been very little activity for two years in the technology committee.
• FPC inserted the word “advisory” to make it clear that there was a need to collaborate with the technology director.
• The issue across the board seems to be, is the committee a platform for raising questions or a policy-making committee? A number of these committees could generate policy.
• When the FPC first formed it tried to determine where there would be a need for committees. Now it looks like a lot of them aren’t needed. Perhaps we need to go back and eliminate some committees and replace them with task forces focused on needs as they arise.
• Technology is an important committee. It helps us get frustrating technology issues resolved.

Meeting needs to wrap-up. Bondy handed out a proposal for COE Tenure and Promotions Committee. She needs to hear from FPC members soon and asked them to please email feedback. She also asked members to review a document on staggered committee membership.

Next Meeting: March 19, 2007


11 December, 2006 FPC Meeting Minutes

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)


13 November, 2006 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
November 13, 2006

Members present: Elizabeth Bondy, Elizabeth Yeager, Jamie Algina (for Rod Webb), Zhihui Fang, John Kranzler, Mary Ann Clark, Sondra Smith, Cyndy Griffin, Jim Doud, Bernie Oliver
Members absent: Diane Ryndak

Meeting called to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. The agenda was approved.
2. The October 9, 2006, minutes were approved with no corrections.
Action Items

Mentoring Policy for Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty:
Buffy said she received one email comment that the proposal was too prescriptive and suggested deleting the part about mentoring roles from “such as development of…” to “the demands of academic life” (about 4 lines). Cyndy said the proposal had been through several iterations with opportunities for faculty feedback; Jamie said that the proposal had not been discussed in Ed Psych but that there was some faculty opinion that the prescriptive aspects of the proposal could discourage faculty from taking on a mentoring role. John raised another issue: whether the policy as written is appropriate for both tenure and non-tenure track faculty. Buffy suggested we vote. Jamie moved that we strike the four lines of text; John seconded. In discussion, Cyndy asked if it was proper for us to revise the proposal and approve it without sending it back to the faculty. Mary Ann, Jamie, and Jim all expressed concern that this prescriptive language could be very problematic for department chairs. Jim called the question on Jamie’s amendment. The amendment to strike the language Jamie suggested was approved unanimously. In further discussion, John raised again the issue of stipulating that only tenure-track faculty be assigned to mentor new tenure-track hires. Jim suggested that this issue stay within the individual departments. Buffy asked for a vote on approving the amended policy. Jamie motioned for another amendment: A non-tenure track junior faculty will have access to a mentor for six years or until s/he receives promotion, whichever comes first. Jim seconded the motion. Buffy asked for a vote; the motion was approved unanimously. Buffy then asked for a motion to approve the amended proposal; Jim so moved and Jamie seconded. The proposal was approved unanimously.

Information Items

1. COE response to UF shared governance effort – Buffy discussed the October
17 workshop that she and Elizabeth attended. Buffy got a message from Danaya
Wright about updating our progress on governance; she has already responded to
Danaya with this information. The ad hoc assessment committee for evaluating shared governance already has met and developed a proposal that will be a
discussion item for the December FPC meeting.
2. Guidelines for promotion of full-time lecturers and scholars – Buffy said
the COE guidelines have been updated to reflect UF policy. Jamie and Jim wanted more information on this and wanted to see documentation from Jeri about why the policy had been updated in certain ways.
3. Buffy said we are in the process of revising the COE Annual Report form in order to let faculty highlight their work in shared governance more prominently.
4. Buffy reminded us to get on the agenda for our department meetings to talk about FPC matters.

Committee Reports

Curriculum Committee – Elizabeth discussed the course approvals and deletions
from Ed Admin that were addressed at the October meeting.
Faculty and Budgetary Affairs – Smith reported on behalf of the committee. They have held two meetings. They adjusted the guidelines for promotion of non-tenure track faculty (approved last spring) to align the policy with UF policy. They are now working on a timeline for addressing criteria for tenure and promotion of tenure-track faculty in the college.

Lectures, Seminars, Awards (Diane) – no report

Long Range Planning – Bernie said the committee is working on getting someone
to chair it. They also want to start collecting strategic planning data from other institutions. Buffy suggested that the LRP agenda may be related to Barbara
Hill’s visit.

Research Advisory – Mary Ann discussed the review criteria for Opportunity Fund proposals funded by the Office of Research. Paul is clarifying a few details on this and will be sending out a memo. There may also be a review of the CRIF
criteria. Buffy suggested the CRIF issue be addressed in the next FPC agenda committee meeting.

Student Recruitment – John said the committee is discussing whether to continue
or disband. They have met with Thomasenia and will meet with Mike Bowie to
find out more about what their offices are doing.

Technology (Rod) – no report

UF Faculty Senate Report

Cyndy discussed Kim Tanzer’s efforts to get faculty more involved in the
Senate; to remove faculty who have excessive absences; and to appoint
temporary senators when necessary. The Senate has a new Compensation Committee that will be added to the UF Constitution. Stephen Smith is a new member of the UF committee that deals with tenure and academic freedom issues.

Also, Buffy announced that Jean Crockett was recommended to serve on the ad hoc UF curriculum committee.

Dean’s Report

Catherine said the Centennial Conference was very successful and well-attended.
She then suggested that we focus on what the COE will be known for in the next
100 years, and said that she has talked with Dr. Barbara Hill of the American Council of Education about preparing a proposal to be shared with an appointed COE steering committee and department chairs, so that we can move our work into more of a state and national scene. This will not be a strategic planning activity; it is a structured conversation among faculty about making explicit our connections to larger issues in the educational landscape and about how to drive the agenda for addressing these issues in the 21st century. Catherine will be in touch with us when she hears from Barbara Hill; at this point we do not have a proposal or specific dates. Faculty will be involved in the proposal and the structure of this activity.

Discussion Items

1. Buffy asked for future agenda items and encouraged us to bring concerns to
FPC from our departments.
2. Buffy asked if the FPC Elections Committee should oversee UF Senate
elections as well. There was no opposition to this idea.
3. Chris Sessums discussed developments in distance education since he came aboard in March. The budget is in the black with some “rainy day” funds. He has met with Catherine and Jeri about our financial model (we get 95% of matriculation fees) and is now meeting with chairs about how departments can use the funds. He has developed handouts for faculty meetings to give an overview of what is happening in distance ed (guidelines for creating a course, etc.). He is also working on a format for reviewing current online courses and on acquisition of collaborative software for conferencing, PPTs, whiteboards, etc. He has talked to faculty about services they would like to have. He also emphasized that the distance ed office does not have control over course content, but it does
need to do the scheduling through UF’s system so that the COE can get the student fees from enrollment. Online courses do not have to be eight weeks only.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 pm. The next meeting is December 11th.