Faculty Policy Council Minutes
October 10, 2005

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Buffy Bondy, Mary Brownell,

Mary Ann Clark, Ester de Jong, Cyndy Griffin,

Hazel Jones, Tracy Linderholm, Rod Webb

Members Absent: Kathy Gratto, Dave Honeyman

Others Present: Jeri Benson

Jones called the meeting to order at 2:05 pm.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for October 10, 2005

Linderholm moved to approve the agenda. Brownell seconded the motion. The

FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes from the September 12, 2005 meeting

Name misspellings were corrected. Amatea made a motion to approve the September 12, 2005 minutes as amended. Griffin seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1. Upcoming Meetings

Agenda Committee meetings scheduled for Oct. 17, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005 at 11:00 am. There is no December meeting.

Dean’s Report (Jeri Benson)

1. Faculty Searches

Educational Psychology – chair
Special Education – associate or full professor, preference for a person with specialization in the area of mild disabilities
School of Teaching and Learning – assistant or associate professor in mathematics education; assistant professor in reading education
Counselor Education – assistant or associate professor in family – school counseling
Fien Professorship – Paul Sindelar is chairing this search

2. Keynote Speakers

• Gloria Ladson-Billings in February

• Dean Emihovich is working on a January speaker for kick-off

3. Howard Hughes Grant

Partnering with medical, science, and engineering faculty

4. Dean’s 3 Meetings with Provost

1 – vision, challenges, points of pride

2 – budget, enrollment, plans for increasing graduate programs

3 – still not defined

5. Restructuring in Dean’s area

Handout distributed

Committee Reports

1. Bondy – College Curriculum Committee

September meeting held. New Education Minor approved (with deletion of General Education and Secondary Education Minors) and new Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood Studies approved. October meeting is scheduled for 10/17/05 (note: this meeting was later canceled due to lack of business).

2. de Jong – Faculty and Budget Affairs (Nancy Waldron, chair)

• Merit/discretionary funds for dean – removed from agenda
• Promotion guidelines – ad hoc committee to make recommendations for promotion of non-tenure line faculty
• Faculty load – no action as yet
• New item – budget – what might the committee responsibility be regarding the COE budget

3. Amatea – Lectures, Seminars, & Awards (William Conwill, chair)

• Graduate teaching award criteria and process
• Schedule of awards and their criteria
• Nominations of speakers
• Develop processes for selecting Dissertation Advisor/Mentoring Award and International Educator Award

4. Griffin – Long-Range Planning (Danling Fu, chair)

• Reconsidering the surveys for Dean’s and Associate Deans’ evaluations
• Considering COE’s 3 priorities

5. Clark – Research Advisory Committee (Stephen Smith, chair)

• Interviewed for director of Office of Research
• Looking into B. O. Smith professorship

6. Linderholm-Student Recruitment (Penny Cox, chair)

• Michael Bowie will create database on all students who apply to COE programs
• Researching department needs for recruitment and outreach

7. Webb-Technology (Dawn-Elise Snipes, chair)

No report

Report from Faculty Senate (Cyndy Griffin)

1. COE senators will take turns sending COE and PKY reports of senate business

2. Attendance will be taken at senate meetings

Discussion Items

1. Fran Vandiver – developing more formal collaborations around research at PKY

• Perhaps link to long-range planning or research advisory committee
• Issue #4 out of 9/30 Research Retreat addressed this problem of sharing research interests
• PKY’s issues of interest include working with struggling students, development of professional learning communities, best instructional practices in literacy and in math, science, and technology
• Action steps – develop one-page handout on research applications at PKY, plan for mentoring relationships between PKY teachers and researchers, have PKY and Baby Gator representative(s) on issue #4 committee

2. Creating a structure to link the FPC and UF Faculty Senators

• Have COE faculty on UF committees
• Send Faculty Senate information to COE faculty (already doing this)
• Bring discussion items from UF Faculty Senate to COE FPC

Amatea makes motion to adjourn. Clark seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
April 25, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Elizabeth Bondy, Mary Ann Clark, Maureen Conroy, Ester deJong, Cynthia Griffin, Hazel Jones, Tracy Linderholm, Larry Tyree, Rod Webb

Members Absent: Terry Scott

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

Jones called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for April 25, 2005

Griffin moved to approve the agenda. Bondy seconded the motion. Jones noted a typographical error in the agenda the second Agenda and Minutes line should read “Approval of the April 4, 2005 minutes”. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the April 4, 2005 meeting

Linderholm made a motion to approve the April 4, 2005 minutes as submitted. deJong seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. Appreciation to Maureen Conroy
Jones presented a gift to Conroy in appreciation for her three years of service to the FPC.

2. Welcome to New Members
Jones welcomed new members.

Action Items

1. Election of Secretary

A list of members eligible for the position of secretary was distributed. Jones encouraged FPC members to elect a secretary from a department other than special education because the presidents for the last four years have been from special education. After a discussion about the commitments of members eligible for the positon, Bondy agreed to consider the position after discussing possible load adjustments with her department chair.
Jones clarified the requirements of the secretary position.
Webb suggested that the group table the election and correspond by email to determine whether Bondy can be available for the position.

Informational Items

1. Roles and responsibilities of FPC members

Members discussed committee assignments and volunteered for the following:

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs: deJong
Lectures, Seminars, and Awards: Amatea
Research Advisory: Clark
Curriculum Committee: Bondy (if elected secretary)
Long Range Planning Committee: Griffin
Technology Committee: Webb
Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions: Linderholm

Jones clarified that the focus of the Long Range Planning Committee should be to work closely with the committees developing strategic planning initiatives and to coordinate the Dean’s evaluation. The technology committee will focus on working with the new Technology Director

2. Next FPC Meeting

Last year’s schedule was the first and the third Mondays of every month. Jones emphasized that there will not be an FPC meeting unless there are items on the agenda. There will also not be a meeting in August. The next FPC meeting will be September 12, 2005 from 2-4pm.
Jones asked for a motion to adjourn. Amatea motioned to adjourn. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:43 pm.

New FPC membership roster

Chair
Hazel Jones
Secretary Elizabeth Bondy
Counselor Education
Ellen Amatea (1 year)
Mary Ann Clark (2 years)
Educational Psychology
Tracy Linderholm (1 year)
Rod Webb (2 years)
Educational Leadership
David Honeyman (1 year)
Jim Doud (2 years)
Special Education
Mary Brownell (1 year)
Cyndy Griffin (2 years)
Holly Lane (alternate)
School of Teaching and Learning
Ester deJong (1 year)
Elizabeth Bondy (2 years)
Dorene Ross (alternate)

DRAFT 3/7/05

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
March 7, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott

Members Absent: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Larry Tyree

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:12 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for March 7, 2005

Amatea motioned to approve the agenda. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the February 21, 2005 meeting

Tyree motioned to approve the February 21, 2005 minutes as submitted. Amatea seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting – March 14, 2005
Conroy reminded those present that the next agenda committee meeting will be on March 14. Members can send agenda suggestions to her, Tyree, or Jones.
2. Faculty Meeting – April 18, 2005
Conroy will contact faculty by March 18 regarding agenda items.
3. Scholarship of Engagement Awards – Nominations due March 7, 2005
The Scholarship of Engagement award nominations are due March 7.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported that three more faculty searches were coming to a close.

Dean Emihovich also reported on the ongoing process of strategic planning. She expects the four strategic planning task forces that form this year to continue on till next year. She has already appointed the co-chairs of each task force but membership is open to all faculty, staff, and students. There is also a professional staff member assigned to each task force to provide support. Although there is no compensation for participation, if there are certain people who make extra effort, Dean Emihovich has asked the chairs to notify her so that she can provide some extra travel money and perks. The task force Internet sites should make the work of the task force fairly transparent.

The agenda was amended to discuss action items while the Dean is present today.

Action Items

1. FBA Recommendation for Tenure Probationary Period

Conroy forwarded information on the tenure committee charge and recommendation by email to FPC members. deJong reported on the input gathered from faculty. It seemed that faculty felt comfortable with the six-year probationary period as long as there are exceptions for extenuating circumstances. This is the unanimous recommendation of the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee.

Dean Emihovich commented that the College does not expect new faculty members to receive big grants early in their careers. New faculty members are expected to work on grants and apply for funding, and perhaps get some smaller grants. The expectation is that more senior faculty members will be getting large grants.

Conroy asked for a vote. The FPC unanimously decided to accept the faculty and budgetary affairs committee recommendation to create a six-year probation policy with exceptions as needed.

Dean Emihovich left the meeting.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee did not meet, and will not meet until mid-March.
2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee is discussing the qualifications for lecturers. Some questions they are posing are beyond the scope of the committee and will eventually need to be answered by administration. For example, what does scholarship mean for a lecturer? Once they get feedback on these questions, the committee plans to put together a draft form of promotion guidelines for lecturers. Originally the charge was to look at lecturers and scholars, but they are postponing the discussion of scholar qualifications till later.
3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee is formulating a proposal for a graduate teaching award. The committee has also been invited to put together a speaker series for the centennial.
4. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the committee is working to get a member of the long-range planning committee on each of the strategic planning task force committees to establish a faculty governance role in strategic planning.
5. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg was absent. Conroy reported that the committee is reviewing applications for the B.O. Smith professorship awards and will make recommendations. They are also in the process of reviewing a dissertation award proposal. There may be a dissertation award for this spring.
6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported the committee met this morning to rank order the alumni fellowship applications.
7. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee has not met.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Amatea reported on proposed constitutional changes and provided a handout on the potential changes. For example, the senate has recommended reducing faculty members required for a full panel hearing. The athletic coordinator also presented at the senate meeting. He explained how the whole athletic program is supported by separate, non-university funds.

Campbell asked about a recent court ruling that might affect the union. Since Amatea had not heard she plans to ask about it.

Discussion Items

Linderholm asked about the May 2, 2005 FPC meeting, which is after the end of the school year. Conroy responded that the FPC members who continue on the FPC should attend that meeting, which is the first meeting of the new FPC. Those who are exiting do not need to attend

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Jones motioned to adjourn. Amatea seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 2:45 pm.

DRAFT 2/7/05

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
February 7, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott, Larry Tyree

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:09 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for February 7, 2005

Scott motioned to approve the agenda. Jones seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the January 10, 2005 meeting

Campbell motioned to approve the January 10, 2004 minutes as submitted. Tyree seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes. (Later on in the meeting, the agenda was amended so that the Dean’s Report came before committee reports.)

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting – February 14, 2005

Conroy reminded those present that the next agenda committee meeting will be on February 14. Members can send agenda suggestions to her, Tyree, or Jones.

2. Open Forum – Tenure Probationary Period – February 14, 2005

The Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee is hosting a forum from 2-3 pm to get faculty feedback on whether faculty will go up for promotion in either their 6th or 7th year.

Koro-Ljungberg expressed concern about the short notice about this forum. She would like to attend, but is unable due to another commitment out of town. Conroy,
Jones, and Dean Emihovich stated that they were given a very short timetable from the University for getting this feedback, and that suggestions could also be communicated by email or proxy.

3. University Committee Nominations 2005-2006

Conroy noted a concern that no College of Education faculty are on University-wide senate committees.
Dean Emihovich sent an email calling for nominations for the Scholarship of Engagement Award. The banquet will be held in the Touchdown Terrace instead of Emerson Hall.

Tyree questioned whether the Dean should stay at the meeting beyond her report. Conroy stated that she did not get a clear sense from the last meeting that there would be a change. Jones read the applicable portion of the minutes.

Tyree moved that the Dean make her report at the beginning of the meeting and then be given the opportunity to exit, starting right away. This was seen as an agenda amendment. Scott seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion. The February 7, 2005 agenda was amended to make the Dean’s Report the next agenda item.

Report from the Dean

1. COE Strategic Planning Update

Dean Emihovich invited faculty to come to the department chairs meeting tomorrow morning at 10AM to join a committee working on the Faculty Research Symposium discussed for March 11. There is a question as to whether this event is coming up too soon. There are also strategic planning discussions taking place and there have been four recent events focused on the strategic plan. There seems to be enough information gathered on the strategic plan to start discussing next steps. It is clear that the college plans to increase masters and doctoral enrollments considerably. There is also a consensus on building a research community. Now how do we accomplish the goals we have set for ourselves?

Dean Emihovich questioned some comments that she received from the Dean’s Advisory Committee regarding the Research Symposium. She envisioned an event that would bring faculty together with students to get ideas on how to create a research culture. Based on Advisory Council feedback, she suggested it may be premature to have a symposium in March and that the event might be better for the fall when new faculty arrive.

Dean Emihovich also expressed concern that faculty still seem to think that she is dictating to them from on high. She feels as though everything is up for discussion. For example, she suggested themes, or strands, for the symposium and some faculty interpreted this as a mandate. She did not intend it that way. She emphasized that communication and collaboration are essential to building a strong research-based culture in the college. She also emphasized the importance of mentoring doctoral students so that they leave with strong vitas. She did not understand why students would not be involved in the planning process for the symposium. Conroy explained that the committee chose not to involve students in the early stages so faculty could decide on the strengths to emphasize. Students would be involved later. Different people may have interpreted this differently. The Advisory Committee did question whether the event was coming too early and whether six hours was too long. Dean Emihovich clarified that the event doesn’t have to be six hours, only that this was the block of time reserved at the hotel.

Conroy asked about how the College gets from talking about a strategic plan to working on goals. Dean Emihovich responded that the College has really already created a strategic plan, which has been developing over time with faculty input. The program review that was turned into the provost has all our strategic plan ideas in it. Now the real need is to develop the ideas on how to get there. How are we going to work together? For example, she suggested that a starting point would be learning what other faculty in the college are doing.

Dean Emihovich suggested that the March 11 date be changed and that something be done in September instead. It could be called “The Changing Landscape of Educational Research” and have a panel to discuss different examples of how people are conducting research and adapting to changes in the political environment and funding. Then there could be roundtables for faculty and students to discuss their work. The idea is that faculty members would explain what they are doing, with the goal of increasing interest and attracting people to collaborate with each other. She believes the College can build a research culture by including students and engaging people in ideas. The event could be considered a mini-conference or an opening fall convocation.

Tyree suggested that it be moved to October instead of early in the fall so new faculty have a chance to prepare and present as well. Dean Emihovich added that new faculty would also benefit from the event. They are interested in who their colleagues will be, and she wants them to see a vibrant, rich culture of possibilities.

Campbell suggested an interim step to accomplish this term to determine what changes need to be made to become a top five institution. It is still not clear what this means. What do we need to offer that others do not?

Dean Emihovich stated that the goals are clear, and the way to get there is to get people excited about working on them. There is a research office opening, endowed professorships coming up, a new gift coming up that will create an
endowed research fund (focused on slow learners)… Donors are excited to give when they know they are giving to a college that’s doing cutting edge research.

Linderholm noted that an open forum would give students a chance to get involved and help them become involved in a culture of research. She described a first year research project requirement at the University of Minnesota that gives students an opportunity to get involved in research right away. She also noted the need for information on all the projects to be available on the Web. Dean Emihovich stated that the research office can help compile the inventory to put on the Web and concurred that a student’s first piece of research should not be their dissertation.

Dean Emihovich restated her invitation for FPC members to attend tomorrow’s department chairs meeting.

dejong asked Dean Emihovich if she had anything to add about the tenure probationary period. She responded that the general standard in education is 6 years. She believes the idea of 7 years was put forth to accommodate social science faculty who are expected to publish books instead of articles in referred journals. Amatea asked what competing institutions use and Dean Emihovich answered that typically they use six years.

Dean Emihovich also commented on voting rights for non-tenure accruing faculty, noting that there are people in these roles who have been with the College for a long time and play an important role. She finds it hard to see why there would be a group that makes decisions regarding them if they have no voice.

Jones mentioned that she would like to see clearly articulated steps and activities that will move us toward our strategic goals. Dean Emihovich explained that those steps would come from the work of the strategic planning committee. Conroy stated that the college may need to make some hard choices to avoid being schizophrenic and doing anything and everything. Dean Emihovich responded that she doesn’t want the Dean’s office to make all those decisions. She wants to do that together with faculty.

Tyree asked whether there are efforts underway to increase the resources for attracting more graduate students? Dean Emihovich responded that the biggest source is when faculty write graduate students into grant proposals. The Lastinger Center has money for students. PK Yonge has money for students. This information needs to be available on the website. A big piece of the Graduate Advisor’s role will be to make information available. The College has a lot more resources than most people are aware of. Lamme asked about strategies for recruiting graduate students since it seems to be hard to recruit people. Dean Emihovich responded that the strategies need to come from individual departments. Faculty should come to administration with ideas, and administration then needs to find ways to fund those ideas. One of the things
administration started was career night. That arose from a desire to recruit potential graduate students from outside the College of Education. When people think of this College they think teaching. We need to change that perception. If we want to increase the number of math and science people in education we have to think creatively.

Koro-Ljungberg commented on the diversity of ideas regarding the strategic plan that came from the last faculty meeting. We are really still looking for our direction. Others agreed.

Emihovich concluded her remarks and left at 3:10

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee met to discuss new courses and course numbers. There were no policy discussions

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee is continuing its work on the criteria for promotion and merit pay. It is developing a promotion guide for lecturers.

3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee has been asked to take responsibility for developing a year-long speaker series, as well as possibly bringing in a national speaker for the centennial in 05/06.

4. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group has not met because there is nothing clear to do. Amatea asked if strategic planning fell under this committee’s charge. Conroy responded that the strategic planning committee should be composed of people who volunteer for the task and can continue in the role beyond this year. The LRP committee has been charged with developing policy regarding space. There has been discussion about whether we need a LRP committee since strategic planning is organized through the Dean’s Office. Faculty have input, but they aren’t directing it. Campbell stated that faculty need to drive some of the strategic planning process if they are to have maximum leverage. Lamme responded that she does not feel free to take on a new strategic planning charge because the committee has only been asked to develop policies on space.

5. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee has exchanged emails but has not made much progress since the last FPC meeting.

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the committee plans to meet to work on fellowship applications once they all come in.

7. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee is still trying to schedule a meeting with Kathy Bergsma.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Discussion Items

1. FPC Representation & Committee Structure

Conroy passed out a Jan 11 proposal that named the four committees that would remain if committees were streamlined. Conroy explained that the idea is to make faculty’s time better spent. She also passed out comments gathered from faculty regarding the changes. Some faculty have mentioned to Conroy that research, seminars and awards might be too much for one committee. Overall there weren’t many comments. The chairs didn’t see the committees as a huge concern.

Amatea recommended that FPC participation be streamlined into a monthly meeting. She indicated that more people could make a commitment to it if the quantity of work was not as voluminous. She also addressed meaningfulness, noting that the faculty needs to see how the FPC is addressing issues that are important to them. Faculty also need to know that if they do make recommendations that these will be honored by the dean recounting the history of faculty in the College being in token positions. Some worry that the FPC might be more of the same and that heir commitment was hindered by these concerns. As far as restructuring committees, Amatea reported that faculty in her department agreed that the existing committees need to have work.
Jones stated that having the FPC structure in place has been helpful for faculty. She believes the College is in a new time, one in which faculty really do have input. She provided an example of how the FPC currently provides a way for faculty to provide input on the 6 vs 7 year tenure cycle which would have been impossible in the past on such a short timetable. Amatea responded that there needs to be more public information about the successes to counter people’s perception that the FPC is a pro-forma group.

Conroy provided another example of FPC effectiveness: Recently administrators created a policy on the three year review that conflicted with the policy developed and voted on by faculty. The faculty’s policy is the one that will be followed. She tried to highlight the things that the FPC has done at the faculty meeting.

Lamme mentioned that it is difficult to find the FPC web page from the College of Education homepage. Members seemed to agree that it would be better to make it more prominent on the page.

deJong stated that decision-making has always been department-based and that moving to the college-level decision-making is a huge shift. Lamme commented that the universities that are really faculty-run are very different from ours. She asked if we want to remain an administrative-led faculty policy council.

Conroy brought the discussion back to the issue of changing the committee structure, which requires a constitutional change. She asked for more comments.

Tyree responded that he would like to streamline the committees to provide greater potential for more involvement. Campbell suggested the LRP committee fold into another committee. Conroy added that she believes FPC shouldn’t develop a space policy because FPC members don’t know all the issues. So far it has been a struggle between getting input and developing a policy. Lamme stated that when someone else is going to make the decision anyway it is very hard to get faculty to participate.

Campbell moved that the committees be restructured as in the handout. Tyree seconded.

Kuhel noted that the change would eliminate a graduate student representative because graduate students don’t have a seat on the faculty and budgetary affairs committee. Jones questioned whether that was an oversight or something in the constitution.

Linderholm stated that her department doesn’t want the research and advisory committee combined because it is too important. She also stated that there should also be a standing committee for technology. She and Koro-Ljungberg don’t support the committee changes.

Scott stated that there is no problem in having a committee that does not meet. It might make sense to keep the committees. He doesn’t feel like they should be meeting or trying to meet if there is nothing to do. Tyree stated that if there is a need for a technology committee it could also be adhoc. Koro-Ljungberg responded that if participation in technology decisions is important to us, we should have a committee that indicates our interest.

deJong added that the issue is not the number of committees, but the nature of FPC work. Jones suggested that faculty who are sitting on committees doing important work need to tell people about it. Tyree stated that if the chairs know they don’t have to meet when there is nothing to meet about that is helpful.

Based on the need for further discussion, Campbell withdrew his motion and Tyree withdrew his second. There will be no changes at this time.

Action Items

1. FPC Representation & Committee Structure

Conroy stated that the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee brought a proposal to the FPC with recommendations on non-tenure accruing faculty and their role in governance. deJong summarized the proposal. The idea is to give faculty voting rights if they are full-time appointments during the academic year and have a role in the departments. Voting faculty would be those who know what’s going on in the departments. It really only effects 16 people right now. If they are doing everything that tenure accruing faculty are doing then they have a right to participate. Campbell recommended that the proposal be sent out for faculty comment and it should be on the FPC agenda to discuss next time.

Lamme commented on the Senate voting structure of the FPC and how the department of Teaching and Learning is only represented by two people on the FPC. If non-tenured people were voting members, conceivably there could be only one tenured person represented all the tenured faculty in the department. deJong asked if there should be slots for both tenure and non-tenure accruing faculty. Koro-Ljungberg also mentioned that there are more adjuncts in certain departments so the representation of non-tenure accruing faculty may change the balance of a faculty-wide vote. This issue will be discussed further at the next FPC meeting.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Amatea motioned to adjourn. Jones seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 4:03 pm.

November 8, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Dale Campbell, Mary Clark (alternate), Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott

Members Absent: Ellen Amatea, Larry Tyree

Others Present: Associate Deans Jeri Benson and John Kranzler, Faculty Senator Paul George, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for November 8, 2004

Jones motioned to approve the November 8, 2004 meeting agenda. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2004 meeting

Scott motioned to approve the October 25, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Koro-Ljungberg seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Conroy reminded those present that members can send agenda suggestions to herself, Tyree, or Jones.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Clark reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group met online. She presented a document that summarizes concerns. The consensus is that the charge to the committee needs to be better defined. Are they to ask for more space, or deal with existing space? Benson is taking action to see what has already been done.

1. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the group met once. They are creating a rubric to help decide how alumni fellowships should be distributed. They will have a proposal by December. They are also working on the criteria for graduate admissions.

1. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee met and spent most of the time discussing the new director of technology position.

Report from the Dean

Associate Dean Benson shared a list of the vacant faculty positions within the college. There are ten tenure-track positions plus an alliance director position. The college is advertising these positions in several print media outlets. deJong noted that her department has already filled the posted lecturer position.

B.O. Smith awards: Benson reported that Dean Emihovich will publish the criteria for these positions soon and that they will be awarded in the spring.

Benson provided a handout announcing a new program, the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, designed to recognize faculty who are also exemplary teachers. The university is looking for senior associates who have a record of teaching accomplishments. They will only select five members in the inaugural year. This academy is the first step towards having a group of scholars on campus who focus on teaching.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Faculty Feedback on Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure

Faculty Senator Paul George reported that there were mostly tenure-related items discussed at the last Senate meeting. There will be one more meeting for discussion, then a vote. The biggest issues under consideration are:

1)      A possible three-year review to assess progress towards tenure; and

2)      The question of whether colleges will have six or seven-year tenure reviews.

Concerns discussed included:

• The importance of flexibility among colleges, i.e., allowing each college to choose for themselves whether to review at six or seven years.
• How the three-year review will be used, i.e., as an opportunity for mid-period feedback, or as a tool to fire people. Ideally the three-year review should be helpful for faculty by allowing them to assess their progress and plan appropriate goals to reach tenure. There is currently a three-year review process in place in the COE and faculty are optimistic that the College of Education would be able to institute a three-year review process fairly.

• Concern was also expressed about the three-year review being kept in the faculty member’s file and used to help make future decisions. It was noted that the College of Education policy is to place the review in the personnel file. Another issue discussed was that three years might not be enough time to get an accurate representation of a faculty member’s productivity because it takes a few years to get things published.

• A question was raised about why the minimum number of peer-review letters was raised to five. Benson explained that this number is within a range used by AAU universities, some use a minimum of three and others use a minimum of eight.

• George also reported that  a “tenure when ready” approach within a seven year period is being discussed by the senate.

• A question was asked about where the letters from the faculty mentoring program go. George reported that the Senate did not discuss mentoring much.

Information Items

Fall/Winter Faculty Meeting Dates: November 22, December 13, January 10, January 17

Conroy asked for feedback on potential dates for a faculty meeting. She suggested that faculty meet soon to help Dean Emihovich develop a transition report for the new provost (memo on the transition report provided as a handout). It was decided to hold the meeting on November 22.

New COE positions

·        Associate Dean for Research

The position description was provided as a handout. Conroy reported that the special education department brought up two issues regarding the description:

1)      The description mentions an administrative stipend. Some people thought an administrative stipend might not be as attractive as an overall pay raise; and

2)      There is a concern about the research office needing to be self-sustaining. This is a position that has been vacant for a long time, and the faculty are interested in getting this position filled as soon as possible. If potential applicants need to worry about sustaining their office within three years (as rumored), they may be less interested in the position.

Benson stated that the rumor that the office should be self-sustaining within three years could be pretty damaging. It could not be truly self-sustaining in the beginning. Eventually some of the indirect money that grants bring in might be used to support the office. Over time more money will flow through the office because of the increased number of grants. The Dean is investing in this position to increase the number of grants the college is getting.

·        Director of Graduate Studies

The director of graduate studies is a less well-defined position. It is part of an ongoing discussion. Benson believes it is critical that faculty have a say in what this position looks like because this person will be serving faculty. Conroy encouraged FPC members to email the faculty they represent to get feedback on what they would like to see in this position. Conroy asked Kranzler to provide her with a description of his duties so that faculty have a starting point to discuss what the new duties might be. It was mentioned that there have been several failed searches around this position and the college needs to make administrative positions more attractive so people will want to take them.

• Director of Technology

The Director of Technology position is getting close to being posted. Kranzler has already submitted the position description to various people to get feedback. Some decisions still need to be made about whether the search will be national, regional, internal etc. Advertisements should go out in early spring and hopefully someone will be hired no later than in the fall.

Transition Report for the New Provost

As previously noted, the faculty meeting on November 22 will address the transition report. Dean Emihovich will come to each department and discuss the transition report too.

Other items

Jones asked Kranzler to make follow-up comments on the technology issues discussed at the last meeting. Kranzler reported that a FAQ is being posted on the Web soon. They are still planning to make and provide the comparison of different email programs to faculty members.

Jones motioned to adjourn. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:27 pm.

Note: The FPC meeting for Monday, November 22 will be postponed so that a faculty meeting can be held on that day.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda, (2) Draft of the October 25, 2004 FPC Minutes, (3) Memorandum from David Colburn on Preparing for the Transition (re: new provost), (4) College of Education Associate Dean for Research Position Description, (5) Email regarding the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, (6) List of positions available within the College of Education (printed from the COE Website)