August 30, 2004
Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy,

Hazel Jones, Ester de Jong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott, Larry Tyree

Members absent: None

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Deans Jeri Benson & John Kranzler

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for August 30, 2004

Lamme made a motion to approve the August 30, 2004 meeting agenda with an addition as requested by Conroy.  Tyree seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as amended.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the May 10, 2004 meeting

Campbell made a motion to approve the May 10, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Tyree seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. Fall Faculty Meeting

Conroy announced the fall faculty meeting would be held September 13, 2005 in the Terrace Room from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.  She reported that the meeting’s main purpose would be to work on feedback regarding the faculty climate survey and to introduce of new faculty.

2. 2004-2005 FPC meeting Dates

Conroy announced the Faculty Policy Council meeting to be held September 13, 2005 (on the same day as the faculty meeting) will be shortened to one hour, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.  She reviewed the list of Policy Council Meeting dates provided to members and reminded members to contact their alternates in advance if they cannot attend a meeting.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported that faculty survey data is available on the College of Education Website under the FPC area.  There, anyone can look at data from the College of Education’s faculty surveys.  The President’s Website (http://www.president.ufl.edu/facultysurvey/) provides access to all the data for the entire university broken down by rank and by gender.  Dean Emihovich urged FPC members to review this information.

Dean Emihovich informed FPC members of a meeting on October 13 in which the deans will report to the president the steps they are taking to address the issues raised by the faculty survey.  She would like to get as much information from as many people as possible. She provided three questions from the president to frame discussions of the University’s strategic plan:

·         What would you like to keep?

·         What would you like to change?

·         What would you like to add?

Dean Emihovich reported that the evaluations of the department chairs will also be on the FPC Website, under the College Governance heading. Faculty access will be limited to the evaluations of their own department chairs. Comments are not included.

Dean Emihovich reported efforts on behalf of the administration to make discussions of leadership more transparent.  She noted that the faculty survey indicated leadership issues at all levels including within departments.  She expressed a need for better definition of what it means to have a leadership role and how to build capacity for the next generation of leadership. She reported that the president feels strongly about shared faculty governance, which is dependent on a productive dialogue.

Tyree asked about the timetable of the faculty union election. Dean Emihovich reported that it looks like this will occur around January.  This represents a delay due to questions on how the bargaining unit will be defined. She indicated that the president thinks all units should be involved in the bargaining, but this issue will be reviewed this fall.

Dean Emihovich reported on the Provost’s and Faculty Senate’s Task Force on Quality of Life Issues for Faculty and provided a handout of its executive summary recommendations.  This information is available on the UF Faculty Senate website.

Dean Emihovich informed members that she would like to reconstitute the Dean’s Advisory Committee to make it more tied to faculty input.  She will provide a draft of a different Advisory Committee composition at the next meeting.  She is also developing more leadership positions.  She reported that John Kranzler has decided to step down at the end of this year to return to the faculty.  She envisions his position turning into three positions: an Associate Dean of Research, a Director of Technology, and a Director of Graduate Studies.

Dean Emihovich reminded members of centennial celebration preparations already

underway.  She noted that a celebration committee has already been formed, and that

the celebration will kickoff simultaneously with the capital campaign.  She would

like to have one faculty member from each department to head up planning activities

for the centennial.  The major planning work would go on this semester.  She asked

members to go back to their departments and see if anyone is interested in working

on these.  There will be a meeting on September 15, 2004 at 3:30 in the Dean’s

Conference Room.  Diane in the Dean’s Office is coordinating it.

Dean Emihovich announced a new development director, Margaret Gaylord. Gaylord comes from the Queen of Peace Church where she helped to raise $9 million for a new building. Dean Emihovich also announced a new PR director, Larry Lansford.  He will be contacting people and working with different departments to make the college more visible.

Dean Emihovich provided a draft handout of the Faculty Senate ad hoc Joint Committee on Tenure Report.  Conroy suggested that this document might be available on the Faculty Senate Webpage. Dean Emihovich pointed out three major areas of the report that will be controversial.  1) Language about stopping the tenure clock (page 13).  2) On page 16 of the report, item number 4 suggests there be a formal letter regarding progress toward tenure, but it is not clear who writes this letter.  3) On page 19, the definition of distinction is being debated.  The word distinction lacks clarity.  Also on page 19 the senate recommends a vote. Dean Emihovich noted that any college wide vote is a matter of public record due to the Sunshine Laws.  Conroy asked whether this is also true at the department level. Dean Emihovich responded that if the vote is recorded, then it is public information.  Conroy asked about the timetable of this report.  Amatea responded that she understands there is a desire to move this along pretty quickly.

Dean Emihovich reminded members about the upcoming UF Presidential inauguration and passed out a brochure about it.  She stated that two people from

the College of Education will be at the president’s roundtable.

Action items

1. Assignment of FPC members to committees

Conroy reminded members that part of serving on the FPC is serving on a committee as the liaison between the committee and FPC. As members of the committee their responsibility is to call the first meeting and that with the exception of the College Curriculum Committee, FPC member should not chair the committee if possible. A list of committees was provided.

Conroy requested volunteers for committees.

Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee:  Esther DeJong

Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Ellen Amatea

The Long-Range Planning Committee: Linda Lamme

Conroy added that an immediate agenda item for LRPC would be to discuss the Faculty Survey.

Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg

Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Tracy Linderholm

Technology Committee.  Terry Scott

Dean Emihovich announced a meeting at the Hilton on October 7 to discuss strategic plan issues.  She would like to have the Dean’s Advisory Committee, the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee, and the Long Range Planning Committee involved.  Jones noted that the Long-Range Planning Committee needs to get started right away.

College Curriculum Committee:  Jones will serve as chair of this committee as part of her duties as secretary of FPC.

Elections Committee:  Currently needs three new members.

Agenda Committee: Need to elect an FPC representative.

Dean Emihovich asked about non-tenure track committee members who are not able to vote.  Conroy responded that the constitution does not state that non-tenure track faculty cannot be there.  Dean Emihovich questioned the fairness of asking people to work on a committee when they have no voting rights.  Jones responded that they input is valued and they are volunteering.  Conroy concluded that there are many procedures that need to be clarified. These will be agenda items for the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs committee.

Conroy added that an issue has also come up regarding assigning committees so that there is some continuity of membership from year to year. Right now there aren’t any guidelines for developing committees.  There are still some things in FPC that haven’t been worked out, but on these committees, everyone has an equal say.  It is important that everyone sees their fellow committee members as equals.

2. Nominations for Agenda Committee

Conroy informed members that the Agenda Committee meets once a month and sets the agenda for the Faculty Policy Council.  It looks at the agenda items and assigns agenda items to the entire FPC body, or to committees, or decides it is not appropriate for FPC.  It also met last year to do the Dean’s evaluation.  Campbell served on the Agenda Committee last year.

Tyree volunteered for the Agenda Committee.  Conroy solicited other volunteers. There were none.  Campbell moved to nominate Tyree and Amatea seconded the nomination.  All were in favor.

Informational Items

1. Faculty Feedback on UF Climate

Conroy informed members that she, Dean Emihovich, Jones, and Dean Benson met to brainstorm ways to get faculty involved in discussions about the climate survey and providing feedback to the Dean.  By October 7, faculty need to have responses prepared for the three questions posed by the president (as discussed in the Dean’s Report).  To accomplish this goal, the aforementioned group decided to hold the fall faculty meeting early.  They plan to focus that meeting on getting faculty feedback.  The group also decided to ask the Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee and the Long-Range Planning Committee to provide recommendations.  Finally, the group also decided to create an Open Faculty Forum for those who couldn’t make the other meetings.  Conroy added that if a faculty member cannot make any of the meetings, he or she could email her directly.  She emphasized the importance of getting as many people involved as possible.

Lamme suggested that departments also review the survey data.  Dean Emihovich responded that department chairs have already had the survey data for two weeks and were asked to discuss it at their department meetings.

De Jong asked if all the faculty discussions needed to occur by October 7.  Conroy and Dean Emihovich answered affirmatively.

Amatea suggested a structured format for involving people during the faculty meeting, such as breaking out into groups.  Lamme added that the grouping should not be by department.  Dean Emihovich informed members that she will also introduce new faculty at the meeting.  To frame discussion of the climate survey, she plans to present the changes that have already been made which show some significant movement forward.  She stressed the importance of keeping people thinking about the future.

Dean Emihovich pointed out difficulties in communication.  She believes people want to know why things happen and how to help shape the direction of what’s happening.  They should be able to have this without being involved in doing all the work.  Conroy stated that faculty may feel like they are not being informed about what FPC is doing.  If posting the minutes on the Web after every meeting doesn’t do it, what will?  If FPC members don’t share what gets discussed, who will?  In the special education department FPC members are on the agenda at every department meeting.

2. Plan for change in mail servers

Kranzler reported that the College received $250,000 for technology. Half of these funds went to upgrade the PC, Mac labs and half of which went to upgrading servers.  The new servers are ready to go but transition has been delayed because of the PeopleSoft implementation.  Now the college is planning to upgrade mail servers at the end of September.  Users will need to make sure they have a Gatorlink account and an updated password. On the transition date new mail will come in on the new server.  Users can get mail as soon as their systems are converted.  Each user will need to work with a tech.  Users can sign up ahead of time for an appointment.  After conversion, users will have enhanced features such as daily file backup, automatic program updates, increased security, automatic address book updates, and the ability to unsend a message.  Dean Emihovich added that these features are all optional.  Kranzler went on the explain that the only problem he anticipates is for users of antiquated email systems. People who use Outlook or Entourage should have no problems.  Conroy asked how the changes will affect everyone.  Kranzler responded that until users get converted, they will only be able to access mail via Webmail. He added that users will be able to access their desktops with wireless laptops.  Scott expressed concern that anyone with his password could access his desktop.  Kranzler affirmed that anyone who knows the username and password can get in.  Lamme asked if it would be easier to convert to Entourage from Eudora before this switch.  Dean Emihovich responded that it would be and emphasized the increased functionality of the new system.  Conroy asked if there was a better way to get faculty to switch earlier.  She stressed that warning faculty about this ahead of time would help them avoid stress. Jones suggested that faculty be taught to use Webmail to ease the transition. Dean Emihovich reviewed the merits of a Web-based email server.  Tyree suggested a simplified approach to communicating technology concepts.  Lamme indicated that she does not know how to get into Gatorlink.  Kranzler stated that he would be sending that information out via email.

3. Issues & Activities for 2004-2005

Conroy discussed the minority recruitment and retention plan and the need to put closure on this plan in the fall.

Conroy stated that the PFC was also asked to consider a plan for a secondary minor.

Conroy discussed the issue of participation of non-tenured faculty in FPC.  The decision had been made that non-tenure track faculty cannot participate but this issue recently reemerged as a topic of discussion.

Kranzler discussed computer policy.  He stated that currently different faculty at different levels have access to different areas of the computer system. This policy changed who could put what on which computer.  Now a tech person needs to come to a computer if someone can’t load what he or she would like. Some people don’t want to do that step.  He indicated that there is a clear policy on this, but they have been getting complaints.

Conroy stated that the FPC would consider policy regarding indirect costs from grants and how costs are shared across departments.

Conroy stated that the research advisory committee looked at a new policy for the B.O. Smith endowed professorships and has made recommendations for its use. Dean Emihovich explained that it is essentially an endowed research fund that can be used for a GA, travel etc… Although a single professor has held this professorship in the past, after reviewing the endowment, Dean Emihovich has decided to restructure how the fund is allocating. Currently she is considering gearing the research professorships toward associate professors and would like to be able to appoint two people starting in the spring semester. She related this position to the president’s goal of raising money to support faculty research.  She stated that the college is currently underfunded in terms of the research support the faculty receives.

Conroy stated that PFC members need to review the procedures for evaluating the Dean.

Conroy discussed last year’s merit money and the lack of a policy on how to use merit money.  She stated that last year administration relied on procedures created by each department.  Productivity over three years was considered, as well as compression in relation to productivity.  Raises for assistant professors did not come from the merit money.  No one should feel that this compromised his or her raise.  Tyree expressed concern that the president was quoted in the paper as saying that faculty received 4% raises when this is not true.  Dean Emihovich explained that the 4% figure was reduced by 0.33%, which went to a pool of funds, and then they set aside 3.67% of faculty base salary for raises.  She stated that the president was very clear to the deans that it did not mean that 3.67% would be handed out across the board.  Each chair was given a pool of money based on the faculty in their department and made decisions on ranking of faculty within their department.  Conroy explained that many people were not working during the summer, but decisions needed to be made.  There was not a lot of faculty input.  She would like to revisit this issue.  Unfortunately, people didn’t realize that the raise was based on merit.  Dean Emihovich responded that the president and the provost were very clear on the fact that it was merit money.  Campbell stated that state employees usually get a fixed rate of increase and expressed concern that faculty can end up getting less money appropriated for raises overall under the merit system.  Dean Emihovich commented that there has been no state raise.  She stated that there are some faculty who are extraordinarily productive and highly compressed and that she needs to take that into consideration.  She expressed the need for a college-wide policy shaped by FPC. Conroy stated that the agenda committee would look at that.

Benson asked how it is decided what goes to committee and what gets discussed in FPC. Conroy responded that all items for consideration come to the Agenda committee. The Agenda committee decides how matters are handled, by forwarding appropriate actions to the administration, to appropriate committees, or by establishing ad hoc committees to deal with issues that cannot be addressed elsewhere.  The Agenda Committee reports to the FPC about the disposition of all matters referred to it.

Conroy summarized the last three issues on the agenda:  Communicating better with faculty senate representatives, space, and faculty senate awards.  She stated that she will let PFC members know which committees will get certain items.  Anyone can submit ideas by emailing herself, Jones, or Tyree.  She made committee notebooks from last year available for members to give them to the new chairs.  Unfortunately, three committees did not turn in their notebooks.

Lamme suggested that discussions of the faculty survey should not end in October.  She suggested that it continue on the FPC agenda.  Dean Emihovich affirmed this idea. Tyree asked whether there will be a follow up survey.  Dean Emihovich affirmed this.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Tyree motioned to adjourn. Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda,  (2) FPC & COE Committee Membership 2004-2005 (draft), (3) Report of The Faculty Senate and ad hoc Joint Committee on Tenure (draft), (4) Provost’s and Faculty Senate’s Task Force on Quality of Life Issues for Faculty Executive Summary Recommendations,  (5) Faculty Policy Council Minutes May 10, 2004 (draft), (6) University of Florida Constitution, (7) COE Faculty Policy Council Meeting Schedule 2004-2005, (8) College of Education Operating Procedures Guide, Standing and Operating Committees

April 19, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Maureen Conroy,Dale Campbell, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Craig Wood, Elizabeth Yeager

Members absent: Jim Archer, Jennifer Asmus

Others present: John Kranzler, Rod Webb

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:08 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for April 19, 2004

Lamme made a motion to approve the April 19, 2004 meeting agenda with the reorder suggested by Waldron. Yeager seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the April 5, 2004 meeting

Conroy asked FPC to review the pre-tenure packet review dates to make sure they were correct. Conroy made a motion to approve the March 22, 2004 minutes. Koro-Ljungberg seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. 2004-05 FPC Elections

2004-05 FPC Elections will take place April 22^nd through April 30^th. John Gregory is working on the ballot. Nominations from all departments have been received. Each department should nominate three people. 1 faculty member is needed for a two year term from each department and one alternate as well. The ballot will be posted this week. John Gregory will notify faculty when ballots are ready.

Lamme noted her concern with voting over break week. Conroy commented that voting should be finished before break week. Waldron added that she will follow up on when ballots will be posted.

2. First Meeting of 2004-05 FPC to elect Secretary

The first meeting of the 2004-05 FPC will take place on Monday, May 10^th, at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is for new and continuing members to elect a secretary early enough to assist the faculty member and department chair in negotiating release time.

3. FPC Meetings with Associate Dean candidates

FPC members and alternates have been invited to meet with the Associate Dean candidates. The candidates, dates, and times are as follows:

James McLeskey         April 19^th, 4:00            Renee Clift      April 26^th, 3:30

Jeri Benson                  April 29^th, 3:30            Tom Prout       May 6^th, 2:00

Committee Reports

Waldron noted that she sent 3 messages to chairs of standing committees to get one page summaries. She added that she would post all of the reports on the website and place them in the binder.

Waldron introduced Erika Gubrium as representative from the Student Alliance of Graduates in Education or SAGE.

1. College Curriculum Committee

Submitted final report.

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee

No report

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Submitted final report.

4. Long Range Planning Committee

No report

5. Research Advisory Committee

No report

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee

Yeager reported that the final Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee will be meeting on Wednesday at 9 a.m. in the Educational Psychology conference room. The committee submitted final report.

7.      Technology Committee

No report

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean

No report

Report from Dean

No report

Unfinished Business

1. Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan

Waldron reported that the Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan is being reviewed by the Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee as well as the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee. After the review, the feedback will go to Michael Bowie. Webb will facilitate with Vernetson to pull the draft together. It will then be reviewed by the legal council. Revisions of the draft will be sent to the FPC in the fall.

Wood asked if there was currently a plan for undergraduate and or graduate minority recruitment and retention. Conroy responded no. Archer questioned the effect of not having minority fellowships on doctoral student recruitment. Yeager noted that the Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee did not have those statistics. Waldron commented that she would follow up with Kranzler.

New Business

1. COE Policy for Third Year Pre-Tenure Review

Waldron posted the COE Policy for Third Year draft for faculty to provide feedback. Waldron reported that she received 5 comments: 4 favorable, 3 of which were from chairs. James Algina provided feedback to Waldron via e-mail noting parts of the draft that may be problematic for the college.

Lamme made a motion to put the policy on the table for discussion. Waldron noted that the Agenda Committee discussed James Algina’s comments earlier. She asked the FPC to consider whether to keep the policy as is or make changes as Algina suggested.

Webb noted that the committee wanted to emphasize the helpful nature of the 3^rd year review.

Yeager asked if chairs expressed their concerns. Waldron replied no and added that they felt the policy was reasonable.

Koro-Ljungberg questioned the purpose of the pre-tenure review. Webb replied that the pre-tenure review gives faculty a sense of how they are doing before they are required to apply for tenure and promotion. Mirka asked if the focus is on support or evaluation. Webb replied that the focus is on evaluation in order to provide support, because support cannot be provided without an evaluation.

Yeager commented that if FPC followed Algina’s recommendations, the process would still be helpful. Lamme added that FPC should be cautious.

Koro-Ljungberg noted that the policy reads like receiving positive review guarantees tenure. Scott added that this would be the expectation regardless of the intent of the review. Waldron agreed and asked if FPC should accept the changes recommended by Algina.

FPC discussed the wording of the policy draft in terms of Algina’s recommendations. Wood noted that it must be in writing that the pre-tenure review does not send an expectation of future success. Campbell questioned if the statement should be in a policy or in a letter. Wood suggested that the statement be in both. Archer and Koro-Ljungberg noted that having a statement at the bottom of the letter would diminish the process. Webb noted that he had not seen such a statement in other departments but recommended that the fourth sentence in the fifth paragraph be changed to: “. goal is to give thoughtful and constructive assessments and suggestions and nothing in the evaluation constitutes a guarantee of eventual success.” Waldron asked the FPC if everyone agreed with the changes as recommended by Webb. The FPC approved.

The FPC discussed the second point presented by Algina where he recommended the second sentence in the first paragraph be modified. Webb recommended that the paragraph be restated as, “The purpose of the review is to provide structured feedback on the candidates’ progress toward tenure and promotion.” Waldron asked the FPC if everyone agreed with the changes as recommended by Webb. The FPC approved.

The FPC discussed one final change to the policy draft. The first and last sentence of the last paragraph will be kept while the sentences in between will be removed.

Mirka asked how current pre-tenure faculty would be reviewed. Webb replied that current pre-tenure faculty would also be reviewed.

Waldron asked FPC if they accept the amendments to the policy draft. Lamme made a motion to approve the policy as presented with changes discussed. Yeager seconded the motion. The policy changes passed with 9 FPC members voting for and 1 member abstaining.

2. Participation of non-tenured faculty in college governance

The Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee submitted a report recommending the expansion of the definitions of faculty and participation of non-tenured faculty in governance. The UF Faculty Senate is also discussing the same issue and is due to vote on it soon. Their definition includes full time non tenured faculty and P.K. Yonge faculty.

Waldron noted that because the definition requires constitutional change, it needs to be discussed by FPC to make recommendations to the faculty. Waldron will provide the information and place it on the FPC website for comments from faculty.

Conroy questioned the rational for not including P.K. Yonge and non-tenured faculty in the archives. Waldron noted that committee went with university policy. Conroy added that sharing that conversation would be important in making decisions.

Wood asked if P.K. Yonge faculty would be precluded from receiving a degree from UF if they are labeled as faculty. Campbell noted that the question should be explored. Wood asked if the rights of those with tenure and tenure track positions lose their rights.

Waldron asked if it would be helpful to post or if it would be confusing to faculty. Lamme recommended posting next year. Archer questioned if the faculty are complaining. Waldron replied yes. Wood noted that if faculty thought something was unfair, they could file a grievance.

Campbell asked if the university senate takes action to approve P.K. Yonge, is COE still obligated to include P.K. Yonge. Wood followed by asking if P.K. Yonge is a part of the bargaining unit because if so, it would strengthen P.K. Yonge faculty’s argument. Campbell noted that the decision may be mute if decided. Wood suggested FPC wait for a vote. Conroy added that FPC would decide how to proceed next year.

3. Faculty Review of Dean Emihovich

Waldron reported that everything is ready for Dean Emihovich’s Review by COE Faculty. The Provost’s Office also sent a survey for faculty to review Dean Emihovich. COE faculty will be completing both reviews. Waldron will be providing a cover letter and an explanation of the two surveys to faculty via e-mail. The Agenda committee will analyze and share the review with Dean Emihovich, COE departments, and FPC.

Campbell made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Archer seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

March 22, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: James Algina (for Mirka Koro-Ljungberg), Jim Archer, Patricia Ashton (for Jennifer Asmus), Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Dale Honeyman (for Craig Wood), Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Elizabeth Yeager

Members absent: Craig Wood, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Jennifer Asmus

Others present: Catherine Emihovich, John Kranzler, Rod Webb

---

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for March 22, 2004
   
   Algina made a motion to approve the March 22, 2004 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron. Yeager seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the minutes of the February 23, 2004 meeting
   Honeyman made a correction to the minutes.Ashton made a motion to approve the February 23, 2004minutes with the change requested. Algina seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 2004 from 11:00 – 12:00 noon. Issues to be placed on the agenda for this meeting should be forwarded to Waldron or Conroy.

2. COE Spring Faculty Meeting.

Waldron reported that the COE Spring Faculty meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2004 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. An announcement was sent out to faculty. A reminder will be sent this week.

3. Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

Waldron reminded FPC members that they are invited to attend the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting with President Machen on Tuesday, March 30^th, from 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. in the Terrace Room.

4.   Associate Dean Search Committee Meeting

Waldron shared that a message from Kranzler was sent today updating FPC about the Associate Dean search. FPC members were asked to send comments directly to Kranzler or other members of the committee. Kranzler will send out another update after a plan is created.

5.   Call for Nominations for 2004-05 FPC Representatives

Waldron will send a message next week to both the general faculty and department chairs to notify them of FPC positions available. Department chairs have already been notified that three nominations per department are needed. Once votes are decided, length of FPC term will be decided as well.

Report from Dean

1. Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

Dean Emihovich asked FPC members interested in attending the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting with President Machen on Tuesday, March 30^th, from 9:00 – 10:00 in the Terrace Room to contact the Dean’s office because refreshments will be provided.

2. Scholarships of Engagement

Dean Vernetson will be sending out a message asking faculty to nominate a graduate student for the Scholarship of Engagement Award. Criteria for nominees will be distributed as well.

3. Budget Report

Dean Emihovich announced that she would be sharing the comprehensive budget report at FPC’s April 5^th meeting. Projections for summer funding are positive. Carry over funds will be used for: a) $18,000 Presidential Fellowships using GRE and GPA as fellowship criteria, b) student recruitment, c) raising TA stipends to attract more students.

Archer asked if these funds would be used this year. Dean Emihovich confirmed that the funds would be used in the fall 2004.

Kranzler noted that 38 doctoral students were nominated for fellowships with offers to the top ranked 24.

Dean Emihovich added that the push is for high quality doctoral-level graduate students and GPA and GRE scores will be used as criteria for fellowships. She encouraged faculty to recruit additional doctoral-level students and stated that her office is committed to finding funding for these students. This type of activity will assist in growing the COE’s doctoral programs.

4. President Machen’s University Reorganization Announcement

The Deans and Vice Presidents of the University were advised prior to President Machen’s announcements of his reorganization plans. Dean Emihovich shared that she is unsure of the implications of reorganizations for COE at this time.  One possible influential change is that Provost Colburn has resigned. The search for a new Provost will begin in late summer or early fall 2004. Dean Emihovich suggested that FPC members may want explore with President Machen at the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting his views on the COE.  At previous meetings, President Machen has discussed his interest in University of Florida’s Colleges having more autonomy, shared governance to improve faculty climate, and interdisciplinary efforts. Dean Emihovich is preparing a packet of COE’s Program Review to share with President Machen.

Archer asked if there were internal candidates for the Provost position. Dean Emihovich replied that it will be a national search, but that does not exclude internal candidates.

5.    Informational Meeting for Faculty About the Union

Dean Emihovich shared that Joe Glover would like to speak to COE’s’s faculty about union issues. She needs feedback as to the best venue (e.g., FPC or a faculty meeting). Dean Emihovich asked if there would be time for Joe Glover to speak at the next FPC meeting. Waldron replied yes. However, Archer questioned the implications of giving Joe Glover time. Waldron commented that it might be better to announce a separate meeting to the faculty. Archer suggested providing a forum for a representative from the administration and a representative from the union to present. Dean Emihovich added that Joe Glover wanted a chance to speak in order to give information to the faculty.

Campbell asked if the Administration is working with the Faculty Senate but not talking to the union. Archer and Waldron confirmed that the Administration is not talking to the union.

Campbell commented that Joe Glover should be invited to speak to the faculty. Archer remarked that if Joe Glover is invited, other union representatives should be invited as well.

Honeyman suggested that FPC provide meeting information to faculty members at the spring faculty meeting.

Waldron question if FPC should handle this issue. Dean Emihovich noted that FPC represents COE faculty and it would be inappropriate for the Dean’s Office to handle the meeting. Dean Emihovich added that she was relaying information.

Campbell noted that the most immediate issue for a union representative meeting would be arranging a time where both representatives could be present or arranging a separate forum. Dean Emihovich suggested allocating a portion of the FPC meeting on April 5^th or April 19^th. Archer added doing so with time parameters. Emihovich suggested using the Terrace Room. Archer recommended inviting the faculty and providing 15 minutes to each union representative to speak. Lamme recommended scheduling the union representative meeting with a prescheduled meeting if FPC wants faculty to attend. Conroy added that getting such a forum together is short notice.

Conroy replied that having union representatives share information would be important prior to the faculty vote. Dean Emihovich agreed. Archer questioned if a vote was scheduled. Dean Emihovich replied that no vote was scheduled but that faculty should be thinking about the issues.

Conroy recommended holding an informational meeting on a Monday following a FPC meeting.

Archer commented that if faculty were interested they would attend. Dean Emihovich agreed and added that not having any union representative speak would send the wrong message.

Archer made a motion to invite the union representatives to speak from 4:00 – 4:30 on April 19^th after the FPC meeting. Lamme seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Waldron requested assistance in making this happen. Campbell and Honeyman volunteered to assist. Dean Emihovich stated that her office would check the schedules of both union representatives.

6. College of Education Program Review

Dean Emihovich reported that the COE program review with the Provost has been moved to April 5^th. The review contains budget information and will be shared with all departments prior to the April 5^th meeting.

7.      Dean’s Review

Dean Emihovich noted that the Dean’s narrative summary would be placed on the COE’s webpage.

8. Personnel Change

Dean Emihovich shared that Mary Driscoll will be leaving COE to a director position at Saint Bonaventure. Dean Emihovich expressed her appreciation of Mary Driscoll’s fundraising efforts including her raising over $2 million and increasing COE’s endowed fellowships. Dean Emihovich added that the position would be posted.

9.      Alliance Director and Center for School Improvement Director Search

Dean Emihovich reported that the search for Alliance and Center for School Improvement Directors are under way. These searches are internal searches.

10.   Update on National Issues Related to Teacher Education

Dean Emihovich reported that the government is conducting a new study of Teacher Education programs and although the quality of our teacher education program is good, the COE may have to modify the way things are done. The Educational Leadership program as well as the Teacher Education programs will be scrutinized. Dean Emihovich added that attention has to stay focused on our graduate masters, specialist, and doctoral programs (especially in attracting doctoral students).

Campbell asked who specifically is studying COE’s Teacher Education Program and where is it in the policy frame? Dean Emihovich asked Campbell to hold his question, as discussions will soon follow.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

College Curriculum Committee Report Deferred

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee Report Deferred

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee Report Deferred

4. Long Range Planning Committee

Long Range Planning Committee Report Deferred

5. Research Advisory Committee

Research Advisory Committee Report Deferred

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee

Yeager reported that the Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee is brainstorming about issues related to student recruitment. This committee will review these issues and present them to the FPC. The next committee meeting is scheduled for April 21^st, at 9 a.m. in the Educational Psychology conference room.

7.      Technology Committee

Technology Committee Report Deferred

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean

Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean Report Deferred

New Business

1. Procedures/Survey for Annual Review of COE Dean

Yeager made a motion to place the Procedures/Survey for Annual Review of COE Dean on the table. Conroy seconded the motion. Campbell reported that the evaluation instrument and procedures were distributed for comments, documentation of consensus, and feedback. No feedback was given on the procedures. The evaluation instrument had the only substantive change where non-tenured accruing faculty members are now given the opportunity to comment.

Algina asked if the evaluation instrument and procedures would be used this year if accepted? Campbell replied that they would be used this year. Waldron added that if it were approved, FPC would move ahead and that she has asked Dean Emihovich to post her goals for COE.

Lamme shared that she was asked to evaluate someone in liberal arts and the form they used was efficient and open ended. She suggested that a similar form be created for COE next year.

Conroy pointed out that non-tenured accruing faculty had been added to the survey. Honeyman added that non-tenured faculty are not accrued.

Waldron noted that non-tenured accruing faculty had to be added to number 5 on the procedures for Annual Review of the COE Dean.

Lamme suggested that non-tenured accruing faculty be changed to not tenure track.

Algina asked what the official definition of who fits in the non-tenured track and the non-tenured accruing faculty category. Webb commented that these are lecturers, full time faculty members, and assistant scholars.

Algina questioned if this would include “soft” and “hard” money people. Waldron replied yes.

Waldron added that this is consistent with FPC’s discussion on reconsidering voting faculty and non-tenured accruing faculty participate. Campbell noted that this is consistent with the philosophy that we would give the Dean feedback from everyone.

Algina, Lamme, and Honeyman asked why department chairs and FPC members were being identified. Waldron pointed out that FPC members and department chairs have more contact with the Dean than faculty members. Conroy noted that one faculty chair expressed concerns. Waldron noted that the data was optional. Campbell suggested that this information be left off. Archer added that FPC wants people to be honest when they respond.

Lamme recommended that more space be added for people to write.

Campbell added that if the only issue is identifying department chairs, the survey could be changed in the future.

Kranzler noted that the Dean would not see the raw data if completed via the web.

Waldron summarized that the first line of the evaluation instrument would be removed and the comment section would be expanded.

Yeager made a motion to accept the procedures and evaluation instrument with changes. The motion passed unanimously.

Waldron noted that a minimum of 3 members would be designated to review results and decide on how it would be presented to the Dean. Lamme asked if the instrument would be paper or electronic. Waldron replied paper and that help was available to type the responses. Conroy, Campbell, and Lamme volunteered to help review and present the results.

Waldron thanked the committee members for their work on the instrument and procedures.

2.      COE Procedures for Pre-Tenure Review

Waldron requested discussion and feedback from FPC members regarding COE Procedures for Pre-Tenure Review. The University requires set guidelines for Pre-Tenure Review. COE and the University’s guidelines do not correspond. COE policy needs to be adjusted so that it aligns closer to guidelines by the end of the spring. The issue is coming to FPC for discussion, resolution, and a policy that is OK with faculty members and meets the guidelines. Waldron will work with others to modify current COE policy to make it more consistent to the University’s policy. Webb created a document that notes COE’s Pre-Tenure Review options towards a policy document.

Campbell noted that COE policy is more enabling and questioned if sticking with COE policy was an option. Honeyman responded that we had to stick with university policy.

Campbell suggested that there could be a 3^rd year college review and a 4^th year official review that the department head and Dean signed off on. Conroy noted that this would be a lot of work.

Lamme recommended that COE should stick with University guidelines because they give broader options.

Honeyman asked if it was important for chairs to review non-tenured faculty in the 3^rd year. Algina responded that chairs should start in the first year.

Lamme added that the policy would have an impact on tenured faculty (e.g., time) and so the policy should be configured to benefit everyone involved.

Honeyman questioned who would have access to pre-tenure reviews, as a non-tenured faculty receiving a glowing report in year 3 or 4 not receiving tenure in year 7 may be an issue.

Archer responded that the information is a part of the personnel file, which may be confidential. Archer questioned what would be the cost benefit and also people would be kept from research.

Campbell noted that new policies would be less of an issue if non-tenured faculty start out with them.

Algina questioned why mimicking the tenure process was thrown out. Waldron replied that COE moved away from mimicking the tenure process because it was too formal. Waldron asked FPC members if they thought the process should mimic. Lamme replied that mimicking procedures would give faculty members experience. Honeyman and Yeager agreed.

Waldron restated the procedures discussed: a) the whole department making a vote statement about faculty progress and the department decides on the procedures, b) materials for pre-tenure review will mimic tenure review materials (including three external letters), c) department chair meets and shares department perspectives with the candidate.

Webb noted that University policy includes the Dean in the pre-tenure review process. Lamme suggested: a) the department head sharing the review with the Dean, b) the department vote, and then c) the department head conferences with the non-tenured faculty member.

Algina suggested that the Department Chair writes and sends a letter to the Dean who endorses and makes comments that will be sent to the candidate.

Waldron noted that she would organize and write down the policy discussion and send to the committee for review.

3. Comments received regarding proposal on Doctoral Research Requirements

Waldron reported that 18 comments regarding doctoral research requirements were received. 14 people supported the proposal. 4 did not support the proposal. 5 commented specifically about the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies approving substitute and alternative courses with 4 saying the Dean should not have this responsibility.

Conroy made a motion to put this proposal on the table. Algina seconded.

Waldron asked the FPC to discuss the proposal to see if it would improve current policy or if doctoral research requirements should be left as they are.

Lamme commented that the committee should make the final decision about the research hours and courses doctoral students must take. Conroy reported that the faculty in Special Education are supportive of the document. Conroy added that classes not listed in the policy could be taken while those listed would provide a research foundation. Honeyman agreed stating that the Educational Leadership faculty requires 22 hours of research for their doctoral students and the classes listed in the policy are merely a base line. Lamme noted that research in her department is classroom based and so doctoral students there need different standards.

Kranzler question how one person can make a decision about appropriate coursework for every discipline sharing that he has consulted others if he has had any uncertainty.

Scott asked why a list of substitute and/or alternative courses could not be listed up front. Algina and Kranzler agreed.

Waldron noted that that was an issue or further discussion.

Algina noted that procedures for approving courses would have to be developed.

Lamme suggested discussing the policy in parts. Waldron responded that the list of courses is a major concern of faculty members.

Conroy asked if faculty feedback was supportive of the policy. Lamme noted that her department was unanimously against the policy. Yeager mentioned that the email feedback provided to Waldron indicated that some STL faculty supported the plan, but also indicated that they opposed oversight/approval of course substitutions from the Associate Dean’s office.

Campbell made a motion to vote to approval the proposal. The proposal passed with 7 approving, 2 declining. Linda Lamme & Elizabeth Yeager, from STL, cast declining votes.

Waldron shared that the next step would be to send the issue to the Agenda Committee including procedures for adding courses to the approved list of courses. Waldron added that if STL had concerns, the department could bring them to the Agenda Committee.

Unfinished Business

1. Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan

Tabled

2. Participation of non-tenured faculty in college governance

Tabled

Waldron adjourned the meeting at 4:04 p.m.

February 9, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Jim Archer, Jennifer Asmus, Maureen Conroy, Dave Honeyman

(alternate for Dale Campbell), Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Craig Wood, Elizabeth Yeager

Members absent: Dale Campbell

Others present: Dean Kranzler

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for February 9, 2004

Conroy made a motion to approve the February 9, 2004 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron. Archer seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the January 12, 2004 minutes

Wood made a correction to the minutes. Asmus made a motion to approve the January 12, 2004 minutes with the changes requested. Honeyman seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for February 16, 2004 from 11:00 – 12:00 noon. Issues to be placed on the agenda for this meeting should be forwarded to Waldron or Conroy.

2. COE Spring Faculty Meeting.

Waldron reported that the Spring Faculty meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2004 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. An announcement including the location of this meeting will be sent out to faculty.

3. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs – Search Committee Membership

Conroy and Waldron met with the Dean to discuss additional faculty members for the Associate Dean Search committee. The new list of search committee members was presented to the FPC. Kranzler made a correction to the search committee membership list noting that Dr. Don Pemberton, Director of the Lastinger Center for Learning, will not be serving on the committee. Waldron announced that review of applications for Associate Dean for Academic Affairs position will begin on February 16, 2004.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

Conroy reported that the minutes for this committee will be placed on the web. The last meeting was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. Reading courses were on hold, but they have been approved. Proposals are on review for developing an interdisciplinary, cross discipline, doctorate.

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee

Archer stated that he does not know when the committee meets because he has not received notice of the meetings. Waldron referred him to the committee chair, Dick Allington. Waldron reported that the committee is putting the final touches on the proposal for representation of nontenure accruing faculty on the FPC. She expects this proposal to be presented to the FPC in March.

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Asmus reported that they have completed the nominations for Doctoral Dissertation Advisor/Mentoring Award. Kranzler stated that the Faculty Travel Awards deadline is February 18, 2004. The committee is currently receiving applications for the faculty travel award. This competition will use the same criterion that was used last year. In addition, Asmus reported that the President of the University of Florida, Dr. J. Bernard Machen, will speak at commencement.

4. Long Range Planning Committee

No report

5. Research Advisory Committee

Wood reported that the committee is working on a proposal for developing an ad hoc committee for the research professorship award.  Criteria for application materials for this award are currently being discussed.

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee

Yeager reported that the topic for the last meeting was graduate student recruitment and retention and surveys of recent graduate students. Graduate student enrollment has dropped and is expected to continue to drop in the fall 2004. This may be due to a lack of resources. To increase enrollment, the committee has discussed creating posters, making changes to the web page, reviewing enrollment trends, producing recruitment materials for faculty to share at conferences, developing a recruitment database as well as distance education programs, and evaluating what other programs do to recruit students. The committee will be meeting on Wednesday, February 9, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.

Yeager announced that the contact person for the newly created graduate student organization is Karen Kuhel who will be providing FPC with a graduate student representative.

Kranzler noted that a list of questions have been distributed to all departments asking them about recruiting graduate students. The responses will be tallied and summarized on Wednesday. Additionally, COE will award a Dell laptop to the graduate student awarded with the Presidential Fellowship.

Conroy asked if the committee had considered increasing graduate assistantships and stipends. Yeager indicated that they did although the committee is still discussing how to acquire those funds.

7.  Technology Committee

Scott reported that the committee has discussed the web policy and it has been distributed to department chairs. Following department chair review, the web policy will be presented to the FPC. Kranzler noted that if department chairs have questions or concerns the web policy would be reviewed and revised before it is presented to FPC.

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean

Campbell reported that the committee is collecting information from Kansas-State and other universities to use as sample assessment tools.  The committee will be meeting following the FPC meeting. The preliminary information they have collected and developed is being refined.

Report from Dean

No report

New Business

1. Faculty Attendance at Spring COE Commencement

Waldron announced that the first college only commencement will be held on Sunday, May 2, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. Dr. Vernetson, (committee chair), requested that FPC discuss how to encourage faculty attendance at the commencement. Yeager stated that having President Machen speak at commencement is the committee’s biggest accomplishment so far. The committee wants a good faculty turn out at commencement so they are pleading with faculty to be present and support the event.

Honeyman questioned if arrangements have been made about the role of faculty. Yeager responded that the committee is still discussing faculty involvement. Honeyman questioned the time of day of commencement and whether or not lunch could be provided to faculty members. Yeager responded that social activities as well as the recognition of faculty have been discussed including a brunch and/or a reception for select groups.

Asmus questioned whether or not regalia would be provided. Honeyman shared his experience with commencement where faculty was required to attend but though expensive, the Dean paid for regalia.

Waldron agreed that COE faculty should be recognized and the committee should make it as easy as possible for faculty to participate.

Wood questioned if faculty would still be hooding doctoral students. Yeager responded to the affirmative and reported that marshals have already ready been arranged.

Wood was concerned about selectively providing brunch versus cookies and punch to commencement attendees because of it potential to set an unfair tone. Yeager responded that it is a budget issue and that there would be distinguished guests and the college cannot feed the entire group. Wood replied that using “select” defeats the purpose. Yeager responded that the committee is still discussing the event.

Waldron asked FPC how they thought faculty attendance could be enhanced. Archer questioned the cost of regalia. Asmus replied that the cost was between $50 and $70. Waldron shared that other colleges who have separate commencements have mass measurement and distribution of regalia.

Waldron asked whether or not FPC wanted to leave the issue to the committee or if FPC wanted to make a statement. Archer stated that if the committee wanted faculty to participate, they had to provide as many incentives as possible. Honeyman suggested that the college provide faculty with parking. Waldron noted that parking would not be an issue because it is a separate graduatation on a Sunday at O’Connell Center.

Scott shared that marshals did not pay for their regalia last year. Waldron replied that marshals do not pay but other participants do. Archer noted that used regalia could be purchased on the Internet.

Wood questioned why faculty not hooding a doctoral student would go. Waldron responded that the commencement would be a nice end of year event. Conroy stated that if faculty had a defined role it would be beneficial for them to attend and that undergraduate students like to see faculty present. Yeager added that from a public relations perspective, faculty attendance is important. Conroy noted that she is proud of her undergraduate students and in her past experience faculty has been able to borrow regalia.

Archer suggested that because students and faculty are much more connected to their departments, departments may consider organizing their own activities.

Asmus questioned whether or not graduate and undergraduate students were participating in commencement. Yeager responded that there was just once commencement for all students.

Waldron asked the length of commencement. Yeager replied that commencement is 1^1/2 hours.

Waldron and Conroy will forward FPC comments to Vernetson.

2. Admission requirements to Secondary and Pathways to Education Minors

Yeager made a motion to put undergraduate minor admission requirements amendments on the table. Archer seconded the motion.

Yeager reported that changes to the admission requirements for Secondary PROTEACH students has been initiated because the committee wants to make Pathways to Teaching and Secondary PROTEACH consistent, eliminate barriers to recruiting, and conform to state requirements.

Honeyman questioned how many students were in the Secondary program. Yeager responded two. Honeyman asked for clarity about whether the changes affect admissions to the minor or to PROTEACH. Yeager replied that the changes would affect the minor.

Honeyman asked if students would still have to follow regular admissions guidelines. Honeyman replied in the affirmative.

A motion was made to accept the changes and the motion was seconded. The FPC unanimously approved the motion.

3. FPC Elections

Waldron shared the FPC procedures that have been used for the last two years. The first two years, elections were by paper ballot. Last year, elections were completed on the Internet. Waldron asked for a discussion on how elections will take place this year noting that online voting went smoothly last year. Additionally, Waldron shared a tentative timeline for elections. The dates listed do not conflict with spring break or major conferences and it also provides time for the new council to meet on May 3^rd in order to elect a new Secretary.

Wood questioned if FPC is observing contracts. Waldron responded that faculty is on contract until the 5^th.

a.   Internet elections

Archer and Honeyman agreed with the use of the Internet if it is easier and it works. Asmus questioned whether or not double signing would be a concern. Waldron responded that it would not. Koro-Ljungberg questioned the percentage of people responding to the Internet election compared to those responding to the written. Waldron replied that she will check that information and added that with the Internet there were no complications or difficulties and the results were immediate.

Honeyman questioned what problems there were with the language in the write up of FPC elections procedures. Waldron indicated that the languages of the procedures are written as though the elections are done on paper. Waldron stated that if FPC decided to continue with web elections, she would tailor the language. Waldron also added that we could do both web elections and paper ballots.

Asmus asked if there were any complaints with web elections. Waldron replied that there were none.

Honeyman questioned if there could be a run off on the web. Waldron responded yes.

Kranzler shared that in the future FPC would be able to create their own ballots.

Waldron asked FPC if elections should be placed on the web. FPC unanimously agreed. Waldron will change the language of the FPC elections procedures so it is consistent with Internet elections and distribute the procedures for review prior to the next meeting.

b.   Elections time line

Waldron shared that the election takes place over seven business days. Asmus noted that the COE Spring Faculty Meeting on Wednesday, March 29^th almost coincides with nominations. Yeager suggested that nominations be extended to the 29^th of March in order to give faculty additional time to nominate. Waldron will extend the nomination period.

Waldron noted that calls for nominations are to listserv requesting department chairs for FPC Representatives. Calls for committee members go directly to department chairs.

Waldron asked FPC for additional comments. Waldron will proceed.

4. Proposal on Doctoral Research Requirements

Waldron reported that she has yet to send out a message based on FPC report asking faculty for comments on doctoral research requirements.

Waldron reminded FPC that the next meeting is on February 23^rd from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Asmus made a motion for adjournment. Yeager seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.