Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the February 14, 2011 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158

Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), James Algina (SHDOSE), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), and Twyla Mancil (Graduate Assistant)

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

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Agenda Unanimously Approved

Approval of November 15, 2010 Minutes: Editorial amendments suggested; Jeff Hurt moved to approve, Stephen Smith seconded, unanimous approval.

Related Action: Twyla L. Mancil will make the above changes and then submit minutes to John Donaldson for uploading to the FPC website.

Dean’s Report

Budget Update
The mid-year budget reviews were completed. All units are projected to have an overall carry-forward balance in the neighborhood of $900,000. In addition, some money is available through the DOCE fees, separate from Distance Education tuition. However, there is a limitation on this money—can only be used to support Distance Education instruction. Overall, the COE has a $1.4 million carry-forward for the next budget year.

The Business Office estimates that approximately $20 million is needed to run the College at current levels. After $1.5 is allocated to alumni fellowships, we’re left with a gap of about $2 million. Last year the gap was made up with what was available in reserves. Now there is nothing in reserve. After we apply the 1.4 million in carry-forward funds, next year’s budget falls short by approximately $600,000. One option suggested was that DSR taxes (about $500,000) be paid from the OER/IDC account. If OER/IDC funds are used in this way, and there are no budget cuts from the state, the COE will be solvent for the upcoming year. However, there are no other new lines for hiring faculty in the budget so new hires in the next year would have to come from retirees and resignations. In essence, the COE will be able to maintain the status quo, but not support growth.

Discussion ensued regarding clinical vs. tenure-tracked faculty, and the possibility of moving individuals on and off line to free up funds, such as in the case of faculty having grants. No losses among support staff are being assumed.

$385k has been allocated for Summer school (which almost exactly matches the previous summer allocation), and directors have been asked to turn in projections for Summer A, which
are due on February 15, 2011. It will be discussed in DAC and allocations will be made accordingly. It will be important for Directors to maintain SCH generation, which may mean they will have to hire others besides faculty.

The Dean proceeded to discuss the National Council of Teacher Quality survey. In the past this group targeted the COE Reading program and gave it poor reviews, which led to the COE having to respond as to why they got it wrong. This organization has now teamed with US News and World Report. A number of Deans have resisted this. All the Provosts were supportive of the COE, and the chancellor will be writing a letter as to why UF does not need to participate in this given the strong accountability measures already in place. Overall, it is a very contested issue and is raising a lot of alarms across the campus.

Report from Associate Dean of Academic Affairs

External Program reviews are occurring within graduate programs across the College. New Graduate School Rules require that all graduate programs receive an external review every 7 years. Programs that were reviewed by the NCATE/DOE review process may use that review; other programs (there are 25 of those within the College) must schedule an external review. The purpose is not to have an evaluation of the program that goes to the Provost. The external review is part of an internal review process. Each program will use the reviews as their own self-study.

The Board of Governers has tasked the SUS Provosts to look at programs with low enrollment. The Provost indicated he wanted to close three of our programs –the middle school education bachelor’s degree, the specialist degree in REM, and the specialist degree in college student personnel higher education (to which students are not admitted but is used for those who decide not to complete the doctorate degree). This will be a process as the semester goes on and included in the final decisions whether programs should be closed or phased out over time. The COE has been proactive in closing programs that are no longer active, so relatively few programs should be impacted by this review. Several other degree levels in the college have been either no or low graduates or enrollment, and we might be able to do a little curricular cleanup in that process. Discussion ensued regarding whether this is a cost-cutting catalyst. This will not really reduce cost, but to those outside the University, such as legislators, these efforts will save perceptions. It is a way of avoiding duplication of programs across the state as well. Thus, it is both a PR and duplication issue. These efforts are occurring across the country. Regarding other institutions, many are only now beginning to feel the budget crisis that the UF COE has been feeling. During the program review process, this might be something to add to help justify our programs’ existence. Regarding the duplication issue across the state, there is always the opportunity to make an argument to maintain a program, although one needs to be careful on which programs are defended.

Associate Dean for Research search. We do not have significant numbers of new applications. The search committee will meet next week to decide next steps.

COE Website Architectural Modification. Tom Dana provided data from first 11 days of the new website, which assessed the number of users accessing the COE site, the top content, the top keyword searches, links to sites, and so forth. Overall, the architecture of the website has
changed so decisions about web pages can be made. It is a marketing website, and therefore program-centric. You should be able to access information about specific programs from the website. The publishing system is WordPress, which allows for multiple authors and means everyone can be the author of his/her own page. Faculty/Programs can still submit a request for an update/webpage change through John Donaldson.

Discussion ensued regarding whether this change will reduce spam. It was indicated that this would not necessarily reduce spam because “crawlers” can still crawl the website for email addresses. However, the COE does have diagnostic tools to study this, including a team that can manage the servers remotely.

Further discussion ensued regarding the movement to a new website format, with specific concerns noted on the lack of communication to individual faculty concerning such a major change. It was indicated that this was a 2-year process with involvement from multiple levels, including Directors. There was a transition team working for the last several months that included people from different programs. Faculty may not have been aware of the impending change, but Directors were aware. Training for those who want to go through the process will be announced, and there is also the option of submitting a request to John Donaldson. However, it was also noted that this topic did not come through the FPC over the past 1.5 years, and there was a disconnect regarding the flow of information to the bulk of the faculty. The Dean’s Office indicated that the decision was made to go through the school and program directors and rely on them to filter the information to faculty. It was noted by FPC members that there is an ongoing need to improve the flow of communication from administrators to faculty. Further discussion at the DAC was indicated.

Action Items

Summer Compensation Model
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)

Discussion:
Tina Smith-Bonahue opened with a brief overview of what occurred at the last FPC meeting. The BAC went back and looked at whether new data would change the motion. They decided they did not want to change anything and so the motion remains the same.

Paul Sindelar read the motion aloud regarding the Proposed Guidelines Consistent with UF Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 17 Summer Appointments and Assignments, Section 17.5cde Compensation. “The faculty member shall receive approximately the same total salary for teaching a course during a Summer appointment as received for teaching the same course or a course similar in credit hours and content during the academic year regardless of the length of Summer appointment. For each three credit hour course assigned during the Summer, the faculty member shall receive 12.5% of the faculty member’s academic year rate of pay. Compensation for courses more or less than three credit hours shall be prorated accordingly. Other credit generating activities, such as thesis or dissertation supervision, directed individual study, supervised teaching or research, or supervision of student interns as well as research or service activities may be assigned during Summer term. However, no faculty member shall be required to undertake such assigned other credit generating activities or assigned research or service activities without compensation for that specific activity in addition to the compensation provided to the faculty member’s summer instructional assignment. Faculty members who have not been assigned a Summer course shall not be required to undertake committee work without compensation for such.”

The motion was offered up for discussion. Clarification was gained regarding taking on students for additional work beyond the 100% and in cases where there is no money for the work. It was indicated that this would be up to individual Directors and would not change from previous years.

Motion: 10 in favor, one abstention; motion approved.

Tina Smith-Bonahue indicated the FPC’s gratitude to the BAC for their efforts.

Discussion Items

Strategic Planning Update

Name of Reporter: Paul Sindelar (FPC Secretary, SESPECS)

There was a meeting on Friday in which the two facilitators, including Jodie Gentry, the Steering Committee, and concept paper work group chairs and second members. The meeting also was open to all faculty. Roughly 20 people attended. Two items were discussed: a) the purpose statement and b) concept papers. We seem to be on the right track now, though consensus was not reached regarding the purpose statement. Six of the seven groups reported on concept papers. Some are farther along than others. The concept papers are due 10 a.m. on March 11th so they can be distributed a week before the full-faculty retreat on March 18th. Papers should be about five pages long, can be developed as executive summaries with bullets, and should be designed to share the thought processes of each group. Elements of the concept paper include: contact, strategic direction, big ideas, concerns, and recommendations. Also there was a discussion of keeping personal agendas out of reports and that was agreed upon. The two facilitators seemed impressed with the content and work of the groups and were upbeat about where we are in the process. From our side of things, the March 11th deadline seems short, but performance is good at this point.

Constitutional Revision—Ad Hoc Committees

Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS)
Discussion:
One of important roles of FPC is to help funnel faculty service so that it is as efficient, yet undemanding as possible. One thing that often comes up is the need for ad hoc committees (e.g., the productivity task force from last year, the strategic planning steering committee this year). However, it seems as if faculty are being asked to contribute at different times and rates throughout the year. If there is a way to review the constitution and use some of the standing committees to do some of the things that ad hoc committees are being used to do, it seems
advisable. Specific language regarding this constitutional change was discussed, as was ensuring that certain committees were not overloaded with work. Stephen Pape also indicated that he still has not heard from most of the committees regarding their review of the constitution and indicated he would send out an email again.

Annual Evaluation of the Dean

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

Discussion:
There is a an FPC constitutional responsibility to evaluate the Dean annually. This year it is only Dean Emihovich. For the last several years, David Miller has managed the data from the survey and is willing to do that again. In preparation for the discussion, Tina Smith-Bonahue met with the Dean. She indicated from her perspective there are three areas of performance resource generation, budget management, and presenting the public face of the college. Upon a review of the survey, there are a number of questions that generally look at these items, but few items were of very little importance to faculty based on last year’s results.

The FPC members decided to conduct the evaluation as a whole group rather than form an ad hoc committee. Decisions to be made include deciding on a time line, a master list of faculty, and determine what to do with the results (i.e., how to analyze them, summarize them, and with whom we share them—though that is somewhat limited). The FPC members decided to use the same questions as last year after a discussion on the process of developing the survey, including input from the Dean. However, adding a “Comments and/or Recommendations” section was agreed upon so as to provide specific feedback.

Discussion ensued regarding what to do with the results of the survey. Historically, these results were used as part of an internal method of evaluation. However, the results from the previous year were provided to the Provost to be used in an evaluative way, so due to concerns raised by UF general counsel, the data were not shared to all faculty members. Further clarification on whether or not a summary of the results can be shared with all faculty members while also providing the results to the Provost in an evaluative manner is needed. The procedures for giving feedback to the Dean based upon the results of the survey were also discussed. Traditionally, the chair and secretary of the FPC meet with the Dean and provide feedback. A vote on treating the survey as an evaluation and sending it to the Provost was withdrawn due to a need for further information, especially that pertaining to whether or not the results could be summarized and shared with all faculty members if the survey is used as a formal evaluation of the Dean. Setting a timeline was postponed until the next FPC meeting (March 14th) to provide time for gathering additional information regarding the use of the survey as an evaluation.

Related Action:
Tina will contact Barbara Wingo, of the UF general counsel’s office, to find out if a summary can be distributed to faculty, as well as sharing the results with the Provost in an evaluative manner, and will summarize the conversation via email with FPC members; FPC members will further communication on the topic via email.

Committee Reports

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

The BAC is continuing to work on the concept paper. Issues around understanding the costs of programs, developing a framework for considering all the factors of operating programs (e.g., quality, etc.), and understanding how research activities factor in are being considered; strategic mission contributes to that. At the last meeting, Naomi and Catherine shared a mid-year report and indicated they were on-track. However, the BAC was concerned that the data were not complete regarding the Dean’s expenses and so want more information in that area.

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

Discussion:
Met on January 24th and discussed the Early Childhood Policy and Advocacy course. Two new courses were also considered, though a vote was not taken because the syllabi needed additional work. However, revisions to the syllabi were provided within one day and, based upon a straw poll, things are looking positive. The CCC is going to review the Graduate SLO proposals for completeness and appropriateness in submitting the documents. The CCC is meeting on Wednesday to put together the agenda.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Everyone is reminded to attend the film series on diversity. Not many faculty or classes signed up the previous week.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

Discussion:
At the last meeting, pre-tenure review was discussed. Many people do not understand the process and so it was clarified. In addition, promotion guidelines for clinical faculty were also discussed (a document regarding these guidelines was shared). The FPC will need to consider and hopefully vote on these guidelines at the next FPC meeting on March 12th with the FAC in attendance.

Related Action:

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee
Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
Decided to take on the work for the graduate student awards. We received the applications today and will be moving forward with them.

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

Discussion:
Already addressed.

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Nothing to report.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

Name of Reporter: Jeff Hurt, STL

Discussion:
Holding off on meeting until SPC is finished.

The meeting adjourned at: 4:07
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

Faculty Policy Council
Minutes of the November 15, 2010 Regular Meeting
Location: Norman 158

Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), James Algina (SHDOSE), Shelly Warm (STL), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), Dan McCoy (DE Associate Director), and Twyla Mancil (Graduate Assistant)

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

Approval of Agenda and Minutes
Approval of Agenda: Hours for Strategic Planning Retreat listed on the agenda were changed from 3:00-5:00 to 9:00-5:00; unanimous approval

Approval of October 11, 2010 Minutes: Suggested changes to BAC report: Cyndy Griffin is not the BAC Co-Chair and move the last sentence from the first paragraph (i.e., “The committee…”) to the end of the report from BAC, following the last paragraph; correct spelling of Koran; Jeff Hurt moved to approve with suggested changes, Stephen Smith seconded, unanimous approval.

Approval of Fall Faculty Meeting Minutes: James Algina moved to approve, Jeff Hurt seconded, unanimous approval.

Related Action: Twyla Mancil will make approved changes to October 11, 2010 minutes and submit minutes to John Donaldson for uploading to the FPC website.

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

The structure of FPC meetings and the roles and responsibilities of FPC members were discussed, especially as they relate to the procedures followed during FPC meetings and the participation of guests. The FPC constitution and Robert’s Rules indicate that only elected members are to participate in discussion, except as resources or when called upon by the Council. The contribution of guests to FPC meetings and issues was stressed, as was the need to maintain order of the meeting so as to keep non-members from having access to the floor and essentially taking over the meeting. The priority of ensuring that everyone, including members and guests, feel comfortable in expressing themselves during meetings was emphasized. In summary, members of the larger UF community will be asked to come as a resource, and members are okay with that as long as the meetings are held to order as guests are important sources of input to the whole Council.

Questions about the location of the Strategic Plannin Retreat were addressed. No location has been established but there is a possibility of it being held off-campus.

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich announced that the UF President approved an interdisciplinary UF Center of Excellence in Early Childhood Studies, a long-standing dream of early childhood faculty. Pat Snyder will be the Founding Director. The center will be provided with two years of funding, with hopes of an endowment to follow. Strategic planning in the Spring will outline proposals and initiatives for the center.

Dean Emihovich also briefly discussed the Annual Faculty Research and Engaged Scholarship Showcase, as well as the Conversation with Critical Friends, both of which occurred on November 4th, 2010 and details of which can be seen on the COE website.

The Dean also brought up an issue that has come up among the Board of Governers, which focuses on increasing the emphasis placed on possible system-wide collaborations within the state. The COE’s involvement in such collaborations was discussed, including shared courses in severe disabilities.

Budget Update

No new news on budget. This year’s allocations were allotted based on recommendations from the Budget Summit. The BAC will propose a summer compensation model and allocation process for future budget decisions. Dean Emihovich indicated that she will be working with Naomi on mid-year review just to make sure units are staying where they need to be.

Search Update
Regarding the PKY Director search, the search committee sent four names to the Dean for consideration for possible on-campus interviews. The pool was deemed insufficient, and, as a result, the search was reopened. It was felt that there was a lower response because the search opened in the Spring, which is relatively late. Consideration is being given to hiring a search firm at a cost of approximately $30,000-$40,000 of which PKY would pay a significant portion. The point of hiring a search firm is to broaden the applicant pool. Given that it is highly unlikely that someone will be in place before the current Director, Fran Vandiver, retires, Eileen Oliver will be shadowing and will serve as Interim Director from April 1, 2011 until, hopefully, July 1, 2011.

Regarding the OER Associate Dean search, a meeting was held on Friday, November 12, 2010, and the ad should be posted within the next couple of days. The ad is essentially the same as before, with a greater delineation of responsibilities.

Report from Distance Education and Technology Office OER and the Development Office
Name of Reporter(s): Dan McCoy, DE Associate Director

Discussion:
Mr. McCoy briefly introduced himself, including a synopsis of his background in the technology arena. Mr. McCoy’s primary purpose at the meeting was to broadly discuss entrepreneurial activities within the College, presenting ideas and viewpoints that might be appropriate or
helpful for COE faculty. A major portion of this discussion focused on views of/approaches to intellectual property, including the open-access approach and the proprietary approach. With the open-access approach, intellectual property is publically accessible, whereas with the proprietary approach such information is not freely accessible. Mr. McCoy indicated that current cultural trends show a change towards intellectual property being more freely accessible.

Discussion ensued around the two opposing approaches to intellectual property and how these approaches may/may not affect COE entrepreneurial activities. An FPC member pointed out that the technology to prevent the downloading of intellectual property does exist and is being used by other companies and institutions to protect intellectual property rights. Mr. McCoy indicated that decisions regarding approaches to intellectual property will be left up to the individual faculty member. Ways in which DE can help COE faculty were also discussed, including providing a learning platform, operational support, instructional support, and promotion/informal marketing. Mr. McCoy shared the Office of DE Annual Report with FPC members and provided examples of current entrepreneurial activities of faculty, such as establishing web-based continuing education units (CEUs).

OLD BUSINESS

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

Discussion:
Paul Sindelar and Dorene Ross met with Jodi Gentry, Human Resource Services Director, and asked her to submit a strategic planning proposal. Since then, the SPSC has met twice, once to discuss the possibility of meeting with Ms. Gentry and a second time to meet as a group with Ms. Gentry. At the first meeting, concerns with having HR involved and whether or not individuals would be comfortable with this involvement were discussed. It was decided to have a second meeting in which Ms. Gentry would attend. Upon this meeting, everyone on the committee approved of engaging her in this process. SPSC is meeting again on November 18, 2010 to discuss the details of the process, including the identification of work groups that would be charged with preparing concept papers and a final action/strategic plan for accomplishing our identified goals. Ms. Gentry submitted a budget, which was very modest–$2,000 for the entire year to go through May. This amount falls in the range previously discussed. One of the things that was appreciated about Ms. Gentry’s perspective is that she is amenable to midcourse correction and changing the process.

Discussion ensued regarding Ms. Gentry’s previous work. Ms. Gentry is expected to attend the Strategic Planning Retreat on December 13, 2010. Tina Smith-Bonahue asked other FPC members to encourage other faculty to attend the retreat and was open to suggestions regarding faculty emails eliciting faculty attendance at the retreat. Suggestions were made regarding email content, including explaining Ms. Gentry’s role in the process.

As a reminder, Paul Sindelar noted that he and Dorene Ross are co-chairs of SPSC, with representation from the Productivity Task Force (Tracy Linderholm) and each of the COE
Schools—Hazel Jones (SESPECS), Ruth Lower (STL), Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE), and the Directors.

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

Discussion:
Brief reminder of the task for individual committees to review the portion of the constitution pertaining to their committee and suggest/make changes.

Related Action: Stephen Pape (STL) will send out an email reminder to committee chairs.

NEW BUSINESS

No new business emerged from the agenda.

Committee Reports

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

Discussion:
BAC has met twice. At our October 18th meeting, we discussed sharing across Schools within the COE. School Directors were interviewed with a common set of questions that were fairly broad: what they thought should be encouraged/rewarded in the RCM model; what should be discouraged in terms of activities or under-rewarded in the current RCM model; what major assets do you think the College has that may improve our overall reputation and quality; what major assets does your school have that may improve our overall reputation and quality; what things should be increased to maintain/improve these assets; what role should the schools have in ensuring the financial health and overall reputation of the College; should each school be expected to contribute in similar/different ways; and then a final question about activities that might help improve the financial health/overall reputation of the College. Interviews revealed very different views across the Schools. Some would like the RCM to trickle down to program level; one School emphasized balance; and one school was highly invested in entrepreneurial activity. BAC meets next week and will continue the discussion on these broad based issues of allocation.

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

Discussion:
CCC met Monday, October 25th, 2010, the same day as the Fall Faculty Meeting so the CCC only met for one hour. CCC approved the UFTeach minors in math and science, and changed the name of the remaining Pathways to Teaching minors to Florida Teaching Minors. If faculty have proposals, they can still be placed on the agenda for Monday.

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE (not present)

Discussion:
No report from this committee.

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Tina Smith-Bonahue, FPC Chair (Shelley Warm, STL represented Alyson Adams, STL at the meeting)

Discussion:

Tina Smith-Bonahue read the following report provided by Alyson Adams via email: “FAC met on November 9th and continued discussing 3rd year review policy. We plan to make some revisions to the policy to strengthen it to provide more helpful feedback and follow up to junior faculty, and should be bringing that to FPC in January. We are also continuing to review promotion criteria for non-tenure faculty and should have that for FPC by February. We meet again in mid-December.”

Dave Miller is the FAC Chair.

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

Discussion:
LSA continues to meet electronically. We are reviewing for the faculty Mentoring Award and will make a recommendation for the Doctoral Mentoring Award.

Long Range Planning Committee
Name of Reporter: Cirecie West-Olatunji, SHDOSE (not present)

Discussion:
No report from this committee.

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Next meeting is scheduled for November 18th, 2010. Agenda is to be announced.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

Name of Reporter: Jeff Hurt, STL

Discussion:
Met on October 27th, 2010 and elected Shelly Warm (STL) as the Chair of the committee. TDEC unanimously agreed that ex officio representation on the Distance Education Task Force should be afforded the committee. In light of this agreement, Shelly Warm was selected as the Committee representative, with Swapna Kumar the alternative. Jeff Hurt contacted the members of the task force to inform them of the committee’s decision. In discussing the goals of the committee beyond the role of liaison relative to the Distance Education Task Force, the committee discussed the following issues: a) what technical support is available from the College for faculty involved in grant writing and research?; b) are there/should there be College personnel who are available to support faculty in technical matters relating to grant writing and research?; c) could the College provide faculty with an organizational chart showing who is in the College to provide technical support?; d) who can put websites on the College server and what are the restrictions?; and e) what technology is available for College faculty, especially as it relates to grant writing and research and what needs to be included in grants?

Discussion ensued over what was meant by the term “technology”. It was indicated that “technology” referred to software and hardware, as well as human support. A large portion of technology includes web-based technology, but it was reported that TDEC is not limiting the discussion to such.

The meeting adjourned at: 3:45
Minutes submitted by Twyla L. Mancil

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

Members Present: Tina Smith-Bonahue (FPC Chair, SESPECS), Paul Sindelar (Secretary), Bernie Oliver (SHDOSE), Jeff Hurt (STL), Nancy Corbett (SESPECS), Stephen Smith (SESPECS), Stephen Pape (STL), Cyndy Griffin (SESPECS), Alyson Adams (STL), James Algina (SHDOSE), Cirecie West-Olatunji (SHDOSE), Catherine Emihovich (Dean), Tom Dana (Associate Dean of Academic Affairs), Ana Puig (OER), Matt Hodges (D&AA Senior Director), Kara Dawson (STL), Cathy Cavanaugh (STL), and Twyla L. Mancil (Graduate Assistant),

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

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

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

Announcements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEW BUSINESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Reports

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

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

Diversity Committee:
Name of Reporter: Bernie Oliver, SHDOSE

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

Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Committee

Name of Reporter: James Algina, SHDOSE

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

Faculty Affairs Committee
Name of Reporter: Alyson Adams, STL

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

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

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

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

Long Range Planning Committee

See above

Research Advisory Committee
Name of Reporter: Stephen Smith, SESPECS

Discussion:
Will be meeting on October 19, 2010.

Technology and Distance Education Committee

See above.

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