Meeting Minutes

,

18 February, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

February 18, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Lamont Flowers (alternate for David Honeyman), Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend

Members Absent:  Joe Wittmer

Others Present:  Rod Webb

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m.

Action Items

1. Approval of the agenda for February 18, 2002

Correa moved and Franks seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the February 4, 2002 Minutes

Modifications in the minutes were discussed:  (a) Elections Committee Procedures [Page 6, Attachment A, #2]:  this statement should read “One member of the COE shall be appointed chair of the committee by the COE Agenda Committee,”  (b) The correct name of the reporting committee is “The Elections Committee” and should be modified in the minutes and on the attachment to reflect the correct name with “NEC” being removed from all sections, (c) the FPC suggested extending the duties of the Election Committee so in the future they could be considered the “Nominations and Elections’ Committee,” (d) Page 5, The vote under #4 was “8 against and 1 abstention”.

Clark moved and Jones seconded to approve the minutes of February 4, 2002 as modified.  The FPC unanimously voted to approve the minutes.

3. Approval of Elections Committee Procedures

Smith suggested that the Elections Committee procedures:  (a) under “Elections”, # 1, “a minimum of four (4) work/business days” be modified to read, “a minimum of seven (7) work/business days.”  Also, it was suggested that under “Ballot Counting”, #5, “runoff election to commence within one week”, the wording should be modified to ensure that a four-week time frame after the nominations procedures was adequate for voting and runoff procedures; (c) the official name of this committee is the “College Elections Committee (CEC) not the Nominations and Elections Committee (NEC) and will be corrected throughout the document.  Jones moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded that Attachment A of the minutes be accepted with modifications.  The FPC unanimously voted to accept this document.

Discussion Items

1. Constitutional Revisions

Possible amendments were discussed:

(a) Departmental chair eligibility on committees

Smith reported some concern related to more than one chair serving on committees.  Clark suggested that a conflict of interest might occur if more than one chair was on a committee.  Franks stated that the FPC should review what each committee does to avoid a conflict of interest.

(b) Rename Elections Committee to the Nominations & Elections Committee and extend the  function for all elections in the College.

B. Elections Committee – Each year, an Elections committee of three persons shall be appointed by the Agenda Committee (who shall not appoint themselves).  Its duties are to set the time, procedures, tellers, and other mechanisms for conducting elections to the Faculty Policy Council.

Section 5 – Elections.  Elections for faculty representation on the Faculty Policy council shall be held in the spring by ballot.  Newly elected members shall take office immediately after the last meeting of the academic year, according to the procedures set forth under Elections Committee above (Article II, Section 4(b).

(c)  Need language in the duties of the Faculty Affairs Committee section to include faculty load issues.

(d) Need language added to all standing committees’ work to include “or other duties as recommended by FPC”.

(e)  Need to change the language on the College Curriculum Committee from Associate Dean of Graduate Studies to Associate Dean for academic Affairs.

2. Status of Tabled Items

Smith spoke with Ann who will attend the next FPC meeting and discuss her tabled item.  Jones stated that her item is still tabled.

3. Dean’s Search

Smith reported that the faculty should have more access to the Dean candidates than before under the new FPC format.  It was suggested that an informal round-table discussion be scheduled with each Dean candidate for faculty members to ask questions and meet the candidates.

4. Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee

Smith distributed an email from Dr. Ruth Lowery, Chair of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee.  Smith-Bonahue reported that two things were considered at the meeting:

(a)  A discussion regarding the PRAXIS:  Committee members visited the graduate school and were informed that the reason the graduate school turned down the proposal for substituting the PRAXIS for the GRE was the college did not provide sufficient evidence that it is a suitable substitution for the GRE.

(b) A report on the status of alternative admissions test for entry into Proteach masters program:  Committee members received information from ETS and they have suggested that the PRAXIS should not be used as an alternative test for the GRE.  Committee members will be getting additional information on another test (the PPST) that is being used for admissions by other universities.

(c)  With respect to other graduate admissions decisions, the committee proposed the following:

1. Recommendation to the FPC to consider a policy that places responsibilities for graduate admission decisions at the level of the departments and within the policies of the graduate school.  The Committee also recommends that the major responsibility for the Petitions committee be defined as representing due process review in cases of denial.

2. Recommendation to the FPC that for students who do not meet the graduate school entrance requirements yet are admitted to an entry level graduate program, departments will specify that their admission does not guarantee admission to the doctoral program.

3. Although not a recommendation, the Committee would like to encourage departments to consider raising the minimum GRE score for admission to doctoral programs to reflect and promote excellence in our doctoral programs.

The FPC discussed how to communicate these issues to the faculty and to make them action items on the next agenda.  Clark suggested that the FPC submit these recommendations as proposed, discuss them at department faculty meetings, and have department chairs respond by email.  Faculty can also attend the meeting at which these recommendations will be discussed as an action items and voted on.

FPC members stated that appropriate wording and guidelines regarding the University’s policies about petitions for admission were necessary prior to communicating these proposals to the faculty.  Clark stated that the FPC needed the current University policy and the current College policy regarding admissions.  He also stated that we should notify the Graduate School that the FPC was considering a policy change that would place responsibility for graduate admission decisions at the departmental level.

Smith and Smith-Bonahue will draft a statement by Wednesday, February 20th, which will be communicated to the faculty.  The statement will ask the departments to discuss the issue and provide the FPC with a departmental response by March 13th.  Smith also will make sure the faculty understand that departments will need to develop additional administrative procedures related to admissions (e.g., sending materials to the Graduate School), 10% of all admission may be waived on one or both exceptions, and departments may make “Masters Only Admission” decisions.  However, in other cases, departments may admit students conditionally (e.g., “No grades of “Incomplete,” maintaining a GPA of 3.0 or above over the first two semesters of coursework”).

Information Items

Agenda Committee Report

Smith reported that the Agenda Committee was having some difficulty meeting.  Agenda Committee business had been successfully completed via e-mail.  The Agenda Committee requested that Webb and Witt offered assistance to Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee to redefine their charge and to change the language of their duties.  In an email from Ryndak (as reported by Franks), the wording might state, “or other duties as recommended by the FPC.”  The committee might serve to handle due process upon a student’s denial of admission.  Jones suggested that the committee change its name to “Undergraduate Petitions Committee.”

Long-Range Planning Committee

Allington reported that the committee plans to draft a document for public comment in the near future.  Issues being considered are what the College of Education at UF might do to enhance their national reputation.  The committee is considering multiple recommendations based on the college’s strategic plan and the previous report on doctoral studies.

There were no other committee reports.  Allington moved and Clark seconded to adjourn.  The FPC unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:50 am.

/by
,

4 February, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

February 4, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, David Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend, Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  None

Others Present:  Larry Loesch, Rod Webb, Ben Nelms

The meeting was called to order by Stephen Smith at 9:10 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for February 4, 2002

Allington requested that an item be added to the agenda. He stated that Dean Nelms has been asked by the Presidential Task Force on the Future of the University of Florida to submit a review of COE departments and programs.  Allington requested that the FPC review a set of criteria for evaluating departments and the college, which he stated were weighted toward outcomes that expand on the U. S. News and World Report criteria.  He stated that the major concern for the college should be what provides national visibility.  Allington stated that a clear set of criteria needed to be established for the COE.

Clark moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded to approve the agenda as modified to add the discussion item by Allington. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as modified.

2.  Approval of the January 14, 2002 Minutes

Clark moved and Honeyman seconded to accept the January 14th minutes as modified. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as modified.

3. Approval of FPC Meeting procedures

Allington moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded to accept the FPC meeting procedures as distributed by Smith. The FPC unanimously voted to approve the revised FPC meeting procedures.

4.   Change in Order of Presentation

Clark moved and Jones seconded to place Allington’s discussion item after Loesch’s report from the Elections Committee. The FPC voted unanimously to change the order of the discussion items.

Discussion Items

1.   Upcoming Spring Elections (Larry Loesch)

Loesch reported for the Elections Committee.  Loesch highlighted some of the key points of the report, including that the College of Education (COE) Elections Committee should consist of three COE faculty members appointed by the COE Faculty Policy Council (FPC).  It was recommended that his statement be modified to read “….appointed by the COE Agenda Committee.”

Under the heading of “Solicitation of Nominees,” item 2 states that the COE Elections Committee shall solicit nominees from COE faculty.  The time frame for solicitation of nominees shall be no earlier than four (4) weeks and no later than two (2) weeks prior to the beginning of a scheduled election period.

Under the heading of “Elections”, one point discussed (#6) was that COE faculty members eligible to vote shall return their completed ballots in a sealed, blank envelope to the person in their department/school who was identified to collect the ballots.”  “Ballot Counting” shall be performed by the COE Elections Committee “as soon as possible after conclusion of a COE election.”

A question regarding electronic voting was raised.  At this time, the College does not have the resources to vote electronically.  It was recommended that the Elections Committee explore the feasibility of electronic voting in the future.

A request was made to have Loesch provide the FPC [in advance] with a timeline as to the Spring 2002 elections.  Smith offered to assist Loesch with this task.  Draft copies of the election procedures are attached as an addendum to the minutes.

2. New item by Allington

Allington moved and Towsend secondedthat the FPC forward to the Dean, Provost, and President the proposed list of criteria for reviewing the status of departments and programs in the COE at UF.

Allington further stated that the criteria on the COE educational mission should include some of the following:

  • Emphasis on graduate and doctoral education;
  • Job placements of doctoral students at other Research I universities;
  • Awards received from national organizations (AERA, APA, NCATE, etc.)
  • Publications in national journals
  • Presentations at national research conferences
  • External funding for dissertation research
  • External funding for research-based professional education
  • Number of research publications

In Allington’s proposal, the criteria on the COE research mission would be measured by:

  • External funding
  • Number of research publications
  • Number of research publications in Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
  • National/international awards for research
  • Number of editorial board memberships on the top 20 SSCI power journals
  • National panel memberships
  • Research papers presented at national research conferences
  • Invited research papers and presentations

Allington further proposed that the criteria on effectiveness of program design and delivery would be measured by:

  • Admit/enroll/graduate statistics
  • Time to degree completion
  • Attractiveness of graduates to market
  • Attractiveness of graduates to market
  • Development of junior faculty research potential
  • Ratio of hire to tenure
  • Publications and grants
  • Awards received by junior faculty for research

The discussion was tabled in order to receive Dean Nelms’ report.

3. Dean’s report (Ben Nelms)

Dean Nelms stated that he would like to report monthly to the FPC.  He highlighted some to the issues that are being discussed at the monthly meetings of college deans, including:

  • UF will have one lobbyist to represent it in legislative sessions.  The UF legislative priorities included:  full devolution of authorities to Boards of Trustees, a tuition increase of 7.5 percent, full funding for excess enrollment, continuing the commitment to the Alec P. Courtelis Facilties Enhancement Challenge Grant program and the Major Gifts Trust Fund, and adoption of IFAS workload increase.
  • Colleges are preparing for the 150th Anniversary Celebration of the university and Nelms has appointed a COE “history” task force to assist.
  • After the Spring Commencement of 2002, all colleges would provide the location and funding for their own commencements.
  • The name of the Office of Instructional Technology would be changing to the Office of Academic Technology (OAT) or Academic Technology (AT) and a proposed student fee for technology is being considered.

Dean Nelms also discussed recent and future budget reductions.  The College’s support offices (formerly referred to as the Dean’s offices) received a 30 percent budget cut, departments received a 10 percent budget cut, and the budget for Summer A will receive a 30 percent cut.  This year’s current cutbacks equal 4 percent and will not be permanent reductions.  Next year, the budget cuts will equal 4.5 percent and will become permanent reductions.  The colleges have been asked to report to the Provost on how these reductions will be met.  For the COE to meet the 4.5 percent cutback, Dean Nelms stated that a 30 percent cutback of the summer programs would occur. Some faculty would not have summer teaching assignments.  The COE and the Division of Continuing Education are exploring the possibility of offering two-week workshops or institutes, which would provide salaries for faculty during the summer terms.  Additionally, it is expected that 10 percent of the budget cuts will also come from Operating Expenses with the remainder of the reductions coming from open lines.

Dean Nelms reported on a letter, which he received from Joseph Glover, Chair of the Presidential Task Force on the Future of the University.  To assist the Task Force in understanding the national context in which our College operates, the following questions were posed:

  • List the top ten Colleges of Education in the nation.
  • What characteristics do they share which place them at the top?
  • Where does UF rank among the Colleges of Education?
  • Identify the major new trends among the top Colleges
  • What level of resources would be needed to enable our college to climb into this group?

Drs. Kranzler and Crocker are currently working on a report, which will provide the answers to the above questions.  Dean Nelms also stated that the Task force is charged by President Young to recommend how to focus UF’s intellectual and financial capital on those endeavors which will substantially enhance the University’s achievements, advance its reputation, and make it a truly great university among the top ten or fifteen in the nation.  To assist the Task Force in advising the President on achieving these goals, the Department Chairs will respond to the following questions:

  • Which units in our College are currently making the greatest contributions to the stated goals?
  • Which units in your College have the potential to make significant contributions to the stated goals, but may not yet have realized their full potential? What additional expertise, guidance, time, and resources are required to realize the full potential of these units;
  • Which units in your College may not have a front line responsibility to make UF a truly great university, but nevertheless are critical components to support other units or play critical roles in teaching or service.
  • In what areas of your college do you feel resources should be most concentrated for maximum impact?
  • Can you identify areas in your College that should be restructured to improve efficiency, better organize teaching and research, or reduce administrative costs?
  • Are there units that should be reduced, phased out over time, or eliminated so that the recouped resources can be devoted to more critical efforts?
  • Are there units in your College that would be more logically placed in other Colleges?  Are there units in other Colleges that would mesh well with your programs and be more logically placed in your College?

Dean Nelms stated that responses to these issues are due no later than February 14th.  Department Chairs are being asked to answer the first 3 questions.  The Task Force will meet on February 16th to discuss each college’s responses.

Dean Nelms reported that the Provost is currently working with a second task force on a three-year plan for all colleges across the University.  This plan is due during the first week of April.  Dean Nelms also stated that the dean’s across the university units are very supportive of each other in evolving a three-year plan for UF.

4. Return to Allington’s Motion:

Clark suggested that the Long-Range Planning Committee review the proposed criteria presented to the FPC by Allington because it appeared to be premature to forward this criteria to the Dean, Provost, and President, and the COE faculty had not had an opportunity to review the criteria. The FPC voted on Allington’s motion to submit the proposed criteria to the Dean, Provost, and President.  The vote was 8 against, 1 abstain, and 1 for the motion.  The motion did not carry.

The information items and the remainder of the discussion items were tabled until the next FPC meeting because of time constraints.

Allington moved and Clark seconded to adjourn the meeting. The FPC voted unanimously to adjourn at 11:00 am.

Attachment A

College of Education

Elections Committee Procedures

———DRAFT——–

Elections Committee

  1. The College of Education (COE) Elections Committee shall consist of three COE faculty members appointed by the COE Agenda Committee.
  2. One member of the COE Elections Committee shall be appointed chair of the committee by the COE Agenda Committee.
  3. COE faculty members eligible to serve on the COE Elections Committee shall hold tenure or be in tenure accruing positions in the COE.
  4. The term of appointment of each member of the COE Elections Committee shall be one year, with the appointment to commence at the beginning of the Fall academic term of each year.
  5. Any member of the COE Elections Committee may be reappointed to the committee.  However, no member shall serve on the COE Elections Committee for more than three (3) consecutive years.

Solicitation of Nominees

  1. The FPC shall inform the COE Elections Committee of the position(s) for which nominees shall be sought at least five (5) weeks prior to the beginning of an election period in the COE.
  2. The COE Elections Committee shall solicit nominees from COE faculty.  The time frame for solicitation of nominees shall be no earlier than four (4) weeks and no later than two (2) weeks prior to the beginning of a scheduled election period.
  3. Nominations will end one (1) week prior to the beginning of a scheduled election period.
  4. The COE Elections Committee shall distribute a call for nominees for the respective positions to be elected by (a) posting a notice of nominee solicitation on the COE e-mail system and (b) distribution of a written nominee solicitation to the mailbox of each faculty member in the COE.
  5. Either self or other nominations will be accepted for each position to be elected.
  6. Upon nomination, the COE Elections Committee will (a) determine the nominee’s eligibility for the position, (b) inform the nominee of his or her eligibility status (c) inform the nominee of the nomination, and (d) determine if the nominee is willing to be a candidate for the position.

Elections

  1. An election period for the COE shall be a minimum of seven (7) work/business  days (i.e., excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal or university holidays).
  2. A written ballot for a COE election shall be prepared by the COE Elections Committee.
  3. An FPC representative from each department/school shall be appointed by the FPC to assist with the ballot dissemination and retrieval process.
  4. The COE Elections Committee shall distribute a written ballot and blank envelope to each faculty member in the COE eligible to vote in the election via the department’s appointed FPC representative.
  5. Each FPC representative thus selected shall identify a person in the department/school to whom the ballots shall be returned.
  6. COE faculty members eligible to vote shall return their completed ballots in a sealed, blank envelope to the person in their department/school who was identified to collect the ballots.
  7. Each person designated to collect ballots in each department/school shall maintain a list of persons submitting a ballot in order to avoid duplicate submissions of ballots.
  8. The COE Elections Committee shall retrieve the ballots from each COE department/school as soon as possible after the end of the election period.
  9. The person in each department/school responsible for collection of the ballots shall destroy the list of voting faculty members after the ballots have been collected from the department/school.

Ballot Counting

  1. The votes on ballots from a COE election shall be counted by the COE Elections Committee as soon as possible after conclusion of a COE election.
  2. At least two (2) members of the COE Elections Committee shall count the votes and record the results.
  3. In the event that two or more of the COE Elections Committee members were candidates on the ballot, the FPC shall appoint one or two members (as needed) from among the COE tenured faculty to count the votes and record the results.
  4. A COE faculty member shall be elected to a position by a simple majority of the vote count for the position.
  5. In the event of a tie vote for a position, the COE Elections Committee shall conduct a runoff election to commence within one week after conclusion of the vote count.  Announcement of a runoff election shall be made by the COE Elections Committee through use of the COE e-mail system and distribution of a written announcement to all COE faculty members.  The ballot for a runoff election shall contain only the names of those candidates for which there was a tie vote.  The time frame and procedures for voting in a runoff election shall be the same as those for a regular election.

Post Election Procedures

  1. Announcement of the results of a COE election shall be withheld until the election is fully complete (e.g., after a runoff election), but shall be made as soon as possible thereafter.
  2. The COE Elections Committee shall report the results of an election to the COE by use of the COE e-mail system.
  3. The COE Elections Committee shall report the numbers of ballots cast from each department/school to the chair of the FPC at the conclusion of the election process.
  4. The COE Elections Committee chairperson shall retain the ballots from each election for a period of four (4) months after the conclusion of an election period, and destroy the ballots thereafter.
/by
,

14 January, 2002 FPC Meeting Minutes

January 14, 2002

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend, Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  David Honeyman, Max Parker

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for January 14, 2002.

Correa moved and Clark seconded to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2. Approval of the 12/10 Minutes

Corrections to the minutes of December 10 were recommended as follows:

a) Page 3, Information Items, Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee, 2nd sentence:  “…graduate students after a department had recommendedadmitting a student.”

b)   Page 4, 2nd sentence, “He also serves as a member on the Shared Governance Committee…” eliminating “on the Committee on Committees that supervises all senate committees, and…”

Clark moved and Jones seconded to accept the December 10th minutes as modified. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as modified.

Discussion Items

1. Update on COE policy search and archive

Smith reported that the FPC was in a “wait and see” situation.  The standing committees were working on their assignments and action items were expected from the committees. He also reminded FPC members to remain on topic and limit conversations to the agenda items.

Smith updated the members of the council on preliminary findings of the archival search of the minutes of the Department Chair meetings of 1996-1997.  Listed below are the notes from Smith’s findings:

a)   A third-year review process for non-tenured faculty members was recommended.

b) The College Development Committee would serve as only a fact-finding committee regarding the tenure and promotion nomination process and the suggestion of a written college-wide policy was discussed.

c) A Sustained Performance Evaluation process in which annual reports would be required by all faculty members was discussed.  If no evidence of satisfactory performance were available, the evaluation letter would reflect an “unsatisfactory” performance by the faculty member.

d) A COE policy on culminating experiences during week 17 of the semester was discussed.

e) A discussion on tuition waivers and grants was noted in which tuition waivers were to be increased by 10% each year to offset increased tuition expenses.  Any grant would need to state that “the remainder of the tuition will be provided by the College…” with the college name indicated.

f)  Department Chairs were to consider service assignments of faculty members who serve on committees or task forces with the federal government.  These appointments would not count toward faculty workload service assignments.

g) Graduate teaching assistants’ assignments must be consistent across departments.  Also, twelve hours of student contact time per faculty member is a minimum, not a maximum as stated by the 12-hour rule regarding faculty assignments.

h) Search committees must consist of three faculty members from the department, one college representative, one university representative, one outside representative, one student and a chairperson.”

The goal of the archive search being conducted by Smith and Correa is to document past policies and procedures of COE, which will be reviewed and compared with current policies, and procedures.

Allington stated that there are four sources of policy and procedures that should be reviewed:

a)   Database of Administrative Council and Department Chairs minutes;

b) University Board of Regents policies  (which may no longer be in effective);

c) University of Florida and the Collective Bargaining Agreement policies; and

e) Departmental policies.

Allington suggested that, parallel to the archive search process, two other searches be developed – one on departmental policies and one on university policies.  Correa supported Allington’s suggestion and commented that the parameters of the old BOR, University of Florida, and COE policies be researched for clarity.

Although the university is experiencing a tremendous amount of transition and change including the newly established Board of Trustees, a new administration, and changes in the graduate school and division of sponsored research, it is hoped that the review of past COE policies and procedures will assist the FPC in developing new policies and provide a new dean some guidance in implementing the COE policies.

As an example of policy investigations, Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of interviewing department Chairs regarding their Tenure and Promotion guidelines.

There was discussion of the January 23rd meeting, which will include the Provost, deans, FPC members and department chairs.  It is scheduled from 1:30 – 4:30 pm in Room 158 Norman Hall.

2. FPC procedures (suggestions from last meeting)

Smith handed out procedural guidelines on how the FPC would consider action items from standing committees or from non-FPC members during the meetings.  The first guideline stated that, “All committee reports should not exceed two minutes in length.  After each committee report, time will be allocated for clarification of the report.  No new items or discussion should occur during committee reports.  As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda for the next FPC meeting.”  This guideline was modified to read in the last sentence, “As a result of a committee report, an action item may be placed on the agenda.”

The second guideline stated that, “To request an action item on the FPC agenda, or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, faculty should provide a written request to the FPC chair.  This guideline was modified to read, “To request that an action item be placed on the FPC agenda, and/or to be placed on the agenda to speak to an issue, non-FPC members should provide a written request to the FPC chair.”

Smith will rewrite the two guidelines and present them to the FPC for a vote at the next meeting.

3. Upcoming Spring elections

Smith will request that Dr. Loesch develop a timeline for the Spring elections and present it to the FPC as soon as possible.

Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting

Smith did not communicate with Dr. Anne McGill-Franzen and requested that the item remain tabled.  Jones suggested that the item on linking with the College’s Staff Council remain tabled and she will report on this item at a later date. Clark suggested that the FPC remove the tabled items from the agenda until a report was available for review.

Information Items

Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue reported that the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee would meet with Dr. Ken Gerhardt, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, on January 17th to discuss the GRE and Praxis assessment as a requirement for admission to the College of Education.  FPC members suggested the following questions also be discussed with Gerhardt:

What is the University’s policy regarding the GRE?

How can the COE model itself after other units that may have different admissions criteria?

To what extent do multiple policies exist?

How many graduate credits are students allowed to transfer into a graduate program?

Could criteria for graduate students in certification only programs be different?

Following the meeting with Dr. Gerhardt, the committee will have their normally scheduled meeting to discuss recommendations and suggestions made by Dr. Gerhardt.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee was in the process of investigating the faculty workload across departments.  This committee also will address the issue of intellectual property.

Research Advisory Committee

Smith reported that the Research Advisory Committee is in the process of discussing the consistency of the language in the Graduate Catalog regarding the Ed.D. and the Ph.D. degrees.  This committee also will review grant proposal deadlines, the dissertation review process which now flows through the Graduate Studies Office, and the role, function, and purpose of the Center for School Improvement.

Smith stated that two items would be included at the next Agenda Committee meeting: (1) revisiting the purpose of the Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee, and (2) reviewing the process of the Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committee.

Long-Range Planning Committee

Allington reported that this committee will be meeting today.

Clark announced that the next University Senate meeting was scheduled for Thursday and minutes would be posted on the web.

Clark moved and Correa seconded that the meeting be adjourned.  The FPC members unanimously voted to adjourn the FPC meeting at 10:50 am.

/by
,

10 December, 2001 FPC Meeting Minutes

December 10, 2001

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, Hazel Jones, Max Parker, Peter Sherrard, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend

Members Absent: David Honeyman

Other Present:  Ben Nelms, RodWebb

Stephen Smith called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for December 10, 2001.

Clark made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Stephen Smith.  Jones seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2. Approval of the 11/26 Minutes

The minutes of November 26, 2001 were approved with revisions by a majority of the FPC members through e-mail vote.  Correa provided an overview of the revisions as follows:

a. The new chairperson of the Research Advisory Council is Tracy Linderholm, not Holly Lane as stated during the meeting of 11/26/01.

b. Jones corrected the first item on page two to read, “…Committee.  It was suggested that….”

c. On page one, Courtney Johnson was changed to Courtney Williams.

d.   On page four, in the “Update on Budget by Dean Nelms,” now reads, “…the Provost approved the method of responding to COE budget cuts…” not “approved the COE budget cuts…”.

A discussion followed regarding addressing items for discussion or action on the FPC agenda.  If a faculty member would like to have an action item placed on the FPC agenda, he/she must provide the Agenda Committee with a written request.  Smith said he would draft a clearer explanation of this procedure and present it to the FPC.

Clark stated that the committee reports should last approximately 2-3 minutes.  If the report presents an action item, it will be discussed at a future meeting per policy/procedures of the FPC.

Jones requested that the minutes of the various committees be provided to FPC members.

Correa agreed to make additional editing revisions to the minutes of 11/26/01 and have them posted on the web.

Discussion Items

1. Update on COE Policy Search and Archive.

Correa reported on the COE policy search and archives.  She began her review of the Administrative Council meeting minutes for 1996-97, which consisted of approximately 61 meetings and two retreats.  Correa summarized her impressions of the policy search after reviewing the minutes of the first 19 meetings.  Statements regarding “culminating experiences and office hours” were noted, however pertinent attachments were not found with the electronic version of the minutes.  Correa stated that she planned on locating the paper copies of the minutes in order to locate any documents that might have been attached to the minutes.  Correa also reported that procedures for COE incentive funds and COE indirect funds along with the Cost Accounting Standards were discussed in the minutes of 1997.  The 1996 minutes contained information presented by Longstreth regarding the appointment process, annual evaluations, tenure and promotion, and contract renewal.  The 1996 minutes also contained information regarding upper division faculty loads in which each faculty member was trained to advise between 12-15 students per year.  Although Correa found the minutes to be informative, they did not contain clear policy statements.  The minutes were found to have some historical value.

Clark reported he could provide a brief report on the Faculty Senate meetings.

Smith reported that he reviewed the Chairs Committee Meeting minutes for 1996-97 in which he located information on the college restructuring.  Smith stated that a discussion would be beneficial regarding policy (statement of intent), procedure (e.g., training of faculty advisors), and history of the college.

Clark stated that a final product is needed, for example, a policy/procedure manual for the College of Education.

2. Goal-Setting Retreat (12/5).

Nine members of the FPC attended the Dean’s Goal-Setting Retreat.  Nelms distributed an outline of the goals developed at the retreat and reported that the retreat was productive.  However, he felt that a second retreat in January would be beneficial.  He also stated that he felt there was no need for an outside consultant at the next retreat.  Nelms reported that he was working on the mid-year report for the Provost.

In a discussion of the research goals, Allington commented that the College should lobby the Provost to change the DSR procedures for dividing the 8% indirect cost rate.  He suggested that we should advocate for higher IDC from the state, and create an infrastructure that would support faculty to submit grants with higher IDC rates.

Nelms stated that he was currently working on the mid-year report, long-range planning committee, and next year’s budget with the assistance of the Budget Advisory Committee.  Nelms also stated that he would clarify the goals for the next retreat with the Agenda Committee.

Clark suggested that we focus on 6-8 long-range goals at the next retreat and that faculty need to talk past departments and focus on the college as a whole.

3. Next Semester’s Meeting Time for FPC

Smith stated that the meeting times for the FPC during the Fall Semester 2002 will occur on Mondays from 2-4 pm as per the new college-wide policy on meeting times.  However, meeting times for the Spring semester 2002 will continue to be held on every other Monday from 9 – 11 am.  The first meeting will begin sometime after January 7th.  Smith will email the committee members as to when the first FPC meeting for the Spring semester will be held.

Sherrard will confer with Dr. Daniels regarding the meeting times scheduled for Fall 2002.

Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting

1. Discuss how TAs/RAs will voice concerns under new governance structure.

This topic was tabled again.  Smith will speak with Ann McGill-Franzen and request that she provide the FPC with a written statement regarding the TAs and RAs.  This written statement will be submitted to the Agenda Committee and will then return to the FPC following approval of the Agenda Committee.

2. Discuss how linkages can be made with the Staff Council.

Jones suggested this item also be tabled.

Smith-Bonahue moved that the above two items be tabled until reviewed by the Agenda Committee.  The motion was seconded by Jones and approved unanimously by the FPC.

Information Items

1. Committee Reports

Undergraduate Admissions/Petitions Committee: Franks reported that committee members are struggling with their purpose.  She inquired as to whether the Constitution had limitations as to who could serve on this committee.  Smith stated that the Constitution could be amended and that advice could be sought from other people.  The question of due process for undergraduate students was brought up.  Because drop/add and admissions decisions occur within departments, a meeting regarding admission of undergraduate students does not occur at the college level.  Questions related to students right to appeal a department’s decision were discussed.  Currently, a graduate student can appeal a departmental decision to the Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee.  The undergraduate committee felt it did not want to create a parallel system.

Graduate Admissions/Petitions Committee: Jones stated that members of the committee questioned their role in denying admissions of graduate students after a department had recommended them for admissions.

After a good deal of discussion, Clark moved that the functions of these two committees be reviewed by the Agenda Committee and be brought back to the FPC.  Smith-Bonahue seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by the FPC.

Faculty Affairs Committee:  Townsend reported that Nancy Waldron was the new chair of the committee.

Long-Range Planning Committee:  Allington reported that Jeanne Repetto was the new chair of the committee.  He reported that committee has met with Nelms and reviewed both the 1996 strategic plan and the past report of the college’s task force to study doctoral programs.  The next committee meeting will be held on January 14th.

Other Reports:

Clark reported that he sits on the Faculty Senate and stated that the minutes of the Senate can be reviewed on the web site.  He also serves as a member on the Shared Governance Committee that is encouraging all colleges to look at the COE constitution as a template for faculty governance.  Clark also reported that the Faculty Senate is also grappling with defining the department as a unit and budget reduction issues.

Allington requested information on how the college creates a new department.  The Constitution provides clear guidelines on how departments can be created, abolished, or consolidated in the college (see Article IV, Section1A).  According to Article IV, Section 3 of the University Constitution, a change in departmental structure in the college would require an approval vote of two-thirds of all tenure-accruing faculty who attend the voting meeting. The proposal shall then be sent to the proper University bodies for action. This question will be reviewed by the Agenda Committee and brought before the FPC.

Clark moved and Allington seconded that the meeting be adjourned.  The committee voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 am.

/by
,

26 November, 2001 FPC Meeting Minutes

November 26, 2001

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, David Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Jane Townsend, Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  Max Parker

Other Present: Rod Webb, Dean’s Office

Smith called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.

Action Items

1.  Approval of the agenda for November 26, 2001.

Correa made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted by Smith.  Clark seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda as it was submitted.

2.   Selection of Student Representative, Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue reported that the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee had selected two doctoral students to serve on the Faculty Policy Council: Donna Sabis and Courtney Johnson from the School of Teaching and Learning.  Smith-Bonahue moved to approve the selection of these two students, Franks seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the selection.

3. Recommendation from Agenda Committee Re:  Budget Advisory Committee.

A recommendation was made by the Agenda Committee to establish a Budget Advisory Ad Hoc Committee to work with the Dean and the Department Chairs. This ad hoc committee would consist of the Faculty Policy Council two-year members assuring departmental representative across each department.  Allington made a motion to accept the committee as proposed.  Clark seconded the motion.  Following a discussion, the FPC asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to remove the stipulation that only two-year term FPC members serve.  This was replaced with FPC members who would represent each department.  The Budget Advisory Ad Hoc Committee members would serve for the 2001 – 2002 academic year and the committee would meet as needed or determined by the Dean and the FPC.  Allington accepted the friendly amendment to his motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the motion.

Discussion Items:

1. Reminder of Constitutional Language about FPC Meetings

The Constitutional language states “Only members of the Faculty Policy Council have access to the floor during meetings, except when permission has been granted by consent of the Council or the Agenda Committee.”  It was suggested that if an individual faculty members wanted to raise an issue and speak before the FPC, he/she would need to request that the issue be put on the agenda.  The FPC would have to approve the addition of the agenda item.

2. Update on COE Policy Searches and Archives

Smith and Correa are in the process of reviewing the Department Chairs Meeting minutes and the Administrative Council Meeting minutes for the past three years for any policies that were made during that time.

3. Goal-Setting Retreat

A goal-setting retreat will be held on December 5th from 9:00 am until 1:30 pm at the United Church of Gainesville.  Approximately eight members of the FPC will attend.

Items Tabled from October 1 Meeting.

A discussion on how TAs/RAs will voice concerns under the new governance structure and a discussion on how linkages can be made with the Staff Council will be tabled until the next meeting.

Spring Semester Meetings

Meetings for the spring semester were discussed.  The FPC will continue to meet every other Monday morning.  Beginning in the Fall 2002, the FPC may change their meeting schedule to Monday from 2-4 pm, consistent with the new college policy of reserving that time for college/departmental meetings.  Dates for the spring semester meetings will be discussed at the next FPC meeting on December 10th.

Information Items

Committee Reports

Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue reported that Ruth Lowery is the elected chair elect for this committee.  Several issues have been suggested for the committee’s consideration.  The first issue will be to revisit the UF and college requirements for admissions into the graduate school.  The committee will attempt to schedule a meeting with Ken Gerhardt regarding these issues.  Questions regarding the GRE and Praxis were discussed.  Currently, the College of Education requires students to make a score of at least 1000 on the GRE and have no less than a 3.0 undergraduate GPA.  Last year, the graduate school approved the COE using BOTH the GRE and Praxis for admissions, but not substituting the Praxis for the GRE.  The committee will also investigate the SAC requirements regarding graduate admissions.  Two other issues that will be addressed by the committee include minority student recruitment and required research methodology courses.

Faculty Affairs Committee

Townsend reported that this committee has not elected a chair at this time and Townsend currently serves as the interim chair.  The committee is addressing the issue of Tenure & Promotion guidelines and will meet on Wednesday, November 28th.  Townsend discussed the development of a survey to be used for gathering information on T&P procedures across departments.

Furthermore, the committee has had a request to investigate issues related to equity of faculty workload across departments.  It was recommended that the issue of workload be presented in writing to the agenda committee and placed on the FPC discussion items.

FPC Procedures Clarification:  Clark reported that there should be clear procedures for accepting committee reports (limit time for presenting reports) and a set protocol for raising action items during those reports.

Research Advisory Committee

Honeyman reported that Tracy Linderholm was the new elected chair.  The role of the RAC is to provide advice and guidance to the Graduate Studies and Research Office.  Four issues have been raised for the committee’s consideration:

(1)  to examine the requirements listed in the graduate catalog related to the Ed.D. and Ph.D. and suggest consistent language for inclusion in the catalog,

(2)  to review the grant proposal submission process including deadlines, check-offs, and space requirements,

(3)  to examine the dissertation review process and the role of the Graduate Studies office in this process, and

(4)  to review the role, function, and purpose of the Center for School Improvement.

Honeyman distributed a memorandum from Kranzler requesting that the FPC review the policy statements in the catalog on the Ph.D. and Ed.D. qualifying examinations. It was recommended by the FPC that the RAC review the qualifying exam process, recommend changes, and present those changes to the FPC.  Honeyman stated that he would discuss this request with Tracy Linderholm.

Admissions and Petitions Committee

The issue of confidentiality and having open meetings at the Admissions and Petitions Committee meeting was discussed.  Although the A&P meetings are open to the public, it was suggested that the committee suspend the rules of order to deal with confidential reviews of individual student records.  All visitors will be asked to leave the room until the meeting is resumed

FPC Procedure Clarification

If action items are to be considered by the FPC, a written letter of recommendation of the item must be submitted to the FPC.  A motion will be made regarding the item and the FPC will speak to the motion.  An FPC member or chair of a committee will notify Smith of the action item to be considered for the next agenda.

Update on Budget by Dean Nelms

Nelms reported that there was no new information available regarding the budget. He did report that the Provost approved the method of responding to COE budget cuts that has been proposed for this year. Nelms also reported that the Provost would like the COE to work more closely with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and IFAS. Although future budget cuts are unknown, it is expected that the budget crisis will last at least another year. Nelms stated that the Ad Hoc Budget Advisory committee would most likely work throughout the spring semester. A mid-year report is due to the Provost sometime in January and input from the FPC is invited. Nelms reminded the FPC members of the retreat scheduled for December 5th. Goals for the college will be discussed at the retreat.

Townsend moved and Clark seconded to adjourn the meeting.  The FPC unanimously approved the motion.  The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 am.

/by
,

7 November, 2001 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Dean Nelms welcomed committee members to the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) meeting.

Issues for Discussion

Michael Bowie, Director of the Office of Recruitment, Retention, and Multicultural Affairs (RRMA), reported the following activities:

1. Recruitment Activities include graduate students and staff visiting community colleges and advertisement in Diversity: Career Opportunities and Insights. He distributed a draft of a College-wide brochure for Graduate programs in Education.  The Department Chairs will receive information on minority recruitment in the near future.

2. Retention activities include receptions for doctoral and master’s

Students and weekly digests of RRMA activities, academic advising and counseling.  The office also provides Minority Education Scholarships (MES) and Minority Teacher Education Scholarships (MTES) funded through the Florida Fund for Minority Teachers, Inc.  Presently, 43 scholars are enrolled at the University of Florida.  Of that number, 11 are new scholars.  UF has 6.1% of the total number of MTES scholars enrolled in Florida’s colleges and universities.

3. Multicultural Affairs activities include the College Reach-Out

Program (CROP), which has been funded for 2001-2002. Other activities include a Minority Youth Spelling Bee, The Minority Student Education Guild (MSEG), and monthly workshops.

The Dean distributed information on College Mid-year Reviews for 2002.  Council members discussed and agreed upon the following:

1. Chairs will submit individual responses on particular

strengths in the department and areas that need improvement.  (Question #1)

2. Chairs will submit a brief inventory of continuing efforts at internationalization.  (Question #2)

3. Chairs should submit a list of academic goals for its

undergraduate and graduate programs relating to recent SACS reports.  In a brief list indicate what kind of program changes have been implemented “as a result of the SACS assessment.”  (Question #3)

4. Questions #4 and #5 will require responses discussed and

developed college-wide with both administrative and faculty input.  College goals will be discussed by the Dean’s Advisory Committee and Faculty Policy Council.  It was agreed that a half-day retreat be held for discussion of this part of the report. (Question #4)  After that departments and faculty groups should feel free to respond to the ideas developed at the retreat.

5. With regard to the question about consolidation and restructuring of some programs and the handling of possible budget cuts (#5), the same committee constituted to advise on budget cuts should be involved in responding to this question.

The section of the report on “Issues for Discussion Only” does not need to be included in the written report, but the Dean will ask for memos from the chairs on these topics before his mid-year conference with the Provost.

FPC Report

Stephen Smith, Chair of the Faculty Policy Council gave the following update on FPC activities:

1. All College committees are meeting or scheduling meetings, so the constitution is now in place and operating.

2. There will be an effort for all Faculty Policy Council agendas to be distributed before scheduled meeting to everyone in the College.

3. Now that the constitutional infrastructure is in place and operating, the Faculty Policy Council discussed future efforts to make sure that faculty are informed and have opportunities to become involved in College decision-making.  Smith reported that the Faculty Policy Council believes that faculty should deliberate and discuss College matters at the department level rather than through College-wide forums.  Efforts will now be focused on making sure that Faculty Policy Council representatives have time to report on Faculty Policy Council activities at their departmental faculty meetings.

Report of Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Dean Webb discussed the following issues:

1. Classroom renovations:  OIR has provided funds that will allow us to renovate classrooms in Old Norman.  Renovation will include ceiling and wall repair, removal antiquated wiring, new rugs and window treatments, new lightning and switches, painting, level-three technology, and acoustical material on the ceiling.  We will not lower ceilings and will leave the woodwork undisturbed so that it may be restored at a later date.  Room 330 and the auditorium will not be renovated but 250 will be substantially improved.  COE summer classes will have to be taught elsewhere on campus.

2. OIR has supplied a budget to fund planning of an International Media Union (IMU) in the college.  Dean Nelms has appointed a planning team to identify the IMU’s features and functions, work with architects, and oversee fundraising for the effort.

3. The College has received complaints about smoking in the open areas within Norman Hall.  We have spoken with Environmental Health and Safety and they have suggested a no smoking policy for all Norman Hall space including open corridors, entranceways, breezeways, stairwells, and courtyards.  We plan to implement that policy, post no smoking signs in affected areas, and remove cement ashtrays.  We will provide ashtrays in areas several feet away from building entrances.

Report of the Interim Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

In Dean Kranzler’s absence, Dean Webb reported:

1. Dean Kranzler held a meeting with MDTP on October 19, 2001, to discuss current status and future directions.

a. The meeting was fairly well attended.  Presenters suggested a new life for MDTP and a new level of collaboration with the College.

b.  Reaction to the meeting was mixed.  Some were positive, but several faculty expressed concern that about the level of collaboration that was possible with MDTP.

c. Dean Kranzler met with Dean Nelms to discuss next steps

and met with Dr. Luis Marti on November 2, 2001.

i. Kranzler shared collaboration concerns and stated that the College was interested in a 50-50 collaboration with the College of Medicine.

ii.  Dr Marti appeared sincerely interested in real collaboration and said he is open to discussing all aspects of our relationship with MDTP.  He will send a copy of the proposal and budget for this year to Dean Kranzler.

iii.  Kranzler will meet with deans and interested faculty to discuss the co-director’s position and then will meet again with Luis Marti to reach agreement on that issue.

iv. Following that, the next step in the process is to appoint a co-director.

2. We received four applications for the Dissertation Advisor/Mentor Award.

a. The committee has been appointed and the first meeting is scheduled for November 27, 2001.

b.The College can submit up to 3 nominations to the Graduate School Selection Committee for the award.

3.  Nelms distributed a handout on Policy for Grant Proposal Submission.  He asked Chairs to remind faculty to include space and technology needs in the proposals.  He also reminded Chairs that the College is unable to match any funds this year.

Report of Assistant Dean for Educational Outreach and Communications

Dean Vernetson announced that off-book courses can be used on campus for summer semester.  Faculty member’s compensation can be paid from collected student tuition plus a 10% charge for DOCE.  No FTE is generated for off-book courses.

Report of the Dean

Dean Nelms announced that sponsors are needed for Student Organizations, especially the Education College Council.  This has not been handled well since the departure of our last Assistant Dean for Student Affairs.  Professor Mary Kaye Dykes began to make extraordinarily good progress last year, but is no longer available for that service this year.

Also the Dean mentioned that several candidates have been interviewed for the College Development Officer position.  No one has been identified yet, but he still hopes to have someone in that position by early January.

The Dean reminded Chairs about the Textbook Adoptions program.  Courses not requiring textbooks must also be designated so that they are not included in the College’s average.  He will have the monthly report emailed to the Chairs.

The Dean announced that the Winter Holiday Party will be held on December 7, 2001, at the new Best Western Gateway in Gainesville.

/by
,

3 October, 2001 Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting Minutes

Dean Nelms welcomed committee members to the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) meeting.  In introductory remarks, he paid tribute to the memory of President Young’s wife, Sue Young, whose memorial service was scheduled later in the day.

Issues for Discussion

The committee discussed a common time for College and Departmental Meetings and agreed that Mondays from 2:00-4:00 would be kept open for these meetings.  This schedule will become effective beginning Fall 2002.  A small subcommittee will be established to set up this plan.

Ric T’ Felt and Robert Wideman demonstrated the new COE web page and distributed UF Web Site Security Guidelines handouts.  Dean Webb distributed COE Web site Guidelines that the Advisory Council discussed and approved:

1.  Any group or individual wishing to link to the College website will

use a College website template for their homepage.  They are

encouraged to use a College template beyond homepage level, but

that is not required.

2.  Faculty may obtain the appropriate Homepage Template from the

College Webmaster (Robert Wideman).  We will have different homepage templates for the Departments, Dean’s Area Offices, Programs, Centers and Faculty.

3.  Each Department and College office will have a webmaster.

4.  Committee secretaries or chairs will serve as Committee Webmasters.

5.  Gail Ring will provide Webmaster training.

Notes from Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

October 3, 2001

Page Two

6.  The Office of Educational Outreach and Communications (Vernetson) will serve as editor on link pages and will monitor links periodically to determine that information has been updated.

7.  Anyone entering information or loading documents to the College website should follow the COE web site style sheet and the American Psychological Association (APA) Manual of Style.

8.  The Webmaster suggests that anyone entering information to the College website should use Multimedia Dream Weaver and Adobe Go Live.

The Dean discussed the 2002-2003 budget priorities.  He also discussed the following budget concerns:

1.  There is a freeze on staff hiring except for special cases.

2.  The college has been given approval to proceed with chair

searches.

3.  No new positions can be created without special permission.  Only positions that are already advertised may be filled.

4.  Vacant positions may be filled only with approval from Provost.

5.  The Provost has indicated that he will call a special meeting with the Deans to discuss budget cuts. A Deans retreat is tentatively scheduled for October 30.  Budget cuts may be addressed at this meeting.

6.  Except for the two department chair positions, the Dean will not authorize faculty searches until the budget situation becomes clearer.

Dr. Doud stated that the Employee Voucher Form does not contain space for the receiving department to make comments.  The Dean stated that this issue will be discussed further at the next meeting of the DAC.

Dr. Doud also stated that one of the gubernatorial candidate’s campaign committee members has requested that a small group of faculty (4-5) meet with the candidate and/or staff to discuss policies and issues associated with recent restructuring of education (BOR and K-16) as well as other issues of concern to the College (teacher/principal certification, funding of education, etc.) and state.

Notes from Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

October 3, 2001

Page Three

FPC Report

Stephen Smith, Chair of the Faculty Policy Council reported the following update:

1.  FPC meetings are being conducted

2.  Dean’s Advisory Council is functioning

3.  College Curriculum Committee has met for the first time

4.  All Committee structures are in place

5.  FPC will submit a letter to the Provost commending him for appointing an outstanding Dean search committee

6.  FPC will submit fall faculty meeting minutes that include a list of characteristics to Paul George, Chair of the search committee

7.  FPC needs an inventory of College policies

8.  FPC needs an inventory of possible constitution amendments

9.  FPC needs procedural guidelines for each committee

10.  FPC will review College budget with Dean on October 15

Report of Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

Dean Webb discussed the following issues:

1.  Faculty load assignments

2.  Instructors of Record

Report of the Interim Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research

Dean Kranzler discussed the Doctoral Dissertation Advisor/Mentoring Awards Program.  He stated that a committee would be established to review the nominations.  One representative from each department and two doctoral students will serve on this committee.

Dean Kranzler also discussed a change in policy for grant submission so that all grants go through the Office of Graduate Studies and Research prior to submission.

Notes from Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

October 3, 2001

Page Four

Report of Assistant Dean for Educational Outreach and Communications

Dean Vernetson announced the following:

She thanked chairs for encouraging their faculty to submit proposals and participate in the 2002 Critical Issues Conference.

She reminded Chairs that the NCATE Annual report deadline is October 5.

The Homecoming reception will be held on November 2, and former Deans’ portraits will be unveiled.

Report of the Dean

The Dean discussed the Title II State Report Interim Summary.  Because some programs require the exam for program completion and hence have 100% pass rate, UF falls into the second quartile (97-99% pass rate).  This exam becomes a program completion requirement for everyone who enters as a freshman beginning with the 2000-2001 academic year beginning with the Fall semester 2000.  COE programs which award master’s or higher degrees at program completion will begin using FTCE pass rate for graduation in Spring semester in 2005.

The Dean noted the enrollment decline (head count) for the fall semester.  At a later meeting we will examine five-year trends.

The deadline for submitting nominations for the 2001-2002 Salary Pay Plan for Professors will be announced from Dean Webb’s office.

The Dean announced that he attended an Education/Engineering Deans Summit in Baltimore earlier this week.  NSF will make $200M available to improve K-12 math and science teaching.  An announcement was made that the Department of Education will make $500-$900M available for the same purpose, probably in the spring.  A joint task force from the College of Education and the College of Engineering will be established in the near future to inventory our current programs, examine mutual interests and concerns, and consider grant proposals for these and other competitions.

The Dean stated that the Staff Council has requested possible flex time in their work schedule.  This item will be discussed further at the next meeting.

/by
,

1 October, 2001 FPC Meeting Minutes

October 1, 2001
Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Richard Allington, Phil Clark, Maureen Conroy (alternate), Vivian Correa, Bridget Franks, David Honeyman, Max Parker, Tina Smith-Bonahue, Stephen Smith (Chair), Joe Wittmer

Members Absent:  Hazel Jones, Jane Townsend

Others Present:  Rod Webb, Dean’s Office

The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 9:07 a.m.

Action Items

Clark moved and Honeyman seconded to accept the agenda. The agenda was accepted by unanimous vote.

Clark moved and Correa seconded to accept the minutes of September 17, 2001.  The minutes were accepted by unanimous vote.

Discussion  Items

1. Budget review from the Dean at October 15, 2001 FPC Meeting.

Smith requested that the agenda for the October 15th FPC meeting remain clear for the Dean’s review of the budget.

2. Review Selection of Student(s) for Student Recruitment /Admissions Committee

Smith-Bonahue questioned the process by which students would be selected for the Student Recruitment/Admissions committee.  She suggested that the Student/Admissions Committee should go ahead and schedule an initial meeting.  Meanwhile, Smith-Bonahue will contact the Education College Council for nominations of undergraduate student(s) and contact Department chairs or Doctoral student organizations for nominations of graduate student(s) from their departments to serve on this committee.  During this initial meeting, the Student Recruitment/Admissions Committee will review the list of nominees and select students to serve on the committee.  These names will then be forwarded to the FPC for final approval.  It also was clarified that there is no language in the constitution related to voting for the standing committee.  Students serving on this committee serve to advise and make recommendations on policies related to recruitment and admissions but will not address individual student concerns.

Smith-Bonahue and Correa (Chair, College Curriculum Committee) will coordinate the process for selecting student members.  The CCC also needs to select undergraduate and graduate student members.  Student members of the CCC do have voting privileges.

3. Review Procedures Guide for Committees from FPC

Smith reviewed minimum expectations that should guide all FPC committees as they begin their work.  These include:

a.  All committees meet at least two times per year.

b.  Each committee will include a dean’s representative who will serve as a non- voting member.

c.  At the completion of each Spring semester, each committee will provide the FPC with a three-ring binder of the committees’ procedures, agenda, and minutes.

d.  Each committee, whether operating or standing, will also provide the FPC with a written executive summary at the completion of each Spring semester.

e.  To ensure continuity, the committee will elect the chair for the following year.

There was much discussion about guideline(s) for electing a chair for each committee for each upcoming year.  It was suggested that the FPC member on the committee be in charge of convening the new committee in the fall of each year and elect a chair at that time.  It was also suggested that the “newly elected” committee be convened in late spring, after the final meeting of the academic year to select its chair. [Note:  clarification on guideline (e) will be needed]

Smith stated that he would refine the committee guidelines and present them to the FPC for further discussion, revisions, and final approval.

A question arose regarding the duplication of minutes and procedures in writing and on the web.  The FPC felt that redundancy was necessary regarding FPC procedures and minutes and that both written and web copies would continue to be generated.

4. Dean’s Search Document

A draft of the Dean’s Search document from the fall faculty meeting was distributed to FPC members.  There was concern raised about the list of desired characteristics, and it was suggested that the list be edited and given to all faculty for consensus building.  It was clarified that the list was generated by the faculty during a spontaneous discussion and brainstorm session and was not representative of faculty consensus.  Allington requested that the draft document be edited prior to submitting it to the search committee and offered to make those changes and submit them to Smith by Friday, October 5th.  Some FPC members felt that if the list was edited or revised it would not be representative of what faculty stated at the fall faculty meeting.  Allington moved and Wittmer seconded that the FPC edit the current draft of desired characteristics of a dean and have faculty rank order the desired characteristics.  The committee opposed the motion, with one vote in favor, one abstention, and seven votes opposing the motion.

A suggestion was made to have Smith deliver the document of desired characteristics, search procedures, and promoting the college to Paul George, Dean’s Search Committee Chair.  Clark moved and Smith-Bonahue seconded that Smith submit the existing draft of the document to Paul George for review by the Dean’s Search Committee and extend the FPC’s willingness to assist with the Dean’s search. The motion was approved by unanimous vote.

An additional suggestion was made to send a letter to the Provost from the FPC thanking him for his selection of the Dean’s Search Committee. Smith will draft the letter and asked that FPC members review it for suggestions and revisions.  The final draft of the letter will be distributed to members for signature and forwarded to the Provost.

It was also suggested that each FPC representative take time at their department faculty meetings to discuss the Dean’s search and updates from the FPC.

Discussion Items From September 17 Meeting

Some concerns were voiced about the need to have more information regarding the two discussions items related to:

q  how TAs and RAs will voice concerns under the new governance structure, and

q  how linkages can be made with the Staff Council

Although some issues were discussed related to TA and RA concerns, it was recommended that McGill-Franzen (STL, alternate) provide the FPC with more information on the topic.  Additionally, it was recommended that Hazel Jones discuss her views on the linkages with the Staff Council.  Allington moved and Wittmer seconded that the two discussion items from the September 17th meeting be tabled until the October 29th meeting. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

Information Items

Two items identified for policy review were presented to the FPC.  Both items were addressed at the Agenda Committee on September 27th ? and it was recommended that they be forwarded to the Student Recruitment and Admissions Standing Committee for review.  The items related to graduate admissions and were part of last year’s College Curriculum Committee minutes as indicated below.

Item 1.  “The Department of Special Education and the School of Teaching and Learning should have the option of using the PRAXIS II as an alternative to the GRE for admissions decisions for the M.Ed. and M.A.E. (exclude Ed.S.).” This motion was passed 7 to 1 vote (CCC Minutes, 10/2/00; CCC Minutes, 11/6/00).

Item 2. “The College should continue to require the GRE for admission to doctoral program in all departments; however, applicants to doctoral or master’s programs who hold professional or other doctorates from an accredited university in the U.S. may be exempt from taking the GRE, upon approval by department.”  Motion passed 7 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention. (CCC Minutes, 10/2/00).

The Agenda Committee recommended that issue related to the approval of the graduation list be sent to the College Curriculum Committee.  The CCC will discuss the procedures at their first meeting on October 1.

Clark moved and Allington seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 a.m.  The motion passed with a unanimous vote.

/by
,

10 Septembe, 2001 FPC Meeting Minutes

September 10, 2001

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present: Dick Allington, Anne McGill-Franzen (alternate), Vivian Correa, Joe Wittmer, Hazel Jones, Bridget Franks, Phil Clark, Stephen Smith (Chair), and Tina Smith-Bonahue

Members Absent:  Jane Townsend; David Honeyman

Rod Webb was in attendance from the Dean’s Office. (Rod is not a member)

The meeting was called to order by the chair at 9:10 a.m.

Clark moved and Allington seconded to accept the agenda.  The agenda was accepted by unanimous vote.

Smith-Bonahue moved and Clark seconded to approve the Faculty Policy Council May 9, 2001.  The minutes were approved by unanimous vote.

Agenda was composed by the Agenda Committee (Smith, Correa, Clark, & Nelms).

Election of Faculty to the Undergraduate & Graduate Admission and Petitions Committees

FPC discussed which procedures to follow for the Election of Faculty to Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committees and how many faculty should serve on the standing committees. Allington moved and Clark seconded that FPC should submit a ballot to include elections to the Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committees, including a vote for the Counselor Education Representative to serve on FPC and the standing committees .  and The motion carried by unanimous vote. Smith agreed to compose ballot and it was agreed to have the Dean’s Office distribute ballots to the various offices and faculty would return their ballots to their department secretary by 5:00 p.m. Thursday, September 13th.  Smith will collect the ballots.

FPC decided to allow the Dean’s Office to handle the Senate Committee process, since it is a university-wide committee.

Fall FPC Meetings

FPC agreed to hold the FPC meetings for the fall semesters on: September 17, October 1, October 15,, October 29, November 12, November 26, and December 10.  Clark moved and Correa seconded to accept the scheduled FPC meetings dates for the fall semester.  The motion carried by unanimous vote.

Dean’s Representative on the College Curriculum Committee

FPC discussed a proposal from Webb to put a moratorium on Article II, Section 4(F) College Curriculum Committee (a) temporarily substituting “Associate Dean for Academic Affairs ” for Associate Dean for Graduate Studies …and non-voting members consisting of the Director of Student Services and the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies for the academic year 2001-2002. There was discussion to invite Interim Dean Kranzler when graduate studies or graduate related issues are proposed.  Allington moved and Clark seconded to put a moratorium on Article II, Section 4(F) College Curriculum Committee to temporarily substitute the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies.  The motion carried with a 7 to 1 vote.

New Agenda Item:  Involving FPC Alternates at Meetings

Clark moved and Allington seconded that we add an action item to the agenda related to welcoming alternate FPC members to all scheduled FPC meetings. The motion carried by unanimous vote. Clark moved and Allington seconded that FPC will welcome FPC alternates to attend all FPC meetings. The motion carried by unanimous vote.

Election of Members to Standing Committees

FPC discussed whether to the addition ofadditional faculty to serve on standing committees.  It was suggested to appoint Deans serving on these committees to be ex-officio members (non-voting member). Allington moved and Clark seconded that the Elections Committee conduct a general college election to select at least 4 members (staggered terms) for each of the standing committees. The motion carried by unanimous vote.

Procedures Manual for College Committees

Clark discussed the need for a procedures’ manual for all college committees.  Each committee would follow a set of directions/procedures; that could be updated each year.  A suggestion was made to have committees submit a written report to the FPC.  Clark agreed to collect procedures from the standing all committees.

Constitutional Amendment Committee

FPC agreed to retain a list of revisions for possible amendment of the College Constitution and amend as needed at the end of each academic year. There was some discussion for the need of a Constitutional Amendment Committee.  Correa and Smith will follow-up on this matter.

Agenda and Dean’s Advisory Committee Reports

Smith reported on the meeting with the Agenda and Dean’s Advisory Committees.  He stated the Agenda Committee will collect and distribute issues and concerns; and that any faculty members can submit in written form an item to the committee to consider.  He also stated that in their discussion, the Dean’s Advisory Committee hasagreed to refer appropriate all matters to the FPC or Agenda Committee.

College Curriculum Committee Report

Correa reported that College Curriculum Committee meetings will take place on the first Monday of each month, from 3:00-5:00 p.m., beginning October 1.  The committee will discuss the Constitution, policies, assign the committee’s charge and answer questions.  Last year the CCC created and approved guidelines for submitting courses to the committee.  It was suggested that those guidelines be distributed to CCC and faculty as soon as possible.

Fall Faculty Meeting

Correa reported on the Fall Faculty Meeting held on Friday, September 7, 2001.  Approximately 35-40 people were in attendance.  The discussion focused on the Dean’s Search.  Faculty discussed:: 1) characteristic of the a Ddean; 2) search procedures; 3) recruitment strategies; and 4) promotion of the college.  The faculty feel the candidate should have experience and a positive outlook on faculty governance.

It was also recommended that the FPC Committee be schedule to interview the candidates, and meet with the Dean’s Search committee.  It was recommended by the faculty that a written summary of the concerns the faculty expressed in the meeting be forwarded to the Dean’s Search committee and to the Provost.

Suggested Agenda items for September 17th meeting

·  Request printed budget from the Dean

·  Appoint student representative(s) to assist Student Recruitment/Admissions Ccommitteesfor the College Curriculum Committees, Undergraduate and Graduate Admissions and Petitions committees.

·  Discuss how TAs & RAs will voice concerns under the new governance structure

·  Balancing the number of research and teaching assistants in the College

·  Need to inventory what policies exist in the college

·  Discuss how to make linkages with the Staff Council

Jones moved and Allington seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried by unanimous vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 a.m.



/by
,

7 September, 2001 FPC Faculty Meeting Minutes

Friday, September 7, 2001

Room 250 Norman Hall

The meeting was called to order by Dr. Stephen Smith, Faculty Policy Council (FPC) Chair at 3:15 p.m.  He welcomed the faculty to the Fall Faculty Meeting and thanked them for attending the meeting.

General Information on Committee Structure

Smith stated that the FPC consists of members of the four College departments and school.  The members are Dick Allington, Phil Clark, Vivian Correa (Secretary), Bridget Franks, Dave Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Stephen Smith (Chair), Tina Smith-Bonahue, Jane Townsend, and Joe Wittmer.  An election will be conducted to add a two-year member representing the Department of Counselor Education.  The selection of a Parliamentarian is also needed.  Alternates from each department have also been elected to serve on the Council.  Operating committees were identified as

  • Agenda Committee (Smith, Correa, Clark, Nelms)
  • College Curriculum Committee
  • Undergraduate Admissions and Petitions Committee
  • Graduate Admissions and Petitions Committee
  • Standing Committees include:
    • Faculty Affairs, Research Advisory, Student Recruitment/Admissions, & Long-Range Planning

There is also an Elections Committee and Dean’ Advisory Committee

Function of Agenda Committee

Smith stated that the Agenda Committee consists of the FPC Chair, Secretary, Dean or Dean’s representative and one other elected FPC member. The agenda committee develops the agenda for the FPC and will act as a collector of issues/concerns related to College policy and distributor of these issues/concerns to the appropriate operating or standing committees.  Smith also explained that a discussion took place at the Dean’s Advisory Committee about the power of the Agenda Committee to act or fail to act on issues/concerns that come to the committee. Smith explained that, in the Constitution, the Agenda Committee is responsible for reporting its actions to the FPC so there is an accountability measure for the Agenda Committee’s decision making.

Web site

Smith encouraged faculty to review the FPC web site for a copy of the Constitution, the minutes of FPC meetings, and a list of faculty appointed to serve on the various committees.  The Web site address is education.ufl.edu/committees/fpc/main.htm

Deans’ Report
  • Dean Nelms commended faculty on their improved work performance and reminded them of the administrative support that is available.  Nelms read the mission of the College and encouraged faculty to support the search for a new Dean.  He also reported that Provost Colburn would be announcing the members of the Dean’s search committee in the near future.
  • In his report to the faculty, Associate Dean Webb also encouraged faculty to support the upcoming Dean’s search efforts.  He reported on the College’s preparation for NCATE, and added that the efforts include a strong emphasis on data collection.  A College committee has been established to assist in the preparation for the NCATE and the Department of Education accreditation visits.

A Discussion on the Dean’s Search

Smith stated that the FPC sponsored a meeting for faculty to meet with Provost Colburn on July 25, 2001, to discuss the Dean’s Search.  He encouraged faculty to review the minutes that have been placed on the FPC website.

Smith then facilitated a discussion on the upcoming Dean’s search related to desired characteristics of a Dean, involving faculty in the search process, developing recruitment strategies, and promoting the College.  Faculty suggested that the Provost and the members of the Dean’s search committee be provided copies of this discussion as they begin deliberations on the search.

Discussion on Desired Characteristics of a Dean: The faculty discussed various characteristics they wanted to see in a Dean. Some faculty felt strongly that a non-negotiable characteristic of a Dean would be their support of and experience with faculty governance.  The following summarizes other desired characteristics and are presented in a non-ranked order.  The Dean should:

  • have prior experience as a dean at a comparable university to UF
  • advocate for teacher education and the Colleges of Education with upper administration
  • possess a successful career and strong scholarship record
  • maintain a balance between development work outside of the university and hands-on-administration of the internal aspects of the College (e.g., external versus internal Dean)
  • work closely with education constituencies at the national, state, and local levels
  • become involved in State legislative issues related to education
  • support the College’s research efforts
  • embrace diversity and interdisciplinary collaboration
  • listen to faculty and represent faculty at all levels (university, state, local)
  • have new ideas and solutions about issues facing the College
  • support faculty governance and shared decision making

Discussion on Search Procedures:  It is hoped that all faculty, the FPC, and the Staff Council will have access to the Dean candidates during their campus visit.  Faculty supported the idea of including the FPC as part of the candidates’ interview schedules.  Faculty made the following suggestions related to the search procedures.

  • The search committee and Provost should be given a copy of the discussion generated by the faculty in today’s meeting
  • Dean candidates invited to campus should be given an opportunity to answer questions from the faculty in an open forum
  • Faculty should be provided background summaries on the visiting Dean candidates
  • While on campus, Dean candidates should be provided an opportunity to talk about their vision for the College
  • Dean candidates should also discuss what contributions they offer to the College
  • Faculty should be given multiple opportunities to meet with the candidates including informal and social venues
  • Faculty should provide the search committee with written feedback on each visiting candidate
  • It was suggested that the search committee extend the 2-day schedule so that faculty have more access to the candidates
  • Search committee members should consider composing a weighted system of measuring each candidates’ qualifications
  • The FPC should be given an opportunity to meet with the search committee during the final stages of selection
  • Dean candidates should address their short and long term goals and the longevity of their commitment to the position

Discussion on Strategies for Recruitment:  Faculty discussed various methods for recruiting Dean candidates including:

  • assisting in the identification of applicants for the position.
  • forwarding formal nominations of Dean candidates to the search committee.
  • generating a list of questions to be used for calling references.

Discussion on Promoting the College: Faculty discussed strategies for promoting the College during the Dean’s search.  Recommendations included:

  • A list of faculty publications from the last 5 years be compiled for Dean candidates.
  • A 1-2 page handout or brochure be designed to highlight the accomplishments of the College.
  • A compilation of college materials be mailed to the Dean candidates selected for interviews
  • College ambassadors serve as hosts during the candidates’ visits
  • Members of the Staff Council meet with and assist with the candidates visit on campus
  • The College’s web page be updated and ready for Dean candidate access
  • Candidates should be provided special “welcoming” touches to their stay in Gainesville (e.g., flowers or fruit baskets).

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

Vivian I. Correa, Ph.D.

Secretary, Faculty Policy Council

/by