College of Education (COE)
Draft Faculty Policy Council Minutes
September 10, 2007

Members Present: Jean Crockett, Rick Ferdig, John Kranzler, David Miller, Bernie Oliver, Diane Ryndak, Edil Torres, Elizabeth Yeager, Harry Daniels (alt. for Sondra Smith), Ruth Lowery
Members absent:, Sondra Smith, David Quinn
Non-Members Present: Dean Jeri Benson, Marylynn Hall, Ester de Jong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Paul Sindelar, Linda Hagedorn

Meeting began at 2:03.

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

Yeager asked for a motion to approve the April 30 FPC meeting minutes. Miller moved to approve the minutes and Torres seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved.

Dean’s report

• Dean Emihovich is currently in China. Dean Benson reported that she was asked to speak about the budget cuts. The college was asked to return 4.2% of its budget. This is effectively a 33% cut to the operating budget because salaries can’t be touched. The amount is around $678,000, which has already been given back. This is a permanent cut. Because the legislature is not meeting until October, we don’t know if this is the end of it. We could be asked to make more cuts. An anticipated 4% additional cut next year. We were fortunate that no one had to lose a position. Searches for the next few years are off, unless there are retirements.
• Dean Benson has announced her retirement as of July 1, 2008. There will be an internal search for her replacement. When Emihovich returns next month a job description will be finalized. Webb will chair the search committee. We hope to have someone named by the end of December. This timing will allow transition.
• Dean Benson discussed her new office website. The site includes forms, policies, and processes for academic affairs.

Information item

• COE Fall Faculty Meeting, October 8
  Yeager reported that the fall faculty meeting is on October 8. This is rescheduled since Catherine was unable to attend the other date. She wanted to be able to talk about the budget situation. Rick Yost from the Faculty Senate and Dick Gorsky from the UF Disability Center will be there.

Discussion items

• Update on tenure and promotion (T&P) criteria
  Koro-Ljungberg reported that she is chairing the T&P adhoc committee and de Jong is co-chair. The committee has met several times since January to discuss the criteria. Koro-Ljungberg emphasizes that the focus is not on the process, just the criteria.
  de Jong provided a handout with some history of the committee. The committee started last year at the request of the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee (FBAC). to revise the criteria. The procedures have already been revised in 2002. They sent an open invitation to all faculty to participate in the committee. They tried to get different ranks and representations from all departments. They started by looking at what other people had done. They took tenure and promotion guidelines from comparable institutions such as California, Michigan, Maryland. What do these other institutions do? Then they decided to tackle it by dividing it up by service, teaching, and scholarship – different groups looked at each piece. Then the language was brought back to the entire group for revision. Each document has gone through three revisions by the entire committee. They have three big parts to them. What do we consider scholarship, teaching, service defined as? What are some areas of distinction? How can distinction be demonstrated? The purpose of the list is not to be exhaustive. There will never be a full-fledged list. The piece that is not included yet is the introduction to the document. The committee has worked very hard, and worked well together.

Koro-Ljungberg invites faculty to give conceptual feedback. Assistant professors will have an open forum on October 12. Forum for all faculty will be on October 19. This will be in three one hour sessions (service, scholarship, research). Forum for faculty to participate in integrating the different parts of the document on October 26. Hopefully FPC members can encourage department members to participate in this process. FPC members can also pass along department feedback to the committee.

Ferdig questions … What are sources versus indicators of quality – Just being on committee is not a quality indicator. Chairing or strong participation on the committee is more an indicator of quality. More specific criteria is being added. They have tried to put the quality indicators in context. The list is still there, but more detailed reasoning is provided in the new version. Ferdig suggested sending the old document out for comparison purposes too. Benson suggested early notification of the meeting (save the date) so that people can get this on their calendar.

• COE Day Away summary and next steps
  Sindelar led the Day Away activities. The day was focused on budget issues. Handout represents the summary reports from four groups. Talked about how the college can expand and diversify funding sources. Groups talking about grants, efficiency, centers (how faculty members could engage in the work of centers to bring in additional funds), distance education group. The handouts are the final reports these groups made. Each group was charged to identify ways to increase and diversify revenue sources in their area. They committed to identify activities that could be instrumental for preparing for future budget cuts. They would like this to become an action plan.
  They will be talking about this at the October 8 faculty meeting. They would like to send out a narrative version of this to the entire faculty. These are the opportunities that are available to people in these three areas. A lot of these are departmental issues. This was a very fruitful session. People did not focus on the negative. The tone was positive. Ryndak really hopes that there is follow-through because people are ready to get started. There are some obvious next steps. FPC can organize information sessions for people around these topics. There are policy issues that might eventually have to be dealt with from these budget decisions. Yeager asked for suggestions for next steps. Sindelar suggested sending out information to all faculty. Ferdig wants to know who is responsible for each items. Open it up to everyone, but let people know who is responsible for what. Daniels noticed that the centers agenda and the grants agenda has a lot of overlap. It also seems that there is too much to do. What about prioritizing certain areas? Sindelar agreed that ranking activities is an important task. Ryndak discussed how the group members found that their interest areas could support each other. She thought immediately about grant proposals. Crockett discussed how her group thought about becoming self-sufficient – this is an entrepreneurial mission – a whole new way of thinking. Does that type of thinking help to redirect us? Are we moving towards self-sufficiency? Kranzler suggested that grant funding is great, but that is a long-term solution. Daniels brought up low IDC generating projects and how redirecting efforts might be advisable. There is already a structure for addressing distance education issues. Quinn has agreed to be liaison to this committee. Next steps will be getting these ideas out to the faculty and assigning responsibilities to different groups.
• Office of Educational Research resources and budget
  Yeager lined up center directors to talk at FPC meetings to get specifics about available resources. FPC members should take this information back to their departments. Sindelar reported on the resources available in the Grant Office, the budget, where the money comes and how it is spent. The office lost its fiscal person during the hiring freeze and haven’t been able to hire a replacement. They were able to hire a statistics person (Cyndi Garvin), in conjunction with ed psych, for consultation regarding research design and data analysis. They can help in finding potential funding sources. They have a research profile on everyone, which will soon be completely up to date. This is a searchable database. You can pick descriptors and get a list of people who have used those descriptors to describe their own work. They can help with all the aspects of getting grant funding. They can also draft IRBs from exisiting proposals (@80% of the work). Ana has been working with the fiscal people in each department to standardize budgetary reporting. Some of the IDC money has been used for seed money for project development. The office has been self-sufficient for the two years it has operated. A serious issue for the office is the nest egg. They are sitting on some IDC money. He is doing what he can to preserve it. This year they will probably tap into the nest egg. They have hired Angie Williams on an overtime basis and a second research assistant to cover what Devona Ferguson used to do. The expense budget is gone. Everything except staff salaries is covered by IDC. The research office share of Cyndi Garvin’s salary (50%) is being paid from IDC. If we are trying to diversify revenue streams, this IDC money is going to be instrumental,
  so spending it on salaries is not ideal. Brian can help with grants.gov and FastLane submissions. Sindelar feels well supported by faculty.

• Linda Hagedorn – Carnegie Professional Practice Doctorate update

Hagedorn has been accepted into the Carnegie program on the professional doctorate. In response to criticisms of colleges of education. In ed leadership, many graduates go into professional practice. Need to provide the appropriate training for people who are interested in professional work. There is no money attached to this work. This is about creating programs that will create more interest. The idea of the professional practice doctorate works well for their department. Practicums, for example,, are more important. They have put together a working group to guide this initiative. Hagedorn sees herself as the cheerleader for this initiative. They are trying to figure out how to make this happen. It is a three year initiative (first year complete) to create a college-wide program that is applicable to all departments. They have created a pilot program in the department of ed leadership. They have also hired a distance faculty member. It is more about being an effective administrator. Ryndak asked how this was different from the previous program of the EdD in Ed Admin. EdD is going to be off-campus on a part-time basis and the PhD is going to be on campus so students can work with faculty. She is looking to make the research piece for the Ed.D. students more applied rather than esoteric. Crockett looks at this as a way of addressing the research to practice gap. How can we cultivate a greater sense of research understanding. As a practitioner, you are an implementer. This would change what the dissertation experience would be like. Promoting critical thinking and academic curiosity is not necessarily the domain of traditional research. There is considerable competition in graduate and professional education. Distance education universities are getting stronger. If people go into practice, it doesn’t matter much where they get their degree. Convenience, time, and all those factors go into it. Phoenix isn’t cheap. We are not competing with Nova, because we will always be the university of florida. Does every department have an EdD? I think every department can have an EdD.

• GRE/Graduate Council policy update
  Thomasina cannot be here today. She forwarded information on the GRE changes. The University decided that the criteria for 1000 verbal+quantitative minimum score will be removed. The grad school is giving colleges leeway. Our college currently exempts below 1000 GRE with a masters from an appropriate institution. She is requesting feedback – do we want to keep the current 1000 minimum in our college? Kranzler reported that at one point, the admissions and petitions committee was allowing everyone who petitioned to get through. To address this, the deal was that nobody below 900 was accepted period. Some colleges are saying that they only accept 1200. The school psych program decided not to change its criteria. What should our next step be? The GRE discriminates against older students, minorities, and low-SES students. It is program-department-college-university. Rankings are of concern and quality of dissertations. The Dean’s office used to review dissertations because the graduate school was complaining about the quality of dissertations. There
  are superintendents who have trouble getting into UF because of the GRE score. Holistic admissions take into account other experiences that allow them to flourish in this environment. Difficulty getting through a dissertation is a problem with us. We haven’t prepared them well. Oliver argues against uses the GRE.

Action Item – FPC liaisons to FPC committees

Curriculum Rick Ferdig
Faculty Affairs John Kranzler
Budgetary Affairs Sondra Smith
Lectures, Seminars, and Awards Ruth Lowery
Distance Education Task Force David Quinn
Shared Governance Task Force David Miller
Research Advisory Diane Ryndak
Technology Edil Torres

FPC rep to Agenda Committee Jean Crockett

Meeting adjourned at 4:20 – did not catch the motion/second

Next meeting: COE Fall Faculty Meeting, October 8, 2pm, Terrace Room

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

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

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

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

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

Announcements

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

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

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

Committee Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items

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

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

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

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

Discussion Items

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

Meeting adjourned at 3:59pm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The minutes were unanimously approved.

Announcements

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

Paul Sindelar’s office recently sent an email announcing a hour-long lunch meeting on March 21st to kick off a discussion of the professional practice doctorate. Bondy, Lane, and Linda Hagadorn are starting a steering committee for this project. Bondy asked FPC members to discuss the lunch at department meetings.

Committee Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dean’s Report

Dean Emihovich reported that:

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

UF Senate Report

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

Discussion Items

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

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

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

Handout A:

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

Handout B:

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

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

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

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

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

Next Meeting: March 19, 2007

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
November 13, 2006

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

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

Agenda and Minutes

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

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

Information Items

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

Committee Reports

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

Lectures, Seminars, Awards (Diane) – no report

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

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

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

Technology (Rod) – no report

UF Faculty Senate Report

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

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

Dean’s Report

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

Discussion Items

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

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