Meeting Minutes

,

10 October, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
October 10, 2005

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

Mary Ann Clark, Ester de Jong, Cyndy Griffin,

Hazel Jones, Tracy Linderholm, Rod Webb

Members Absent: Kathy Gratto, Dave Honeyman

Others Present: Jeri Benson

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for October 10, 2005

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

FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

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

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

Announcements

1. Upcoming Meetings

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

Dean’s Report (Jeri Benson)

1. Faculty Searches

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

2. Keynote Speakers

  • Gloria Ladson-Billings in February
  • Dean Emihovich is working on a January speaker for kick-off

3. Howard Hughes Grant

Partnering with medical, science, and engineering faculty

4. Dean’s 3 Meetings with Provost

1 – vision, challenges, points of pride

2 – budget, enrollment, plans for increasing graduate programs

3 – still not defined

5. Restructuring in Dean’s area

Handout distributed

Committee Reports

1. Bondy – College Curriculum Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No report

Report from Faculty Senate (Cyndy Griffin)

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

2. Attendance will be taken at senate meetings

Discussion Items

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

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

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

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

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

/by
,

19 September, 2005 FPC Faculty Meeting Minutes

College of Education
Fall Faculty Meeting
9/19/05
Minutes

 

2:07 Called to Order

I.          Introductions and Announcements

a.  Catherine Emihovich and Jeri Benson introduced new personnel in the “deans’ area.” Jeri distributed an organizational chart of the COE.

b.  The five department chairs re-introduced new faculty members, including tenure-track professors, scholars, and lecturers.

c.  Pam Pallas announced that Baby Gator is the first childcare center in the county to be officially designated a VPK provider. She encouraged research collaborations focusing on young children and families.

II.         Guest: President of the UF Faculty Senate, Kim Tanzer (the COE senators will take turns getting senate news to us)

a.  There is campus wide interest in the COE constitution
b.  Board of Trustees’ goals for UF (Kim is the faculty representative on the Board):

i.  To move into the top 10 of state universities

1 .  the gaps between us and the top 10 have been identified – e.g., UF is ranked #50 of all colleges and universities, #150 in faculty resources
2.  M. Fernandez looked at US News and World Report criteria such as size of faculty and student body (S/T ratio) and alumni giving
3.  conclusions are that class sizes are too large and faculty resources are too lo
4.  goals include to raise pay and hire more faculty

ii.  To develop 150 million for faculty initiatives (currently at 43 million)
iii.  Tuition rates way too low – trustees working to move tuition control to the local level

c.   Shared Governance – trustees endorsed resolution regarding shared governance

i.   3 levels of shared governance

1.   determine – things regarding the academic mission of the university
2.   recommend – issues of importance to the academic mission, but not central to it, possibly beyond our expertise
3.   consult – opinions asked, but decision making in administration’s domain

ii.   we are now positioned to advocate in advance, rather than always reacting

d.  To do:

i.  Be responsible in university shared governance (be there, be prepared, speak carefully)
ii.  Be reasonable (must understand the issues at hand)
iii. Be realistic (this isn’t Harvard; decisions are made in a specific context)
iv. Be collegial (within departments, within colleges, across campus, at national meetings, “peer reputation” score counts)

e.   New information

i.   Attendance will be taken at all Faculty Senate meetings this year – 3:00 pm, 3rd Thursday, see Senate web page
ii.  Newsletter will be distributed to all faculty

f.   Faculty questions

i.   How does the Union overlap with the Faculty Senate – 40% of the faculty senate is in the Union

1.      5 policy councils: academic, research, academic infrastructure, budget, faculty welfare
2.    whatever the union bargains for trumps the Faculty Senate decisions

III.       Faculty Policy Council Update – Hazel Jones

a.       See handout outlining accomplishments of 04-05 and looking ahead to 05-06

IV.       Retreat – September 30, 10:00 – 2:30, Austin Cary Forest

a.  To initiate a strategic planning process related to the COE’s research goal
b.  To identify concrete steps to be taken within the COE’s research priority

V.        Discussion of 3 COE goals

a.  Particularly goals 2 and 3
b.  See synthesized list

Adjourned

/by
,

19 September, 2005 FPC Faculty Feedback Goals

COE Fall Faculty Meeting
Faculty Feedback Goals
9/19/2005
Moving toward Action on the Strategic Plan 2005-2006

What actions must be taken if we are to achieve these goals?

Goal 1: Increase and sustain research productivity

  • There is not enough technology available to professors and doctoral students. For example, there is a lack of labs with statistical software where doctoral studentscan work on statistical analysis
  • We need to recommend, terminate or input more power.

Goal 2: Strengthen key graduate programs in critical areas

  • We should systematically work on the program and also actively go out to make connections and make marketing our program such a job-embedded program targeted to the needs of practitioners and international education.
  • We have to market the program; we cannot wait for teachers to come to us. We need a budget for these connections.
  • We need to identify key areas. We also need to identify areas to decrease and build a cooperative model based on strong programs only. Jettison weak areas.
  • We need to define “key” and “critical” areas.
  • Will the market forces drive this; for example the number of students who apply.
  • How do programs change as the profession changes?
  • We need to consider reinstating requirements for graduate students to take courses outside their departments (a practice was common before the University of Florida Bank).
  • Doctoral programs need to be given more structure because masters programs do not lead to students doing research. The masters’ students only take classes and do not want to get involved in research projects.
  • What are the key graduate programs?
  • What does strengthening mean – extra allocated resources.
  • We have been told to narrow our focus, but creating new programs seems to contradict this initial directive.
  • We need to examine and evaluate administrative barriers to interdisciplinary study.
  • How do we define “key”?
  • How do we determine faculty involvement in determining which programs are strengthened – new program development guidelines.
  • There needs to be a faculty/administrator discussion of how to determine key graduate programs for criteria/open discussion.
  • We need to focus groups to develop criteria – avenues for broad faculty input – for key graduate programs in critical areas.
  • We need strategic planning to account for trends in the program.
  • What data will we use to respond to how we will determine the criteria for key graduate programs in critical areas?
  • What programs do we need that are not being addressed?
  • How will we know that we are positioned to take on these programs?
  • Doctoral students need more financial support.
  • Faculty members need to be marketed better so that we can draw more graduate students in; for example, showcasing the potential of Baby Gator and PK Yonge to be research sites.

Goal 3: Create and disseminate a nationally recognized outreach scholarship model

  • How do these work with T&P?
  • Can we find models that relate to particular contexts?
  • The faculty is very interested in recommendations made by STF/Outreach Scholarship.
  • We need to release time and support to do this.
  • We need to be sure that everyone understands the “outreach scholarship” model.
  • Does this mean that one model fits all?
  • What would scholarship look like – a publication in peer journals?
  • We need to define outreach scholarship models.
  • What does the University engagement mean?
  • The implications are connection with T&P and doctoral student participation in projects.
  • “Role” models profile possibilities for research through outreach scholarship.
  • Lastinger Center, UF Alliance, Partnership work conference in Atlanta, Holmes Scholarship, websites, publications and presentations; how do we make all these pieces into 1 meaningful model?
  • We need to examine the reward structure.
  • Outreach involves service, which is not always rewarded, and it involves significant time commitment.
  • Centers – Institutes in the College need to disseminate scholarship in highly visible education/psychology journals; as well as publish monographs that are organized by theme/topic.
  • We need to increase numbers and quality of doctoral seminars, and increase opportunities so that doctoral students can be involved in teaching and research.
  • What ways are there to financially support teachers to participate in teacher education programs beyond graduate training programs?
/by
,

12 September, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
September 12, 2005

Members Present: Ellen Amatea, Elizabeth Bondy, Mary Brownell,
Mary Ann Clark, Ester de Jong, Kathy, Gratto, Cyndy Griffin,
Dave Honeyman, Hazel Jones, Tracy Linderholm

Members Absent: Rod Webb

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, Associate Dean Jeri Benson, AssociateDean Paul Sindelar

Jones called the meeting to order at 2:02 pm.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for September 12, 2005

Griffin moved to approve the agenda. Honeyman seconded the motion. The FPC
unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes from the April 25, 2005 meeting

A correction was made to the members absent list: remove T. Scott, add M.
Brownell. Brownell made a motion to approve the April 25, 2005 minutes.
deJong seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Folders

1. Jones distributed folders to the FPC.

Folders contained updated COE constitution (which is also on the website), a
statement from the Faculty Senate Presidential Task Force on Implementation of
Shared Government Structure, April 25 FPC minutes, and today’s agenda.

Announcements

1. Upcoming Meetings
Agenda Committee meetings scheduled for Sept. 19, 2005, Oct. 17, 2005, and
Nov. 21, 2005 at 11:00 AM in deans’ suite
There is no FPC meeting on September 26, 2005 because the College Curriculum
Committee will meet on that date.

2. Election of Agenda Committee Member
FPC unanimously approved M. Brownell for the Agenda Committee

3. Review of Committee Duties

A connection is needed between FPC committees and strategic planning initiative.
Reviewed the role of each FPC committee; reminded committees to announce
meetings publically; need chairs’ notebooks from 2004-2005 year. Discussed
whether or not all policy proposals coming out of strategic planning should go to
the agenda committee. It was decided to see how the first retreat evolves; then it
will be clear how the strategic planning initiative links to the FPC committees.

Discussion Items

1. Paul Sindelar reviewed plans for the September 30th faculty retreat on building
a research culture
Draft of agenda was distributed; the overarching goal for the year is improving
the COE research culture; by December, task forces/committees will develop
action proposals
Example of a critical action – a research conference for Fall 2006 to
showcase what we do; anyone who would like to start planning is
welcome to
Research strategic task force will flesh out the details for Sept. 30

2. Dean’s role in shared governance

Discussed statement that came out of the UF Deans’ conversation with the
president about shared governance. A new challenge is the interface between
shared governance and the faculty union.

Report From the Dean

Three main points for State of the COE

1. Goals for COE
To be presented Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2005 at the Faculty Reception at the Hilton; the event on Sept. 30, 2005 will focus on the first goal

(1) to build a research culture

(2) to build curriculum and programs – shift away from initial teacher preparation
toward graduate programs in areas such as ongoing professional development
and using distance education technologies; recruit faculty and doctoral
students

(3) to create and disseminate a nationally recognized outreach scholarship model
– theme “Children, Families, Diversity and Schooling”

2. Fien Lecture Series
Speakers are being identified and secured for this year.

3. Centennial Events
Plans are still being developed; need a culminating event

4. Other Business

COE budget looks good; Dean will share with FPC soon

Amatea made motion to adjourn. Brownell seconded the motion. Meeting
adjourned at 3:53 pm.

/by
,

25 April, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

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

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

Members Absent: Terry Scott

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for April 25, 2005

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

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

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

Announcements

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

2. Welcome to New Members
Jones welcomed new members.

Action Items

1. Election of Secretary

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

Informational Items

1. Roles and responsibilities of FPC members

Members discussed committee assignments and volunteered for the following:

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

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

2. Next FPC Meeting

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

New FPC membership roster

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

/by
,

18 April, 2005 FPC Faculty Meeting Minutes

DRAFT
4/18/2005

Fall Faculty Meeting Minutes
College of Education
April 18, 2005
Room 2337, Norman Hall

Presenters: Maureen Conroy, Chair of the Faculty Policy Council
Hazel Jones, Secretary of the Faculty Policy Council
Stephen Smith, Faculty Senator
Paul Sindelar, Associate Dean for Research
Nancy Waldron, Chair of the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee
Catherine Emihovich, Dean of the College of Education

Number of faculty present: 46
Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:12.
Conroy welcomed faculty members and introduced the agenda.

Faculty Policy Council Update (Conroy)

• 2004-2005 Accomplishments

Conroy presented a list of accomplishments from this year’s faculty policy council. The group recognized the work of FPC members and college committee chairs with applause.

• FPC Election

Hazel Jones will take the position of FPC chair next week. Conroy reminded faculty that they still have time to vote in FPC elections. Elections have been extended until this Thursday.

College of Education Update (Emihovich)
• Strategic Planning for the College

The College initiated four task forces for strategic planning that will remain in place year to year:
• Outreach scholarship;
• Curriculum and program development;
• Research; and
• Faculty and student recruitment, retention and multicultural affairs.

The task forces had several productive meetings during the semester. In their last meeting on March 30, the task forces ranked action items and came to a consensus on three action items to focus on for the next year:

1. The college will be organizing some kind of event (possibly a conference or convocation) oriented around children, family, school, and diversity. This event is included in the budget request submitted to the provost. It may or may not happen in conjunction with centennial events next year.

2. The college will be focusing on making our work more visible on a national scene.

3. The college will actively seek ways to use technology better to support the work of faculty, students and staff.
Dean Emihovich also discussed the large number of new hires that have been made this year, including nine new faculty members who will be introduced in the fall. The college of education had the most diverse of applicant pool for faculty positions in the entire university.

In addition, Dean Emihovich listed several other objectives for upcoming year including:

• Raising fellowship stipends for graduate students.
• Searching for a director to set up an early literacy outreach clinic in conjunction with PKYonge. State Representative Ed Jennings is very interested in this project.
• Continuing to get support for programs like America Reads and the Alliance.
• Developing alternative educator preparation programs for postbaccalaurate students. This is a state mandate.
• Continuing to expand online teaching.
• Searching for up to nine new faculty members.

Dean Emihovich also mentioned that UF president Bernie Machen spoke very highly of the work in the College of Education at the Scholarship of Engagement Awards Banquet.

UF Faculty Senate Report (Smith)

• Tenure and Promotion Changes

Smith reported that at the November 18 meeting of faculty senate, the senate voted on a nine-part policy change regarding tenure and promotion. Eight of the nine changes were approved on November 18 and the last item was approved with some language changes at the December 16 meeting. Details are available at www.senate.ufl.edu .

Announcement of B. O. Smith Professorship Awards (Sindelar)

Sindelar thanked the Research Advisory Committee for the time they spent reviewing applications for the B.O. Smith professorships. There were seven applications and two awards for this year. He announced that Kristin Kemple from the School of Teaching and Learning and Maureen Conroy from Special Education were selected for the awards.

FPC Constitutional Change: Discussion and Vote (Waldron)

Waldron discussed the issue of participation of non-tenure accruing faculty in college governance. She presented a short history of this issue as it has evolved over the past two years.

In the spring of 2003, a group of faculty within the College of Education began talking about their concern that certain faculty members were unable to participate in college governance as set forth by the constitution. The issue was discussed and tabled.
In April 2004 the UF faculty senate adopted a new definition of faculty that included persons holding full-time appointment during the regular academic year. Based on the senate’s changes, the Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee of the College of Education (FBAC) reconsidered the issue and decided to recommend a constitutional change to allow non-tenure accruing faculty to participate in faculty governance.

The definition of faculty they recommend mirrors the definition of the UF faculty senate. They also recommend a constitutional change to include a new clause in Section B of the constitution to state:

“Eligible faculty, those persons who participate in faculty governance and vote on matters of college policy, shall consist of those in tenure accruing ranks and non-tenure accruing ranks who contribute to the academic mission of a college department and have a full time appointment during the academic year.”

Note that this does not include faculty from PK Yonge.

The FBAC also recommend that throughout the constitution the term “faculty with tenure accruing ranks” be replaced with the term “eligible faculty”.

If the change had been in effect this year, it would have affected only 16 people. Although there are more than 16 non-tenure accruing faculty in the college, some are part-time and others are not working in a department. There are currently 83 faculty in tenure accruing ranks.

The motion to vote on the issue was made by the faculty senate. Larry Tyree seconded the motion, and the floor was opened to questions from faculty members.

Stephen Smith asked whether the secretary of the faculty policy council must still be a tenure-accruing member. If so, the number of available people to become secretary, and subsequently chair of the FPC, may be reduced because there are currently only 5 FPC members who can become secretary according to FPC rules. Conroy responded that there are logistical issues that may come up, but they don’t appear to be things that can’t be handled as they arise.

Tina Smith-Bonahue asked about the procedure for making a final decision on who is considered faculty. Conroy responded that department chairs will have the final say about whether a person is a faculty member since they make the appointments.
Conroy called for a vote and both she and Jones counted the results. The constitutional amendment was accepted unanimously by all 34 tenure-accruing faculty members in attendance.

Conroy adjourned the meeting at approximately 3:03PM.

/by
,

4 April, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

DRAFT 4/13/05
Faculty Policy Council Minutes
April 4, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall

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

Members Absent: Hazel Jones, Terry Scott

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for April 4, 2005

Conroy asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Campbell asked to add an item to the agenda regarding summer school. The addition was made. Amatea made a motion to approve the agenda. Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the March 7, 2005 meeting

Tyree made a motion to approve the March 7, 2005 minutes as submitted. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. Change in date of last FPC meeting – April 25, 2005

The last FPC meeting of the 2004-2005 academic year was scheduled for May 4, 2005. The proposal is to change the date to April 25, 2005 from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. The newly elected FPC members and continuing FPC members will attend this meeting.

2. Faculty meeting – April 18, 2005

The agenda committee met to discuss the agenda for the Spring Faculty Meeting. The COE strategic plan and vote on COE constitutional changes are the main agenda items. The Faculty Meeting is scheduled during a time that the FPC would typically meet; therefore, the faculty meeting will replace the FPC meeting.

3. Committee reports – Due April 25, 2005

Conroy will ask FPC committee chairs to develop a summary report. The purpose of the reports is to communicate the committee’s accomplishments did last year. This will provide information needed for new committee members in the subsequent year.

4. FPC elections – nominations due March 31, 2005

Conroy asked if each department/school had submitted names for consideration on the FPC ballot. Several departments expressed that this task has not been accomplished. FPC representatives will check with the chair of their departments regarding this matter.

Report from the Dean

1. Strategic planning outcome
Dean Emihovich reported that she had a productive strategic planning meeting with the four strategic planning groups:
1. Outreach scholarship;
2. Curriculum and program development;
3. Research initiatives; and
4. Student and faculty recruitment and development.

She asked them to come up with a list of two important actions that they would like to see enacted next year. Out of those lists she and Jeri Benson will choose one or two to put emphasis on next year. There are two proposed actions that had support from multiple groups, so those will probably be the ones chosen.

Dean Emihovich also reported that she will put together a planning group to go forward with the actions in May or early summer. Her meeting with the Provost is April 20th, where her team will present the budget for the College of Education.

Rankings came out recently. The college is still in the top 25, but some departments have fallen out of the rankings. Other departments have remained the same.

The college has recently made four new hires: Quinnen, Crockett, Cavanaugh, and Sandler. It was pointed out to the dean that the COE has one of the best records on campus for attracting and recruiting diverse applicants.

The dean reported that there are a few items coming down from the state: (1) the college will need to develop alternative preparation paths for certification – i.e., educator preparation institutes; (2) there will also be a heavy focus on outcomes, so we will need to demonstrate the effectiveness of our results.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: No report.
2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee will meet next week. Merit pay and promotion recommendations are currently being considered.
3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee would like to have a graduate level teaching award, open to all tenured or tenure-track faculty (see below).
4. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that members of the long-range planning committee were trying to get onto each strategic planning group. This process is not working well because not all committee members have strategic planning groups that interest them.
5. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee reviewed nominations for the B.O. Smith Research Professor award.
6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that there was a discrepancy between the rank list of fellowship nominees recommended by this committee and the students who were offered fellowships. The committee met with John Kranzler, discussed the issues and determined that the committee would not be responsible for this task in the following year.
7. Technology Committee: No report.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Amatea reported that the senate discussed a proposed assembly for administrative staff. This report was tabled. Another item was the discussion of the rank order of positions for scholar, lecturer, and so forth.

Discussion Items

1. Feedback on FPC Recommendation for constitutional change of the membership of FPC to include non-tenure accruing faculty

A vote on proposed changes to the COE constitution regarding the inclusion of non-tenure accruing faculty in the FPC will occur at the April 18th faculty meeting. Conroy has heard informally that there are several concerns. She asked each FPC member to go back to his or her department and discuss whatever concerns there are with members of the faculty. She also plans to send another email out to ask about concerns with the proposed changes. Lamme reported that her department discussed and expressed some continuing concerns. The School of Teaching and Learning has so much less representation than the other departments, adding non-tenure accruing faculty to the FPC makes STL even less represented. She suggested that the issue is not about whether non-tenure accruing faculty should be included in the FPC, but more a concern about the model of governance used in the FPC (i.e., the Senate vs. House representational model of FPC).

Linderholm reported that the Educational Psychology department questioned whether non-tenure accruing faculty would be able to vote on issues that only affect tenure-accruing faculty members. Campbell reported that his department had similar concerns. Counselor Ed was supportive of the constitutional change. deJong commented that the changes would affect college-wide votes, adding a few additional votes (15 people currently). Conroy clarified that if the constitutional changes passes, non-tenure accruing faculty would be eligible to participate in FPC. Lamme expressed concern that the tendency might be to encourage non-tenure accruing faculty to participate in FPC because faculty members may feel they do not have time to participate themselves. Tyree suggested that one way to get around this potential problem is to create two seats on FPC specifically for non-tenure-accruing faculty.

Action Items

1. Graduate Teaching Award Recommendation

Amatea reported that the committee would like to have a graduate level teaching award, open to all tenured or tenure-track faculty. She provided a list of the requirements for the application. This is an award that people would only be able to earn once in their career. Dean Emihovich suggested that the award would most likely be a recognition of distinction, with no monetary award associated. Others indicated that even a small monetary award would make the award seem more valuable. The difficulty is that other similar awards do not provide a stipend and doing so for one might send the wrong message.

Emihovich wondered if there should be criteria or indicators related to student outcomes. Ross expressed concern that there may be an advantage for faculty who teach doctoral level students or smaller classes. The ability to self-reflect should not be the only indicator of quality. deJong questioned one of the criteria requesting research and publications related to graduate teaching. If graduate teaching is not on someone’s research agenda, they would be at a disadvantage. Ross commented that the criteria should to be broad enough to accommodate a wide variety of teachers – not just those who research teaching. Koro-Ljungberg also questioned the need to include student comments in the application. Lamme suggested that the number of students in their classes, the level of the students, and whether the class was required or not should be considerations in the award. deJong also requested a change to four years of data rather than five. This issue was tabled and Amatea will take the feedback to her committee.

2. Summer School Issue

Campbell presented information regarding a discrepancy in summary school pay over the past several years. He obtained information on how summer school pay was
calculated for the last few years and received several different responses. He provided a list of previous methods for calculations. There has been some changes and he asks: “Why is there variance in the calculation?” Dean Emihovich suggested that it may be a conversion issue. Campbell would like to get clarification on what that means. Emihovich stated that she would check into the potential problem.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Tyree motioned to adjourn. Amatea seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:40 pm.

/by
,

7 March, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

DRAFT 3/7/05

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

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

Members Absent: Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Larry Tyree

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for March 7, 2005

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

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

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

Announcements

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

Report from the Dean

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

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

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

Action Items

1. FBA Recommendation for Tenure Probationary Period

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

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

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

Dean Emihovich left the meeting.

Committee Reports

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

Report from the Faculty Senate

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

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

Discussion Items

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

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

/by
,

21 February, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

DRAFT 2/21/05

Faculty Policy Council Minutes
February 21, 2005
Room 158, Norman Hall

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

Members Absent: Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for February 21, 2005

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

2. Approval of the minutes of the February 7, 2005 meeting

Tyree motioned to approve the February 7, 2005 minutes as submitted. Amatea seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting – March 14, 2005
Conroy reminded those present that the next agenda committee meeting will be on March 14. Members can send agenda suggestions to her, Tyree, or Jones.
2. Faculty Meeting – April 18, 2005
This is an FPC meeting date, so the faculty meeting will replace the FPC meeting. If any constitutional changes need to be made, items need to be posted in March.
3. Scholarship of Engagement Awards – Nominations due March 7, 2005
The Scholarship of Engagement award nominations are due March 7 and the award event is April 7. CRIF awards are also coming up. In addition, the B.O. Smith award application due date is coming up after spring break.

Report from the Dean

Dean Emihovich reported that several new hires have been made including a new chair of Educational Leadership and several other associate professor hires. It is interesting to note that three new hires are Latino and male. Several other searches are also ongoing. Two searches, one in School Psychology one in Counselor Education have failed. Overall the college has been doing well in hiring.

Dean Emihovich also reported that she is working on naming strategic planning work group co-chairs. The co-chairs will be named and made public soon. She plans to set up an intranet site for each of the working groups. People will use them to access information about the committee work and each committee will need to work on specific objectives to identify the necessary resources, action items, who will lead the charge, a projected timeline, and expectations for outcomes. If each group only worked on one objective, that would be more than sufficient. The four groups are:

1. Outreach scholarship;
2. Curriculum and program development;
3. Research initiatives; and
4. Student and faculty recruitment and development.

Dean Emihovich commented that ideas and initiatives for the strategic plan come from the faculty and students. She sees her job as providing the resources and helping to facilitate. Her meeting with the Provost is April 20th, where her team will present the budget for the College of Education.

In addition, she has also been working on the vision and fund-raising for facility and capital improvements.

Koro-Ljungberg commented that she appreciates how Dean Emihovich has made information about hiring, scholarships, and task force work public.

Tyree asked about the Provost search. Dean Emihovich believes the president is not in a rush, but is waiting for the right person.

Dean Emihovich commended the search committee members who have brought in quality candidates.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee did not meet, and will not meet until March.
2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee did not meet. Merit pay and promotion recommendations are currently being considered.
3. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Amatea reported that the committee has met to decide on travel award applicants and they have continued to discuss the speaker series that is a part of the centennial event next year .
4. Long Range Planning Committee: No report due to Lamme’s absence.
5. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee is going to meet regarding the B.O. Smith award.
6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: No report due to Linderholm’s absence
7. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee met with the technology director and discussed the need for faculty administrative access to computers. The director noted that the College of Education policy of no administrative access to computers reduces the number of major problems we experience. The committee recommends administrative access on a case-by-case basis.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Amatea was unable to attend the last meeting so she did not report.

Discussion Items

1. FPC Committee Structure – Follow-up Recommendation

The agenda committee recommends that the Long-Range Planning committee be eliminated and all the other committees stay in place. The LRP committee seems to be the only committee that doesn’t have a charge.

deJong wonders whether eliminating the committee will eliminate the formal mechanism to include faculty in strategic planning. Conroy responded that strategic planning could be done within any of the committees. There is nothing to say that faculty input won’t be included in the strategic plan. It is simply that the long-range planning committee isn’t used for strategic planning, and has never had a clear charge. Conroy asked for a motion to make the recommendation an action item. Tyree motioned, and Amatea seconded to make it an action item.

2. Annual Evaluation of the Dean

Conroy reported that the agenda committee and anyone else from the FPC are welcome to participate. It is time to start the process again. Conroy asked for volunteers. Review committee members should review the procedures, decide if changes should be made, and set it up. The hardest part is getting the data and synthesizing it. It may help to have representation from each department. Campbell agreed that if the review is perceived as being led by one department, then any negative message may reflect disproportionately on the department. The committee needs to be chaired by full-tenured professors. Amatea asked to see the questionnaire.

Campbell suggested we continue using the same framework to make comparisons from last year. Koro-Ljungberg recommended the committee also add new questions.

3. FPC & Faculty Senate Elections

Elections should start happening in the beginning of April. There will be a need for a new secretary, and replacements for several members who will be transitioning out.

deJong asked about the decision regarding 6 or 7 year tenure track. Conroy is waiting for a recommendation from Nancy Waldron.
Action Items

1. FPC Committee Structure – Follow-up Recommendation (added to the agenda by motion under Discussion Items)

Koro-Ljungberg commented that dropping the committee may send the message that the FPC is not interested in long range planning. Conroy responded that the FPC can make it clear that long-range planning should happen within each relevant committee. Jones commented that we might lose our mechanism to ensure that strategic planning issues go to the FPC. Campbell suggested that the FPC endorse the strategic plan. Conroy stated that if we have a formal vote, it would have to be on something that comes from one of our committees. The strategic plan doesn’t come from us at this time—it is managed by the Dean. Conroy will talk to the Dean to get it to the agenda committee. Amatea commented that the LRP committee has been blocked from strategic planning because there is a parallel structure in place. Historically, the faculty has never done anything with strategic planning. Now that the Dean is involving the faculty with strategic planning, how to we hook into that? Campbell called for a formal linkage between FPC and strategic planning. Amatea suggested that someone from FPC be formally involved in the strategic planning process. Conroy called for a vote. The FPC unanimously rejected the proposal to eliminate the Long-Range Planning committee.

2. Non-tenure accruing faculty in FPC – Waldron

Conroy provided faculty feedback on the faculty and budgetary affairs committee recommendation that non-tenure-accruing faculty should be eligible to participate in the FPC. Faculty members appear to support the idea. The recommendation stipulates that the person who is non-tenure accruing could not be chair or secretary of the FPC.

Campbell moved to vote for approval of the recommendation, Tyree seconded.

Koro-Ljungberg asked if we have really considered what this change means. deJong responded that faculty feel strongly that we need to not exclude these people. At this time this impacts only the eligibility of 16 people. These people are contributing to the academic mission of the college, and therefore that they should have voting rights.

Tyree called for a vote. Seven members approved the recommendation. Koro-Ljungberg abstained. After this vote it will go to the faculty for an amendment of the constitution.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. deJong motioned to adjourn. Jones seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:25 pm.

/by
,

7 February, 2005 FPC Meeting Minutes

DRAFT 2/7/05

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

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

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Dean Catherine Emihovich, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for February 7, 2005

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

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

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

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting – February 14, 2005

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

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

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

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

3. University Committee Nominations 2005-2006

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

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

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

Report from the Dean

1. COE Strategic Planning Update

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emihovich concluded her remarks and left at 3:10

Committee Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report from the Faculty Senate

Discussion Items

1. FPC Representation & Committee Structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Items

1. FPC Representation & Committee Structure

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

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

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

/by