November 8, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Dale Campbell, Mary Clark (alternate), Maureen Conroy, Hazel Jones, Ester deJong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott

Members Absent: Ellen Amatea, Larry Tyree

Others Present: Associate Deans Jeri Benson and John Kranzler, Faculty Senator Paul George, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for November 8, 2004

Jones motioned to approve the November 8, 2004 meeting agenda. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the October 25, 2004 meeting

Scott motioned to approve the October 25, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Koro-Ljungberg seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

Conroy reminded those present that members can send agenda suggestions to herself, Tyree, or Jones.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: Jones reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: deJong reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Clark reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported that the group met online. She presented a document that summarizes concerns. The consensus is that the charge to the committee needs to be better defined. Are they to ask for more space, or deal with existing space? Benson is taking action to see what has already been done.

1. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee has not met since the last report.

1. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that the group met once. They are creating a rubric to help decide how alumni fellowships should be distributed. They will have a proposal by December. They are also working on the criteria for graduate admissions.

1. Technology Committee: Scott reported that the committee met and spent most of the time discussing the new director of technology position.

Report from the Dean

Associate Dean Benson shared a list of the vacant faculty positions within the college. There are ten tenure-track positions plus an alliance director position. The college is advertising these positions in several print media outlets. deJong noted that her department has already filled the posted lecturer position.

B.O. Smith awards: Benson reported that Dean Emihovich will publish the criteria for these positions soon and that they will be awarded in the spring.

Benson provided a handout announcing a new program, the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, designed to recognize faculty who are also exemplary teachers. The university is looking for senior associates who have a record of teaching accomplishments. They will only select five members in the inaugural year. This academy is the first step towards having a group of scholars on campus who focus on teaching.

Report from the Faculty Senate

Faculty Feedback on Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure

Faculty Senator Paul George reported that there were mostly tenure-related items discussed at the last Senate meeting. There will be one more meeting for discussion, then a vote. The biggest issues under consideration are:

1)      A possible three-year review to assess progress towards tenure; and

2)      The question of whether colleges will have six or seven-year tenure reviews.

Concerns discussed included:

• The importance of flexibility among colleges, i.e., allowing each college to choose for themselves whether to review at six or seven years.
• How the three-year review will be used, i.e., as an opportunity for mid-period feedback, or as a tool to fire people. Ideally the three-year review should be helpful for faculty by allowing them to assess their progress and plan appropriate goals to reach tenure. There is currently a three-year review process in place in the COE and faculty are optimistic that the College of Education would be able to institute a three-year review process fairly.

• Concern was also expressed about the three-year review being kept in the faculty member’s file and used to help make future decisions. It was noted that the College of Education policy is to place the review in the personnel file. Another issue discussed was that three years might not be enough time to get an accurate representation of a faculty member’s productivity because it takes a few years to get things published.

• A question was raised about why the minimum number of peer-review letters was raised to five. Benson explained that this number is within a range used by AAU universities, some use a minimum of three and others use a minimum of eight.

• George also reported that  a “tenure when ready” approach within a seven year period is being discussed by the senate.

• A question was asked about where the letters from the faculty mentoring program go. George reported that the Senate did not discuss mentoring much.

Information Items

Fall/Winter Faculty Meeting Dates: November 22, December 13, January 10, January 17

Conroy asked for feedback on potential dates for a faculty meeting. She suggested that faculty meet soon to help Dean Emihovich develop a transition report for the new provost (memo on the transition report provided as a handout). It was decided to hold the meeting on November 22.

New COE positions

·        Associate Dean for Research

The position description was provided as a handout. Conroy reported that the special education department brought up two issues regarding the description:

1)      The description mentions an administrative stipend. Some people thought an administrative stipend might not be as attractive as an overall pay raise; and

2)      There is a concern about the research office needing to be self-sustaining. This is a position that has been vacant for a long time, and the faculty are interested in getting this position filled as soon as possible. If potential applicants need to worry about sustaining their office within three years (as rumored), they may be less interested in the position.

Benson stated that the rumor that the office should be self-sustaining within three years could be pretty damaging. It could not be truly self-sustaining in the beginning. Eventually some of the indirect money that grants bring in might be used to support the office. Over time more money will flow through the office because of the increased number of grants. The Dean is investing in this position to increase the number of grants the college is getting.

·        Director of Graduate Studies

The director of graduate studies is a less well-defined position. It is part of an ongoing discussion. Benson believes it is critical that faculty have a say in what this position looks like because this person will be serving faculty. Conroy encouraged FPC members to email the faculty they represent to get feedback on what they would like to see in this position. Conroy asked Kranzler to provide her with a description of his duties so that faculty have a starting point to discuss what the new duties might be. It was mentioned that there have been several failed searches around this position and the college needs to make administrative positions more attractive so people will want to take them.

• Director of Technology

The Director of Technology position is getting close to being posted. Kranzler has already submitted the position description to various people to get feedback. Some decisions still need to be made about whether the search will be national, regional, internal etc. Advertisements should go out in early spring and hopefully someone will be hired no later than in the fall.

Transition Report for the New Provost

As previously noted, the faculty meeting on November 22 will address the transition report. Dean Emihovich will come to each department and discuss the transition report too.

Other items

Jones asked Kranzler to make follow-up comments on the technology issues discussed at the last meeting. Kranzler reported that a FAQ is being posted on the Web soon. They are still planning to make and provide the comparison of different email programs to faculty members.

Jones motioned to adjourn. Linderholm seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:27 pm.

Note: The FPC meeting for Monday, November 22 will be postponed so that a faculty meeting can be held on that day.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda, (2) Draft of the October 25, 2004 FPC Minutes, (3) Memorandum from David Colburn on Preparing for the Transition (re: new provost), (4) College of Education Associate Dean for Research Position Description, (5) Email regarding the Academy of Distinguished Teaching Scholars, (6) List of positions available within the College of Education (printed from the COE Website)

October 11, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members Present: Dale Campbell, Mary Clark (alternate), Maureen Conroy, Ester de Jong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Tracy Linderholm, Terry Scott

Members Absent: Hazel Jones, Larry Tyree,Ellen Amatea

Others Present: Associate Dean Jeri Benson, SAGE representative Karen Kuhel, Nancy Waldron

Conroy called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

The FPC welcomed Karen Kuhel, a representative of SAGE.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of the agenda for October 11, 2004

Lamme made a motion to approve the October 11, 2004 meeting agenda. Koro-Ljungberg seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2.  Approval of the minutes of the August 30, 2004 meeting

Lamme made a motion to approve the August 30, 2004 minutes as submitted.  Campbell seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the minutes.

de Jong asked that the minutes be sent to FPC members by email before FPC meetings. Conroy will check with Jones to make sure this happens.

Conroy reminded those present to send agenda suggestions to herself, Tyree, or Jones.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee: No report.

1. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee: de Jong reported the committee met twice and Nancy Waldron is committee chair. Their focus has been on the faculty survey and its results. Agenda items are:

·         The role of non-tenure accruing faculty in college governance;

·         The faculty load within the college;

·         The promotion guidelines for lecturers; and

·         Policies for merit pay.

1. Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: No report.

1. Long Range Planning Committee: Lamme reported the committee exchanged emails but has not met formally. There is no chair at this time. The committee plans to analyze space usage in the college.

1. Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg reported that Stephen Smith is committee chair. They are reviewing selection criteria for the B.O. Smith professorship and the Associate Dean for Research positions.

1. Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Linderholm reported that Kathy Grotto is committee chair. Kitty Fallon will take minutes and arrange meetings. Their agenda items are:

·         Gather data on recruitment;

·         Increase faculty awareness of the recruitment tools available to them;

·         Discuss criteria for alumni and presidential fellowships; and

·         Provide recommendations regarding graduate admissions for students who do not meet GRE or GPA requirements.

1. Technology Committee: Scott reported that he is committee chair. The committee will meet again on Wednesday. Agenda items are:

·         The server changeover; and

·         Administrative access to faculty computers.

Report from the Dean

Benson provided a summary document of the faculty feedback compiled by Dean Emihovich.  Benson asked FPC members to review the document to ensure that the faculty intent remains clear. Dean Emihovich will be meeting with the president on Wednesday morning, October 13, 2004 so there will not be much time to edit the summary. Benson reported that the Dean’s Advisory Committee wants the college to present its feedback in a positive light. Benson intends to edit the summary to emphasize the COE as a research partner in the university, reorganize it a bit, and generally make the document more positive and succinct. Nothing will be deleted.

Campbell brought up a concern about the amount of summer offerings for doctoral students. Even though many doctoral students are required to take a certain number of credit hours, there are not enough classes for them. This is a budgetary issue. The first thing that always gets cut is summer school. Conroy agreed that providing summer courses is an important, ongoing issue. Another problem is with faculty not being compensated for the time they spend with doctoral students in the summer. Lamme mentioned that many faculty members were hired with the expectation of continued summer employment, but now that is not available. Benson will incorporate this concern in the summary document.

New Business

1. Link Between Faculty Senate & FPC

Conroy discussed the need to link the Faculty Senate and the FPC. The agenda committee decided to add the Faculty Senate to FPC’s agenda so there would be a regular update. Currently, Ellen Amatea is on both the FPC and the Faculty Senate.

Benson mentioned that she would like to ask the senators their opinions regarding faculty tenure and promotion issues. She asked whether it is appropriate for her to ask to meet with the Senate. Lamme responded that the Senate does not typically meet with administration, especially since the faculty does not have a union. The reasoning is that administration should not have influence over senators. (This does not represent Lamme’s personal opinion.)

Faculty Senators: Ellen Amatea, Paul George, Jane Townsend, Stephen Smith, and Cindy Griffen.

Campbell suggested that a member of the FPC attend the senate meeting or vice versa. Lamme agreed. She said it is important to have a policy regarding this, and to invite senators to attend FPC meetings. Conroy did invite the senators to this meeting. They did not attend. Conroy plans to talk to senators about the faculty feedback they are getting. Lamme suggested a policy change so that at least one senator must also be a member of FPC (as Amatea happens to be). Conroy replied that a policy change of that type requires a constitutional amendment. It is something the FPC could discuss at the end of the year.

1. Review of the Dean Evaluation Procedures

Conroy reported on evaluation procedures for administrators. Last year, there was a computer glitch and the majority of faculty members never got evaluation forms. There is also an issue with making comments public because some faculty members are making unprofessional comments. Lamme suggested a review procedure before the comments are posted. de Jong wondered whether faculty members were aware that the comments would be made public. Lamme recommended making the comments private for the Dean. Koro-Ljungberg expressed frustration with the negative climate and the unprofessional nature of comments from faculty.

Conroy reported that there would be another evaluation this Spring. She questioned whether we would use the same instrument. Lamme suggested that the instrument is useful. Clark asked about ways to encourage more faculty to fill out evaluations and mentioned the low return rate. de Jong asked whether the Dean will address her evaluation with a formal improvement plan. Conroy said she does not know of any plans to do this. Campbell said a list of goals based on the evaluation results would be useful. Scott suggested there be a clear set of goals for the Dean that can be used to evaluate her for next year. It might help people make less biased evaluations.

Koro-Ljungberg asked if the instrument tells us what we want to know. The “don’t know” category tends to promote “don’t know” responses. Lamme likes the instrument. It is the same as the one that the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences uses. Waldron gave her impression that faculty didn’t seem to have problems with the length of the evaluation, and they seemed to think that the instrument covered the areas that were important to them. There are not that many questions with a high rate of “don’t knows”, and the 47% return rate is not low for research standards.

Conroy mentioned the question posed last year about whether the report should go to the provost’s office. Last year it did. This was not the original intention of the evaluation. Benson thinks Dean Emihovich might like to formally address the goals she will be working on so that there are clear criteria to base judgments for next year. Linderholm suggested FPC set up objectives for the Dean at the beginning of the year and then evaluate how she has met those objectives. Conroy noted that a committee would be formed to review the procedure and evaluate the Dean in the Spring.

Lamme asked for a decision on whether the comments are public or private. She made a motion that comments be made private for the Dean only. Scott seconded.

Campbell suggested an interim step so that faculty members do not perceive the FPC as restricting information. He believes it would send the wrong message. An interim step would be to make the comments available by request. Or, before the FPC takes action, at a minimum, take it back to the departments to discuss it. Conroy responded that making comments available by request would not be much different from what happened this year. She suggested a clarification of the procedures.

Lamme rescinded her motion.

1. Review of the Assistant & Associate Dean

Conroy reported that Assistant & Associate Dean evaluations are sent directly to the Dean and not reviewed by faculty. One of the big justifications for this procedure was that the department chair evaluations were also sent directly to the Dean. Now that the chair evaluations are made public this may be revisited. Comments from the chair evaluation are still not made public. Benson asked about the rationale for evaluating every two years. Conroy responded that the procedure was time-intensive, so every two years seemed more manageable.

1. Review of Dean Emihovich’s Evaluation

Nancy Waldron formally shared the results of the Dean’s review. The intent of the summary was to point out specific trends of faculty input. The evaluation survey was sent to all 117 faculty at the college, including non-tenure accruing faculty. Although there was a place on the form for it, many people (30%) did not indicate their rank so there was no opportunity to analyze opinions based on faculty rank. Overall, the most positive area in the review was related to resource development and the Dean’s productivity with increasing college resources from the University, the state, and alumni. 60-65% of the faculty responding felt it was a positive area for her. Her lowest score was for climate and faculty governance. There was a fairly substantial group who felt she had done very well in that area and some who felt exactly the opposite. Overall, there were a number of areas where the faculty was evenly distributed in relation to positive, negative and neutral ratings.

Lamme mentioned that the distribution between positive and negative comments might be related to the amount of information each faculty member has. Those who have less contact with the Dean might have more negative comments. She suggested that the Dean present a report to faculty with specific data describing what she has done before the evaluation so faculty can use that information to make their judgments. Waldron agreed that the degree of information the faculty has is important. They thought about asking on the survey “How much contact have you had with the Dean?”

Conroy stated that she would talk to Dean Emihovich and encourage her to make some goals for the year, which will help her guide her report to the faculty on how she has met these goals.

1. Faculty Feedback on UF/COE Strategic Plan

·         Faculty meeting held September 13, 2004

·         Faculty forum held September 20, 2004

·         Dean’s Retreat held October 7, 2004

·         The Faculty & Bugetary Affairs Committee is reviewing their documents and will report back on Friday

Conroy reminded FPC members of the next FPC meeting on October 25, 2004.

Conroy asked for a motion to adjourn. Scott motioned to adjourn. Koro-Ljundberg seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the motion to adjourn at 3:48 pm.

Documents provided to attendees: (1) Faculty Policy Council Agenda, (2) Report from the Long-Range Planning Committee, (3) Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee Report, (4) Annual Review Procedures for COE Dean, (5) Review procedures for Assistant and Associate Deans, (6) Evaluation of the Dean (blank form), (7) Faculty Review of Dean Catherine Emihovich, (8) Draft of the College of Education Faculty Feedback on the University of Florida Strategic Plan, (9) College of Education Faculty Meeting 9/13/04, (10) College of Education Retreat, Feedback on Strategic Plan, October 7, 2004.

August 30, 2004
Room 158, Norman Hall

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

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

Members absent: None

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

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

Agenda and Minutes

1.  Approval of the agenda for August 30, 2004

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

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

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

Announcements

1. Fall Faculty Meeting

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

2. 2004-2005 FPC meeting Dates

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

Report from the Dean

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

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

·         What would you like to keep?

·         What would you like to change?

·         What would you like to add?

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

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

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

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

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

Dean Emihovich reminded members of centennial celebration preparations already

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action items

1. Assignment of FPC members to committees

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

Conroy requested volunteers for committees.

Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee:  Esther DeJong

Lectures, Seminars, & Awards Committee: Ellen Amatea

The Long-Range Planning Committee: Linda Lamme

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

Research Advisory Committee: Koro-Ljungberg

Student Recruitment, Admissions, & Petitions Committee: Tracy Linderholm

Technology Committee.  Terry Scott

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

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

Elections Committee:  Currently needs three new members.

Agenda Committee: Need to elect an FPC representative.

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

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

2. Nominations for Agenda Committee

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

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

Informational Items

1. Faculty Feedback on UF Climate

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

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

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

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

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

2. Plan for change in mail servers

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

3. Issues & Activities for 2004-2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 10, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Ellen Amatea, Jenny Asmus, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Cyndy Griffin (alternate for Hazel Jones), Ester DeJong, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott

Members absent: Tracy Linderholm, Larry Tyree

Others present: Erika Gubrium

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for May 10, 2004

Lamme made a motion to approve the May 10, 2004 meeting agenda as submitted by Conroy. Asmus seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the April 19, 2004

Campbell made a correction to the minutes and made a motion to approve the April 19, 2004minutes with the change requested. Asmus seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Action Items

1. Election of FPC Secretary

Conroy reported that the main purpose of the meeting was to elect a secretary so that the secretary can have enough time to negotiate their 25% course release in the fall. Conroy also noted that FPC will not be meeting this summer and she provided the tentative dates for future meetings in next year.

Conroy reviewed the secretary’s roles which are defined in the constitution. The secretary:

1) is a voting member of FPC who is responsible for taking minutes, sending drafts of minutes to the FPC faculty, editing, and posting the minutes online,

2) is the chair of the College Curriculum Committee,

3) serves on the Agenda Committee comprised of three other people and the Dean to meet once a month to set the FPC meeting agenda, and also

4) serves as secretary of faculty meetings.

After one year as secretary, the secretary becomes chair of FPC the following year. Eligible FPC members are incoming tenured full or associate professors.

Conroy added that since FPC represents all departments across the College of Education, perhaps the secretary and chair should be cross departmental.

Conroy reported that nominations would be held today. If there was not more than one nominee that agreed to take the role, the vote would be held today. If there were multiple nominees interested in taking the role, votes would be held at a later date.

Eligible members include: Ellen Amatea, Dale Campbell, Larry Tyree, Terry Scott, Hazel Jones, and Linda Lamme.

Lamme asked if any two year faculty members were interested. Conroy replied that she had spoken with Larry Tyree (via email) and expressed concern about the position since he had only been on the faculty for two years. Conroy added that Hazel would prefer not to serve as secretary, but stated that she was willing if no one else volunteered.

Amatea added that commitments keep her from being able to participate as did Campbell and Scott. Scott noted, however, that like Hazel, if he was needed, he would serve.

Lamme reported that she would not be able to serve either and asked if Koro-Ljungberg could serve. Conroy replied that Koro-Ljungberg were not eligible, since she is an assistant professor.

Conroy noted that the Special Education department has chaired three out of the four years and suggested that another department may want to chair the FPC. Asmus added that it should be cross departmental.

Conroy asked FPC members for other suggestions.  She also noted that the Counselor Education Department has many assistant professors which have a hard to stepping up as representatives and shared her appreciation of Amatea’s decision to participate.

Asmus asked if only the faculty on the FPC membership list were eligible. Conroy replied yes because those are the members elected to FPC.

Asmus asked how likely it would be for Tyree to reconsider. Conroy said she would ask especially because he has strong leadership skills.

Koro-Ljungberg advised Conroy to ask Tyree and noted that she was not concerned with people coming from Special Education.

Asmus replied that people from Special Education are not asking to serve but are serving because they are needed. Asmus added that it is not fair because of issues of course release, time, and load.

DeJong suggested that Conroy ask Tyree because he would be here three years before becoming a chair. Conroy replied that she would get back to him but was not sure if he would say yes.

Campbell asked if alternates were eligible. Conroy replied that alternates were not.

Asmus asked Amatea and Campbell if they definitely could not serve. Amatea and Campbell said they definitely could not. Conroy asked Lamme if she could serve. Lamme replied no because she was overextended. Asmus noted that the only options are Tyree, Scott, and Jones.

Griffin nominated Tyree and Scott seconded the nomination.

Conroy asked FPC members for a back up plan in case Tyree turned down the nomination. Scott replied that if Jones and Tyree say no, he would take the position.

Conroy noted that she would talk to the Tyree and the James McLeskey (chair of Special Education) because if Hazel served as secretary, this would impact the department with 2 faculty members being released from a single department.

Asmus questioned what would occur if all said no. Conroy noted that the decision would extend to the fall.

Informational Items

1. Review of 2004-2005 FPC Meeting dates (tentative)

Conroy provided present FPC members with a list of tentative FPC meeting dates noting that there are two meetings a month for the rest of the year.

Griffin asked what times the meetings are held. Conroy replied that meetings are held from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

2. Review of FPC structures and operating guidelines

Conroy provide present FPC members with the constitution pointing out that the FPC deals with matters related to the college as a whole. FPC shares a shared governance role and meets twice a year with the Dean to review the budget.

Conroy reported that representatives are two people from each department. If a representative cannot attend, they should ask the alternate. If the alternate cannot attend, the representative would have to find another representative. Meetings are open to all faculty. The Student Alliance of Graduates in Education (SAGE) is also going to provide a representative.

FPC members serve as a liaison to share information with their departments.

Conroy noted that the meetings follow Robert’s Rules and asked for assistance if she failed to follow them. Conroy added that administration and graduate students are invited but, faculty members have the floor although input would be taken from all present when relevant. Issues can be brought to FPC by any faculty member and should be forwarded to the agenda committee, Conroy, or the secretary.

3. Review of FPC committees

Conroy encouraged FPC members to review the constitution and added that each representative would serve on at least one committee.

DeJong asked if the committees report to FPC. Conroy replied yes and that each committee meets at least once a month.

Conroy noted that committees develop policy. She added that two of the issues are the minority recruitment and retention plan as well as a definition of faculty. Conroy asked FPC members to review the committees and inform her of their interest.

Amatea asked if there were current faculty commitments from FPC. Conroy replied not necessarily, noting that Scott could stay on the Technology Committee if he chose too as could Lamme stay on the Long Range Planning Committee.

DeJong asked if there were any agenda items carrying over. Conroy replied that they were technically not but the minority recruitment and retention plan as well as the definition of faculty will be on the agenda for the fall. Conroy added that the Associate Deans needed to be evaluated in the fall.

Lamme asked if there was any word on the new Associate Dean. Conroy replied no although two candidates, Tom Prout and Rennee Cliff, were ruled out.

Conroy adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m.