March 22, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: James Algina (for Mirka Koro-Ljungberg), Jim Archer, Patricia Ashton (for Jennifer Asmus), Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Dale Honeyman (for Craig Wood), Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Elizabeth Yeager

Members absent: Craig Wood, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Jennifer Asmus

Others present: Catherine Emihovich, John Kranzler, Rod Webb

---

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for March 22, 2004
   
   Algina made a motion to approve the March 22, 2004 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron. Yeager seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.
2. Approval of the minutes of the February 23, 2004 meeting
   Honeyman made a correction to the minutes.Ashton made a motion to approve the February 23, 2004minutes with the change requested. Algina seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 19, 2004 from 11:00 – 12:00 noon. Issues to be placed on the agenda for this meeting should be forwarded to Waldron or Conroy.

2. COE Spring Faculty Meeting.

Waldron reported that the COE Spring Faculty meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2004 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. An announcement was sent out to faculty. A reminder will be sent this week.

3. Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

Waldron reminded FPC members that they are invited to attend the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting with President Machen on Tuesday, March 30^th, from 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. in the Terrace Room.

4.   Associate Dean Search Committee Meeting

Waldron shared that a message from Kranzler was sent today updating FPC about the Associate Dean search. FPC members were asked to send comments directly to Kranzler or other members of the committee. Kranzler will send out another update after a plan is created.

5.   Call for Nominations for 2004-05 FPC Representatives

Waldron will send a message next week to both the general faculty and department chairs to notify them of FPC positions available. Department chairs have already been notified that three nominations per department are needed. Once votes are decided, length of FPC term will be decided as well.

Report from Dean

1. Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting

Dean Emihovich asked FPC members interested in attending the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting with President Machen on Tuesday, March 30^th, from 9:00 – 10:00 in the Terrace Room to contact the Dean’s office because refreshments will be provided.

2. Scholarships of Engagement

Dean Vernetson will be sending out a message asking faculty to nominate a graduate student for the Scholarship of Engagement Award. Criteria for nominees will be distributed as well.

3. Budget Report

Dean Emihovich announced that she would be sharing the comprehensive budget report at FPC’s April 5^th meeting. Projections for summer funding are positive. Carry over funds will be used for: a) $18,000 Presidential Fellowships using GRE and GPA as fellowship criteria, b) student recruitment, c) raising TA stipends to attract more students.

Archer asked if these funds would be used this year. Dean Emihovich confirmed that the funds would be used in the fall 2004.

Kranzler noted that 38 doctoral students were nominated for fellowships with offers to the top ranked 24.

Dean Emihovich added that the push is for high quality doctoral-level graduate students and GPA and GRE scores will be used as criteria for fellowships. She encouraged faculty to recruit additional doctoral-level students and stated that her office is committed to finding funding for these students. This type of activity will assist in growing the COE’s doctoral programs.

4. President Machen’s University Reorganization Announcement

The Deans and Vice Presidents of the University were advised prior to President Machen’s announcements of his reorganization plans. Dean Emihovich shared that she is unsure of the implications of reorganizations for COE at this time.  One possible influential change is that Provost Colburn has resigned. The search for a new Provost will begin in late summer or early fall 2004. Dean Emihovich suggested that FPC members may want explore with President Machen at the Dean’s Advisory Council Meeting his views on the COE.  At previous meetings, President Machen has discussed his interest in University of Florida’s Colleges having more autonomy, shared governance to improve faculty climate, and interdisciplinary efforts. Dean Emihovich is preparing a packet of COE’s Program Review to share with President Machen.

Archer asked if there were internal candidates for the Provost position. Dean Emihovich replied that it will be a national search, but that does not exclude internal candidates.

5.    Informational Meeting for Faculty About the Union

Dean Emihovich shared that Joe Glover would like to speak to COE’s’s faculty about union issues. She needs feedback as to the best venue (e.g., FPC or a faculty meeting). Dean Emihovich asked if there would be time for Joe Glover to speak at the next FPC meeting. Waldron replied yes. However, Archer questioned the implications of giving Joe Glover time. Waldron commented that it might be better to announce a separate meeting to the faculty. Archer suggested providing a forum for a representative from the administration and a representative from the union to present. Dean Emihovich added that Joe Glover wanted a chance to speak in order to give information to the faculty.

Campbell asked if the Administration is working with the Faculty Senate but not talking to the union. Archer and Waldron confirmed that the Administration is not talking to the union.

Campbell commented that Joe Glover should be invited to speak to the faculty. Archer remarked that if Joe Glover is invited, other union representatives should be invited as well.

Honeyman suggested that FPC provide meeting information to faculty members at the spring faculty meeting.

Waldron question if FPC should handle this issue. Dean Emihovich noted that FPC represents COE faculty and it would be inappropriate for the Dean’s Office to handle the meeting. Dean Emihovich added that she was relaying information.

Campbell noted that the most immediate issue for a union representative meeting would be arranging a time where both representatives could be present or arranging a separate forum. Dean Emihovich suggested allocating a portion of the FPC meeting on April 5^th or April 19^th. Archer added doing so with time parameters. Emihovich suggested using the Terrace Room. Archer recommended inviting the faculty and providing 15 minutes to each union representative to speak. Lamme recommended scheduling the union representative meeting with a prescheduled meeting if FPC wants faculty to attend. Conroy added that getting such a forum together is short notice.

Conroy replied that having union representatives share information would be important prior to the faculty vote. Dean Emihovich agreed. Archer questioned if a vote was scheduled. Dean Emihovich replied that no vote was scheduled but that faculty should be thinking about the issues.

Conroy recommended holding an informational meeting on a Monday following a FPC meeting.

Archer commented that if faculty were interested they would attend. Dean Emihovich agreed and added that not having any union representative speak would send the wrong message.

Archer made a motion to invite the union representatives to speak from 4:00 – 4:30 on April 19^th after the FPC meeting. Lamme seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Waldron requested assistance in making this happen. Campbell and Honeyman volunteered to assist. Dean Emihovich stated that her office would check the schedules of both union representatives.

6. College of Education Program Review

Dean Emihovich reported that the COE program review with the Provost has been moved to April 5^th. The review contains budget information and will be shared with all departments prior to the April 5^th meeting.

7.      Dean’s Review

Dean Emihovich noted that the Dean’s narrative summary would be placed on the COE’s webpage.

8. Personnel Change

Dean Emihovich shared that Mary Driscoll will be leaving COE to a director position at Saint Bonaventure. Dean Emihovich expressed her appreciation of Mary Driscoll’s fundraising efforts including her raising over $2 million and increasing COE’s endowed fellowships. Dean Emihovich added that the position would be posted.

9.      Alliance Director and Center for School Improvement Director Search

Dean Emihovich reported that the search for Alliance and Center for School Improvement Directors are under way. These searches are internal searches.

10.   Update on National Issues Related to Teacher Education

Dean Emihovich reported that the government is conducting a new study of Teacher Education programs and although the quality of our teacher education program is good, the COE may have to modify the way things are done. The Educational Leadership program as well as the Teacher Education programs will be scrutinized. Dean Emihovich added that attention has to stay focused on our graduate masters, specialist, and doctoral programs (especially in attracting doctoral students).

Campbell asked who specifically is studying COE’s Teacher Education Program and where is it in the policy frame? Dean Emihovich asked Campbell to hold his question, as discussions will soon follow.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

College Curriculum Committee Report Deferred

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee

Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee Report Deferred

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee Report Deferred

4. Long Range Planning Committee

Long Range Planning Committee Report Deferred

5. Research Advisory Committee

Research Advisory Committee Report Deferred

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee

Yeager reported that the Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee is brainstorming about issues related to student recruitment. This committee will review these issues and present them to the FPC. The next committee meeting is scheduled for April 21^st, at 9 a.m. in the Educational Psychology conference room.

7.      Technology Committee

Technology Committee Report Deferred

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean

Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean Report Deferred

New Business

1. Procedures/Survey for Annual Review of COE Dean

Yeager made a motion to place the Procedures/Survey for Annual Review of COE Dean on the table. Conroy seconded the motion. Campbell reported that the evaluation instrument and procedures were distributed for comments, documentation of consensus, and feedback. No feedback was given on the procedures. The evaluation instrument had the only substantive change where non-tenured accruing faculty members are now given the opportunity to comment.

Algina asked if the evaluation instrument and procedures would be used this year if accepted? Campbell replied that they would be used this year. Waldron added that if it were approved, FPC would move ahead and that she has asked Dean Emihovich to post her goals for COE.

Lamme shared that she was asked to evaluate someone in liberal arts and the form they used was efficient and open ended. She suggested that a similar form be created for COE next year.

Conroy pointed out that non-tenured accruing faculty had been added to the survey. Honeyman added that non-tenured faculty are not accrued.

Waldron noted that non-tenured accruing faculty had to be added to number 5 on the procedures for Annual Review of the COE Dean.

Lamme suggested that non-tenured accruing faculty be changed to not tenure track.

Algina asked what the official definition of who fits in the non-tenured track and the non-tenured accruing faculty category. Webb commented that these are lecturers, full time faculty members, and assistant scholars.

Algina questioned if this would include “soft” and “hard” money people. Waldron replied yes.

Waldron added that this is consistent with FPC’s discussion on reconsidering voting faculty and non-tenured accruing faculty participate. Campbell noted that this is consistent with the philosophy that we would give the Dean feedback from everyone.

Algina, Lamme, and Honeyman asked why department chairs and FPC members were being identified. Waldron pointed out that FPC members and department chairs have more contact with the Dean than faculty members. Conroy noted that one faculty chair expressed concerns. Waldron noted that the data was optional. Campbell suggested that this information be left off. Archer added that FPC wants people to be honest when they respond.

Lamme recommended that more space be added for people to write.

Campbell added that if the only issue is identifying department chairs, the survey could be changed in the future.

Kranzler noted that the Dean would not see the raw data if completed via the web.

Waldron summarized that the first line of the evaluation instrument would be removed and the comment section would be expanded.

Yeager made a motion to accept the procedures and evaluation instrument with changes. The motion passed unanimously.

Waldron noted that a minimum of 3 members would be designated to review results and decide on how it would be presented to the Dean. Lamme asked if the instrument would be paper or electronic. Waldron replied paper and that help was available to type the responses. Conroy, Campbell, and Lamme volunteered to help review and present the results.

Waldron thanked the committee members for their work on the instrument and procedures.

2.      COE Procedures for Pre-Tenure Review

Waldron requested discussion and feedback from FPC members regarding COE Procedures for Pre-Tenure Review. The University requires set guidelines for Pre-Tenure Review. COE and the University’s guidelines do not correspond. COE policy needs to be adjusted so that it aligns closer to guidelines by the end of the spring. The issue is coming to FPC for discussion, resolution, and a policy that is OK with faculty members and meets the guidelines. Waldron will work with others to modify current COE policy to make it more consistent to the University’s policy. Webb created a document that notes COE’s Pre-Tenure Review options towards a policy document.

Campbell noted that COE policy is more enabling and questioned if sticking with COE policy was an option. Honeyman responded that we had to stick with university policy.

Campbell suggested that there could be a 3^rd year college review and a 4^th year official review that the department head and Dean signed off on. Conroy noted that this would be a lot of work.

Lamme recommended that COE should stick with University guidelines because they give broader options.

Honeyman asked if it was important for chairs to review non-tenured faculty in the 3^rd year. Algina responded that chairs should start in the first year.

Lamme added that the policy would have an impact on tenured faculty (e.g., time) and so the policy should be configured to benefit everyone involved.

Honeyman questioned who would have access to pre-tenure reviews, as a non-tenured faculty receiving a glowing report in year 3 or 4 not receiving tenure in year 7 may be an issue.

Archer responded that the information is a part of the personnel file, which may be confidential. Archer questioned what would be the cost benefit and also people would be kept from research.

Campbell noted that new policies would be less of an issue if non-tenured faculty start out with them.

Algina questioned why mimicking the tenure process was thrown out. Waldron replied that COE moved away from mimicking the tenure process because it was too formal. Waldron asked FPC members if they thought the process should mimic. Lamme replied that mimicking procedures would give faculty members experience. Honeyman and Yeager agreed.

Waldron restated the procedures discussed: a) the whole department making a vote statement about faculty progress and the department decides on the procedures, b) materials for pre-tenure review will mimic tenure review materials (including three external letters), c) department chair meets and shares department perspectives with the candidate.

Webb noted that University policy includes the Dean in the pre-tenure review process. Lamme suggested: a) the department head sharing the review with the Dean, b) the department vote, and then c) the department head conferences with the non-tenured faculty member.

Algina suggested that the Department Chair writes and sends a letter to the Dean who endorses and makes comments that will be sent to the candidate.

Waldron noted that she would organize and write down the policy discussion and send to the committee for review.

3. Comments received regarding proposal on Doctoral Research Requirements

Waldron reported that 18 comments regarding doctoral research requirements were received. 14 people supported the proposal. 4 did not support the proposal. 5 commented specifically about the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies approving substitute and alternative courses with 4 saying the Dean should not have this responsibility.

Conroy made a motion to put this proposal on the table. Algina seconded.

Waldron asked the FPC to discuss the proposal to see if it would improve current policy or if doctoral research requirements should be left as they are.

Lamme commented that the committee should make the final decision about the research hours and courses doctoral students must take. Conroy reported that the faculty in Special Education are supportive of the document. Conroy added that classes not listed in the policy could be taken while those listed would provide a research foundation. Honeyman agreed stating that the Educational Leadership faculty requires 22 hours of research for their doctoral students and the classes listed in the policy are merely a base line. Lamme noted that research in her department is classroom based and so doctoral students there need different standards.

Kranzler question how one person can make a decision about appropriate coursework for every discipline sharing that he has consulted others if he has had any uncertainty.

Scott asked why a list of substitute and/or alternative courses could not be listed up front. Algina and Kranzler agreed.

Waldron noted that that was an issue or further discussion.

Algina noted that procedures for approving courses would have to be developed.

Lamme suggested discussing the policy in parts. Waldron responded that the list of courses is a major concern of faculty members.

Conroy asked if faculty feedback was supportive of the policy. Lamme noted that her department was unanimously against the policy. Yeager mentioned that the email feedback provided to Waldron indicated that some STL faculty supported the plan, but also indicated that they opposed oversight/approval of course substitutions from the Associate Dean’s office.

Campbell made a motion to vote to approval the proposal. The proposal passed with 7 approving, 2 declining. Linda Lamme & Elizabeth Yeager, from STL, cast declining votes.

Waldron shared that the next step would be to send the issue to the Agenda Committee including procedures for adding courses to the approved list of courses. Waldron added that if STL had concerns, the department could bring them to the Agenda Committee.

Unfinished Business

1. Minority Recruitment and Retention Plan

Tabled

2. Participation of non-tenured faculty in college governance

Tabled

Waldron adjourned the meeting at 4:04 p.m.

February 9, 2004

Room 158, Norman Hall

Members present: Jim Archer, Jennifer Asmus, Maureen Conroy, Dave Honeyman

(alternate for Dale Campbell), Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Craig Wood, Elizabeth Yeager

Members absent: Dale Campbell

Others present: Dean Kranzler

Waldron called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for February 9, 2004

Conroy made a motion to approve the February 9, 2004 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron. Archer seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the January 12, 2004 minutes

Wood made a correction to the minutes. Asmus made a motion to approve the January 12, 2004 minutes with the changes requested. Honeyman seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1. FPC Agenda Committee Meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for February 16, 2004 from 11:00 – 12:00 noon. Issues to be placed on the agenda for this meeting should be forwarded to Waldron or Conroy.

2. COE Spring Faculty Meeting.

Waldron reported that the Spring Faculty meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2004 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. An announcement including the location of this meeting will be sent out to faculty.

3. Associate Dean for Academic Affairs – Search Committee Membership

Conroy and Waldron met with the Dean to discuss additional faculty members for the Associate Dean Search committee. The new list of search committee members was presented to the FPC. Kranzler made a correction to the search committee membership list noting that Dr. Don Pemberton, Director of the Lastinger Center for Learning, will not be serving on the committee. Waldron announced that review of applications for Associate Dean for Academic Affairs position will begin on February 16, 2004.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

Conroy reported that the minutes for this committee will be placed on the web. The last meeting was cancelled due to lack of agenda items. Reading courses were on hold, but they have been approved. Proposals are on review for developing an interdisciplinary, cross discipline, doctorate.

2. Faculty and Budgetary Affairs Committee

Archer stated that he does not know when the committee meets because he has not received notice of the meetings. Waldron referred him to the committee chair, Dick Allington. Waldron reported that the committee is putting the final touches on the proposal for representation of nontenure accruing faculty on the FPC. She expects this proposal to be presented to the FPC in March.

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Asmus reported that they have completed the nominations for Doctoral Dissertation Advisor/Mentoring Award. Kranzler stated that the Faculty Travel Awards deadline is February 18, 2004. The committee is currently receiving applications for the faculty travel award. This competition will use the same criterion that was used last year. In addition, Asmus reported that the President of the University of Florida, Dr. J. Bernard Machen, will speak at commencement.

4. Long Range Planning Committee

No report

5. Research Advisory Committee

Wood reported that the committee is working on a proposal for developing an ad hoc committee for the research professorship award.  Criteria for application materials for this award are currently being discussed.

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions, and Petitions Committee

Yeager reported that the topic for the last meeting was graduate student recruitment and retention and surveys of recent graduate students. Graduate student enrollment has dropped and is expected to continue to drop in the fall 2004. This may be due to a lack of resources. To increase enrollment, the committee has discussed creating posters, making changes to the web page, reviewing enrollment trends, producing recruitment materials for faculty to share at conferences, developing a recruitment database as well as distance education programs, and evaluating what other programs do to recruit students. The committee will be meeting on Wednesday, February 9, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.

Yeager announced that the contact person for the newly created graduate student organization is Karen Kuhel who will be providing FPC with a graduate student representative.

Kranzler noted that a list of questions have been distributed to all departments asking them about recruiting graduate students. The responses will be tallied and summarized on Wednesday. Additionally, COE will award a Dell laptop to the graduate student awarded with the Presidential Fellowship.

Conroy asked if the committee had considered increasing graduate assistantships and stipends. Yeager indicated that they did although the committee is still discussing how to acquire those funds.

7.  Technology Committee

Scott reported that the committee has discussed the web policy and it has been distributed to department chairs. Following department chair review, the web policy will be presented to the FPC. Kranzler noted that if department chairs have questions or concerns the web policy would be reviewed and revised before it is presented to FPC.

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Procedures for Annual Review of COE Dean

Campbell reported that the committee is collecting information from Kansas-State and other universities to use as sample assessment tools.  The committee will be meeting following the FPC meeting. The preliminary information they have collected and developed is being refined.

Report from Dean

No report

New Business

1. Faculty Attendance at Spring COE Commencement

Waldron announced that the first college only commencement will be held on Sunday, May 2, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. Dr. Vernetson, (committee chair), requested that FPC discuss how to encourage faculty attendance at the commencement. Yeager stated that having President Machen speak at commencement is the committee’s biggest accomplishment so far. The committee wants a good faculty turn out at commencement so they are pleading with faculty to be present and support the event.

Honeyman questioned if arrangements have been made about the role of faculty. Yeager responded that the committee is still discussing faculty involvement. Honeyman questioned the time of day of commencement and whether or not lunch could be provided to faculty members. Yeager responded that social activities as well as the recognition of faculty have been discussed including a brunch and/or a reception for select groups.

Asmus questioned whether or not regalia would be provided. Honeyman shared his experience with commencement where faculty was required to attend but though expensive, the Dean paid for regalia.

Waldron agreed that COE faculty should be recognized and the committee should make it as easy as possible for faculty to participate.

Wood questioned if faculty would still be hooding doctoral students. Yeager responded to the affirmative and reported that marshals have already ready been arranged.

Wood was concerned about selectively providing brunch versus cookies and punch to commencement attendees because of it potential to set an unfair tone. Yeager responded that it is a budget issue and that there would be distinguished guests and the college cannot feed the entire group. Wood replied that using “select” defeats the purpose. Yeager responded that the committee is still discussing the event.

Waldron asked FPC how they thought faculty attendance could be enhanced. Archer questioned the cost of regalia. Asmus replied that the cost was between $50 and $70. Waldron shared that other colleges who have separate commencements have mass measurement and distribution of regalia.

Waldron asked whether or not FPC wanted to leave the issue to the committee or if FPC wanted to make a statement. Archer stated that if the committee wanted faculty to participate, they had to provide as many incentives as possible. Honeyman suggested that the college provide faculty with parking. Waldron noted that parking would not be an issue because it is a separate graduatation on a Sunday at O’Connell Center.

Scott shared that marshals did not pay for their regalia last year. Waldron replied that marshals do not pay but other participants do. Archer noted that used regalia could be purchased on the Internet.

Wood questioned why faculty not hooding a doctoral student would go. Waldron responded that the commencement would be a nice end of year event. Conroy stated that if faculty had a defined role it would be beneficial for them to attend and that undergraduate students like to see faculty present. Yeager added that from a public relations perspective, faculty attendance is important. Conroy noted that she is proud of her undergraduate students and in her past experience faculty has been able to borrow regalia.

Archer suggested that because students and faculty are much more connected to their departments, departments may consider organizing their own activities.

Asmus questioned whether or not graduate and undergraduate students were participating in commencement. Yeager responded that there was just once commencement for all students.

Waldron asked the length of commencement. Yeager replied that commencement is 1^1/2 hours.

Waldron and Conroy will forward FPC comments to Vernetson.

2. Admission requirements to Secondary and Pathways to Education Minors

Yeager made a motion to put undergraduate minor admission requirements amendments on the table. Archer seconded the motion.

Yeager reported that changes to the admission requirements for Secondary PROTEACH students has been initiated because the committee wants to make Pathways to Teaching and Secondary PROTEACH consistent, eliminate barriers to recruiting, and conform to state requirements.

Honeyman questioned how many students were in the Secondary program. Yeager responded two. Honeyman asked for clarity about whether the changes affect admissions to the minor or to PROTEACH. Yeager replied that the changes would affect the minor.

Honeyman asked if students would still have to follow regular admissions guidelines. Honeyman replied in the affirmative.

A motion was made to accept the changes and the motion was seconded. The FPC unanimously approved the motion.

3. FPC Elections

Waldron shared the FPC procedures that have been used for the last two years. The first two years, elections were by paper ballot. Last year, elections were completed on the Internet. Waldron asked for a discussion on how elections will take place this year noting that online voting went smoothly last year. Additionally, Waldron shared a tentative timeline for elections. The dates listed do not conflict with spring break or major conferences and it also provides time for the new council to meet on May 3^rd in order to elect a new Secretary.

Wood questioned if FPC is observing contracts. Waldron responded that faculty is on contract until the 5^th.

a.   Internet elections

Archer and Honeyman agreed with the use of the Internet if it is easier and it works. Asmus questioned whether or not double signing would be a concern. Waldron responded that it would not. Koro-Ljungberg questioned the percentage of people responding to the Internet election compared to those responding to the written. Waldron replied that she will check that information and added that with the Internet there were no complications or difficulties and the results were immediate.

Honeyman questioned what problems there were with the language in the write up of FPC elections procedures. Waldron indicated that the languages of the procedures are written as though the elections are done on paper. Waldron stated that if FPC decided to continue with web elections, she would tailor the language. Waldron also added that we could do both web elections and paper ballots.

Asmus asked if there were any complaints with web elections. Waldron replied that there were none.

Honeyman questioned if there could be a run off on the web. Waldron responded yes.

Kranzler shared that in the future FPC would be able to create their own ballots.

Waldron asked FPC if elections should be placed on the web. FPC unanimously agreed. Waldron will change the language of the FPC elections procedures so it is consistent with Internet elections and distribute the procedures for review prior to the next meeting.

b.   Elections time line

Waldron shared that the election takes place over seven business days. Asmus noted that the COE Spring Faculty Meeting on Wednesday, March 29^th almost coincides with nominations. Yeager suggested that nominations be extended to the 29^th of March in order to give faculty additional time to nominate. Waldron will extend the nomination period.

Waldron noted that calls for nominations are to listserv requesting department chairs for FPC Representatives. Calls for committee members go directly to department chairs.

Waldron asked FPC for additional comments. Waldron will proceed.

4. Proposal on Doctoral Research Requirements

Waldron reported that she has yet to send out a message based on FPC report asking faculty for comments on doctoral research requirements.

Waldron reminded FPC that the next meeting is on February 23^rd from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

Asmus made a motion for adjournment. Yeager seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

November 17, 2003

Room 158 Norman Hall

Members Present:     Jennifer Asmus, Dale Campbell, Maureen Conroy, Silvia Echevarria-Doan, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Linda Lamme, Terry Scott, Nancy Waldron, Craig Wood, Danling Fu (alternate for Elizabeth Yeager)

Members Absent:      Elizabeth Yeager, James Archer

Others Present:          Dean Kranzler

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

Agenda and Minutes

1. Approval of agenda for November 17, 2003

Lamme made a motion to approve the November 17, 2003 meeting agenda as submitted by Waldron.  Echevarria-Doan seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved the agenda.

2. Approval of the minutes of the November 10, 2003 minutes

Lamme, Campbell, and Wood made several corrections to the minutes. Campbell made a motion to approve the November 10, 2003 minutes with the changes requested.  Lamme seconded the motion. The FPC unanimously approved the minutes as amended.

Announcements

1.  FPC Agenda Committee Meeting

The next Agenda Committee meeting is December 1, 2003, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon.

2.  College Conversation Hour

Dean Emihovich will hold a College Conversation Hour on December 8^th from 11:45 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. in the Dean’s Conference Room.

Committee Reports

1. College Curriculum Committee

Conroy was delayed in arriving at the meeting so no report was given.  The next meeting is scheduled for November 24, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in the Dean’s Conference Room.

2. Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee

The Faculty & Budgetary Affairs Committee met on 11/17/03. Echevarria-Doan reported that the committee is discussing the voting rights of non-tenured faculty.  The committee is considering a two-tiered system:

a. Full time, non-tenured accruing and department affiliated faculty, which includes clinical faculty, lecturers, and assistant scholars. These individuals are more clearly aligned with departments. A faculty wide vote would occur for approval.

b.  Professional track faculty, which includes PK Yonge, Dean Affiliated faculty, Graduate Assistants, Teaching Assistants, and visiting scholars. This change would be considered in the second phase. A rationale would be developed explaining how these individuals are part of the faculty.

Campbell suggested that the committee limit their recommendation to UF lecturer lines only initially pending review by the college for appropriate positon classifications or titles.

Kranzler clarified that currently voting rights were based on whether the faculty member is eligible for graduate faculty status.

Waldron stated that sufficient time needs to be allowed for this process to occur since it would require two meetings, approval of faculty, and a constitutional change.

Kranzler suggested that in-unit and out-of-unit faculty may need to be considered.

Wood asked for clarification as to what these faculty would earn access to (i.e., what voting rights).

Waldron stated that they would be able to participate as equal members in the College wide votes and faculty governance committee participation.

Waldron asked that committee develop a recommendation for the full FPC to consider.

3. Lectures, Seminars & Awards Committee

Asmus stated that the Committee is currently waiting for doctoral dissertation mentoring information.  Dr. Webb has been asked to clarify the committee’s role relative to lectures and seminars.

4. Long Range Planning Committee

Lamme stated that the Committee is developing a proposal to share at the December 1^st meeting.

5. Research Advisory Committee

Wood stated that the Committee is meeting electronically. The committee will be meeting with the Dean to begin the process of searching for the director of the OERI. The Research Advisory Committee approved the position for the coordinator and the director.

Wood expressed concern that the director search was not connected with the revenue generating effort.

6. Student Recruitment, Admissions& Petitions Committee

The next meeting is December 5, 2003.  The Committee will look at graduate enrollment and recruitment.

7. Technology Committee

The committee is proposing a set of technology security procedures for the College.  The current policies need to be more secure so that use of the web can be restricted to those using it for University business and those currently employed by the University.  It was suggested that John Donaldson, the College of Education Webmaster, be consulted for ideas.

8. Ad Hoc Committee on Doctoral Research Requirements

Koro-Ljungberg reported that the committee discussed the possibility of eliminating the doctoral research tracks. There would be two sets of courses: qualitative research and quantitative research. All doctoral students (i.e., Ed.D. & Ph.D.) would be included. All doctoral students would have to complete 12 hours. Substitutions would be approved by Kranzler’s office. The committee will try to finalize the document at the 11/18/03 meeting.

Report from the Dean

No report

New Business

1.  Constitutional requirement for annual review of Dean Emihovich

COE Constitution, Article III, Section 1

“The service of the Dean shall be reviewed annually by the faculty.”

Waldron stated that there has not been an annual review of the Dean in the past several years. As stated in the Constitution, the performance of the Dean should be reviewed annually. This review is not intended to be a formalized personnel review. The review should provide the faculty an opportunity to give feedback and information to the Dean about the College and her performance in fulfilling the dean’s responsibilities. The scope of the review and the process and procedures need to be developed prior to completing the review.

Wood suggested that a faculty survey be completed.  It was thought that the results should be brought back to FPC and that it be determined at that time what should be done with the results.

Lamme asked what has been done in the past.  Kranzler stated that Dean McDavis was not evaluated and a vote of no confidence was given to Dean Gonzalez before he left.  The results of the Associate Deans’ evaluations are currently not shared.   This review would be different from a personnel review since the Provost would do that type of evaluation of the Dean.

In the Agenda Committee the Dean had stated that she welcomed the review.  Currently the review would only come from faculty, but the FPC would be able to ask the Dean’s office staff for feedback.  Most other Colleges at the University of Florida have no constitution so there would likely not be a procedure for evaluating and reviewing of Deans that would be available from other Colleges.

Wood stated that sharing the results with the provost would be an option.  Lamme stated that the next step should be to decide what FPC wanted to achieve from this evaluation and the way it should be done.

A Committee was formed to discuss this review and how it should be handled.  Members of the committee are Linda Lamme, Nancy Waldron, Maureen Conroy, Craig Wood, Jim Archer, and Dale Campbell (chair).

Asmus made a motion for the formation of this committee to consider options and procedures for the evaluation of the College of Education Dean. Koro-Ljungher seconded the motion.  The FPC unanimously approved.

2.  Holiday Proposal

A proposed policy was distributed suggesting that the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, which is the high holy day of the Jewish religion, be recommended to the University as a University holiday.  Lamme suggested that the College would work to urge the community at the University level who develop the calendar to reconsider the holy day of Yom Kipper. Scott asked for clarification for how the process would work. There was a discussion that included whether this was a good idea due to the issue of separation of church and state. In addition, a point was made that the winter break is not considered a religious holiday even though it always includes Christmas. There was also a discussion regarding the number of other religions on campus that have religious holidays that are not honored by the UF calendar.  Campbell recommended that this issue be referred to a committee to determine the appropriate avenue for consideration. Waldron decided to table the issue until she could determine the appropriate committee and process for considering this proposal.

3.  Follow up to Dean’s Budget Report

Conroy stated that she has not heard back from the Dean at this point.

Adjournment

A motion was made by Echevarria-Doan for adjournment and seconded by Wood.  The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.