Faculty Governance Association meeting Oct. 3_ 2008 Faculty

Document Sample
Faculty Governance Association meeting Oct. 3_ 2008 Faculty Powered By Docstoc
					                    Faculty Governance Association meeting
                                   Oct. 3, 2008
Faculty members present: Noel M. Noël, Stephen Rushton, Lynn McBrien, Robin
Danzak, Rob Cockrum, Jim Curran, Ron Lennon, Katerina Annaraud, June Benowitz,
Valerie Lipscomb, Rebecca Burns, Amy Ho, Richard King, Will Quilliam, Nancy Allen
Executive Council members present: Liz Larkin (chair), Robert Barylski (vice
chair), Jane Roberts, Thomas Pencek, Jay Schrock, G Pat Wilson (members at-large)

1. Liz Larkin welcomed all to the meeting; faculty introduced themselves.

2. Lynn McBrien (UFF representative) reported on the outcome of a decision that
   affects non-union members. Taking effect Nov. 5, non-union members will no
   longer be allowed representation by the union in grievance cases. If a grievance is
   filed and a faculty member is not a member of the union at the time of the grievance,
   that faculty member cannot be represented by the union. The union will continue to
   represent all in collective bargaining.

3. Dr. Larkin reviewed several key pieces of information that pertain to faculty:
      a) Last spring the faculty voted that it did not want USF SM to seek separate
          accreditation. This vote was perceived by others as our not wanting to
          participate in the process. Dr. Larkin would like to propose that we make
          some structural changes to improve faculty participation and communication
          as we move forward.
      b) Dr. Larkin handed out a new document called Governance Policy for the USF
          System, which includes a list of councils/committees being established. One
          council is an Intercampus Faculty Council (IFC). This committee is to meet
          monthly, with representation from all 4 USF campuses, in order to facilitate
          communication on system-wide faculty issues.
      c) Associate Provost Dwayne Smith is creating a task force on
          Promotion/Tenure. The task force will have 2 people each from USF SM, USF
          Polytechnic and Tampa. Dr. Larkin has requested that USF- St. Pete have
          representation on this committee (they could contribute history regarding
          their process of developing Promotion/Tenure policies and procedures, and
          perhaps use the forum should they want revisions). Drs. Larkin and Fauske
          will be our campus representatives.
      d) Regarding Promotion/Tenure policies and procedures, as of this point, there
          are just 2 institutions in the USF system: USF and USF-SP. We are part of
          USF. The campus will continue for the time being the process of P&T as
          outlined in the ICAR document. One charge of the Intercampus Faculty
          Council will be to create a new ICAR-like agreement.
      e) Dr. Burns noted that faculty would like to be part of advising graduate
          students and working with advanced graduate (doctoral) students. The
          Intercampus Faculty Council could be a forum to promote this.
      f) Dr. Larkin asked whether we might want representation from the Department
          on our P&T deliberations (i.e., invite colleagues to come here from Tampa to
          serve on our campus committee).
4. Regarding SACS accreditation
      a) One immediate priority will be to define our differentiated mission more
         clearly, and specifically.
      b) Margaret Sullivan, our SACS consultant will be on campus Oct. 9. She is
         probably the person who will guide our process toward separate accreditation.
         We need to have 3 years of data from operating in our system. We need to put
         some procedures in place now to show how these structures are working (and
         to work out “the bugs”).
         c) It was noted that in two years, USF will have its 5th year review, wherein
             SACS looks at the whole system. One area of need already identified is for
             assessments. USF SM will be required to separate out its assessment data.
             It was noted that we would not be able to operate without SACS

5. Further discussion regarding P&T:
      a) College of Business faculty raised a concern about what to tell candidates in
         current searches regarding accreditation and P&T policies. The standards set
         by Tampa (COB) for P&T make it difficult to hire quality faculty on the
         regional campus. Dr. Larkin noted that if we have our own standards
         identified and approved, we may be able to put them into place before
         separate accreditation is complete. Dr. Schrock noted that the School of Hotel
         and Restaurant Management has a separate plan approved, because this
         program is not duplicated on other campuses.
      b) Referring to the Governance Policy for the USF System, concerns were raised
         about section 11. It seems to say that the Board of Trustees will approve the
         P&T guidelines. Dr. Larkin explained that the task force which is being
         convened will make recommendations that then go to Faculty Senate, the
         Provost’s office, the union, then to the President and the Board of Trustees
         (BOT). By the time it gets to the Board, the Board is not likely to have any
      c) Dr. Larkin noted that P&T is not actually part of SACS accreditation; they are
         looking at our overall governance structure.
      d) Dr. Larkin has expressed the pressing need for the new task force to address
         P&T guidelines as soon as it is set up because of current hiring in the COB.

6. Agenda Item: Committee Structure. Dr. Larkin recommends we establish
   committees to organize and structure our participation in the shaping of USF SM.
   For each committee, should we decide to have the five she proposed, we’d have to
   decide if they are to be Ad Hoc or Standing committees, decide composition of
   membership and elect/appoint faculty members to serve. It is important to set up a
   P&T committee because we could begin to work out the details for COB, COE, CAS.
   This would be a standing committee that would later review applications and
   documentation for P&T. A committee to work with SACS accreditation issues would
   be helpful, as would one to work with MCC on our partnership, given the apparent
   disruption of the 2+2 agreement (e.g., the nursing program, establishment of a 4-
   year degree in secondary education). The partnership needs to be re-negotiated, and
   meanwhile, faulty can be collaborating on the articulation of programs.
      a) Dr. Burns moved to have 3 committees (T&P, SACS Accreditation and USF-
         MCC Partnership) as standing committees. The move was seconded.
      b) Discussion:
             Dr. Schrock added a friendly amendment, that as we put these
                committees together, we first discuss/determine our differentiated
                mission. We have a perfect opportunity for the faculty to establish
                what it wants to be. Drs. Guilford and Jones will appreciate our input,
                and are strong advocates for whatever vision we put forward.
             The faculty supports the idea of committee membership including
                Associate Deans as we don’t have enough senior faculty and on our
                campus, and Associate Deans are faculty. A question was raised
                whether the MCC partnership should be more in the administrative
                domain. Dr. Larkin noted that because our programs are interlaced
                with MCC, a faculty voice is needed. This would be a faculty committee
                working with administration. The benefit of faculty–to- faculty talk was
                noted. Pam Doerr was involved in the original partnership formation.
      c) Vote for the establishment of these 3 committees. 1 nay; 13 yes; 4 abstained.
         Comment: some things need to be considered (such as who and how many
         members will serve), and the Executive Committee will draft a proposal for
         the next FGA meeting for a vote.
             Dr. Larkin envisions the P&T committee membership as being tenured
                faculty. Dr. King noted that in previous discussions, faculty wanted to
                include non-tenured faculty in decision making about the standards
                and procedures. The COB has no tenured faculty to be on the
                committee; therefore, it was agreed that Bob Anderson (Associate
                Dean) could serve. To elect members, a ballot could be sent out with
                eligible persons’ names, divided into colleges, with indicators as to the
                number to be elected from each college. A term would need to be
                defined. Dr. King felt the executive committee could come up with a
                design, or set up a committee to do so.

7. Agenda Item: Differentiated Mission.
      a) Dr. Larkin, referring to the distinct identity created by Lakeland’s decision to
         become USF Polytechnic, opened this discussion noting that we need to talk
         more about our differentiated mission. Lakeland has created an identity
         based on what they do there rather than on location. They are distinctly
         different from Tampa in their mission. We have a geographical name that is
         long, and our current mission doesn’t go far enough to differentiate us. In
         the brainstorming that followed, the following were offered as ways we are or
         could be unique:
              We could be an honor’s college and a graduate school
              Since our campus houses senior academy and an early childhood
                center, we could be an Intergenerational Campus.
              We have faculty that like to teach with research involvement of the
                undergraduates (however: Tampa might not allow us to claim that
                because USF’s Quality Enhancement Plan has a goal for undergraduate
          We are committed to community engagement and research.
b)   Dr. Barylski suggested a merger with MCC; stating that local politicians would
     want a merger to consolidate the educational institutions in this area.
          Faculty considered: We should be merged if it makes more sense than
            entering into competition for courses. Right now the community has to
            support two institutions (MCC, USF) MCC is more flexible, and can
            move more quickly on program changes in response to community
            needs. MCC has SACS accreditation, and we would share that. Fort
            Myers, which was once a regional campus of USF, is now Florida Gulf
            Coast University and totally separate from the USF system, so they are
            one model we could follow. We could take advantage of MCC’s multiple
            campuses (Bradenton, Lakewood Ranch, Venice) to cluster programs;
            We could be free of USF’s bureaucracy… This campus is looking weak
            with just upper division undergraduate courses, and MCC could take
            advantage of assets we bring. If the right senators were supportive, we
            could create this fairly quickly.
          Faculty questioned the desirability of a merger: Currently, the MCC
            students’ skills are an issue – how would we raise standards? This was
            countered by a point that MCC graduates are already 70% of our
            student population…If we merged with MCC, we could lose our
            research affiliation and low course loads. What separates us now is
            that we are researchers and it is part of our goal…Community seeks our
            research: local foundations, social service agencies, and the school
            districts make decisions that are data driven; we are asked to conduct
            research; we have been hired to do research in addition to teaching.
            Counter Point: in a merger, we could have all sorts of research going on
            in “Centers”…The increase in teaching loads if we merged would be an
            issue for many. In similar mergers, a heavy teaching load followed
            (limiting research/community work). Would be 3/3 (or 4/4) with an 8
            to 5 schedule, 3-5 year contracts. ..Likely that we would lose the tenure
            system, research assignments, and would be on contracts (like FGCU),
            which is financially advantageous for the state but not for us.
c)   Dr. Larkin suggested, due to time constraints, that this conversation be put
     into specific committees or on Blackboard to broaden the discussion.
d)   Dr. Burns (with others adding in) summarized what we value:
          Research is part of our lives;
          Community engagement;
          Graduate programs;
          Unique programs such as Hotel/Restaurant management
          Small class size
          Individualized attention to learners, and we also have online courses,
            some with participants from across the country (e.g., Robin’s
          We have practical degree programs as well as liberal arts
e)   Dr. Larkin, “I want to reiterate…this is a defining moment. We can be what
     we want to be, but we need consensus.”
8. Nancy Allen, new service from the Library System: Express Delivery (Handout
   provided). It is also time to order more materials as there are funds (e.g., money
   being used for curriculum lab in the COE). Faculty input is needed. Nancy’s goal is
   to close fall orders by mid-November.
       a) Questions: It was asked wither interlibrary loans could be delivered via the
          USF mail (instead of going to the library to pick up the material). Nancy will
          look into this, though the reason for requiring pick up of materials at the
          library is because the library is responsible for the material until it is in the
          hand of faculty.

9. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 so faculty could attend the Tech at Ten program.

Shared By:
wang nianwu wang nianwu http://
About wangnianwu