COE Faculty Advisory Council
September 28, 2016
9:00 – 10:00 a.m. Hill 310
Dean Hough called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Attending: David Hough, Paul Ajuwon, Bill Agnew, Deanne Camp, Cory Fearing, Robin Koerber, Annice McLean, Diana Piccolo, Debra Price, Melissa Schotthofer, Becky Swearingen
1. “Charge” – Days/Times for 2016-17 Meetings
It was decided that FAC would meet from monthly on Wednesdays, from 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. The week may vary, and meeting invites will be sent out in advance.
2. Program Support Request Policy – SAHE Program Request
Gilbert’s request was approved, pending his submission of clarity of information, per the current policy and form on the web. He needs to add more detail to items, and to spell out the acronyms. The FAC was confused as to why he was requesting travel funds for Facebook.
3. Draft COE Mentoring Policy
Michele Smith was unable to attend to present the policy, so the FAC tabled action until Dr. Smith could meet with the group. The Dean would like this document to become COE policy and as such posted on the web as a guide for departments and Greenwood to develop their own policies. FAC members were asked to share this with their faculty and report back for discussion at the next FAC meeting.
4. Draft Policy to Support Reimbursement for Mileage for Practicum Oversight
This was approved. A question arose as to whether or not this policy was “parallel” with how supervisors are reimbursed for student teacher supervision travel. Dean Hough agreed to send FAC members the student teaching policy for their consideration at the next FAC meeting. He pointed out that the current Student Teaching Supervision Travel Reimbursement policy was approved by the Leadership Council, so that group will need to weigh in as well.
5. Annual Reviews and Assignments
We have two types of evaluations staff (ADPs) and Faculty (Annual Reviews: Teaching, Research, and Scholarship). Department Heads are in charge of making teaching assignments in accordance with University and College policies. These assignments should be in accordance with research and service activities. Program Coordinators should not be scheduling classes, and faculty should not be self-scheduling. There have been discussions that the definition on the COE website regarding “Research Active” needs to be more rigorous. It was discussed that at times publications and presentation are not at the same level regarding length of article, level of scholarship, and quality of journal. The dean asked if the FAC wanted to tackle the issue of research/scholarship rigor and revise the COE definition of “research active.” This would be use for department head – faculty teaching assignments, not for tenure and promotion guidelines. However, T&P Committees may want to examine those guidelines, as well. FAC members voiced agreement in that they wanted to weigh in on this issue as it is a function of the FAC.
6. COE Policies Library
The COE Policies Library is cluttered and hard to follow. It was suggested to have the titles of the policies listed with a drop down to click on for the information. Everyone agreed this would be a good thing to do.
7. Budget Committee Agenda
The BC is meeting on Friday. The dean discussed budget priorities which will be looked at and discussed. The dean handed out three documents: BS Student Fall Headcount, Total Course Enrollments and Credit Hour Production by department. This document will be reviewed when making budget decisions. Everyone was asked to keep the documents and bring them to the meetings. The University funded Counselors 2 Campus for three years and is no longer being funded. There will be a discussion on funding it, but to specify that students should be education majors. Departments Heads were asked to submit priority Request for Faculty Positions (RFPs) to the dean by Friday. These will then be reviewed by FAC at the next meeting. The Dean, James Satterfield and Gilbert Brown are working with two school districts in Kansas City: Hickman-Mills and Raytown, and two in St. Louis: Pattonville and Riverview Gardens. The goal is to recruit minority students into education programs. Dr. Satterfield is working on a plan and budget to support minority student recruitment for the College. This plan will be reviewed by the FAC at a future meeting. The Dean will be discussing this with the Budget Committee. Everyone agreed this is a worthwhile project and great for the future.
8. Topics for Future Discussions
The dean asked for FAC members to submit addition items they would like to see discussed at future meetings. Becky Swearingen proposed the College develop a policy regarding retirement recognitions / receptions. She proposed standard procedures be adopted and followed for everyone. Some FAC members pointed out this would conflict with individual choices, as some people do NOT want nor would they appreciate a retirement reception. It was noted that standard protocol is for the unit where the retiree resides to determine what type of “send off” retirees receive. Ergo, if it is a college-level position, the college provides a reception, if it is a department-level position, the department provides same, and so on, depending on whether or not the retiree agrees to a “send off.” Becky stated she believes a policy should be placed in writing somewhere so everyone knows what to expect. Deanne Camp noted that some people choose not to have anything done and their decision needs to be honored. It was suggested to recognize first semester retirees at the Fall Faculty meeting and Spring/Summer retirees at the Spring Faculty meeting. No decision was reached, as the topic did not reach conclusion.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
Submitted by Sharon Lopinot