COE Faculty Advisory Council
December 7, 2016
9:00 – 10:00 a.m. Hill 314
MINUTES
Dean Hough called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
Attending: David Hough, Cory Fearing, Finch, Kim, Joe Hulgus, Robin Koerber, Annice McLean, Diana Piccolo, Debra Price, Melissa Schotthofer, Eric Sheffield, Becky Swearingen, Rose Lee
- Hill Hall Renovations
Rose went through the PowerPoint from the last renovation meeting. Dean Hough said the architects want Hill Hall branded as the COE building. The first floor would be for classrooms and a student area; second floor for student services; third floor for COE administrative offices/classrooms; and fourth floor for Psychology classes/labs. Everyone agreed this was a good plan and that the dean’s office should be centrally located. Students need to be the focus. Our computer labs are going from three to two; possibly some day they may not be needed. The fourth floor will have sky lights and be more open. The middle staircase would possibly be extended to the fourth floor. The dean also discussed and asked FAC members their opinions other issues:
- “Cluster” vs. “Bar” model: A majority preferred cluster, although “Bar” would provide more offices with windows. The dean said possibly floors could be split between the two.
- “Faculty offices in close proximity to departmental offices or program faculty offices close to one another”: a majority preferred to have program faculty offices closer together
Concerns:
- Is 8’ X 8” office size negotiable? The dean replied they are looking at this size to allow for more offices; some of our faculty offices are smaller and some are larger. Even so, Dean Hough agrees the size of offices does not approach University averages or the standard. Therefore, he will discuss this with the University Space Committee later today and request the architects consider increasing the size, even if this means considering different options for space on the first and fourth floors. More on this to follow. . . .
- Glass fronted office: Not safe/secure; confidentiality issue.
The dean will discuss all of this at the next renovation meeting on December 14th as well.
- Status of (Strategic) RFPs / Need to Revise Strategic Hiring Plan
At past meetings, FAC discussed what to do with positions that were prioritized/ranked and unfilled by the end of the fiscal year. It was decided the Hiring Plan document should be changed to state that (strategic) RFPs that are ranked/prioritized, but not filled by the end of the fiscal year would not stay on the list, but could be resubmitted in addition to new ones the next year if the faculty decide to do so by the date specified. The dean will see that this is taken care of.
- COE Spring Faculty Meeting – January 20, 2017
The dean asked what should be the focus of the meeting and other items for the agenda. Members asked not to have a task stream presentation. It was suggested to have brief presentations on the department strategic plans and to have representatives from the university to discuss how the MSU five-year plan interacts with the department plans. Another item could be to highlight some of the topics suggested at the November 11th faculty meeting regarding the long-range plans.
- Findings per November 11th College Faculty Meeting
The dean asked members to discuss if a sub-group of the FAC would be willing to content analyze the comments submitted at the November 11th meeting regarding categories for the strategic plans. Discussion: Present highlights of some of the major themes at the January faculty meeting. As far as who should do this, the FAC recommended either the dean or his administrative team. Dean Hough noted he did not want this to be a “top down” approach nor one that would give that appearance. Another suggestion was to have students do the analysis, perhaps one or more research students making this a project in a class. The dean will discuss this at Leadership Council tomorrow.
- Research Active Status – “AND” Not “OR”
On occasion, some people may be misinterpreting the document to read “or” when in fact it reads “and” with regard to section 1 and 2. FAC members agreed with this. Currently this topic is handled by department heads with individual faculty. FAC members suggested having the College Personnel Committee weigh in. The information from the committee would go to the department heads. One idea is to form a committee to review all research active faculty. It was felt by some FAC members that a college committee vs. department committee would be better as far as reviewing everyone. They could look at digital measures, although someone may be working on something that will be taking place that year so possibly a form or the equivalent could be used. The COE Personnel committee could be used, but there would need to be discussion since this has not been taken place in the past. The committee or faculty would also need to review the current document for changes. Due to possibly a large workload, it was suggested that department heads only have the committee review the ones that need more consideration due to lack of enough documentation. The dean will also discuss this at Leadership Council tomorrow.
- RE: Documents Attached to FAC Meeting Emails
The dean informed members that the university conducts its meetings paperless and suggested this process be followed for college meetings unless something is added at the last minute. Committee members could bring a device or paper copies. After a discussion, FAC members agreed to this. At times, documents could be pulled up for review at the meetings.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 a.m.
Submitted by Sharon Lopinot