College of Education Senate
University of Northern Iowa
March 19, 2007
Minutes #356
I. Call to Order
The meeting of the College of Education Senate was called to order at 3:21
P.M. on Monday, March 19, 2007 in the Dean’s Conference Room in
Schindler Education Center.
Senators in attendance [in bold]
Dave Christensen [At large]
Rod Dieser [At-large]
Dave Else [ELCPE]
Mary Herring [At-large]
Elana Joram [EPF]
Chris Kliewer [SPED]
Kurt Meredith, Chair [C&I]
Rick Vanderwall [TCHG]
Windee Weiss [HPELS]
Robin Lund [At-large]
Alternates
Maribelle Betterton
Susan Hudson
Robert Decker
Donna Douglas
Melissa Heston
Amy Staples
Penny Beed
Michelle Swanson
Kevin Finn
Tom Dompier
Ex-Officio Members in attendance
Guests
Robert Decker, Todd Evans, Betty Hogan, and Mike Waggoner
II. Approval of Minutes of February 19, 2007 [#355]
It was moved by Vanderwall and seconded by Christensen that the
minutes [#355] of the February 19, 2007 meeting be approved as read. All
ayes. Motion carried.
Meredith noted that the HPELS curriculum review has been moved to the
April meeting. Due to the heavy agenda of that meeting, it was decided to
meet at 2:30 P.M. on April 16th.
III. Welcome Guests
1
IV. Curriculum Proposal Review
Evans opened with comments on how the curriculum review process was
run this year. He also distributed copies of the Curriculum Committee
Report for the Senate. Bob Decker and Betty Hogan then gave an overview
of the ELCPE curriculum review process. The Curriculum Committee
supports this unanimously and asked the Senate for approval to accept the
recommendation. It was moved by Herring and seconded by Vanderwall
to accept the report of the Curriculum Committee. All ayes. Motion
carried.
V. Reports/Announcements
A. Elections Committee Update: Vanderwall reported that all is going
smoothly with the election process. We are up to 73 votes which is an
improvement over past years. He does have a spreadsheet showing
who is eligible to vote in COE elections. This does not include
temporary or term faculty. Vanderwall will send another e-mail
reminder on Thursday. He suggested codifying the election process for
next year. Currently there are election procedures outlined in the bylaws which state that the Election Committee will establish the method
of voting. He will formulate into a proposal for the April meeting.
Meredith thanked Vanderwall for his work with the election process. It
was moved by Heston and seconded by Else to issue a formal thank you
to Vanderwall for his work. All ayes. Motion carried.
B. Dean Search Update: Waggoner reported that nothing has changed
substantially with the status of the deans search since Spring Break.
The Committee feels they have a good pool of candidates and will meet
tomorrow from 3:30-7:00 P.M. to make the first cut of the list of
candidates. It was stressed that the identity of the pool should be kept
confidential at this point. The Provost has stated that we can bring up
to 5 candidates to campus for interviews. When these candidates are
invited to campus, applicants will become public and names will be put
on the Web site to keep everyone posted on progress. Reference checks
will be made first and then telephone interviews. Waggoner also
stated that, during the on campus interviews, all candidates will meet
with Senate.
VI. Old Business
A. Shared Governance: Meredith stated that he has been meeting with
Management Team since January and members have spoken of
their appreciation for this opportunity. They feel it has been
positive and they would like to see shared governance move
2
forward. They also suggested that we schedule a joint meeting
between the Management Team and the Senate to discuss the
significance of shared governance. Meredith stated: 1] This is a
transition period but also can be a point of reference in
conversations with the President and the Provost; and 2] It is a
chance to engage in a constructive dialog with the management
team about college priorities to bring to the new dean a truly
collaborative and shared vision for the college. He asked if there
was any interest in pursuing this. Vanderwall questioned how
shared government fit with President Allen’s vision of a strong
dean. Herring suggested discussing this with the COE dean
candidates. Heston brought up that a new Director of Doctoral
Studies was recently appointed with no faculty input into the
decision. After considerable discussion, it was moved by Else and
seconded by Dieser to pursue a joint meeting between the
Management Team and the Senate. All ayes. Motion carried. Else
questioned the agenda for the meeting; i.e., defining shared
governance or a collaborative relationship.
VII. New Business
A. Standardizing PAC Requirements across the College of Education:
Meredith stated this discussion originated from several directions;
e.g., COE Management Team and United Faculty. Also, some
faculty within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction were
having conversations regarding some changes within PAC
procedures and the need for standardization across the College. It
was agreed that procedures vary widely among
departments/school. Vanderwall asked if we have the power to
mandate this or does it exist within the departments? Christensen
feels this lies within the Master Agreement which states that the
PAC process is within individual department and any faculty
mandated document should not be looked at by management. He
would like to have the sign-off by the dean eliminated with no
participation by administration at all. Dieser would like to see
“explicitness” right from the beginning when new faculty are hired
so they know the expectations for tenure and promotion. Weiss
suggested that the Senate put together a 1-2 page outline, as part of
a mentoring process, on grant writing, advising, etc.--all the things
first year faculty need to know. Vanderwall feels the role of the
Senate is to facilitate a discussion with all the PACS concerning
procedures in order to solve problems. Christensen stressed that he
sees this as a loss of “local control”. Heston sees a loss of equity
across departments in terms of the level of support among faculty.
There are variant procedures among departments/schools and
PACs that do not follow procedures, according to Vanderwall, and
3
he questioned if all PAC procedures could be made available to the
faculty. The Senate could take a leadership role in bringing this to
faculty’s attention, Christensen stated. He also questioned if the
Senate has the power to do anything other than help facilitate this
process. Else suggested that the Senate could take a leadership role
in the induction of new faculty. Meredith reminded everyone that
Amy Staples and her committee had done some research on this in
the past, however, nothing was done beyond that point. Due to the
heavy agenda at the April 16th meeting, it was decided to have a
special Senate meeting on April 30th for further discussion on: 1]
PAC process; and 2] mentoring of probationary faculty. Vanderwall
suggested a survey regarding the attitudes of faculty toward the
PAC procedures. Heston suggested that we also ask faculty if they
have specific concerns with the tenure and promotion process
which they could share on the survey. Senators were asked to send
their departmental PAC procedures electronically to Bartlett and
she will distribute to all Senators.
B. Senate Elections: Meredith stated that at the next meeting of the
Senate, election of officers will occur. Herring questioned what the
by-laws say about this process.
VIII. Upcoming Meeting Dates
March 19, 2007
April 16, 2007
IX. Other Dates to Remember
March 3, 2007
March 12-16, 2007
April 9, 2007
May 5, 2007
Spring T.E. Faculty Meeting
Spring Break
Teacher Induction Convocation
Commencement
X. Adjournment
The next meeting of the COE Senate will be held on Monday, April 16,
2007 at 2:30 P.M. in the Dean’s Conference Room in Schindler Education
Center. It was moved by Heston and seconded by Lund that the meeting
be adjourned. The meeting was then adjourned at 5:01 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
4
Mary-Sue Bartlett
:msb
5