The minutes were approved as posted on the website.

Steve advised that important information about the Faculty Affairs Committee election would be handled later in the meeting.

Three items from the committee are on the agenda today. The committee last met May 9; new members attended.
The next meeting is June 13 at 2 p.m.

No report.

Several items from the committee are on the agenda. The next meeting is May 22 at 12:45.

No report.

Please note the names of those recently elected to committees on the web page. A special election for the Faculty Affairs Committee will take place in the fall since there was confusion over a candidate who still had one year left to go on her term. So, to avoid any problems arising from that confusion, a new election is scheduled for September just for this committee.

No report, but faculty should note there will be a dossier workshop on May 23.

Steve remarked that the Provost's report on promotion and tenure is attached to today's agenda.

President Hopkins reported on an unusual legislative session. Among the items of interest are a 5% tuition increase across the board and new enrollment growth of 5,000 FTE built into the system. Enrollment caps were removed for large institutions which will impact UNF. We have to compete with them for undergraduates.

There is $2 million in growth moneys in the budget, but it is not usable for all items. She is disappointed with the 2.5% salary increase for USPS, but the library addition planning was approved and an additional $4 million for the science and engineering building.

Janet Owen continued the summary on the results of the legislative session. The retirement bill was a bone of contention: it provides some choice in two years for employees. Call or e-mail her for the bill.

Market equity money was eliminated.

New organization of state education passed, setting up a task force to study the governance of higher education during the next 2 years, and phasing out the Board of Regents.

The Senate version of the bill differed from that of the House; it was more specific about the timetable of that phase-out. Another bill to create four new universities in the state failed, but two law schools and one medical school were established.

There was lots of political horse-trading which influenced outcomes. Maybe the influence of term limits is evident in this grab-it-all-for-your-district atmosphere.

She was asked about the task force on governance and said that three reports are due with precise accomplishments called for in each report. Five of the members are appointed by the governor, three by the Senate president and three by the current Speaker. Who are they likely to be? We don't know, but they are likely to be folks who feel as the legislative leadership does on the issues.

President Hopkins interjected that it remains to be seen if we can influence the task force. She is still trying to unravel the implications of the changes proposed.

Janet responded to a questioner that Chancellor Adam Herbert had been careful in his disapproval of the bill, but he does not believe that eliminating the Board of Regents is in the best interest of Florida.

President Hopkins said that those who favor the new organizational framework speak of a "seamless system of education" in Florida.

Janet warned that the new system could be highly politicized.

Steve Shapiro remarked that the SUS Advisory Council of Faculty Senates has written to Governor Bush to call attention to the political nature of such reorganization. The University of Florida faculty has voiced its disapproval of board abolition. He will post additional information on the Association web page as it become available.

Vice-President Robert Fagin reported on the master plan update. The review process is now underway, presided over by a committee composed of Provost Klein, himself and faculty representatives. Look for its web page and minutes for more information. He asked the faculty for input on the master plan revisions and alerted them to look for progress on the widening of Kernan Road.

None.

Item #1 - FA 00-16 Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
Sharon DeHaven moved the item.

Steve read the following corrections into the record:
00-013 delete the first sentence and substitute "in" for "I" in the next sentence.
00-014 strike "the" in the last sentence.
00-015 "contemporary" is misspelled
The item passed.

Item #2 - FA 00-17 Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
Sharon moved the item and it passed.

Item #3 - FA 00-18 Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
Sharon moved the item and it passed.

Item #4 - FA 00-19 Submitted by the Academic Standards Committee
Administrative Medical Withdrawal Policy
Pali Sen moved the item and it passed.

Item #5 - FA 00-20 Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
Annual Evaluation Summary Ratings
Judy Solano moved the item.
Dale Clifford wondered what a "summary rating" is.
Judy said that some departments write long narratives about their faculty, but never come to a judgment on evaluation. Maybe we need a standard set of terms, but the committee couldn't agree on what those were. Many departments have explicit wording about evaluating in their by-laws. With this provision, all departments should have something specific to guide the evaluators.
Andy Buchwalter asked if there was to be a single, overall summary rating scale, and Judy responded that departments can determine their own.
Bill Slaughter noted that the Promotion and Tenure Committee did not have a problem understanding chair evaluations nor did it need such summary numbers in its deliberations.
Judy noted that the ratings were not intended to be numbers or quantitative, but merely called for a conclusion on the part of the chair. These conclusions are important for sustained performance evaluations.
Gary Harmon couldn't recall that this has ever been a problem, so what's the basis for this new requirement?
Judy said that it has been a problem in the past.
Chris Rasche concurred that the summary ratings are supposed to protect faculty from an arbitrary re-evaluation by someone else later on. Things may have gone well this year, but that hasn't always been the case. There also needs to be some "bottom line" language for sustained performance evaluations as well as promotion and tenure. Post tenure review depends especially on evaluative language.
Pat Plumlee opined that departments should have the option to create such ratings, but Chris demurred that departments will not do it if they don't have to.

The motion failed 18-16 on a show of hands.

Item #6 - FA 00-21 Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
Distinguished Professor Award Guidelines
Judy Solano moved the item and it passed.

Item #7 - FA 00-22 Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
Confirmation of Attendance
Judy moved the item (altered to specify "student" attendance) and it passed.

Item #8 - FA 00-23 Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
Latin Honors Distinction
Judy moved the item.

Pam Chally defended the number of Latin honors given by the College of Health, noting that its limited access programs pull from 200-member student pools based on excellent GPAs.
Pali Sen agreed, saying that the proposal is unfair to students who "belong to the wrong college."
David Jacobsen said that the Dean of the College of Education supports this item.
The item passed.

Item #9 - FA 00-24 Submitted by the Faculty Association President
The item passed.

The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________

Elizabeth Lane Furdell,

Secretary