Whereas, the University of Central Florida funding continues to be well below the State University System average funding, and
Whereas, the University of Central Florida offers a full range of graduate and undergraduate courses, which clearly justifies funding at the state average level,
Be it hereby resolved, that the faculty of the University of Central Florida strongly endorse the vigorous efforts of President John Hitt, Chancellor Charles Reed and the Board of Regents to seek equitable funding from the legislature for the University of Central Florida.
(Proposed by Steering Committee at meeting of November 16, 1993.) (Submitted to the Faculty Senate at mtg. of 12/2/93) (Faculty Senate approved at meeting of 12/2/93) (Approved by administration and brought to BOR meeting.)
The Faculty Senate of the University of Central Florida wishes to express its appreciation and support to President John Hitt, Chancellor Charles Reed, and the Florida Board of Regents for their efforts to bring the funding of this university in line with that of the other institutions in the State University System.
Further, the Senate urges President Hitt, Chancellor Reed, and the Florida Board of Regents to expend maximum efforts to secure legislative approval of equitable funding for the University of Central Florida.
The Faculty Senate offers its full support and resources to assist President Hitt, Chancellor Reed, and the Board of Regents wherever appropriate and possible in securing legislative approval.
(Presented and approved at the Faculty Senate meeting of 2/3/94. See Dr. Modani.) (Sent to Dr. Juge for approval on 2/8/94.) (Approved by Dr. Whitehouse in memo of 3/1/94.)
The Faculty Senate encourages the university administration to consider additional library funding as a high priority in allocation of any newly released funds.
(Presented and approved at the Faculty Senate meeting of 2/3/94 by Dr. Glenn N. Cunningham) (Forwarded to Dr. Juge 2/8/94 for approval.) (Approved by Dr. Whitehouse in memo of March 1, 1994.)
Present SUS policy requires that a faculty member shall normally be considered for tenure during the fifth year of continuous service in a tenure earning position. Each faculty member shall be apprised in writing once each year of their progress toward tenure. This is a separate component of the annual evaluation and is intended to provide assistance and counseling to candidates to help them to qualify themselves for tenure.
At present, annual appraisal of progress toward tenure is initiated by the departmental chairperson. With the transition at all levels of administration, performance appraisal for progress toward tenure may lead to a lack of consistency over the probationary period and the process may vary from academic unit to academic unit.
In an attempt to provide clear communication between the administrative process and the candidate as to the progress toward tenure and to ameliorate inconsistencies; which later emerge at tenure decision time between various recommending groups, be it therefore resolved:
There shall be a comprehensive review conducted at the end of three years for tenure earning faculty by a committee of the candidate's department. This committee shall be comprised of three elected tenured members of the department.
This committee shall make an evaluation and assessment of progress in the areas of teaching, research and service to the departmental chairperson. Strengths, weaknesses and suggestions for improvement based upon a file submitted by the candidate shall be summarized and reported to the candidate and the departmental chair.
(Submitted by Personnel Committee on 2/3/94.) (To go to Steering Committee on 2/17/94.) (Steering returned to committee at mtg 2/17/94.) (Dr. Modani returned resolution to Dr. Gordon Paul, Chair, Personnel Committee. Hold over item for 1994-1995 Personnel Committee.) (Dr. Juge is reminding them of Resol. 90-91-7)
Whereas, the Senate believes that the formula budgeting method known as the Pegasus Model is a reasonable approach to allocating the Instruction and Research portion of the Academic Affairs Division of the budget of the University of Central Florida, and we applaud the forthrightness and patience with which it has been explained to the Faculty, we do have certain reservations about that model which we feel are important enough to publicly express.
We are concerned that it may encourage overemphasis on enrollment-driven budgeting at the expense of quality and other considerations. For example, we are concerned that, because of the powerful motivational impact of the budget process, colleges will be encouraged to drop programs which contribute to the overall mission of the University, and that complement other program offerings, but for which enrollments must be limited (such as programs which, to meet accreditation standards, must restrict enrollments). We are concerned that use of the formula approach in allocations among the colleges may encourage extension of that approach within colleges when it may be inappropriate to do so.
We are concerned that the present model does not sufficiently allow for differences in missions among colleges, such as between doctoral-level and masters-level graduate study, and between faculty research efforts and teaching.
We are also concerned that the present model does not allow for long-term planning -- i.e., there is at present no apparent linkage between strategic planning and the annual budget allocation process.
Be it hereby resolved, therefore, that the Senate urges the following:
Because productivity factors are the most critical element of the allocation model, the use of productivity factors should continue to be refined and evolved.
The impact of the formula-based, enrollment-driven approach to budget allocations should be considered and monitored carefully. In particular, that approach should be monitored so that it not inadvertently encourage inappropriate emphasis on enrollment as a budget criterion within the colleges of the University.
Attention should be directed towards the manner by which doctoral programs and research activity are funded by the model; if the University expects continued development of doctoral programs, somehow the budget must reflect that commitment. Such allocations should not be made to the detriment of undergraduate programs, however.
Additional attention should be paid to the link between the University's strategic plan and its annual operating budget allocation process.
The Faculty Senate Budget and Administrative Procedures Committee, the Vice President for Administration and Finance, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs should work together to develop a formal framework for informing the Senate each fiscal Year as to the overall allocation of University Funds. This framework should encompass initial budget allocations, subsequent adjustments and revisions, and final actual figures.
(Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 3, 1994.) (Sent to Dr. Whitehouse for approval on March 9, 1994.) (Approved by Dr. Whitehouse on April 4, 1994.)
the Board of Regents formula for determining tuition fee waiver funding needs is based upon the number of graduate students who are enrolled for at least one hour and employed at least 0.25 FTE, and
this formula does not account for those students who are not employed, and
this formula does not reward program productivity in terms of graduating doctoral students, and
we would like to encourage doctoral production that will move us into a higher Carnegie Classification, and
we would like to promote strong graduate programs, and we recognize that we need to provide more resources for doctoral programs, especially those without as much access to external funding sources,
Be it resolved, that the University of Central Florida adopt a revised tuition waiver distribution (on the attached page), which consists of the following two steps:
Step 1: continue the proration of tuition fee waiver monies according to the number of eligible graduate students (enrolled for at least one hour and employed for at least 0.25 FTE) in each academic unit, and
Step 2: employ overhead monies to augment the allocation to each academic unit based upon the number of doctoral students graduated (using a three-year rolling average for each academic unit).
Attachment: Table
(Revision was submitted by Dr. Modani in consultation with Dr. Bishop 2/25/94.) (Approved by Faculty Senate at mtg. 3/3/94.) (Sent to Dr. Whitehouse for approval on 3/9/94) (Approved by Dr. Whitehouse on 4/4/94)
Whereas, the UCF Arboretum is a valuable asset to the university community and provides a welcome respite from parking lots, cement paths, and brick buildings, and
Whereas, previous UCF administrations have made commitments to enhance and sustain the Arboretum,
Be it hereby resolved, that every effort be made to preserve the Arboretum in its current location as the UCF campus grows and develops, and
That the Arboretum be defined, protected, supported, and included as a part of the UCF Master Plan.
(Memo from Dr. Cunningham.) (Discussed at Steering on 2/17/94 and approved for Dr. Modani to write a resolution. Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Modani consulted on writing this resolution.) (Approved by Faculty Senate at mtg. of March 3, 1994.) (Sent to Dr. Whitehouse for approval on 3/9/94.) (Approved by Dr. Whitehouse on 4/4/94)
