(1) Enrollment growth at the University of Central
Florida has greatly increased demands on classroom facilities, and
(2) Construction of new classroom facilities has not
kept pace with increases in student enrollment, and
(3) Current course scheduling practices throughout
the University may not promote efficient use of limited classroom
facilities, particularly with respect to full utilization of facilities
on Fridays and schedule conflicts resulting from differing course slots
across colleges,
BE IT RESOLVED,
That the
University of Central Florida restructure the present class schedule
starting with the Fall 1995 semester to achieve greater efficiency of
classroom use, including an expanded class day (Monday through Friday,
and alternate days) and consistency of schedules across colleges.
Details of the revised schedule shall be developed by the Administration
with opportunities for input and review by the colleges and departments.
Preservation of a weekly time slot with no classes scheduled is
necessary to accommodate campus wide meetings
Resolution from the Undergraduate Policy and
Curriculum Committee on September 15, 1994.
Considered by the Steering Committee on September 22,
1994 and scheduled for the Senate meeting on October 6, 1994.
Resolution 1994-1995-01 adopted by the Senate at its
meeting on October 6, 1994. Note: The above version adopted by the
Senate differs slightly from the version submitted by the UPCC which was
amended during the Senate meeting.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse for approval and
implementation on October 26, 1994.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated November 14, 1994: Approved.
Resolutions
1994-1995-2 Concerning Tenure
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 towards tenure. This is a
separate component of the annual evaluation and is intended to
provide assistance and counseling to candidates to help them qualify
themselves for tenure.
At
present, annual appraisal of progress towards tenure is initiated by
the department chair. With the transition at all levels of
administration, performance appraisal for progress towards tenure
may lack consistency over the probationary period and the process
may vary from academic unit to academic unit.
In
an attempt to provide additional feedback to the candidate as to the
progress towards tenure and to ameliorate inconsistencies which may
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
of tenure credit for tenure earning faculty by a committee of the
candidate's department. This committee shall be comprised of at
least three elected tenured members of the department.
Based on the established guidelines for tenure appraisal, this
committee shall make an evaluation and assessment of progress in the
areas of teaching, research, and service. Strengths, weaknesses, and
suggestions for improvement based upon a file submitted by the
candidate shall be summarized on the tenure appraisal form and
reported to the candidate and department chair.
Resolution from the Personnel Committee during 1993-1994 year (on
February 3, 1994). Considered by the Steering Committee on February
17, 1994. Sent the resolution back to the Personnel Committee for
reconsideration, clarification, and possible modification. Personnel
Committee decided to defer action until 1994-1995 year.
Modified version approved by the Personnel Committee on October 18,
1994. Resubmitted to the Steering Committee on November 4, 1994.
Considered by the Steering Committee on November 17, 1994. Some
minor changes were suggested. Decided to send to the Senate for its
December 8, 1994 meeting if the Personnel Committee consented to the
minor changes. The Personnel Committee consented to the minor
changes.
Resolution 1994-1995-02 adopted by the Senate at its meeting on
December 8, 1994.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse for approval and implementation on
December 9, 1994.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated ???, 1995: Approved.
Resolutions 1994-1995-3 Concerning Tenure
WHEREAS,
New procedures have been put in place in the 1993-1994 academic year
for the University Tenure and Promotion Committee and their
effectiveness has not yet been fully assessed,
BE
IT RESOLVED, That the procedures should remain in effect as
currently stated. In no less than three years, the Committee and its
composition should be evaluated by previous members for its
effectiveness.
Resolution from the Personnel Committee - November 4, 1994. This
was in response to requests/suggestions by Dean Sheridan and others
that the term for service on the P&T Committee be lengthened.
Considered by the Steering Committee on November 17, 1994. It was
decided that this resolution was not needed and the Senate should
undertake this review in 1996-1997.
Resolutions 1994-1995-4 Tenure Procedures
WHEREAS,
The current promotion and tenure guidelines and criteria have been
workable and flexible in the past,
BE
IT RESOLVED, That these guidelines be followed until the
appropriate departmental and college committees review their
specific procedures and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate
Personnel Committee for possible changes in these guidelines.
Resolution from the Personnel Committee - November 4, 1994.
Considered by the Steering Committee on November 17, 1994. Decided
to refer the resolution back to the Committee and Dr. Modani will
provide the Committee with an initial draft of tenure criteria.
Resolutions
1994-1995-5 Minimum Semester Hours
WHEREAS:
(1) Current policy (as stated in the 1994-95 Undergraduate Catalog,
p 70) for designation of baccalaureate honors is based on grade
point calculations and requires that students complete a minimum of
48 semester hours at UCF, and
(2) Present practice for administration of this policy has been to
preclude use of credit-by-examination or pass/fail credits to
satisfy this minimum semester hour requirement, and
(3) Numerous requests for waiver of these policies have been
received from students,
BE
IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty of the University of Central
Florida affirm the present policy regarding minimum semester hour
requirements and the exclusion of credits received by
credit-by-examination and pass/fail grades to satisfy minimum
requirements. Clarifying language shall be included in the
Undergraduate Catalog to note the exclusion of credit-by-examination
and pass/fail grades for satisfaction of minimum semester hour
requirements.
Resolution from the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee.
Considered by the Steering Committee on February 2, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-05 unanimously adopted by the Senate at its
meeting on February 16, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse for approval and implementation on
March 15, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
Resolutions 1994-1995-6 Add/Drop Procedures
WHEREAS:
(1) Enrollment growth at the University of Central Florida has
greatly increased demands on classroom facilities, and
(2) Many course sections are routinely closed to students who would
otherwise enroll in these sections due to room capacity limitations,
and
(3) Current procedures are not effective for identification of
students who may have preregistered for a course but do not intend
to maintain their enrollment (no shows,) and
(4) These circumstances result in the denial of access to course
sections which are effectively below enrollment caps,
BE
IT RESOLVED, that the University of Central Florida adopt
procedures to facilitate identification of true enrollment in course
sections and to provide opportunities for students to ADD courses
consistent with true enrollments and section capacities.
Specifically, it is proposed that students not in attendance at the
first class meeting be DROPPED to provide access for other students.
Implementation of this policy shall be at the discretion of
individual departments in consultation with individual instructors,
to begin with the Fall 1995 semester. It shall be the responsibility
of the student to contact the instructor in advance of the first
meeting in those cases where the student desires to remain in the
course but is unable to attend the first class. It shall also be the
responsibility of the student to take whatever steps are necessary
to determine if they have been officially dropped from a course
and/or to DROP courses which they do not intend to complete.
Students who have been DROPPED from a course by this procedure may
pursue re-enrollment via normal ADD procedures.
Resolution from the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee.
Considered by the Steering Committee on February 2, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-06 unanimously adopted by the Senate at its
meeting on February 16, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse for approval and
implementation on March 15, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated May 2, 1995: Still being reviewed
by the Deans and the Provost's Office.
Resolutions 1994-1995-7 Concerning Tenure
WHEREAS:
(1) At present there are no
specific UCF tenure criteria, and
(2) There is a need to update and
streamline tenure procedures,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the
following be adopted as tenure policy at UCF.
6C7-3.011
TENURE
1. Scope and General Policy
(a) This rule shall apply to all faculty members.
However, in the case of non-unit faculty the provisions of Article 20 of
the BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement shall not apply. For those
(non-unit) members, grievances shall be processed in accordance with UCF
Rule 6C7-3.132 FAC.
(b) University of Central Florida adheres to the
Board of Regents rules governing tenure (6C-5.225 and 6C-1.10(2)(h)).
(c) University of Central Florida adheres to the
provisions of BOR/UFF Collective Bargaining Agreement dealing with
tenure procedures.
(d) There should be sufficient discipline flexibility
in interpretation of the standards for tenure so that individuals may
have reasonable expectation of fulfilling the requirements.
(e) A faculty member should normally be recommended
for promotion to associate professor prior to or at the same time that
tenure is recommended. To save time for both faculty members and
committees, the application for both status changes should go forward
simultaneously. A positive vote for promotion to associate professor
should precede the vote on tenure at department, college, and university
levels.
2. UCF TENURE CRITERIA
(a) "Tenure is that condition attained by the faculty
member through highly competent teaching and research, or other
scholarly activities, service, and contributions to the university and
to society." (BOR 6C-5.225(2)(a))
"Nomination of a general faculty member for tenure
shall signify the president is satisfied the candidate will continue to
make significant professional contributions to the university and the
academic community generally." (BOR 6C-5.225(5)(b))
(b) Tenure is an employment classification achieved
by the faculty member and is based on demonstrated ability and
performance in the areas of teaching, research, other scholarly
activities, and service. For tenure, performance over the entire term of
appointment at UCF must be considered. For candidates with prior credit
towards tenure, performance before appointment at UCF must also be
considered.
(c) The quality, quantity and consistency of such
performance must provide evidence of the candidate's value to the
university and assurance of potential for the future.
(d) In general, the standards of performance expected
for tenure in teaching, research, scholarship, and service shall be the
same as for the rank the candidate will hold for the year in which
tenure will be awarded.
(e) Candidates for tenure must have demonstrated
effectiveness in teaching. Evaluation of teaching by peers, students,
administrators, and candidates themselves as well as teaching related
scholarship will be considered in assessing competency in teaching and
teaching effectiveness. Development of innovative course materials and
teaching methodology, curriculum development, special teaching
responsibilities, awards or other public recognition of teaching, and
other teaching related activities will also be considered in assessing
competency in teaching and teaching effectiveness.
(f) It is the responsibility of the candidate to see
that the tenure file is accurate and complete.
3. PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING TENURE
(a) At the time a faculty member becomes eligible for
tenure consideration, he/she shall submit an application in accordance
with the application format available from the Office of Academic
Affairs. Normally, a faculty member consults with the appropriate
department chair or unit administrator before submitting an application.
A faculty member may choose to proceed with the application without an
endorsement from the department chair. In accordance with the BOR/UFF
Collective Bargaining Agreement, untenured faculty members have the
opportunity to request exclusion of service ("stop the clock") for
leaves of absences.
(b) Outside Review:
Each faculty member being considered for tenure will
have relevant material from his/her application submitted to four
outside experts for evaluation. The outside experts are to be selected
using the following procedures:
(1) The department chair and the department promotion
and tenure committee will jointly select a panel of four outside
reviewers and the faculty member being considered for tenure will
nominate a panel of four outside reviewers. The final panel of outside
reviewers will consist of four persons: two selected by the faculty
candidate from the panel proposed by the chair and the promotion and
tenure committee, and two selected by the chair and the promotion and
tenure committee from the panel proposed by the faculty candidate. When
a department chair is under consideration for tenure, his/her dean will
appoint a person to participate in the tenure process in the role of the
chair's supervisor.
(2) Outside reviews shall be required for all tenure
candidates.
(3) Outside reviewer's comments shall be based upon a
professional resume and relevant material provided jointly by the chair
and candidate to the outside reviewer. In the event that agreement
cannot be reached on the relevant material, the department promotion and
tenure committee will adjudicate the matter.
(4) In all instances a standard letter provided by
the Office of Academic Affairs will be used by the department chair for
the purpose of submitting material for outside review. When a chair is a
candidate, his/her immediate supervisor will handle this process.
(c) The vote of the tenured members of the department
or unit shall be obtained by the appropriate department or unit
administrator in a secret poll, the results of which shall be forwarded
with the tenure application.
(d) Evaluation of the candidate by other faculty
members shall also be considered during the process.
(e) The tenure application must be evaluated by the
appropriate department chair, college dean, the Vice President for
Academic Affairs and the President before the President submits the
tenure nomination to the Board of Regents.
(f) The recommendations should be accompanied by
supporting materials as listed below:
(1) An application in a format to be provided by the
Office of Academic Affairs.
(2) All annual performance evaluations over the
entire term of appointment at UCF.
(3) All annual tenure appraisals, if the candidate
chooses, over the entire term of appointment at UCF. The reviewers at
any stage in the review may request to review the annual tenure
appraisals.
(4) A summary evaluation by the department chair in a
format to be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.
(5) An evaluation of the faculty (candidate) by
faculty in a format to be provided by the Office of Academic Affairs.
These evaluations, which will be made by committees at department,
college, and university levels, will be in accordance with the
procedures regarding these committees in UCF Rule
6C7-3.017(3)(e), 6C7-3.017(3)(f), and
6C7-3.017(3)(g).
(g) The evaluation sequence begins with the
department chair, then advances to the college dean to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs to the President. Positive and negative
recommendations will be forwarded successively and the faculty member
will receive a notice of each recommendation at the time it is
forwarded.
(h) If the President approves, the nomination will be
forwarded to the Chancellor for action by the Board of Regents. The
President will provide the nominee with a written report of the final
action taken by the Board of Regents on the nomination for tenure.
(i) Presidential denial of nomination may be appealed
under the applicable UCF grievance procedure (Rules 6C7-3.013 or
6C7-3.0132).
4. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
In addition to the university-wide criteria for
promotion and tenure, as detailed in this document, the following
criteria will be applicable for all professional engineering faculty
nominations.
(a) Current professional registration as:
(1) An "engineer-in-training" for the rank of
assistant professor of engineering, and
(2) A "professional engineer" for the ranks of
associate professor of engineering and professor of engineering under
the laws of a state or territory of the United States. Professional
engineering faculty shall give evidence of being registered in Florida.
(b) Evidence of continuing education and professional
development activities that clearly demonstrate that the individual
faculty member has obtained relevant professional competence in an
appropriate discipline.
(c) Evidence of active professional service with one
or more of the Participating Bodies of ABET (Accreditation Board for
Engineering and Technology, formerly the Engineer's Council for
Professional Development). Such service herein defined as participation
in the affairs of the professional/learned/ technical society as an
officer, committee member, or by presentation of papers.
(d) The annual review of faculty by the Dean of the
College of Engineering shall include certification to higher authority
of "satisfaction of continuing qualifications" of a faculty member to be
a member of the professional engineering faculty.
(e) Recognizing that some of the current engineering
faculty/educators may have different personal objectives OR that it may
be appropriate to appoint certain applied scientists to the engineering
faculty in the future, an exception to item (a) shall be allowed
provided that:
(1) The affected faculty member shall be appointed
"_________of engineering science," and
(2) The same requirement for professional development
and professional services shall be maintained as requisite for
membership in the professional engineering faculty.
Specific Authority: 120.53(1)(a), 240.227(1),
6C-5.225 FAC Law Implemented: 120.53(1)(a), 240.227(1), 240.245, 240.209
(3) (e),(4) 447.203(2) FS History: New 10-8-75; Amended 11-10-77,
Resolution from the Personnel Committee.
Considered by the Steering Committee on February 5, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-07 considered by the Senate at its meeting on
February 16, 1995. Tabled until next Senate meeting to allow more time
for faculty to review the resolution. Considered again on March 23,
1995; amended; adopted with two opposing votes.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse for approval and implementation on
April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT,
the following be adopted as policy for Honorary Degrees at UCF.
(1) Candidates for honorary
degrees may be nominated from the University of Central Florida
community, any other academic community, or from public service
areas. The following criteria will be considered:
(a) The
recipient should bring distinct honor to UCF through
his/her eminence, and/or;
(b) The
recipient should have a significant relationship with UCF, e.g.:
(1) As a distinguished alumna or
alumnus of UCF, and/or;
(2) By providing major assistance
in creating a new program, and/or;
(3) Through significant
contribution to faculty and students, and/or;
(4) Through highly beneficial
contributions to the welfare of the University.
(2) Possible recipients of
honorary degrees may be nominated by any member of the UCF community
at large. Since the degree conferred will relate to one of the
University disciplines and indicate distinguished service for past,
present, and/or future contributions to that discipline, it is
necessary that the nomination originate from, or have the
endorsement of, the appropriate University division or department
and dean of appropriate college. In the event that the nominator is
from the UCF community at large (without specific division,
department, and/or college affiliation), it is mandatory that he/she
provide formal documentation that the proposal has been submitted to
the appropriate University division or department as well as to the
dean of the appropriate college. The nomination should also suggest
the formal honorary degree title (e.g., Doctor of Humanities, etc.)
sought, although this may be subject to change by the reviewers or
by college or University administration.
The nominator will forward the
nomination and appropriate documentation to the Chair of the
Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee for a
recommendation by the Committee. The Chair will forward the
Committee's recommendation to the President of UCF for final action
and inform the Chair of the Faculty Senate of the recommendation.
Resolution from the
Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee.
Considered by the Steering Committee on February 2, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-08 adopted by the Senate at its meeting on
February 16, 1995 with one member opposed.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on March 15, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse dated May 2, 1995: "We agree with the
resolution in principle but request negotiation with Faculty Senate
to simplify some of the procedures."
Resolutions
1994-1995-9 Emeritus Status
BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the
following be adopted as policy for granting Emeritus status at UCF.
To be eligible for consideration
for Emeritus status, a faculty member must be retiring or has
retired from UCF, has been a permanent employee at UCF, has tenure
at UCF, and hold the rank of Professor or Associate Professor for a
minimum of five years immediately prior to retirement.
Any member of the UCF community
may nominate an eligible faculty member for Emeritus status.
A nominee must have made major
professional contributions while on the faculty of UCF and has been
sufficiently established and active at the University to have
achieved eminence so that the title Emeritus will be an honor to the
individual and to the University. No Emeritus title will include the
modifier "acting" and will be confined to the last permanent
academic rank held by the nominee. Example: Emeritus Associate
Professor.
Documented nominations are to be
submitted to the chair of the department with which the candidate is
affiliated. The department chair will present the candidate to the
department faculty for their comments. The department chair will
submit this recommendation along with his/her comments to the dean
of the college. The dean will forward all nominations for
consideration to the Chair of the Commencements, Convocations, and
Recognitions Committee with such comments as he or she chooses to
make by the deadline date of February 1 of the year.
Each nominee will be considered
upon his/her individual merits as documented by the nomination and
supporting information.
The Chair of the Commencements,
Convocations, and Recognitions Committee will transmit Committee
recommendations to the Provost, who, in turn, will make
recommendations to the President. The Chair of the Committee will
also inform the Chair of the Faculty Senate of the recommendations.
No award will be considered final and official until it is formally
announced by the President.
Privileges for Emeritus
faculty. The following benefits are proposed for faculty members
who have been officially awarded the Emeritus status:
Privileges at the University of
Central Florida Library;
Computer account for e-mail;
Departmental office space where possible and requested;
University or departmental seminars (conducting) by mutual desire
Status as an ex-officio member of his/her department faculty; and
Exemption from parking fees.
These benefits/privileges are to
be effective upon approval by the President.
Resolution from the Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions
Committee.
Considered by the Steering Committee on February 2, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-09 unanimously adopted by the Senate at its
meeting on February 16, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on March 15, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: Approved contingent on your clarification as
follows:
"This note is to confirm the
position of Faculty Senate on the privileges for emeritus faculty.
We expect the emeritus faculty to participate in matters related to
curriculum, etc. WE DO NOT expect them to participate in matters
dealing with personnel issues. We wish to leave their voting status
(in matters such as curriculum) to the individual departments."
Resolutions 1994-1995-10 ACFS Representative
The faculty of the State
University System (SUS) of Florida desire representation on the
Board of Regents (BOR) as a member with voice and vote. Until that
is achieved, the faculty of the SUS of Florida request that a
representative of the ACFS be included on each BOR agenda.
Rationale:
Faculty should participate in
policy discussion, debate and decisions that affect higher education
in Florida. Participation of faculty is important in matters and
issues such as (1) tenure and promotion, (2) evaluation, (3) awards
for excellence, (4) curriculum policy and curricular structure, (5)
requirements for degrees and granting of degrees, (6) policies for
recruitment, admission and retention of students, (7) the
development, curtailment, discontinuance, or reorganization of
academic programs, (8) grading policies, and (9) other matters of
academic concern.
Although faculty are a
significant part of the educational system, they have no direct
input to BOR policy formulation. Faculty are profoundly affected by
BOR policies, since these relate to the performance of their jobs
and the evaluation of that performance. At present, students hold a
seat on the BOR. Further, each geographic area of the state is
represented and university administration has a recognized presence.
While the faculty may attend BOR meetings by virtue of the Sunshine
law, they are not represented by a faculty member on the BOR.
"While the UFF, as the elected
bargaining agent, retains the exclusive right to negotiate and reach
agreement on terms and conditions of employment for members of the
bargaining unit, and the BOR retains its rights, under law, to
manage and direct the SUS, ... [i]t is desirable that ... [faculty]
will have a mechanism and procedure, independent of the collective
bargaining process, for making recommendations... ." (Preamble UFF/BOR
Collective Bargaining Agreement, 1991-1994, page 1.) It is within
the spirit of this language that the above resolution is proposed.
This resolution was adopted by
the Advisory Council of Faculty Senates (ACFS) at their meeting on
February 24, 1995 held in Tallahassee, Florida. The ACFS recommended
that the senate at each of the SUS institutions consider endorsing
this resolution before it is sent to the BOR for further
consideration and action.
Considered by the Steering
Committee on March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-10
unanimously endorsed by the Senate at its meeting on March 23, 1995.
Sent to Provost Whitehouse for
endorsement on April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: This resolution is still being reviewed.
Resolutions
1994-1995-11 Budget Funding
WHEREAS, the Senate
believes that the formula approach to budgeting known as the Pegasus
Model is a reasonable approach to allocating the Instruction and
Research portion of the budget of the University of Central Florida;
and
WHEREAS, Provost
Whitehouse has invited our comments regarding that model, we offer
the following concerns and suggestions.
WE ARE
INTERESTED IN ASSURING
That productivity factors and
other parameters are reasonable and reflect current data; we support
the intent of the Administration to periodically review the Pegasus
Model and to solicit the views of the Faculty and University
Community in doing so.
That when productivity factors
are used for allocations within colleges, they are used in a
manner consistent with the University's goals and objectives,
particularly where a college's overall Pegasus productivity factor
is a composite of divergent productivity factors of various
disciplines comprising that college.
That the Pegasus model allocates
capital outlay funding reflecting the comparative needs of various
departments and colleges.
That graduate study is funded in
ways reflective of the character and diversity of such programs at
the University, and that such funding is consistent with the
University's strategic goals and objectives. Different colleges
offer different types of graduate programs, such as doctoral studies
of traditional form, many different general masters' degree
programs, and a variety of nontraditional and/or professionally
oriented degree or certification programs. Moreover, the extent of
participation in graduate programs differs across colleges.
Therefore, using such broad categories as "graduate" and
"thesis/dissertation" in allocating funding for graduate study
between colleges may inadequately serve the University's objectives.
That, all aspects of the Pegasus
model allocations have been clearly communicated to the Faculty and
University Community. Some aspects of the overall process by which
funding is allocated are better understood than others. Various
"specials", employed as devices for allocating funds by means other
than by formula, have been employed to deal with special
circumstances, needs, or objectives; many of these special
allocations have been necessitated by strategic concerns not easily
served by the formula allocation process. Some such "specials" are
incorporated and explained within the overall Pegasus model; others
allocate funds entirely outside the Pegasus Model. We fear that the
impartiality of the process may be perceived to be compromised by
such "specials", and that acceptance of the formula budgeting
approach itself could be undermined by such perceptions. We support
the need for "specials" as budget mechanisms. Our concern, rather,
is that the amounts of and rationale for "specials" should be
clearly communicated to the Faculty and University Community.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED,
therefore, that the Senate
Recommends, applauds, and
encourages periodic review of the Pegasus Model's various components
and parameters in the light of experience gained since its inception
and as a result of external or internal comparisons.
Recommends that within-college
allocations should continue to be left to the colleges themselves;
however it suggests that central University administration should
monitor and evaluate the impact of the colleges' internal
allocations in terms of their consistency with the University's
overall goals and objectives.
Recommends that consideration be
given to adjusting the range for "need factors" for Other Capital
Outlay (OCO) to better respond to the comparative needs of the
various departments and colleges.
Recommends that serious,
thoughtful consideration be given to the impact of present Pegasus
allocation methods upon the conduct of graduate programs within the
University. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of
allocating funds for graduate programs according to productivity
data based on categories other than simply "graduate" and
"thesis/dissertation", and/or to recognizing a need for "specials"
to address specific situations.
Recommends that it be clearly
communicated that the portion of University funding that is not
allocated by formula is subjected to systematic review by the
administration, guided by the University's Strategic Plan; that
these allocations be communicated to the Faculty and University
Community in a format understandable to all; and that such
communication should include disclosure of Instruction and Research
allocations made outside the Pegasus process. Specific consideration
also should be given as to whether or how this process can become an
important and explicit link between the University's annual
operating budget and its long-run Strategic Plan.
Resolution from the Budget and
Administrative Procedures Committee.
Considered by the Steering
Committee on March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-11
unanimously adopted by the Senate at its meeting on March 23, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
Resolutions 1994-1995-12
Naming University Facilities
BE IT RESOLVED,
That the following policies and procedures be adopted for naming
University facilities.
I.General
Policy
The University of Central
Florida may recognize the significance of certain events,
individuals, or groups, by recommending to the Board of Regents that
institutional buildings or other facilities or parts thereof be
named in the honor of the event, individual, or group. The
University President has the final authority and responsibility for
approving the naming of buildings and facilities or parts thereof on
behalf of the University, and recommending approval by the Board of
Regents in accordance with applicable laws and rules. The President
has authority and responsibility for the administration of this
policy.
II.
General Criteria
A. Buildings, facilities
and/or parts thereof may be named for an individual, living or
deceased, who is not a University employee but who has distinguished
himself or herself through significant contributions to the
University. These contributions may be in the form of material
gifts, special service, extraordinary achievement in a scholarly
discipline, or magnanimous dedication to the betterment of the
University or society. In accordance with Section 257.062, Florida
Statutes, a University facility may not be named for any living
person except as specifically provided by law.
B. As a general rule,
University facilities shall not be named for current or former
University employees, living or deceased. An exception to this
policy may be considered by the President when an individual has
made significant contributions to the University.
In special and limited cases,
the President may decide that the contributions of a deceased or
retired University employee are of such extraordinary dimension that
appropriate recognition would include naming a part of a building,
such as an office, classroom, lobby area, laboratory, or auditorium
for that individual.
(1) No facility, building, or
part thereof shall be named for an individual who is currently
employed by the University.
(2) No request to name a
facility, building, or part thereof for a retired or deceased
employee will be considered by the University until two years
following the date of retirement or date of death.
C. Buildings or facilities
or parts thereof may be named for a donor or donors to the
University in accordance with the following guidelines:
(1) To the extent possible, a
building or facility may be named for a donor who makes a gift which
is at least 50% of the total construction or replacement cost
of the building or facility; or
(2) Donors may establish
endowments to provide for academic enhancement or for the perpetual
maintenance of existing academic facilities or parts thereof. Naming
opportunities exist for the recognition of such gifts. Information
regarding such naming opportunities are available from the
University's Development Office.
III.
Procedure
A. Nominations for naming
of buildings or facilities or parts thereof shall be made in writing
to the Vice President for University Relations who shall provide a
recommendation to the President. The President shall send the
nomination and the recommendation to the Commencements Convocations,
and Recognitions Committee for review and recommendation.
B. The President has
final authority to approve the naming of buildings and facilities or
parts thereof on behalf of the University, and to recommend approval
by the Board of Regents.
IV.
Recognition
If the naming of a building or
facility or part thereof is approved by the University President,
Board of Regents, and the Florida Legislature as appropriate, the
Vice President for University Relations or designee shall be
responsible for planning and coordinating appropriate recognition
activities and events.
Resolution from the
Commencements, Convocations, and Recognitions Committee.
Considered by the Steering
Committee on March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-12
unanimously adopted by the Senate at its meeting on March 23, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
Resolutions 1994-1995-13 Graduate Studies
WHEREAS,
The growth of quality graduate education is one of the University's
five strategic goals;
WHEREAS, There is a need
to ensure quality graduate education such that program and
university standards established by the faculty are observed;
WHEREAS, The Office of
Graduate Studies interacts and counsels widely across the
institution, especially in fostering cross-disciplinary and
interdisciplinary programs;
WHEREAS, The Office of
Graduate Studies provides clear and consistent advocacy for the
principles and ideals of graduate education, unburdened by
budgeting, fund raising, and other external pressures; and
WHEREAS, The Office of
Graduate Studies is responsible for ensuring that areas such as
financial aid, housing, counseling, health, insurance, and student
governance are responsive to graduate student needs;
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED,
That (1) the Office of the Provost assure that the support systems
available to the Office of Graduate Studies are adequate to
accomplish the tasks expected of that Office; and (2) the position
of Director of Graduate Studies be made a full-time position,
subject to availability of resources.
Resolution from the Graduate
Policy and Curriculum Committee.
Considered by the Steering
Committee on March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-13 adopted
with seven opposing votes by the Senate at its meeting on March 23,
1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: "Declined. While we agree with the spirit of this
resolution, I must decline the proposal based upon the principle
that University administration reserves the right to make
administrative assignments. There are also, of course, issues
relative to financial uncertainties on campus.
WHEREAS,
Several resource allocation models (such as Pegasus, Tuition Waiver,
Research Overhead Return) exist at the University of Central
Florida; and
WHEREAS, Adjustments to
these models must be made periodically in order to match available
resources with the University's goals and objectives; therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, That all
such models be based upon current data and factors which (1) are as
precisely and as simply defined as possible, (2) allow meaningful
and straightforward comparisons both within and external to the SUS,
(3) can be updated on a biannual basis or more frequently, (4) give
appropriate weight to academic emphases determined by faculty and
administrators providing input on the models, and (5) are consistent
with the strategic goals of the University.
Resolution from the Strategic
Planning Council.
Considered by the Steering
Committee on March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-14
unanimously adopted by the Senate at its meeting on March 23, 1995.
Sent to Provost Gary Whitehouse
for approval and implementation on April 7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
Resolutions 1994-1995-15 Topic Courses
BE IT RESOLVED,
(1) A list and description of
special topic courses approved at the college level will be compiled
by a designee of the Office of Academic Affairs and circulated to
all deans' offices and to all chairs within the University. If any
dean's office or a chair objects, in writing, to any course on the
list, that course will be placed on the agenda of the next scheduled
meeting of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee for its
consideration. Attempts to resolve any areas of controversy will be
made prior to the scheduled meeting of the Committee.
(2) This same list and
description of college approved special topic courses will also be
reviewed by the designee of the Office of Academic Affairs, the
Chair of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee, and all members
of the Undergraduate Course Review Committee. If any of the above
mentioned feel there is any reason for a special topic course to be
reviewed by the Committee, it will be placed on the agenda for the
next meeting of the Committee.
(3) All special topic courses
that are determined to be non-controversial, after review as
described in (1) and (2) above, will be placed on a consent agenda
of the next scheduled meeting of the Undergraduate Course Review
Committee. Any member of the Committee may move to remove a special
topic course from the consent agenda for a detailed review by the
Committee.
(4) Approved special topic
courses may be taught a second time without further review. Before a
special topic course can be offered a third time, it must be
approved as a permanent addition to the catalog. All permanent
course additions, must be reviewed at the University Committee level
for approval.
Resolution from the
Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee and the Undergraduate
Course Review Committee. Considered by the Steering Committee on
March 9, 1995.
Resolution 1994-1995-15
unanimously adopted by the Senate at its meeting on March 23, 1995.
Sent to Provost Whitehouse for approval and implementation on April
7, 1995.
Memo from Provost Whitehouse
dated May 2, 1995: Approved.
