College of Engineering and Computer Science
Faculty Meeting
Friday, October 2, 2009
Fleming 424
9:00 am – 11:00 am
Meeting begins with Dr. Kader Mazouz asking any visitors to introduce themselves.
A movement is made by Dr. Tom Fernandez to record the meeting.
Dr. Stevens:
– Explains the reason this movement has been made is because at the last
meeting there were visitors who recorded the meeting without approval.
Dr. Ali Zilouchian:
– suggests that if they want to record the meeting, it should be officially
announced with who is recording it.
Dr. Stevens:
– Explains that the bylaws state that anything not on the agenda can not be
addressed. According to bylaws faculty can’t take vote on anything that was
not on the agenda in advance.
Dr. Perambur Neelakanta:
– Asks that if there is something the faculty wants to address and it’s not on the
agenda to put it on the agenda.
Dr. Tom Fernandez:
– Volunteers to record the meeting. He introduces himself and requests permission to record the meeting.
Dr. Nurgun Erdol passes out pencils and paper and asks that if anyone has any questions, to write them down, then she will compile them and ask.
A vote takes place to record the meeting.
Dr. Oren Masory:
– Suggests that we record every meeting, put it on the web, TSG handles it and
it will no longer be an issue further out.
Dr. T. Fernandez stands to record the meeting and begins to record it.
Dr. Mazouz:
– Moves to the next issue, to approve or disapprove the minutes of the last meeting.
A motion is made to approve.
The motion is seconded.
Dr. Neelakanta:
– Feels the minutes were incomplete. There were several points that were not
covered in the minutes. Requests to address the points that were missed during
this meeting.
Dr. Zvi Roth:
– Moves to table the minutes discussion, record this meeting and move on.
Many seconded and were in favor. Minutes were tabled.
Dr. Mazouz discusses the number of students in each department and that there are
actually 379 in the Civil Engineering department instead of 780.
Dr. Stevens points out that the information is on line and faculty has access to this data.
Dr. Stevens:
– This meeting is a response from a petition from ten faculty to discuss undergrad
functional units, but no agenda was provided. So he will discuss a few things. All
were assigned to one functional unit. It is not an exclusive assignment. Gary
Salivar is heading pre-professional unit, undergrad functional unit has met at least
once, graduate functional unit is meeting for the first time today, innovation has
already had a number of meetings.
– A lot of work has been done and there is still more work to do.
– Every functional unit has a task and opportunity to provide input on how we
structure things and operate things. Any suggestions will be provided to CP&D
and then reviewed. You have a tremendous opportunity to have input and say
which most have taken advantage of. This is a work in progress. As we get to the
end of the year, we can have a graph to re-state the bylaws. CP&D is not going to
define the structure or operation of the college, you are going to do that.
Who is CPD? College Policy and Development. It is a direct path between faculty and
dean’s office. There are 2 paths, through the chair and through CP&D. Dr. Erdol is
chairing CP&D.
Question: Is Dr. Stevens free to answer questions anyway he’d like or has he been
advised?
Dr. Stevens states that he can answer questions as best as possible but can not answer
personnel meeting questions.
Question: Was the reorganization and structure of functional units used as a vehicle to
terminate faculty?
Dr. Stevens explains that a lot of these units have been in discussion for a long time, for example, the pre-professional was in discussion for a long time.
Departments are competing with each other which has had an impact. Salary and
benefits are the most costly resources we have. Some departments had huge teaching
loads others did not. Back in 2007-08 when closing the Computer Science in Davie – it
was clear that the operation was not sustainable and we had to do something about it.
Dr. Mazouz has questions from faculty:
1. Have the functional units been approved by faculty vote?
Dr. Stevens: Faculty did not vote, but they were given the information. There was
an open faculty meeting in March when this was discussed.
Dr. Neelakanta:
– Asks who decided which faculty member should be in the units?
Dr. Stevens:
– Explains the decision was based on performance of the last 2 years and the
Chairs input. Just because you are assigned to a particular unit does not mean that
is the only performance. As stated in the memo sent to you, the criteria was
purposely made pretty basic. He sat down with the department chairs and talked
about each faculty member. Dr. Stevens did not override any chair’s decision
about placement.
Discussion followed about how the decisions were made on which units the faculty
members were assigned to. Dr. T. Fernandez questions this because he feels he was
assigned to innovation leadership yet has nothing to do with it and has had nothing to do with the honors program in the entire time he has worked here at FAU. Also feels that the assignments of the functional units should not have been done in secret.
Dr. Stevens:
– Said that they looked at performance for the last 2 years, looked at proposals
written, money brought in, etc., made an initial assessment then sat with each
department chair and made a decision on each and every faculty member. Dr.
Stevens also points out that the guidelines state that these are reviewed every
Spring, so it will be reviewed this Spring.
Dr. Glegg:
– Asks if there was a committee to discuss the functional units?
Dr. Stevens answers, no.
Dr. Neelakanta:
– Asks, who is evaluating us?
Dr. Stevens:
– Answers, evaluations will come from department with input from unit head.
Discussion follows about how the faculty feel they would like to be considered to be able to vote on fundamental issues. They would like to go back to letting faculty give input and give recommendation on issues. They want to know if faculty will retain some kind of input on these decisions or will it continue as a “dictatorship”. They feel the “democracy is slipping away”.
Dr. Stevens:
-Explains that the structure has been approved by the Board of Trustees.
Dr. Erdol:
– Says how she attended a BOT meeting and there are 12 members with 1 faculty
member and 1 student member so anything they say is not really….
Dr. Stevens:
– Points out that faculty have a lot of say now more than ever.
Dr. Pandia:
– Asks Dr. Stevens if he is against the faculty having an opinion?
Dr. Stevens:
– Says that he did not say that – if you want to have a vote you can. This structure
has been approved.
Dr. Neelakanta asks a question directed to Dr. Diane Alperin:
– Suppose a position is made on the faculty level on this unit, will it be brought to
the BOT and will the BOT review it? Is there an opportunity for faculty to
express their feelings and will the BOT review?
Dr. Diane Alperin:
– States there are 13 members, 11 appointed by the governor 1 for students 1 for
faculty – In her opinion, she does not think the faculty will get the reception that
they would like. She heard a lot of support for the reorganization. In terms of
looking at the college and how to move forward, this is what the faculty should
look at. Bring a plan to CP&D for review. The BOT is not interested in the
problem, they are interested in solutions.
Dr. Stevens:
– Said that it had become really clear that we had to change the way we did
business, so we decided to convene with department chairs as well as a neutral
person. They asked Susanne Clemens [sic] to help out and she said yes.
Dr. Neelakanta:
– Asks if Susanne was qualified to give input on engineering?
Dr. Stevens:
– Replies that she is a faculty member herself, she did not define the structure, she
led the discussion. Met on two consecutive Fridays, the first day was typical, i.e.
what are strengths, what are weaknesses, what are we doing right, what are we
doing wrong. At the end of the day, a decision was reached that the mentality of
“island thinking” is a problem. The next Friday, a skeleton of an organizational
plan was drawn and chairs were in on that.
Question: Did chairs vote as well?
Dr. Stevens: answers, everyone on committee worked on this. No did not take a formal
vote. But there were no “no’s” when discussing it…everyone was enthusiastic with the
plan.
Dr. Masory:
– Says he does not think it was as clear as Dr. Stevens states. He said that there
was no discussion of joining the departments. When talking to other chairs, he
doesn’t believe they seemed enthusiastic.
Dr. Stevens:
– We were talking about organizational plan and functional units were discussed.
Dr. Masory:
– Yes we discussed it, but he feels there was no concrete discussion.
Dr. Pandia to Dr. Stevens:
– We respect you very much but we feel you chose to ignore the voice of CP&D
but it is clear these functional units have not been enthusiastic. Better to look at
how we go from here. It’s good for all of us to address where we go from here.
Dr. Stevens replies that Diane Alperin made a good suggestion, you have an opportunity here.
Dr. Diane Alperin:
– My suggestion is to look at it and come up with a plan. Believes you have to
work with the college and the Dean and come up with a plan.
Dr. Hanqi Zhuang:
– The perception is the layoff is attached to functional units. Feels the faculty
voice should be heard.
Dr. Zvi Roth:
– Asks Dr. Stevens: How did you allow COE to become the example?
Dr. Stevens:
– Last year our cut was $1.275 million – how do we possibly do that and still
remain a viable college? We were facing up to 15 layoffs. University did not in
any way tell us this is how you have to do this.
Dr. Stevens says the contract does not say, tenure is a guaranteed [sic].
Question: To what extent was faculty taken into account?
Dr. Stevens:
– A letter explaining what was going on in the college, there was an open faculty
meeting was in March, we went through all of this.
Question: Will functional units be used to layoff?
Dr. Stevens: I don’t’ know what the future holds – this was not created as a way to say
“oh if we have to do layoffs this is the way we’ll do it”.
Question: Which unit would you be proud of for faculty to be in?
Dr. Stevens: All of them
Question: What authority does the director of unit have?
Dr. Stevens: Most of the heads are not all that different from what we had before.
Associate Dean for research, Associate Dean for programs. These are all things that we
have.
Dr. Zhuang asks:
– Can we change the name from functional unit to functional committee?
Dr. Zhuang proposes a motion to change name from functional “unit” to functional
“committee”.
Dr. Neelakanta seconds it.
Faculty member: Thinks Diane gave a good suggestion. Present a plan to CP&D and
maybe change the names of the units.
Dr. Masory:
– Asks if we change the name to committee, members of committee have to be
selected by the committee?
Dr. Zilouchian:
– States that this is not in the agenda so you can not vote.
Dr. Erdol:
– Suggests to take back the motion and discuss it and work it out.
The motion has been removed.
Question: How do functional units relate to official departmental assignment?
Dr. Stevens: All has to be defined
Question: What criteria was used to appoint the heads?
Dr. Stevens: they were already there, Tim was already the head, Dr. Ilyas was already
there.
Dr. Masory:
– Wants the criteria defined. Do they have to have a PhD? Can CP&D suggest the
criteria?
Dr. Stevens: No, the Dean’s office retains the…
Tim Van Epps:
– Made it perfectly clear that they need people who are on board with the unit.
Dr. Huang:
– Moves to have another meeting to solve the unsolved problems. To be scheduled
during the week, next week or week after.
Dr. Mazouz:
– Meeting is adjourned at 10:44 am