Senate Gov Cte CAPS Summary

Summary of Meetings of the University Senate Governance Committee
Issues Relating to CAPS, 2001-2002

Introduction: The Governance Committee met on October 19, 26, November 9, 16, 30 and December 7, 2001 and on January 25, 2002 to consider the CAPS Advisory Report, the CAPS proposal, and other issues related to the formation of a school of professional studies. The minutes of these meetings present a fuller record of the discussions summarized below, and are on file in the University Senate Office. The resolutions, straw votes and most relevant discussions are summarized below. Please note that for convenience, the resolutions are numbered consecutively with cross references to the original numbers in the committee minutes.

I. Consideration of General Principles/Focus Questions Relating to CAPS

The committee members discussed whether we should try to come to a consensus on endorsing CAPS before we discussed a report on how it should be structured. However, it is clear there was not real consensus on that issue, and many members felt that they wanted to hear the discussion in the Senate before they reached a final decision. Members also felt that whether or not to endorse the proposal would to some extent depend on the structure of the proposal. The committee began discussions with a series of focus questions. The questions we considered and results of straw votes are as follows:

Does the committee endorse the greater participation of RU in adult-oriented professional education, both non-credit and credit-bearing?

Committee vote: yes ___9__; no __0_____; abstain:___0___

Relevant discussion: In general , the committee agreed with this question, although there is some disagreement about the relative importance credit and non-credit bearing courses should take.

Does the Committee endorse the fundamental questions endorsed in the Interim Report of the Advisory Committee; in other words, do we endorse the creation of CAPS? If so, do we do this unconditionally, or subject to particular changes we feel are critical.

We then took three straw pools to determine the degree of support for these levels of approval of the CAPS idea in general.

In other words, do we endorse the creation of CAPs?

Committee vote: yes ___3__; no __0_____; abstain:___6___

If so, do we do this unconditionally?

Committee vote: yes __0__; no __8_____; abstain:___1___

Or subject to particular changes we feel are critical?

Committee vote: yes __7__; no __0____; abstain:___2__

II. Consideration of the CAPS Advisory Board Report Guiding Principles

The committee first reviewed the CAPS Advisory Board Report, and discussed each of the recommendations. A straw ballot was taken on each of the recommendations, and in some cases alternative recommendations or supplemental language (noted in capital letters below) received straw votes. The committee did not feel that some recommendations in the Advisory Board report were strong enough, and some raised further issues, so the committee also identified other issues that the members wished to consider. Discussion began with the five basic guiding principles endorsed by the CAPS advisory committee, and these were perhaps most problematic to many of the members. The actions taken and relevant discussion on CAPS Advisory Board recommendations are included below; numbering is as in the original report. Discussion and straw votes on five basic guiding principles are as follows:

Throughout the State of New Jersey there are documented needs for increased delivery of applied and professional programs at the upper division and post-baccalaureate level.

Committee vote: yes ___9__; no __0_____; abstain:___0___

As the State University of New Jersey, Rutgers has the responsibility and obligation to address these needs with the highest quality program delivery.

Committee vote: yes ___9__; no __0_____; abstain:___0___

These needs can be best served through the creation of a new academic unit within Rutgers University. The mission of this new unit is providing applied and professional education to upper division and post-baccalaureate adult learners at off-campus locations.

Committee vote: yes __3__no __6_____; abstain:___0___

Although administratively separate, this new unit should make the maximum possible use of existing expertise within Rutgers for all aspects of its operation.

Committee vote: yes ___9__; no __0_____; abstain:___0___

Given budget realities, this unit must be self-sustaining and ideally revenue generating.

Committee vote: yes ___9__; no __0_____; abstain:___0___

Relevant Discussion: There was concern that use of resources by CAPS would disadvantage the ‘core’ of Rutgers University, and that this might lead to more and more demands for revenue generation on other parts of Rutgers. Members wanted to know at what points the University could say CAPS was not working, and whether there could be a formal mechanism for doing this.

III. Discussion and straw votes on CAPS Advisory Committee Recommendations

Charge 1: Suggest ways to ensure academic freedom and appropriate oversight of programs. The potential role of tenured/tenure-track faculty and their relationship to the proposed school as a way to address these issues should be considered as well as other suggestions.

(1) We recommend that, wherever possible, tenured faculty be involved in the recruitment and appointment of CAPS faculty.

Committee vote: yes _10__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

(2) We recommend that CAPS involve tenured faculty in its reappointment and promotion committee(s). Specifically, we recommend that (a) there be an objective reappointment and promotion process for CAPS faculty that mirrors as closely as possible the process for tenure-track faculty and (b) that appropriate tenured faculty constitute a majority of the CAPS appointment and promotion committees.

Committee vote: yes __8__; no __0____; abstain:___2__

(3) We recommend that CAPS faculty be represented by a collective bargaining agent.

Committee vote: yes __10__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

(4) We recommend that CAPS involve tenured faculty in its instructional programs.

Committee vote: yes __10__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

(5) We recommend the establishment of an Executive Board with broad policy responsibilities.

Committee votes yes __7__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

Relevant Discussion: In voting on this recommendation, the committee understood the language used in the Interim Report to refer to an Executive Board that had true voting power and was not only an advisory committee to the Dean.

(6) We recommend that CAPS programs ensure instructional quality through accreditation, teaching evaluation and program oversight mechanisms consistent with procedures elsewhere in Rutgers, with due emphasis on teaching evaluations and faculty development.

Committee vote: yes __6__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

Charge 2: Explore our existing transfer articulation agreements and the admission of
upper division students. Are changes needed to accommodate the adult and place
bound learner targeted by CAPS?

(7) We recommend that the CAPS general education requirements be set by the CAPS Executive Board.

Committee vote: yes __5__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

(8) We recommend that transfer of students, majors, and courses between CAPS and on-campus units be restricted as follows:

Committee vote: yes __0__; no __5____; abstain:___0__

Relevant Discussion: The committee will consider changes to this recommendation later.

(9) We recommend that the articulation agreements with the community colleges be modified to facilitate transfer of students from those colleges into CAPS.

Committee vote: yes __9__; no __0____; abstain:___0__

10) We recommend that the CAPS Executive Board and other appropriate tenured faculty members and academic administrators be involved early and to a major extent in the development of all preliminary program proposals for CAPS programs.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(11) We recommend that proposed CAPS degree programs go through the same approval process as other new program proposals that are developed by existing academic units.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(12) We recommend that CAPS be authorized to award degrees in professional studies to differentiate it from existing liberal arts and professional schools.

Committee votes: yes 4 no 4 abstain 0

ALTERNATIVE FORM of #12 CONSIDERED:

An alternative form of this text (with changes shown below in capital letters) was then considered and voted on:

(12) We recommend that CAPS be authorized to award degrees in APPLIED studies to differentiate it from existing liberal arts and professional schools.

Relevant Discussion: Some members of the committee felt that the word professional might appear to be an attempt to “dress up” applied studies with what could be perceived as an unwarranted level of professional legitimacy.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(13) We recommend that, in developing new programs with few internal existing resources, CAPS utilize program planning committees that have representation of tenured faculty from cognate disciplines.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

SUPPLEMENTAL LANGUAGE OF #13 CONSIDERED:

In cases where the University has few existing resources, working with external consultants should be a formal requirement and funds and resources should be allocated to support this requirement.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(14) We recommend that the costs of quality support services be built into the budgeting model for CAPS.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(15) We recommend that academic support services personnel be integrated into appropriate CAPS committees and other organizational structures.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(16) We recommend that CAPS and existing units within Rutgers be encouraged to work together when mutually beneficial interactions are likely to occur.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(17) We recommend that CAPS work with each of the three University Colleges to determine the extent to which CAPS infrastructure and programs could be used to further the adult education mission of UC, and vice versa.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

Relevant Discussion: Some committee members felt that in certain areas the University was already constrained by the lack of an adequate supply of PTLs who met appropriate faculty quality requirements for certain programs.

(18) We recommend that ongoing professional off-campus programs within the university (e.g., GSE, SSW, GSM, SCILS, SMLR, GS-N, Nursing, Public Administration) continue to have the same autonomy that they now enjoy.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

Relevant Discussion: The spirit of the committee vote is that CAPS is a parallel school to these schools and the CAPS Dean does not have any jurisdiction over applied studies programs in other schools.

(19) We recommend that CAPS not offer liberal arts courses or lower-level applied and professional courses.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 1

(20) We recommend that any Arts and Sciences courses offered at any of the CAPS off-campus sites be offered under the auspices of the appropriate University College and that the instructors in these course be supervised by the relevant FAS department.

Committee votes: yes 3 no 4 abstain 1

Relevant Discussion: The majority felt that these courses should be offered through existing departments.

(21) We recommend that the President establish a decanal search committee with broad university representation.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

(22) We recommend that close cooperation should be pursued between CAPS and University Extension, including, but not limited to:

Advertisement and cross-promotion of programs: RCE is in direct contact with the constituency CAPS seeks to serve.
Use of RCE faculty: RCE off campus programs do not currently lead to the awarding of a degree. However, some of the programmatic initiatives of RCE may form the basis for a CAPS degree-granting program, with input from Extension faculty.
Use of RCE facilities: RCE off-campus stations are currently tied into or will shortly be tied into the main Rutgers campuses through voice-video links. These facilities may serve as locations from which courses can be shared with other off-campus locations or at which CAPS may take advantage of some on-campus course.
Use of tenured RCE faculty: Senior extension faculty have been awarded tenure through the same rigorous process at the university as other tenured colleagues, with an emphasis upon service and teaching. They may prove to be valuable assets to CAPS committees dealing with hiring and promoting CAPS faculty. In addition, RCE faculty and staff have very practical knowledge and skills. They can serve to help guide program development as well as participate in instructional activities.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

IV. Consideration of New Brunswick Faculty Council Resolutions on CAPs

The committee also considered the New Brunswick Faculty Council resolutions on CAPS passed on October 26, 2001. The initial motion was to endorse these resolutions in order to express some general principles that the Governance Committee accepted about CAPS. In the end, the committee decided not to entertain this motion. The reason given for the motion was that the consideration and reformulation of CAPS was an iterative and incremental process that could benefit from articulating principles on an incremental basis. Additionally, the Governance Committee had still not determined its final view on CAPS overall. As a compromise, the Governance Committee voted on a version of resolution 1 and then voted on its support or lack of support for the bullets of resolution two. It was felt that this compromise would at the minimum communicate some useful principles as the CAPS proposal was being revised.

The tabulation of votes is listed using the original text of the Faculty Council Resolutions below which appears in bold print:

Resolution 1: Be it resolved that the New Brunswick Faculty Council endorses the following principles with regard to the need for Rutgers to offer additional applied and professional programs:

· In the State of New Jersey, there are unmet needs for off-campus applied and professional programs, including baccalaureate degree-completion and Masters programs, aimed primarily at adult learners beyond the age of traditional undergraduates.

· As the State University of New Jersey, Rutgers has a responsibility to address these needs with programs of the highest quality.

· These needs should be addressed in a manner which does not drain resources from existing on- or off-campus programs.

However, the Council is not convinced that the need for additional applied and professional programs can best be met through the establishment of a new academic unit as described in the CAPS proposal.

No vote was taken on resolution 1 after discussion by the committee.

ALTERNATIVE MOTION RELATING TO RESOLUTION 1:

Instead, an alternative motion was made to vote on the following resolution in place of resolution 1: The Senate Governance Committee supports the general sentiment of Resolution 1 (printed above) in that we are not convinced that significant documentation has been yet provided on the need for additional applied and professional programs.

Committee votes: yes 4 no 1 abstain 1

Relevant Discussion: Some members of the committee said that the information has still not yet been supplied to the committee to make a determination on “need.”

Resolution 2: Be it resolved that if a College of Applied and Professional Studies is established at Rutgers, its structure should conform to the twenty-two specific recommendations of the CAPS Advisory Committee.

Be it further resolved that if a College of Applied and Professional Studies is established, additional regulatory language should be added to the CAPS proposal to ensure that:

CAPS will not offer, or directly hire or supervise teaching staff to offer, any liberal arts and sciences courses.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

Whether CAPS courses fulfill on-campus major or collegiate general education (distribution) requirements, or receive on-campus free elective credit, will be left entirely up to the faculty or fellows of the individual schools.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

CAPS will not offer any "general studies" majors; all students will be required to complete a major concentration in a specified field.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

Be it further resolved that the CAPS Advisory Committee should consider incorporating the following recommendations:

· That the majority of the Executive Board consist of tenured faculty representing appropriate departments or units.

Committee votes: yes 5 no 1 abstain 0

· That these faculty be elected to their position by the faculty of said departments or units.

Committee votes: yes 2 no 1 abstain 3

· That their units be compensated by CAPS for their release time.

Committee votes: yes 5 no 0 abstain 1

· That where the Executive Board, acting in an advisory capacity to the CAPS Dean, is in disagreement with the Dean on academic issues, the Executive Board have access to the University Vice-President for Academic Affairs.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

V. Additional Issues Discussed and Recommendations of the Governance Committee

Resolution 1 (Issue A in original minutes): After the CAPS executive board completes its program approval procedure an area committee organized by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs will review all majors, degrees, certificates, and courses to be offered by CAPS [called programs below] before they go for approval to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. This committee will be made up of Rutgers University faculty members who are not members of CAPS. This committee will review the programs and communicate with relevant departments where necessary and engage in informal dispute resolution where applicable. However, ultimately, the committee will vote to approve or disapprove every program [unless the proposal is withdrawn]. The committee’s decision can be over-ruled by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, however, the intent is that the committee would become a part of the existing program approval process that Rutgers uses (in the case of CAPS). We anticipate that this committee would be inserted into the normal review process after review by the CAPS Executive Board and before the program was reviewed at the Vice Presidential level (the committee will discuss the details of this process later, and prepare a flow chart). The committee will have membership in the physical and life sciences and the broad business, management, and social science areas and may use subcommittees.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: The committee discussion dealt with the issue that a University Curriculum Committee is needed to review issues and disputes that may arise related to proposed CAPS programs that may not have been resolved (as the committee hopes they ALL will be) at the CAPS Executive Board level or informally in consultations within the University. Programs will be reviewed by this body before they begin the standard process of program approval which ends ultimately with the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. This committee is intended to address potential overlaps in programs that have different names, but are essentially the same as those which exist in other schools. The committee will resolve these and other issues before the final approval process commences at the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The intent is that the Curriculum Committee will resolve disputes informally through consultations, but ultimately a vote of the committee may be necessary. In effect, the Governance Committee hopes that this Curriculum Committee will have little role but a perfunctory one because the governance and administrative features already in place will resolve most issues. In effect, the Curriculum Committee will decide if proposed programs go to the next level. Note that both courses and certificates for CAPS are included in the definition of programs, unlike other units.

Resolution 2 (Issue B in original Minutes): The Executive Board of CAPS should consist of 4 full-time CAPS faculty members, 4 Rutgers University faculty members appointed at large, and 4 selected by non-CAPS Rutgers University Deans in coordination with the University Vice President for Academic Affairs. A majority of the committee members will be tenured professors and all three campuses should be represented. All will be appointed by the University Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: The intent is that at large faculty members would represent no specific constituencies except for the principle of scholarly integrity and those recommended by Deans would be from Schools that represent key areas CAPS deals with.

Resolution 3 (Issue C in original minutes): The committee requests that any programs that are prepared and ready to go or sample programs from other Universities that the current CAPS planners are thinking of emulating and any information on the needs for these programs that is currently available, be shown to the committee.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: The committee recognizes that the programs have not yet been developed but wants to get some idea of what CAPS planners have in mind at this point in time. Obviously, our intent is that the various review and governance procedures above are meant to insure the academic integrity of any approved programs.

Resolution 4 (Issue D in original minutes): The reporting relationship of the CAPS Dean will be to the University Vice President for Academic Affairs on all academic issues; in an organizational chart this would be a solid line relationship. The CAPS Dean will report to the Vice President on Continuous Education on all non-academic issues.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: The reason for the recommendation is that most of the issues that the committee has come to know and examine and discuss from the University community involve issues of integrity of academic affairs and the core of CAPS is to offer academic programs.

Resolution 5 (Issue E in original Minutes): The CAPS Dean shall be a tenured Professor.

Committee votes: yes 5 no 0 abstain 2

Discussion: Those who did not fully support the resolution liked the idea of tenure and were not opposed to it in principle but wanted more flexibility in recruitment for the CAPS Dean, perhaps at the minimum insuring she or he would be tenure track; felt that a tenure line would be used up if a tenured dean was hired and then dismissed from the job. Those supporting the resolution felt that the University had to be able to find a dean with a doctorate who already has a record of commitment to academic affairs that has been judged; since most other Deans are tenured at Rutgers, the CAPS Dean had to be clearly their equal. This would insure that the leader of CAPS had an academic background and was a person of stature who was viewed as a serious part of Rutgers University and could integrate CAPS into Rutgers University properly; while one can make the argument that the new Dean should be entrepreneurial and have some insecurity about his or her job, this is not in the end persuasive because this person must have the security and stability of tenure to be able to be a leader and do what he or she thinks is right; that people are brought in all the time at Rutgers for Dean and chair positions and given tenure and then move into the faculty after a few years; that the use of one line in the entire University to insure the advantages of tenure is worth the risk.

Resolution 6 (Issues H, N, and P in original Minutes): CAPS will not offer 100 or 200 level courses. CAPS students must choose and complete a major in a specific field in order to receive a bachelors degree. CAPS cannot become a back door to get into the existing Rutgers undergraduate programs. CAPS students will have to meet certain standards to transfer into any existing Rutgers undergraduate college that is set by the fellows of that college only. [This is in agreement with the Faculty Council’s October 26, 2001 Resolution 2, bullet two that was passed on that date by the council.] A CAPS bachelors degree will not be a capstone of ANY undergraduate Associates degree. What CAPS will offer to its entering students will be a compelling case that it has high quality academic advising, a connection to a significant research university, and a depth of academic quality.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: Here are the issues that were discussed. There was a concern that a CAPS bachelors degree not become merely a collection of uncoordinated credits not adding up to solid study of anything. There was a concern that the CAPS bachelors degree could end up being simply the equivalent of two associates degrees, one put on top of the other. There was also a concern that CAPS clearly not become a “backdoor”. That is, students who did not get admitted through the normal admissions process to Rutgers as undergraduates in its existing colleges, should not be able to use CAPS as an easy route to get into CAPS and then transfer into an existing Rutgers college. One clear intent of the committee is that what CAPS should and hopefully would provide to distinguish its commitment to academic integrity is leadership in high-quality advising of students to make sure that their bachelor’s degrees make academic sense. There was some discussion of current Rutger’s rules on Dean-to-Dean transfers but we determined this was a University-wide academic issue and not a CAPS specific issue.

Resolution 7 (Issue I in original Minutes): CAPS will explicitly not offer liberal arts courses of any kind and students would have to go outside CAPS for these courses.

Committee votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: There was no discussion but general agreement.

Resolution 8 (Issue J in original Minutes, and basis for Recommendation 2 in the body of the report): In presenting CAPS, the University should underline that the distributed model has in fact had many successes and will remain part of the university’s outreach efforts. However, the University should also note that CAPS alone is not THE answer to the university’s continuing education efforts. The University needs to develop a master plan to figure out how the distributed model AND CAPS and perhaps other things fit into what Rutgers does and should do.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0
Note: one member had to leave before the vote.

Discussion: In general the committee agrees with this sentiment and would like to see such a plan.

Resolution 9 (Issue K in original Minutes): We recommend that if any liberal arts courses are offered at CAPS locations they be offered solely by regular liberal arts departments of Rutgers University – in the same way as on-campus courses are offered - under the auspices and with the approval of one of the University Colleges. The RU liberal arts department will hire the faculty, set the curricula, and supervise the faculty.

Original Committee Votes: yes 7 no 0 abstain 0
As amended at December 7, 2001 meeting: Committee votes: yes 5 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: Because both CAPS and University College target the adult student, it is important to understand their respective missions in the University. The CAPS Dean should not be approaching individual liberal arts faculty or departments; any liberal arts courses offered for CAPS students should be arranged through the University College Dean, who will act as a “broker.”

Resolution 10 (Issue L in original Minutes): We further recommend that the CAPS Dean circulate a list of potential program ideas to all academic Deans as a mechanism for identifying faculty who may assist in developing program proposals, as well as a mechanism for identifying potential conflicts before a given proposal is developed.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

Related Resolution 11 (Related to Issue L in original Minutes): CAPS should be an equal partner with other professional schools and not a superstructure overseeing these schools for off-campus programs. It should be called a school and not a college because it offers graduate degrees. As an example, Rutgers University currently publishes a book called Continuing Education at Rutgers University. The CAPS school would be one program and school on a par with other schools in this catalogue and its courses would be listed like the courses of other schools in this catalogue.

Committee votes: yes 8 no 0 abstain 0

Resolution 12 (Issue M in original Minutes): CAPS should be called the School of Applied Studies.

Committee votes: yes 5 no 1 abstain 1

Discussion: In the discussion it was raised that the word college connotates a super-structure of professional studies while there actually are other professional schools. The word professional tends to ascribe qualities to various applied fields that perhaps should not be ascribed.

Resolution 13 (Issue P in original Minutes): Service to CAPs (exclusive of teaching) should be viewed as part of general University service and treated in the same way as service on other major University committees.

Committee votes: yes 6 no 0 abstain 0

Discussion: We discussed whether for example service on the CAPs executive board should get course release or research funds. It was noted that various special arrangements are made for demanding service on the PRC and CSPAD (the committee evaluating major University programs) and suggested that similar approaches may be in order.

Recommendation 14 (Issue S in original Minutes) : Since a strategic plan is now not available, the role of CAPS in the University’s overall plan to serve the needs of the citizens of New Jersey must be made clear. This should include a detailed statement of documented needs of the state. It should state which of these needs it is most appropriate for the University to address and how well ongoing continuing education programs at Rutgers are currently addressing these needs.

Discussion: The committee noted that it supports Interim Committee #18 and feels there should be early informal contacts where a possible CAPS program might overlap with the program of an existing school.

VI. Recommendations and Discussion on the SCPD revised proposal (January 2002).

The Committee reviewed the Proposal in order to evaluate whether the recommendations and changes requested by the CAPS Advisory Committee had been used and fully implemented. The committee did this by going through each recommendation and making an evaluation individually and as a whole. The committee endorsed the following resolution:

Resolution 15 (#1 in Minutes of January 25): Upon review of the Proposal the Governance Committee found that the SCPD Proposal needed some minor revisions in order to fully follow the recommendations of the CAPS [now School of Continuing Professional Development] Advisory Committee and we recommend the following changes:

a. that an area committee under the University Vice President for Academic Affairs be established consistent with the Governance Committee Resolution on Issue A ( Resolution # 1 above; see minutes of November 16, 2000).

[Note to readers: While this was originally a Governance Committee recommendation and resolution, it was dealt with here for two reasons: first, it was a large issue not addressed by the revision of the Proposal and two, it addresses in detail important principles delineated by the CAPS Advisory Committee.

b. that a student be added to the proposed School of Continuing Professional Development executive board consistent with the Advisory Committee’s recommendations;

c. that the word “college” in the Proposal (page 13 paragraph beginning “SCPD will not offer liberal arts courses…” line 5 of this paragraph) be changed to “department” to communicate that it is departments that actually oversee courses not colleges;

d. that the actual text of the Advisory Committee report on the proposed School of Continuing Professional Development Dean’s search committee on p. 18 of the Advisory Committee report (reproduced below) be added in an appropriate place in the Proposal in order to spell out this important point.

Vote on Resolution: The resolution passed unanimously.

A representative of the administration involved in the drafting informally indicated that these additional changes would probably not be an issue.

The Governance Committee made a final evaluation on the use of the Advisory Committee recommendations by the administration. After a detailed discussion and review of the advisory committee report point by point we considered the following resolution.

Resolution 16 (#2 in Minutes of January 25): The Governance Committee finds that with the exception of the issues addressed in resolution #1 above that the Proposal was a good faith attempt to take and to use all of the substantive recommendations of the School of Continuing Professional Development Advisory Committee.

Vote on Resolution: The resolution passed unanimously.

The Committee also made a point by point evaluation on the use of the Senate Governance Committee’s recommendations in the text of the Proposal and found that most of the suggestions were taken and used. Note that the Committee determined informally that the resolution calling for a strategic plan to guide development and enhancement of outreach programs would perhaps more appropriately be considered as a separate recommendation.

Finally, the committee considered and voted on the following resolution to deal with the exceptions, that is, where the Proposal did not follow our recommendations:

Resolution 17 (#3 in Minutes of January 25): Upon review of the Proposal, the proposal needs some revisions in order to fully follow the recommendations of the Senate Governance Committee [contained in voted resolutions conveyed to the administration in meeting minutes]. We particularly discussed the structure of the proposed School Executive Board, the importance of the quality of advising and pre-requisite course evaluation, and the transferability of course to other Rutgers Units and we recommend the following changes:

that the composition and design of the Executive Board of the proposed new School be established consistent with the Governance Committee Resolution on Issue B (Resolution #2 in Section V above; see minutes of November 16, 2000).

Note: The spirit of the Governance Committee’s view here was discussed as assuring that tenured representatives of the faculty who are not administrators or particular representatives of specific units be represented and that the point be appreciated that the larger the Executive Board the less power and influence it is likely to have.

a. that the words “and appropriate pre-requisite courses” be inserted in the appropriate place in the Proposal to express the idea that the proposed School of Continuing and Professional Development’s students will have the pre-requisites for their degrees appropriately evaluated;

b. that p.14 of the Proposal be amended as follows in the section “Relationship Between On-Campus Students and SCPD Students”: the fourth bullet with changes will read “Whether SCPD courses receive degree credit or fulfill major or general elective requirements will be determined by the faculty or fellows of the individual on-campus units;

c. that the last sentence of Governance Committee resolution P [passed unanimously by the Committee on November 16, 2001] be added in the appropriate place in the Proposal. That sentence reads:

What CAPS [now the School of Continuing Professional Development] will offer to its entering students will be a compelling case that it has high quality academic advising, a connection to a significant research university, and a depth of academic quality.

Vote on Resolution: The resolution passed unanimously.

A representative of the administration involved in the drafting informally indicated that these additional changes would probably not be an issue.

The committee also discussed the resolution (#5 in section V above) concerning whether the new School Dean should come in as a tenured faculty member; this was not included in the current version of the Proposal Originally, on November 16, 2001 this Issue E and Resolution E passed the Governance Committee but not unanimously, i.e. with a split vote, that is 5 yes, 0 no and 2 abstain.

Resolution 18 (#4 in Minutes of January 25): That the administration amend the Proposal to indicate that the proposed new School Dean should come in as a tenured faculty member.

Vote on Resolution: Four members voted for, four voted against, and there were no abtains. The resolution did not carry.

The Governance Committee made a final evaluation on the use of the Senate Governance Committee recommendations by the administration. As noted, all these recommendations were conveyed to the administration as part of the Governance Committee minutes and all are available to members of the Senate for review. After a detailed discussion and review of the Senate governance committee minutes point by point we considered the following resolution.

Resolution 19 (#5 in January 25 Minutes): The Governance Committee finds that with the exception of the issues addressed in resolution #4 above that the Proposal was a good faith attempt to take and to use all of the substantive recommendations of the Senate Governance Committee and that our review is completed.

Vote on Resolution: The resolution passed unanimously.

The Committee finally considered whether it was ready to take a final vote on the proposed School. It was noted by the two co-chairs that we are still reviewing two boxes of marketing materials provided by the committee in order to provide an opinion to the committee on the nature of the administration’s evidence for the need of the proposed School. This review and opinion will be ready before the final Senate Governance committee vote. It was decided to take a straw ballot on a final vote regarding the proposed School.

Resolution 20 (#6 in January 25 Minutes) for a Straw Ballot: Do you support the establishment of the proposed School of Continuing Professional Development with the understanding that the suggestions made in the resolutions voted on above by the Senate Governance Committee become part of a revised Proposal?

Vote on Resolution – Straw Ballot: Five voted yes, 0 voted no and 3 abstained until completion of the review on the evidence for the new School.