RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
M I N U T E S
September 6, 2013
THIS YEAR'S MEMBERS PRESENT: Barraco, Berman, Boikess,
Burrell, Cotter (Vice Chairperson/New Brunswick Faculty
Liaison), Gillett, Gould (Chairperson), Oliver, Puhak (by phone),
Swalagin
(Executive
Secretary), Thompson, Vodak
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Dantzler, Rosario
ALSO
ATTENDING: Barchi (Administrative Liaison/University President),
Cashin (Student Board of Governors Representative), Edwards
(Executive Vice
President for Academic Affairs), G. Jackson (President's Chief of
Staff), M. Mickelsen (Senate Administrative Assistant), Rabinowitz
(Faculty
Representative to the Board of Governors/Camden Faculty Liaison),
Samant (Faculty Representative
to the Board of Trustees), Vaz (Graduate Student Representative to the
Board of Trustees)
The regular meeting of the University Senate Executive Committee was
held on
Friday, September 6, 2013 at 1:10 p.m. in the Executive Board Room
of
Administrative Services Building-III, Cook Campus.
1.
Chairperson’s Report
- Ann Gould, Senate Chairperson
Senate and Executive Committee Chairperson Ann Gould called the
meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. She called for introductions all around.
She noted that, on July 26, 2013, the Senate Executive Committee, on
behalf of
the University Senate, sent to Governor Christie and State Senator
Sweeney an open
letter opposing proposed legislation that would abolish Rutgers' Board
of Trustees. Gould then asked everyone to limit discussions of
potential committee charges to whether or not items should be charged
to committees, rather than discussing the issues themselves.
2. Secretary’s Report - Ken Swalagin,
Executive Secretary of the Senate
3. Administrative Liaison
University President Robert Barchi presented
an administrative report, which
included comments on:
- integration of UMDNJ units, and appreciation of Chris Malloy and
the team dedicated to that integration;
- the strategic plan;
- construction projects underway or planned, and financing
therefor; and
- administrative searches and appointments.
Barchi then responded to questions, or heard comments, on topics that
included:
- expansion and composition of faculty;
- the strategic planning process, and selection of members for
related committees;
- SHRP students' RU ID cards;
- construction projects, particularly those in Newark;
- campus-based representation on the University Senate, and whether
the former UMDNJ units should be considered a fourth, "virtual" campus;
- the impact of federal government recommendations for higher
education;
- enterprisewide resource planning (ERP), and the need to update
systems to fully integrate former UMDNJ units;
- renovations to Robert Wood Johnson Medical School;
- School of Dental Medicine funding; and
- the need for the new Academic Integrity Policy, and the new Code
of Student Conduct, to be announced to the Rutgers community.
[Senator Cashin joined the meeting at 1:56 p.m.]
4. Standing Committees
- Proposed Charges, Issues
The following issues were discussed, and acted upon as noted:Issues/Proposed
Charges:
Review
of Standing Committee
Membership/Rosters: Draft rosters of Senate standing committees
were distributed by the Executive Secretary Swalagin, and approved by
the Executive Committee. Greg Jackson asked Swalagin to send him the
rosters of those committees that lack administrative liaisons so that
liaisons could be selected.
Proposed Committee Charge on MOOCs,
submitted by Senator Robert Boikess: Senator Boikess wrote, in
part,
"The piece
. . . from
today's Inside Higher Ed raises some interesting issues and is the
latest in an
almost continuous stream of reports about MOOCs. I recall that last
year the Instruction, Curricula and Advising Committee produced a
resolution on
MOOC's that was adopted by the Senate. Perhaps this committee (or
another one)
should be charged with looking at the current MOOC situation, which has
been
changing rapidly, and updating our recommendations about policies and
procedures
related to them." The Executive Committee issued a charge on this issue
to the Instruction, Curricula and Advising Committee, as follows:
Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs) Reconsidered:
Reconsider and make
recommendations regarding the current and rapidly changing situation
with
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), and Rutgers policies and
procedures
related to MOOCs. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by January 2014.
Proposed Committee Charge on Senate Involvement in High-Level
Searches, submitted by Senator Robert Barraco as follows: "Examine
the issue of
the conduct of high-level searches in general that have universitywide
implications, as well as a future role for a representative of the
Senate Executive Committee to be involved in those searches." This
issue was discussed, and it was noted that there is an expectation that
administrative liaisons will inform the Senate on such matters, but
that once a search begins it is confidential. President Barchi said
that the administration tries to have Senate representation on search
committees. Gould asked all Senators present to inform the Executive
Committee if they are selected for a search committee. No committee
charge was issued.
Exercising the Senate's Legislative
Power to "Regulate formal relationships among academic units within the
University, " issue submitted by Senator Martha Cotter: Cotter
summarized this issue, noting that there is some ambiguity in the
meaning of this aspects of the Senate's legislative authority, but that
it seems that the Senate might want to look at current issues about
relationships among the geographic campuses and various units of
Rutgers Biological and Health Sciences, and make recommendations
thereon. Barchi said that the administration would welcome the Senate's
advice, but that it should be done soon. He also said it would be
useful to know if there is a constraint that the administration should
be aware of so that it isn't overlooked. The Executive Committee
decided to reconsider this issue at another time.
Representation on Rutgers' Governing
Boards Joint
Task Force on University Governance, issue submitted by
Senator John Pintar, Director of the Neuroscience Graduate Program:
Professor Pintar wrote, in part, "Our faculty council at Rutgers-RWJMS
noted with interest the announcement from Gerald Harvey regarding the
appointment of a Task Force to examine governance at Rutgers. As a
member of the Rutgers-RWJMS faculty council, as well as the
representative of that group to the Rutgers Senate, I (we) wondered
what the faculty representation on the Task Force may be, and whether,
for example, any of the several faculty councils can expect to be
represented on this committee." This issue was discussed, and President
Barchi said he would suggest to the board that it would be good to take
advice from the Senate, but that it was not likely that the task force
membership would be changed or increased at this time.
[Executive Vice President Edwards left the meeting at 2:26 p.m.]
Scheduling
of final exams,
issue submitted by Professor Leslie Fishbein: Professor Fishbein wrote:
"Since
students are able to take courses in schools other than the ones in
which they
originate, there is lots of opportunity for final exam conflicts. For example, I had one student whose final exam
in a course that originated in the School of Communication and
Information
conflicted with the final exam in a course that I gave that originated
in the
School of Arts and Sciences. I already
was giving makeup exams to three students in the course at two separate
times
and was not eager to have to deal with yet another arrangement so was
happy
when the other instructor arranged for a makeup exam in her course
instead. However, there should be some
protocol to resolve who has to arrange for the makeup exam. These are some of the issues that the
University Senate might want to address:
a.
Should the primary
scheduling of the final exam follow the registration of the student, that is, should the instructor in any course
given by a school in which the student is registered be given priority
in the
scheduling of that student’s final exam?
b.
Should there be any
effort to arrange for a common exam schedule for all units in New Brunswick, all units in Newark, all
units in Camden, and all units in UMDMJ?
c.
Should there by a
university-wide policy on scheduling final exams in order to minimize
conflicts
between units, and, if so, what should that policy be?
d.
Is there any need to
alert students, faculty members, and staff members who advise students
each
semester of the possibility of such conflicts in order to make it more
likely
that such conflicts are resolved earlier rather than later in the
semester?"
This issue
was discussed, but no charge was issued.
[President Barchi and Chief of Staff Jackson left the meeting at 2:31
p.m.]
Teaching
evaluations,
issue submitted by Professor Leslie Fishbein: Professor Fishbein wrote:
"I
learned that a departmental administrative staff person has been
checking
teaching evaluation paper forms and had discovered that many of the
students
fail to fill them out properly, using xes, for example, instead of
completely
filling out the bubble, so that the form, when read electronically,
will not
record their actual input. That staff
person has been correcting the inputs without changing the evaluations. When I and other faculty members learned of
this procedure, we were upset on several counts:
a.
Now that teaching
evaluations are so routine, students are unlikely to be instructed as
to how to
fill the forms out properly if paper forms are used.
1) Do we need to emphasize the need to instruct
the students before the forms are distributed?
2) Who, if anyone, should be responsible for
making sure that students have filled out the forms that reflects their
actual
opinion of course and teacher?
3)
Should
administrative staff in each unit screen the forms?
If not, should we not warn faculty who
receive the forms that they should report any discrepancies immediately
to the
Center for Teaching Advancement and Assessment Research in order to
have that
form corrected officially?
b.
I have had to
consider teaching evaluation statistics for work on the SAS Third Year
Review
Committee and the SAS Committee for Tenure and Promotion to Associate
Professor. In that time there were
instances
when the students' comments were the exact opposite of the way in which
they
had filled in the Scantron portion of the form.
I assume that the same must be true of
electronic forms submitted, that in some cases a faculty member
can be
rated disastrously on the Scantron and have comments indicating
excellence and
vice versa.
1) Who should be
responsible for
addressing such discrepancies? This is
not a minor issue since in departments in which faculty members up for
promotion and/or tenure wind up teaching small courses, the difference
in
interpreting a few forms can substantially enhance or damn their
candidacy.
c.
At the very least
should University Senate pass a resolution instructing CTAAR each
semester to
instruct all faculty members to report any discrepancies immediately to
some
point person, described by position rather than name, at CTAAR, so that
such
problems do not adversely affect that faculty members' teaching
portfolio?"
This issue was discussed at some
length. It was suggested that the bigger issue of teaching evaluations
should be explored, including "examining the methods and utilization of
teaching evaluations, with the goal of standardization of such
processes in the future." Robert Barraco was asked to draft a charge.
[Mary Mickelsen left the meeting at 2:33 p.m.]
Alumni Representatives to the Board of Governors and Board of
Trustees, issue submitted by Alumni Senator Robert Barraco on behalf of
the Senate's Alumni Caucus: Dr. Barraco wrote on behalf of the
Alumni Caucus asking why there are no alumni Senator representatives to
the Board of Governors or Board of Trustees. He withdrew this suggested
issue, noting that he now knows that there are alumni on both boards.
Senate Election Procedures,
issue raised by Senator Peter Gillett, who suggested that the
University Structure and Governance Committee be charged with making
recommendations on improved Senate election procedures. The issue was
discussed, and a charge issued to the University Structure and
Governance Committee, as follows:
Senate
Election Procedures:
Review election
procedures used by the Senate, and, if appropriate, recommend improved
procedures. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by February 2014.
Students Retaking Classes on Other
Campuses for Credit, issue raised by Senator Samuel Berman.
Berman withdrew this issue, noting that he would reconsider it and
bring it back to the Executive Committee.
Strategic Planning Response(s) from
the Senate: The issue of strategic planning responses from the
Senate was discussed at some length. It was decided that an ad hoc task
force would be formed to consider these issues, and perhaps hold a
related committee-of-the-whole discussion at the October Senate meeting.
5.
University Senate Agenda
September 27, 2013 Senate Meeting: It was agreed that the September
27, 2013 Senate meeting would include the following elements:
- Regular Senate meeting with President Barchi's "President's
Address" early in the agenda, followed by a question-and-answer period
- Will not be a media event, and will not involve outside
invitations
- Election of Camden student member of the Senate
Executive
Committee
- Newly tenured faculty reception at Faculty Caucus
6. Old
Business
Senate Parliamentarian: Ann
Gould suggested Peter Gillett as the new Senate Parliamentarian. [Note:
Gillett later accepted the role, and the Executive Committee approved
the appointment by email poll.]
7. New Business
Code of Student Conduct (CSC), and
Academic Integrity Policy (AIP): Martha Cotter briefed the
Executive Committee on issues related to the CSC and AIP, particularly
as they relate to legacy UMDNJ units (to which they do not yet apply).
She noted that the Senate now has control over the AIP. Cotter will
keep the Executive Committee informed on these issues.
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics
(COIA) Questionnaire: Ann Gould said that Bob Enot of COIA had
sent her a questionnaire consisting of four questions, and that she
needed input and more background before she could respond. Robert
Boikess and Robert Barraco volunteered to assist Gould with the
response.
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:51 p.m.
Minutes written and submitted by,
Ken Swalagin
Executive Secretary of the University Senate