1.       Chairperson’s Report

Chairperson Cotter said that some regular attendees, particularly the administrative liaisons and representatives to the Board of Governors (BoG) were not present because they were attending a special BoG meeting which had also been convened that morning, but which had been scheduled only last week, and that the New Brunswick Annual Teaching Conference was also taking place at the same time at the Cook Campus Center. She added that the New Brunswick Council was also meeting this afternoon at the Cook Campus Center, so this Senate Executive Committee was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Noting that committee charges would be discussed later in the agenda, Cotter made no further Chairperson's Report.

3.       Administrative Liaison

4.       Proposed Committee Charges

• To University Structure and Governance Committee: Make recommendations for revision of the Senate membership and by-laws in light of the restructuring of the New Brunswick schools and colleges. Report to Senate Executive Committee by February 2007.

Cotter, having drafted it, summarized the background of, and need for, this charge, noting that New Brunswick student and faculty Senators for 2007-08 will be elected this string in accordance with the new academic structure in New Brunswick, so the Senate needs a uniform policy for electing Senators from all constituencies. She suggested that the numbers currently used to calculate Senate entitlements for the New Brunswick colleges could be combined into one total for the School of Arts and Sciences (SAS), but the resulting unit was too big for at-large Senate representation. Administrator-Senators are not elected, so their Senate representation can be determined later by the University Structure and Governance Committee (USGC).  Cotter added that students can decide how they will conduct their own elections, but that the Senate needs a policy regarding entitlements. The charge was issued to the USGC as drafted, with a deadline for response to the Executive Committee by February 2007.

• To University Structure and Governance Committee:  In preparation for the upcoming Middle States reaccreditation process, examine the current state of shared governance at Rutgers, using the introduction of All-Funds budgeting, the ongoing restructuring of undergraduate education in New Brunswick, and the response to the large cuts in state funding as test cases. In each case, were all the appropriate stakeholders actively engaged in the process?  Was appropriate input obtained from faculty, staff, administrators, students and other stakeholders before critical decisions were made?  Did the various faculty and student governance organizations play effective roles? What weaknesses in shared governance were revealed in these cases? Based on this assessment, make recommendations for strengthening shared governance at Rutgers. The USGC may add to this charge any other issues it deems appropriate.

• To Instruction, Curricula and Advising Committee: Assess how well the current structure of business education at Rutgers serves the needs of students on all three regional campuses.  Make appropriate recommendations for how the University could better serve these needs.

• To Academic Standards, Regulations and Admissions Committee: In light of the restructuring of undergraduate education in New Brunswick, the findings of the Constituency Research Project, and the appointment of a new Vice President for Enrollment Management, assess the current strengths and weakness of the Admissions and Financial Aid operations at Rutgers.  How well do Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid serve the needs of the Camden, Newark, and New Brunswick Campuses? Is the current balance between centralization of support services and devolution of authority among the campuses optimal? To what extent should the three regional campuses “go their own way” with regard to undergraduate recruiting?  How can we best explain Rutgers as one university with three campuses, each with its own particular character and strengths?  Make recommendations for improvement based on your assessment.

5.       Targum Concept Plan Review

The Targum Concept Plan was reviewed as received shortly before the meeting. Secretary Swalagin summarized the Senate's responsibility regarding the review, as outlined in the University Senate Guidelines Regarding Special Student Organizations, as follows:

"All petitioning student organizations which seek authorization to conduct a student body referendum under either of the alternative procedures described in the Board funding policy must first submit a "Concept Plan" for review by the University Senate and approval by the University President. The Concept Plan must be submitted to the Executive Committee of the University Senate by the first week of the semester prior to referenda.

"The Concept Plan should describe the structure, aims, general policies, and intended programs of the petitioning student organization, along with an explanation of the educational value of its activity. The University Senate or the Senate Executive Committee shall review each Concept Plan with the sole criterion of determining the educational value of the organization or program. The University Senate or the Senate Executive Committee shall make a recommendation to the University President within six weeks of receiving the petitioning student organization’s Concept Plan.

"All student programs and organizations which are authorized to receive funding under Alternative Procedures I and II shall conduct an independent annual audit. Evidence of annual independent audits shall be submitted to the University Senate as part of its Concept Plan review.

"Upon approval by the University President, a designated representative from the administration shall notify all appropriate Rutgers University Student Governments in writing of such approval. Furthermore, two weeks prior to the scheduled start of the referendum, the petitioning student organization shall notify, in writing, the Secretary of the Senate and the Vice President for Student Affairs, who shall be responsible for notifying each division where a referendum is to be held."

The concept plan and related review and approval processes were discussed at some length. The Executive Committee decided to ask the Student Affairs Committee to discuss the entire issue and provide input to the University Structure and Governance Committee regarding the USGC's charge to revise the referendum guidelines. The Executive Committee then adopted a motion to table the concept plan until its October 6, 2006 meeting, at which time the EC will hear comments on the issue from the SAC.

6.       September 29, 2006 Senate Agenda

• Election of Staff Senator Member of the Executive Committee
• Chairs' updates on plans and activities of their standing committees
• Reports on initiatives in, or implementation of, undergraduate education from all three campuses (although Camden may be deferred until the October Senate meeting, which will be held in Camden, and which will include Provost Dennis's Camden Campus Report)

The meeting adjourned at 11:45 a.m.