• his and Vice Chair Jon Oliver's October 17 meeting with President Barchi, which included a discussion on New Brunswick Faculty Council Chair Sanjib Bhuyan's concerns about course-scheduling software (which he also told Bhuyan he would mention to the Executive Committee);
• the previous week's Big Ten Academic Leadership Conference at Penn State, which he attended, and at which he accepted Purdue faculty's request to convey their search for support in opposing their institution's purchase of Kaplan;
• a discussion initiated by Karen Thompson on how other Big Ten institutions compensate PTLs for shared-governance service, on which Gillett asked Thompson to draft a specific question that he could send to chairs of those institutions' senates; and
• a brief mention of differing policies among universities regarding faculty representation on governing boards.

• Agenda: The meeting agenda was approved as distributed by the Executive Secretary. 
• Minutes: The Minutes of September 8, 2017 Senate Executive Committee Meeting were approved as distributed by the executive secretary.
• Communications: The following communications were presented by the Executive Secretary (please note exception on second item), and noted by the Executive Committee:
• Response from Robert Boikess regarding last-month's discussion of free speech/hate speech, and the Supreme Court of the United States position thereon
• [Note: The following was omitted in error from agenda, but added after the meeting. It was added to the subsequent meeting agenda as well.] Response/Links from Michael Van Stine regarding last-month's discussion of free speech/hate speech, and the Supreme Court of the United States position thereon
• Emails have been exchanged between Peter Gillett and New Brunswick Faculty Council Chair Sanjib Bhuyan regarding selection and use of Infosilem course/classroom scheduling software, and how it will affect faculty if fully implemented at Rutgers. Gillett has told Bhuyan that he will present this as a communication at this meeting.

• recent controversial social-media posts by SEBS Professor Michael Chikindas;
• a controversial new book by Rutgers Professor Jasbir Puar; and
• President Barchi's response to the report of the Academic Unit Reorganization Committee, and her related assignment to address global issues, and a recommendation that Rutgers create a design school.

Proposed Charge to FPAC: Consider and make recommendations for improving procedures for handling student complaints against Rutgers personnel, as well as how those procedures are communicated to students.

The rationale submitted originally with the charge proposal was: There are student complaints that are not covered by Rutgers University policies, and that are handle in an ad-hoc manner by department chairs, deans and other administrators. For grade complaints there is an established policy in the course catalog for each campus. For issues related to the following policies there are established procedures for handling complaints: Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Relationship Violence, Stalking, and Related Misconduct by Employees and Third Parties Resources Supplement; Discrimination, Harassment, Workplace Violence, Sexual Misconduct, and Retaliation; Policy 60.1.12, Policy Prohibiting Discrimination and Harassment; Policy 60.1.13, Policy Prohibiting Workplace Violence; Policy 60.1.16, Conscientious Employee Protection Policy; Policy 10.3.12, Student Policy Prohibiting Sexual Harassment, Sexual Violence, Relationship Violence, Stalking, and Related Misconduct; Policy 10.2.11, Code of Student Conduct; RBHS Students Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures; and Student Life Policy Against Verbal Assault, Harassment, Intimidation, Bullying and Defamation. A policy gap exists when the student complaint against a faculty member does not fall within these policies. When a complaint is made concerning an instructor, the department chair, dean or other administrator may make a decision concerning the complaint without consulting the instructor. There is a need to review existing policies, identify the policy gap concerning student complaints, and make appropriate recommendations.

The Executive Committee issued the charge to the FPAC as follows:

Consider and make recommendations for improving procedures for handling student complaints against Rutgers personnel, as well as how those procedures are communicated to students and other personnel. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by February 20, 2018.

Since ASRAC and Senate have traditionally worked very closely with  administration on the development of, and adjustments to, the Academic Integrity Policy (AIP) we felt it was imperative that we meet with Mr. Pitt to discuss his process, the roles of ASRAC and Senate vis a vis the AIP, and ways we might work together more closely in the future.

At that meeting Mr. Pitt presented troubling data and expressed a number of concerns regarding the exponential increase in AI violations, the lack of support from administration, and serious staffing issues causing unacceptable average times for adjudication of AIP violations and many other issues.

While this may be a primarily New Brunswick issue, ASRAC requests that a charge be issued to our committee to investigate the current procedures for adjudicating AI policy infractions on all three campuses with the goal of determining what recommendations we may consider regarding what we see as a vital issue for students and faculty alike.

The Student Caucus specifically endorses such a change that would permit any student to fill the aforementioned position, after having been elected by the Senate in accordance with all established bylaws and procedures, after the position has been vacant for the spring organizational meeting and the first fall meeting, provided no student from that campus is nominated at the second fall meeting.

The Student Caucus emphasizes that such a change would still promote student representation on the Executive Committee from each campus while still ensuring full student representation, based on the seats allocated to students, in order to better enable to Senate to act as a unified body of all stakeholders within the university.

The Student Caucus supports a mechanism by which the at large student would continue to consider the best interests of the campus to which the allocated position belonged by frequent communication with the Senators from that campus. The Student Caucus can also serve to provide this forum for communication. This at large student should recuse themselves from issues that unfairly benefit the campus they represent in the Senate if this is to the detriment of the campus to which the allocated position belonged.