UNIVERSITY SENATE
Executive Committee

A G E N D A
February 6, 2009 - 1:10 p.m.



1.    Chairpersons' Report

2.    Secretary’s Report 3.    Administrative Liaison 4.    Standing Committees

Committee Reports:

University Structure and Governance Committee Response to Charge S-0810, Including Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration as Administrator Senator

Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee Response to Charge S-0705-2, Full-time Tenure- and Non-tenure-track Appointments [Currently DRAFT]  

Proposed Charges/Issues:

Proposed Charge to Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee (FPAC), submitted by FPAC Co-chair Paul Panayotatos on behalf of originator, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Phil Furmanski: Evaluate the current procedures for faculty, staff and student evaluation of deans since implementation in 2004. Recommend changes where appropriate, and examine the feasibility of extending the process to include vice presidents and other administrators. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by February 2010.

Proposed Charge to Committee on RUCS and OIT input in strategic planning and mission: "I have been at Rutgers for over 22 years, the last 14 working in the area of information technology. During that time, I have observed that RUCS and subsequently OIT appears to have little academic unit input in the strategic planning and prioritization of its mission. I would respectfully request that the Senate investigate whether an advisory board of mid to upper level IT staff from academic units be put in place so that we can better consolidate and organize our technology needs and future directions. This body would not necessarily be a decision making body but at least would provide advice to the CIO."

Proposed Charge to Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee, submitted by PTL Senator Karen Thompson, at Senator Peter Simmons' suggestion:  Given that PTLs and NTTs do not have the protections of tenure and by definition are continually under scrutiny for reappointment, consider ways to amend University Regulation 60.5.1 to maximize academic freedom for contingent faculty. Alternatively, or in addition to such amendment, consider other mechanisms, such as due process provisions, that will help to ensure academic freedom for contingent faculty. The National AAUP’s Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure serves as a relevant background document, with section 13 on part-time faculty of particular interest.

Proposed Charge to University Structure and Governance Committee, submitted by the committee: Consider proposals to limit discussion during University Senate meetings, when motions are on the floor, to that of Senators and specifically invited guests. Also consider proposals to provide for public input to issues before the Senate, such as possibly providing for opening the Senate meetings to the public during the President's Annual Address to the Rutgers Community, as well as during the three annual campus reports, and at other times, such as in public hearings or forums by the Senate or any of its committees, and possibly when the Senate is in committee of the whole. Respond to the Senate Executive Committee by April 2009.
Background: Some charges ignite public debate, which is good. However, as seen in recent meetings, this debate can disrupt the business of the Senate.

Proposed Charge to Executive Committee or University Structure and Governance Committee, requested by Staff Senator Jon Oliver: "In light of the recent issue of transparency and the inaccurate perception of the Targum and other students that charge S-0107 was never openly discussed and that the students had no prior warning that the issue was to be voted on, I would like you to consider the charge that from now on any open Senate questions should be investigated and voted on within two years of the origination of the charge. Since both the Senate and student population varies over time, any lengthier consideration of charges will see a large turnover in the very population that has asked for consideration." [See parallel Proposed USGC charge below.]

Proposed Charge to University Structure and Governance Committee, submitted by the committee: Explore the University Senate setting a time limit from the creation of a charge to its ultimate disposition. While many issues are complex, a limit of two years from start to finish may be appropriate to ensure that the public is heard, the senate can deliberate and study and the president can make an informed and timely decision. If the Senate has not finished the investigation and debate within the two year limit, the Executive Committee can either discard the charge or vote to issue a one-year extension. Respond to the Senate Executive Committee by April 2009.
Background: As a deliberative body, the University Senate studies issues that are far-reaching and germane to many constituencies. Some of these issues require thorough investigations, time to study and consult with multiple constituencies, discussion, debate and a public hearing. However, when the study and investigation of issues takes place over many years, the students, Senate and university community will change. Thus the issue itself may lose significance, or those who were invited to hear or study the issue may leave Rutgers. This poses multiple problems of transparency, accountability and timeliness.

 Charge Deadline Extensions Requested:
5.    Report/Discussion on Board of Trustees - Menahem Spiegel, Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees

6.    February 27, 2009 University Senate Agenda
7.    Old Business

8.    New Business

9.    Adjournment