UNIVERSITY
SENATE
Executive
Committee
A G E
N D A
March
3, 2017 - 12:00 noon
1. Chair’s Report - Peter Gillett,
Senate Chair
2. Secretary’s Report -
Ken Swalagin, Executive Secretary of the Senate
3.
Administrative Report -
Robert Barchi, University President, and Barbara Lee, Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs
4.
Schedule
of Senate and Executive Committee Meetings, Academic Year 2017-18
5. Old
Business
Student Affairs Committee (SAC) Revised Response to Charge
S-1305 on Smoke-Free Rutgers - Viktor Krapivin and Samuel Rabinowitz, SAC Co-chairs
The
SAC was charged as follows: Examine
the desirability, feasibility, impact and means of evolving into a
smoke-free
Rutgers.
Proposed Charge to Student Affairs Committee (SAC) on
Increasing Student Voter Turnout in Federal, State, and Local Elections - Submitted by SAC Co-chair Viktor Krapivin [A more
limited, proposed charge specifically on canceling classes on
presidential election days was not issued at the January 6, 2017
meeting.]
Proposed
Charge: Investigate
how the number of Rutgers students who vote in federal, state, and
local elections
can be effectively increased. Consider what changes in policies,
procedures,
and practices can best encourage voting by students, including making
election
days University holidays. Make appropriate recommendations.
Rationale:
Practicing
the civic duty to vote is the responsibility of all citizens of the
United
States in order to ensure a thriving democracy representative of all
beliefs
and opinions. The future of this nation lies in the hands of young
Americans.
Statistics show that only about 58 percent of eligible voters between
the ages
of 18 and 24 voted in the 2016 United States presidential election. In
a recent
survey of 500 Rutgers students, 58 percent of the respondents voted at
a
polling location, 17 percent submitted an absentee ballot, 14 percent
were
registered but did not vote, 8 percent were eligible to register but
did not,
and 3 percent were not eligible to register and vote. When respondents
were
asked about any obstacles to voting (disregarding their voting status),
81
percent said “classes,” 13 percent said “work,”
33 percent said “inconvenient
polling location,” and 21 percent said “confusion with
registration/voting
process.”
Proposed Charge to Research, and Graduate and Professional Education
Committee (RGPEC) on Grant Costs - Submitted by RGPEC Chair Jane Otto at the Executive
Committee's request at the January 6, 2017 meeting.
Proposed
Charge: Identify
specific grant cost issues that negatively impact the
University’s mission to
conduct research across disciplines, and actively engage its students
in that
research, including but not limited to: tuition, fringe rate,
Facilities and
Administrative costs (“F&A,” formerly known as indirect
costs), support
services, and negotiated vendor contracts. Identify and engage
stakeholders,
and make recommendations.
6. Standing
Committees, and Assignment of Nominating Panel
Nominating
Panel 2017: An
email will be sent by Ken Swalagin to all current Senators next week
announcing the opportunity to submit self-nominations or nominations of
others for 2017-18 Senate officer and board representative positions.
The email will direct Senators to nominating instructions and the Nominating
Panel Charge. The Executive Committee is asked to suggest Senators
to serve on a Nominating Panel that can be called upon to suggest
additional nominees in categories not sufficiently populated within the
next several weeks. Jon Oliver and Robert Puhak have chaired the panel
that presents the slate and election process at the Senate election
meeting for the past several years. [Senate rosters will be distributed
in hardcopy at
the meeting.]
Reports:
The Ad Hoc
Committee was charged as follows: Consider
the feasibility and desirability of video recording and live web
streaming
University Senate meetings, and archiving those video recordings online
for
later viewing. Include in discussions aspects of the issues of
transparency,
technology, costs, benefits, audience, need, personal privacy of
participants,
etc. Present arguments both for and against the streaming and archiving.
Issues/Charges:
Proposed
Charge to University Structure and Governance Committee (USGC) on How
Issues are Brought to the Senate Floor - Submitted by Viktor
Krapivin
Proposed
Charge: Investigate
the process by which charges are issued to standing or other committees
of the
Senate, and the process by which items are included on the draft Agenda
issued
by the Executive Secretary on behalf of the Executive Committee for
adoption at
the beginning of Senate meetings, and consider suitable modifications
to allow
the Senate to retain ultimate authority over these processes while
preserving the
value of the function currently exercised by the Executive Committee.
Make appropriate
recommendations.
Rationale:
Matters of concern to the Rutgers community are sent to the Executive
Committee,
which decides whether or not to issue charges. Another of the
significant functions
of the Executive Committee is to set the agenda issued for approval by
the Senate
at the beginning of Senate meetings. Rules for adding new business to
the agenda
are restrictive, requiring specific circumstances, the approval of the
Chair, and
a 2/3 vote of those present. This may be appropriate as a way of
inhibiting introduction
of business that has not been properly considered by committees or by
senators.
However, even when matters have been raised on a timely basis, if the
Executive
Committee decides not to issue charges or to include matters on the
agenda issued,
there is currently no mechanism for those raising potential motions to
appeal
or overcome the resistance of the Executive Committee. Without
undermining the
valuable function that the Executive Committee exercises in deciding
what charges
to issue and what items to place on the agenda, it may be possible to
identify
mechanisms whereby it is possible for potential charges that are widely
supported
by senators to be issued to committees, and for motions that are widely
supported
by senators to be placed on the agenda, even without approval by the
Executive
Committee. Care needs to be taken to ensure that such mechanisms do not
provide
for frivolous charges to be issued or motions raised, that legitimate
concerns
raised by the Executive Committee charged with managing such matters
are given
due consideration, and that such mechanisms avoid any one constituency
seeking to
impose its positions on the Senate as a whole. For example, a petition
by an appropriate
number of senators might require that a charge be issued or a motion be
placed
on the agenda; a provision that the petition be supported by some
minimum number
of senators from each of the main constituencies (faculty, students,
staff, alumni,
and administrators) might serve as a useful protection. A process
allowing the
Executive Committee the option of presenting its arguments against
charging or scheduling
to the Senate before being required to accede might help preserve the
integrity
of the Executive Committee's function.
Proposed Charge to Student Affairs
Committee (SAC) or Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) on Perceptions
of, and Alleviating Concerns on, Public Safety - Submitted by
Viktor Krapivin
Proposed
Charge: Investigate
public safety on Rutgers campuses
and, if appropriate, make recommendations to ensure acceptable levels
are
achieved.
Rationale:
In the Fall of 2016, the Rutgers University Student Assembly (RUSA)
conducted a
survey of the entire Rutgers undergraduate population (with an
approximately
10% response rate) and discovered that students felt less safe on some
parts of
the New Brunswick as compared to two years ago. All students have the
right to
feel safe on campus. The Student Affairs Committee should investigate
this
issue and identify if there is a decrease in public safety or its
perception on
other campuses and issue appropriate recommendations to increase safety
and/or
perceptions of safety on Rutgers campuses.
Proposed Charge on Review of Rutgers'
Policy on Workplace Violence - Submitted by Karen Thompson, on
behalf of PTL Senator Cynthia Saltzman
Proposed
Charge:
Consider
Rutgers’ Policy on Workplace Violence, in particular its clarity
and method of
implementation. To what extent does it apply retroactively to faculty
and how
far back in time? To what extent is the policy's language precise? For
example:
"reasonable." To what extent can it be arbitrarily applied? To what
extent
does due process exist for all faculty/employees to whom the policy
might
apply. Consult with the administration, students, and unions, as
needed. Make
recommendations for changes to the policy if deemed appropriate.
Proposed Charge on Free Speech and Academic Freedom - Submitted
by Michael Van
Stine
Proposed
Charge: Consider the scope and extent of, and limitations on, free
speech in American society in relation to academic freedom at Rutgers.
Recommend
appropriate policies for free speech by members of the Rutgers
community in
their personal and official capacities.
Rationale:
Recent changes in national policy regarding
immigration and the deeper evolution of broad public policy divides
nationally
at our varied campuses have given us pause to review the
University’s overall
policy regarding free speech. It is unclear as to what are the dividing
lines
between what constitutes ‘hate speech’ versus active public
expression
protected under 1st Amendment rights. Recent events at universities and
in
communities all across the country are testing what is the right
balance point.
Some have taken the position that any views short of hate speech may be
expressed, but that others may robustly contest them. This raises the
question
of whether expressions of abhorrence by officials of the university is
itself
an impermissible constraint on free speech. Clarity is also needed on
what is the
balancing point between the rights of students to share their rating of
professors
by their academic expression versus the concurrent rights of professors
to
maintain academic freedom in their instruction. We need at minimum a
review of the
policies of our peer institutions to see how they are grappling with
this issue
and to conduct sufficient research to make policy recommendations to
the
President. It might be advisable to include the School of Law in this
research.
Annual
Review of All Outstanding,
Pending Committee Charges: Charges issued to committees
lapse in March of the year following the
year in which the charge was issued. Ken Swalagin has emailed
all standing committee chairs to ask for a status report on pending
charges for EC review at this
meeting. [Hardcopies will be distributed at the meeting.]
7.
New Business
8.
University Senate Agenda
March
24 Senate Meeting:
9.
Adjournment