RUTGERS
UNIVERSITY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
M I N U T E S
March 3, 2017
MEMBERS PRESENT: Boikess, Borisovets, Cotter, Gillett
(Chair), Janniger (on phone), Krapivin, Mouradian,
Otto, Pirrello, Thompson, Van Stine,
Wang
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Esposito, Gould,
Krutyansky, Puhak
ALSO ATTENDING: R. Barchi (President of the University, on
phone), B. Lee
(Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs), J. Markert (Co-Chair, Senate Faculty and Personnel Affairs
Committee), S.
Rabinowitz (Faculty Representative to the Board of Governors), A.
Samant
(Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees), M. Spiegel (Faculty
Representative to the Board of Trustees), K. Swalagin
(Executive Secretary)
The regular meeting of the University Senate Executive Committee was
held on Friday, March 3, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. in Executive Conference
Room of ASB-III on the Cook Campus.
1.
Chair’s Report
- Peter Gillett, Senate Chair
Senate and Executive Committee Chair Peter Gillett called the
meeting to order at 12:00 noon. He said that he had sent a response on
the dental hygiene program issue to Rebecca Welch Pugh, and had not yet
received a reply. He also said that he had written to Kim Pastva,
Secretary of the University, about the policy on political activity,
and that the policy presented to the Board of Governors did not include
a reference to ballot referenda, which had been of some concern to the
Executive Committee. He then explained that Michael Van Stine's Proposed
Charge on Rutgers/IPEDS
Campus
Comparisons Report, which had appeared on the previous
month's agenda but on which no action was taken because Van Stine was
not present at the meeting, was not on this meeting's agenda because
Van Stine was in direct contact and discussion with Michael Gower,
Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration, about the issue.
2. Secretary’s Report - Ken Swalagin,
Executive Secretary of the Senate
[Martha Cotter joined the meeting at 12:05 p.m.]
3.
Schedule
of Senate and Executive Committee Meetings, Academic Year 2017-18
Next-year's
schedule of Senate and Executive Committee meetings was discussed. Mary
Mickelsen responded to questions about the schedule, which was modified
and adopted. [Note: The link above goes to the schedule as adopted.]
[President Barchi joined the meeting by phone at 12:17 p.m.]
4. Administrative Liaison
University President Robert Barchi presented
an administrative report, which included comments on:
- the ongoing campus climate survey;
- New Brunswick Chancellor search;
- admissions and applications;
- Dream Act and DACA; and
- Rutgers student recipients of, or finalists for, Fulbright,
Truman, and other scholarships.
Barchi then responded to questions, or heard comments on the above
subjects, as well as:
- applications for the Honors College;
- articulation agreement with Camden County College; and
- use of SATs and standardized tests in admissions.
5. Old
Business
Student Affairs Committee (SAC) Revised Response to Charge
S-1305 on Smoke-Free Rutgers [Note: Link goes to the report amended as suggested by the
Executive Committee at this meeting.] - Viktor Krapivin and Samuel
Rabinowitz, SAC Co-chairs
SAC Co-chair Viktor Krapivin summarized his committee's
revised report on Charge
S-1305, on Smoke-Free Rutgers. The report had been sent back to the SAC
at a previous Senate meeting. The revised report was
discussed at some length, and
suggestions were made to clarify some of its content. The Executive
Committee suggested several changes to the report, which Krapivin will
implement. The report, with those amendments, was docketed for action
at the upcoming Senate meeting.
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
The
following proposed charge and rationale were discussed at length. A more
limited, proposed charge specifically on canceling classes on
presidential election days had been discussed at the January 6,
2017
meeting, but was not issued. This proposed charge was issued to the SAC
with a January 2018 deadline.
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.
The
following proposed charge and an accompanying rationale
were discussed, and the charge issued to the RGPEC with a March 2018
deadline:
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: Ken
Swalagin said that he would send an
email to all current Senators the following week
announcing the opportunity to submit self-nominations or nominations of
others for 2017-18 Senate officer and board representative positions,
and that the email will direct Senators to nominating instructions and
the Nominating
Panel Charge. The Executive Committee was 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. Martha Cotter and Samuel Rabinowitz volunteered to
serve on the Panel.
Peter Gillett will ask Ann Gould, Jon Oliver, and Robert Puhak to serve
on the Panel, and will also select a chair or co-chairs. Viktor
Krapivin nominated student Senator Tyrus Jackson to serve as well. It
was suggested that time limits be enforced on campaign statements at
the election meeting.
[President Barchi left the meeting (by phone) at 1:51 p.m.]
Reports:
Issues/Charges:
Proposed
Charge to University Structure and Governance Committee (USGC) on How
Issues are Brought to the Senate Floor - Submitted by Viktor
Krapivin
The following proposed charge on how issues are brought to the Senate
floor, and accompanying rationale, were discussed. Viktor Krapivin
responded to questions on his proposed charge, which was then issued as
follows, with a March 2018 response deadline:
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. Respond to Senate Executive Committee by March 2018.
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
The following proposed charge on Perceptions of Public Safety, and
accompanying rationale, were discussed. Viktor Krapivin
responded to questions on his proposed charge. The charge was not
issued, but Kenneth Cop, Executive Director of Police Services, will be
asked to speak to the Senate on public safety at a Senate meeting.
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
The following proposed charge was summarized by Karen Thompson,
discussed by the Executive Committee, and issued to the FPAC as follows:
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.
Respond to Senate Executive Committee by December 2017.
Proposed Charge on Free Speech and Academic Freedom - Submitted
by Michael Van
Stine
Michael Van Stine summarized his proposed charge and accompanying
rationale (below) on free speech and academic freedom. No charge was
issued, but Van Stine will work with Barbara Lee on developing a forum
on the issue. Lee agreed to identify a staff member to do data
collection at a committee level.
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. Hardcopies of pending committee
charges were distributed at the meeting, were discussed, and deadlines
extended as needed.
7. New Business
Resolution Endorsing the March for Science
- Submitted by Robert Boikess, on behalf of the Faculty Caucus
Robert Boikess summarized a Resolution Endorsing the March for Science,
which he had submitted on behalf of the Senate's Faculty Caucus. The
resolution was docketed for action at the upcoming Senate meeting, with
Boikess presenting.
8.
University Senate Agenda
March
24, 2017 Senate Meeting:
Items were docketed for the March 24, 2017 Senate agenda, as
indicated above. The meeting agenda will also include the Budget and
Finance Committee's Annual Report on the Rutgers Budget.
9.
Adjournment
The
meeting adjourned at 4:18 p.m.
Minutes written and submitted by,
Ken Swalagin
Executive Secretary of the University Senate