FAEC Minutes 9/27/2017

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes September 27 2017 HGS Conference Room 10:30am to 12:30am

Attendees:​ Christina Connor, Cristina Perez, Roark Atkinson, Renata Gangemi, Gladys Torres-Baumgarten, Kathryn Zeno, Eva Ogens, Tae Kwak

Excused: Kim Lorber

Secretary:​ Hugh Sheehy

Guests:​ None

Meeting called to order by Tae Kwak at 10:30

1.     Minutes Approved
2.     Beginning Wednesday 10/4, meetings will be held 10:30-12:30 in ASB 007.
3.     Reminder: FAEC meeting with President’s Cabinet, 10/4 at 8:30 am, ASB 520

Agenda:

1. President’s Report
2. Approval of minutes
3. Discussion with FAEC
4. Shared Governance Task Force
5. College Senate
6. Search for Provost
7. Library Project/Campaign
8. Other Business
9.     Report on Board of Trustees Meeting, Monday 9/15: President Mercer discussed significance of new rankings of Ramapo in College Choice; the College is meeting its current enrollment goals, which seems to reflect well on the state of the College and to bode well for the future; it is difficult to square this vision of the College’s current health with the administration’s charge to propose a new structure for the College’s Schools. It was noted that this is another symptom of the communication difficulties that seem to exist between the administration and the faculty; the current difficulty is reminiscent of communication problems in the past, such as the confusion over the schedule change in 2015.
10.     A faculty member expressed concern about the size of the Task Force for School Structure (TFSS) in conjunction with the need to represent convening group needs. See also point (9).
11.     A faculty member proposed that the Faculty move forward on drafting a proposal aimed at assessing and possibly restructuring the College with a stated goal to improve the majors the Schools deliver and the efficiency with which they deliver them. A faculty member emphasized that there appears to be no opposition among faculty members across College to mission-driven restructuring and change; rather, opposition and questions arise when institutional alterations are proposed by the administration based on unknowable or questionable factors and/or when the role of shared governance in the process is unclear from the start. It was noted that there are precedents for the faculty taking initiative to pursue administrative goals—e.g. Faculty Budget Committee—and that while the Administration has not always acted in accord with the faculty’s recommendations, the faculty have been successful in producing a collaborative result (e.g. the current schedule, new Gen Ed program). It was noted that there have been cases in the past, such as concerns with TAS lab courses, in which miscommunication contributed to a failure to negotiate successfully, possibly with deleterious consequences for the College. It was noted that according to bylaws, FAEC is within its power to prepare a counter-charge for a task force; it was proposed that FAEC members report back to Units with information about a developing counter-charge for an Academic Structure Committee (ASC) (modeled on 2004 ASEC which was a joint administration-faculty effort) that will emphasize inclusiveness, shared governance, and clarity in its charge.

The following distinctions where stressed between the TFSS and the ASC charges:

1.     The TFSS charge requires faculty members make at least two recommendations and assumes there will be change to the College structure.
2.     The ASC charge breaks the process into distinct phases, assessment and recommendations for change, the latter contingent upon the former.

A faculty member stated that assessing School structure is overdue that that ASC charges will demonstrate faculty’s openness to assessment and interest in mission-driven restructuring; the ASC assessments will determine whether restructuring is necessary. It was noted that, in effect, this might be understood as a careful refinement of the TFSS charge. It was noted that it will be important to revisit the College’s vision and mission in light of the assessment charges in ASC. It was noted that Units will need to decide whether to staff an ASC task force if the TFSS is also staffed. It was suggested FAEC survey faculty’s views regarding state of the College. It was stated that the Provost cannot change the School structure, thus altering curricula, without considering the input of the faculty without violating the letter of shared governance.

It was proposed that FAEC members report to Units that faculty are not opposed to change and interested in pursuing clearly mission-driven changes. FAEC members agreed to report back to FAEC regarding events of 9/27 Unit Council meetings.

7.     There was some discussion of the ASC Task Force charge and its drafted language. It was proposed that the charge be shared with 9/27 Unit Councils. There was some discussion of deadlines for completing the initial assessment report.
8.     The ASC Task Force charge will be discussed and possibly voted on at 10/4 Faculty Assembly.
9.     Provided Faculty Assembly votes to staff ASC Task Force, Major Convening Groups will select up to one faculty member to serve. The group size may be refined.
10.  It was noted that FAEC needs to meet with Provost to reschedule Spring Exams; it was proposed that FAEC aim for 10/11 FAEC meeting.
11.  Meeting adjourned 12:30

Categories: Uncategorized