FAEC Minutes October 25, 2017

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes October 25 2017 ASB 008 Room 10:30am to 12:30am

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

Excused: Eva Ogens

Secretary:​ Hugh Sheehy

Guests:​ Yvette Kisor; Beth Barnett

Meeting called to order, 11:30

Minutes of 10/18 Approved

Kisor Visit: Kisor clarified that list of FYS Common Reading Experience (CRE) options so far represents only what has been proposed for consideration, not what has been selected for consideration.

Kisor discussed the purpose of CRE as defined by National Resource Center (University of South Carolina), emphasizing that the goals include not only introductory reading for incoming students but also a common intellectual experience involving faculty and staff as well. There are various aspirational goals, such as supporting the development and maintenance of campus culture and helping incoming students adjust to the expectations and practices common to coursework in higher education. Kisor walked committee members through semester-long events associated with CRE intended to help realize the purpose of CRE; she also discussed the procedure for selecting a book for the CRE. A committee member asked about selection criteria; Kisor explained the criteria (the book must have academic merit, the book should be engaging and written in an accessible style, the book should be on a subject that lends itself for use broadly in FYS courses that have diverse themes, the author (or speaker) should be engaging, ideally, the subject should be related to Ramapo’s mission in some way). It was discussed that the model the College uses for selecting a CRE (Kisor explained there are many models for selecting) is based on precedence; the model has been in place since the implementation of CRE at Ramapo. A committee member noted that other models could be adopted. (Provost Barnett arrived during this section of meeting.) Barnett noted that President’s Cabinet makes its decision based on the FYS Reading Committee’s recommendation, author availability for Convocation, and financial concerns (some of which are governed by state guidelines). Kisor expressed openness to a revision of the selection procedure; committee member observed that it might be helpful to get faculty more involved in the selection process (involvement is voluntary) and also to allow the FYS Director more access to the decision-making done at the Cabinet level. There was some discussion of the challenges current FYS programming faces, especially generating student interest in some FYS events. A committee member noted that faculty might feel moved to volunteer to help select a book for CRE if faculty were more aware of the potential impact faculty could have on selection. Kisor expressed a willingness to present on this issue at Faculty Assembly.

Provost’s Visit: Provost Barnett stated that there is currently a search underway for a new online teaching platform to replace Banner. Provost’s Council will reconsider a number of exam policies on 10/26, including the problem of over-scheduling during exam week and a deadline for requesting final exam accommodations. A committee member expressed interest in the establishment of a master calendar; Barnett indicated that this is the aim of the academic calendar and that the academic calendar could be improved to include certain important dates. There was the question of whether an improved academic calendar could be made available in early summer to allow for faculty to prepare syllabi months in advance of the Academic Year; Barnett responded that there a few unfixed variables that make projecting forward in time difficult in some cases. A committee member expressed a desire that the due-date for grades be published earlier in the semester than they typically are; Barnett said she would look into making this happen. A committee member asked about the status of the “FN” grade; Barnett stated that Provost’s Council would discuss whether to vote on it on 10/26. Barnett distributed a printout of an overview of a College course evaluation system that might be adopted; ITS has prepared a spreadsheet comparing costs and virtues of different course evaluation software packages. There was some discussion of whether online evaluation programs tend to draw more student response; a committee member mentioned a study from the Chronicle of Higher Ed that reported obligatory evaluations tend to be less salutary of instructors and courses than voluntary evaluations. Barnett noted that in the near future there may be a Task Force charged to work with ITS on improving the College’s means of getting and compiling course evaluations. A committee member expressed concern about a possible decline of quality that comes with a migration to online course evaluations, especially if evaluations are to be considered in decisions regarding tenure and promotion. Barnett agreed and stated that course evaluation could be improved; committee members identified specific weaknesses in the language of the course evaluations forms. She added that AFT and the faculty will need to revise the faculty handbook, particularly with regard to tenure and promotion procedures.

Search Committee for New Provost: there are concerns about structural differences in search committee for next provost and the search committee for the outgoing provost. Certain bodies are not represented on the current committee (AFT, Library Unit, Dean’s Council, Faculty Assembly). Further, the selection process for the new search committee remains unclear. FAEC will explore whether it is necessary to craft a faculty statement on this issue.  

One committee member brought up the issue/problem of the new due date for promotion packets. According to the promotion calendar, this year, faculty members that are applying for promotion “shall submit a written application for promotion to the appropriate Unit Personnel Committee … by November 17th.” [It was noted that last year, the date was moved up to December 2 (in contrast to previous years when applications were due in early January), and this year it is even earlier than last.] This is problematic for those who intend to apply as the president’s office is not likely to announce the number of available slots for each faculty rank until the week before promotion packages are due. The due date for promotion packages is agreed upon jointly by the Office of Employee Relations and the union. As a result, FAEC felt that it would be beneficial to invite Martha Ecker and Nicole Morgan Agard to discuss the need for more “workable” timetables.

     Next week’s FA Agenda: Faculty Forum to precede FA; Cathy Davey has accepted invitation to attend Faculty Assembly; two voting items from ARC; Task Force on Shared Governance presentation from K McMurdy; Title IX presentation; FAEC Decision on Faculty Agenda

Meeting adjourned 12:30

Categories: Uncategorized