FAEC Minutes 9/13

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes September 13 2017 HGS Conference Room 10:30am to 12:30am

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

Secretary:​ Hugh Sheehy

Guests:​ Provost Beth Barnett

Meeting called to order by FA President Kwak at 10:30am

1.     Last week’s minutes approved
2.     Charge to the Task Force on School Structure distributed; several faculty members raised questions about the timeline of this charge in conjunction with the Provost’s plan to step down at the end of AY 2017-2018. The main question is how implementation will take place and how much weight the input of the Task Force will carry. It was pointed out that the rationale stated for altering the College structure beginning with HGS is subject to interpretation. Faculty members expressed uncertainty with respect to the precise objective of the restructuring. A faculty member noted that other charges might be less rushed than proposing at least two alternative College structures; for instance, it might be more practical—especially with new administrators coming to campus—to charge a TF with assessing the current College structure.
3.     New administrators are coming to campus: a new Provost and a new Associate Provost. Faculty members wonder whether, since administrators return to the faculty at the end of their administrative tenure, convening groups should be given more authority in hiring administrators in terms of their scholarship and teaching.
4.     Provost Barnett’s Visit: The FAEC congratulated the Provost on her upcoming retirement and her work over the past twelve years. A faculty member inquired about the search for the new Provost; she explained that she has no role in it. she explained that if she did not step down this year, she would need to stay on until 2021 and does not wish to retain her current role until then; she intends to send a group of faculty members to Middle States training to prepare for Middle States review in June 2019. She discussed her pleasure with the work of the new Vice Provost. There was some discussion of the process or Middle States reviews, College assessment, and program implementation; she confirmed that College assessments (or self-studies) present opportunities for making recommendations internally.

The Provost pointed out that the shrinking size of HGS, which is consistent with national trends, may make it more efficient to reorganize the Schools to ensure the fullest and most effective possible use of full-time and tenured faculty. The Provost emphasized the College’s value of student contact with full-time faculty.

Prof. Kwak suggested breaking up the TF on Restructuring into two TFs (as had been done with GenEd Revision), the first to assess the College structure and the second to recommend changes to the College structure to produce a more rational restructuring process. Prof. Kwak suggested that the relatively small size (when only majors are counted) of HGS programs might be viewed differently if one accounts for their work in Gen Ed. courses which serve students of all majors in the College.

The Provost explained Convening Groups are credited with faculty Gen Ed credits but not adjunct Gen Ed credits. A faculty member pointed out that while adjunct rates are relatively low for HGS; The Provost stated that HGS has too many full-time faculty teaching per number of courses offered (which falls short of the fiscal goal of 25% adjunct-taught classes). The Provost stated that efficiency is a variable that must be accounted for just as much as effectiveness of course delivery. A faculty member suggested that the question of the role of HGS is complex and subject to interpretation; the Provost agreed and stressed that the push to restructure the College is strategic and focused on efficiency of resource usage as well as effectiveness of delivery. A faculty member suggested that the differences in courses and fields should be considered in relation to the numbers of students taught by each faculty member.

A faculty member stated that College’s decisions on the fate of HGS are a reflection of the College’s value of HGS’s contribution to Gen Ed. The Provost stated that the College will be generating a new report clarifying whether the College is meeting goals in conjunction with its current spending. The Provost stated that if the College is falling short of its goals, it may need to eliminate something, whether a program or other positions. There was some question as to what ought to be cut first, administrators or faculty. The Provost explained that having certain administrative positions (e.g. those that have a preemptive legal function) is a cost-saving measure, even if those positions do not always function efficiently. The Provost stated that all programs are subject to review for efficiency; reviews also consider program frills that could be cut.

Prof. Kwak stated that the Faculty Budget Committee (2012-13), of which he was a member, asserted that the entire College should be subject to review in terms of its profitability; it is a self-fulfilling prophecy to concentrate only on the teaching Units when looking for cuts. Furthermore, he challenged the practice of expecting each program to be profitable; as long as the whole curriculum is generating a net profit, it is natural that some programs are more profitable than others. The Provost said that the real driving factor behind the need to restructure is the national decline in major enrollments in the humanities enrollment to which Ramapo College is not immune.  Prof. Kwak asked for this explicit rationale be included in the charges.  The Provost responded that that would provoke too much resistance.

The Provost stated that it’s important to see the Administration and the Schools as working together, not opposed to each other; not all faculty members agreed that this is possible at this time. A faculty member pointed out that information about the profitability of auxiliary College arms such as the book store and the dining halls is unavailable to faculty. A faculty member asked whether the Administration put away money for potential retroactive payments for off-contract years in the event that AFT bargained for it successfully; the faculty member asked where this money went.

The Provost stated that the money went into the College’s reserves and that some if it has been spent in budgeting, including salary increases and other previous budget cuts. A faculty member expressed satisfaction with the discussion and stated that there seems to be a large information gap between the faculty and the Administration that creates misunderstanding, and that this underlies some of the current difficulties between the Administration and the Faculty. A faculty member asked about what other cost-saving measures might be underway. The Provost explained that a College Senate might have a budget subcommittee that could help address financial issues on the teaching side. A faculty member suggested that there are currently resources that might also be used to clarify what is happening on the College’s teaching side. The Provost stated that she appreciates the input and named some offices that make such data available. A faculty member stated that while some data the Admin uses is available for faculty but that some is not available. The Provost stated that faculty might not be able to make use of all information because of time constraints; also, some information is not disclosed because it would create inefficiencies at the administrative level due to the interests of parties outside the College that might try to parlay that information into business opportunities.

The Provost stated that faculty has historically showed low interest in budgetary matters. A faculty member stated that these matters would be higher priority than other matters and that Schools and CGs have mechanisms for addressing some of them, and if faculty felt we had any influence on the budget. There was some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the salaries of administrators who return to the faculty. There was discussion of the relatively small number of new tenure-track lines and how the lines are paid for by the programs that receive them; The Provost explained the five criteria that must be met for a line to be awarded and the relationship of the College with adjunct faculty in the case of filling programmatic needs where new lines cannot be supplied. The Provost discussed some recent changes in Staff respecting Enrollment Management and Student Affairs.

A faculty member raised the question of how the next Provost’s vision will be affected by the product of the Task Force on Restructuring. The Provost explained that the question of how to restructure the College was raised by a process involving multiple persons in the Administration and goes beyond the purview of an individual Provost. A faculty member asked when faculty might expect a change in actual College structure; the Provost predicted that the changes would go into effect in Fall 2019 but after new Deans searches could be determined by the restricting decisions. A faculty member requested the Institutional Research password and whether it might be shared with Units; the Provost assented to send it and affirmed that it could be shared. The Council and the Provost exchanged pleasantries and parted on friendly terms.

5.     It was noted that the charge of the Task Force on Restructuring does not outline purposes clearly, includes an unsupported claim, and lays an undue burden on faculty. Professor Kwak proposed that we consider not staffing the Task Force on Restructuring without first endorsing a Task Force to assess the School Structure. A faculty member stated Admin should supply 1) clearer and empirically supported rationale for Task Force and 2) a more neatly organized process for assessment and restructuring proposal beginning with 3) a Task Force for assessing College structure. A faculty member calls for new charge clarifying that “assessment” be included in charge language (the word “assessment” does not appear anywhere in the charges); also for a bridge between data presented and why restructuring is necessary.

Prof. Kwak took particular issue with the task of task force, (“All members must be individuals who are able to evaluate potential structure using the out lined [sic] guiding principles as the primary metrics of evaluation.”) as being unachievable (“impossible mission”) since the “guiding principles” are not clearly “outlined” literally or figuratively.

6.     Council agreed to report to Units on set of charges with respect to issues stated in above paragraph (5) and to remind Units that faculty are not obligated to staff a TF that does not have a sufficiently compelling charge backed up with sound rationale and tasked with an achievable goal. Council agreed to report out to Units, and bring back responses to next week’s FAEC meeting.
7.     A faculty member noted that one is having scheduling problems with OSS testing services and asked whether other faculty are aware of such problems. Other faculty confirmed that they had.

Meeting adjourned 12:40

Categories: Uncategorized