Faculty Assembly Minutes 1/31/18

Secretary: Kim Lorber

Pavillion 1:30pm-3pm

Peter Mercer addressed the faculty. Had 20 minutes before another meeting.

Peter will have dinner this evening with Governor Murphy at his official home.

Taking questions:

Kathy Zeno/ASB: There are concerns about the name of the library. What is the rationale regarding the naming? The facilities master plan, approved by the board of trustees 3 years ago. It identifies “Learning Commons” as the next developmental stage of the library. Other elements contributed. We decided to expand money on the expansion of the library facilities as well as other things. The traditional library continues to be thought of as the core element. In some ways, these additional facilities, had more elements reflecting more of a student center focus instead of putting all of the money into a library. This is the first BOT project in which the trustees are actively involved in fundraising. We need to raise $15 million, state gave $15 million and the rest comes from our funds. The many functions seemed antithetical to the traditional name and purpose of a library received pushback because of the other information. There is no suggestion the designation of the Potter Library will be removed. There is a concern among the professional library staff w/whom he met last Friday. They do not want to see the word library isolated from learning commons. As we work on the name, the library’s dean and some librarians will continue to meet going forward.

Anne LaPore: Would the BOT Ike us as academic professionals to explain what a library is: what is and is not online so they can have a sexy way to present their fundraising with library relevant facts? Peter responded saying we can hit the “TMI” zone. Susan Valerie, from the BOT, is on the committee and is more informed than most other trustees.

Tae: Clarification of the Board’s role. It is unclear about the BOT taking the lead re: branding. It is not the case of leading, but it is the purpose of the board to. . . .????

Christina: Is the President’s Iibrary Task Force done? Wil it be continuing to meet to make decisions moving forward or if there are questions and comments, what is the best way to pose them. It continues, said Peter, so there will be periodic meetings as this will be a long time before completion.

END PETER

BEGIN BETH:

Middle States: Many individuals have been invited to been part of the steering group to create the document that will be posted. You can see who has been invited. Sometime later this semester, probably late April, we wil have our first visit from the Middle States liaison. He will give us feedback to the design proposal, and he will go. Then the proposal will go to Middle States, hopefully approved, in June. Work will resume in September and it will be sent in spring 2019. Finished in 2020 (NOT CLEAR TO ME).

Extending Strategic Plan: Working with cabinet and others to see what one should like. Ours skipped the outcome level and went right to targets. We have a problem presenting this as a strategic plan. In 2 weeks, Beth, Peter, Tae and SGA president will convene to see how we will extend the current strategic plan. The current plan will not be thrown away and a new one developed. It has been noted we are about to begin a self-study. This will tell us where we are strong or weak which will help us go into the full-blown strategic plan exercise. The president has had his contract extended. At the end of Middle States, will be the end of his contract. We need to extend. We have accomplished many things that can come out; we know others will not be accomplished. We need to be realistic. Also, things have changed in 5 years so there will be things we want to add. Once the community has a chance to look at it, they will move forward. There will probably be a task force (small), 8-12 members, how to distribute participation and communicating with the broader college community. This is exciting and will set our direction for the next three years.

Kristen Kenneavy: Will the current plan be at the same or at a lower level of goals.

Beth: It is Iikely we willl keep the same goals. If you do SPOL training, you will see a 5th goal. It is not strategic. It says: All units and programs will operate efficiently and effectively.

END BETH’S PORTION

TAE BEGINS

FAEC membership: All members’ terms have ended even though this started as a staggered way. Tae has asked each unit rep so some will run next year and continuity from 1/2. There should be a unit representative who can come in their place for reporting back to Units. We need consistent alternates.

Counselors at Large (both) and President are all open positions. 2/28 is last day to share interest with FAEC. This will allow candidates to give short speech at 3/7 FAEC. We will have a single mail ballot which will have all 3 openings together. We will follow the AFT model.

Susan Eisner: Did we check term limits? Re: asking all to continue.

Tae: Yes.

Voting Items:

Original Motion: Learning Commons (Library) Capital Project: “The Faculty Assembly strongly endorses the preservation of the term ‘library’ in the title of the earning Commons project as well as the future building.”

Ruma Sen: Is the word library included? Or is it out?

Tae: Peter said naming stage will come later. There are many moving parts and there is no commitment to taking the “library” name out. There is a branding question. This is the proposal.

Lysandra: Can the term “learning commons” term come out as it sounds like we accept it.

Hand vote of 51% agreed to changing the proposal taking out “learning commons” and adding “library renovation” project.

Revised Motion: Learning Commons (Library) Capital Project: “The Faculty Assembly strongly endorses the preservation of the term ‘library’ in the library renovation project as well as the future building.”

Hybrid and Online Review Committee (HORC): will review all new hybrid and online courses. It will need to pass this committee before moving to ARC. To check if credit hours will meet the required time and how face-to-face hours will be met.

Ricki Abzug

1. ARC is already overworked.

Steven Anderson: He sees it as was info. Once WAC has signed off, it makes ARC approval easier. Gen Ed reviewed the new courses which saved time. This idea is establishing moving forward: what is an online course; what is the experience we want to give to our students?

Michael Bitz: There is a range of courses being offered as hybrid or online and there is no criteria set to establish if it meets one. This will allow benchmarks to be established so there wil be a review process in place to make sure they are as good as possible.

Tae: This will help people who do not understand the process.

Meredith: Resists adding more committees as we do not have enough faculty to populate them. She feels a set of guidelines, great examples or guidelines. ARC does not approve schedule format. They do not decide the form in which the curriculum is delivered. If the dean or someone else in administration feels it should be in a certain format, who are they to reject this?

Susan Eisner: Supports Meredith’s rationale. ARC’s focus is to make sure the learning objectives are there and are assessable. Where are the experts? The Faculty Resource Center helps design such a course. A faculty member hoping the subcommittee will help them. If the criteria is clear, standards can be referred to to approve courses in alternate delivery modes.

Ruma Sen: It seems a slippery slope to approve courses already approved but not being offered in a new format. The convening group and dean would know if a new format is working or not versus a new committee without expertise regarding the course.

Motion: ARC recommends the approval of the Hybrid and Online Review Committee (HORC) by the Faculty Assembly.

New Certificate Program: Spanish for Heathcare and Human Services Professionals. Four courses: 2 required, and 2 electives from a list of approximately 10-12 programs. 4 courses/16 credits. Each elective contains a project related to a Healthcare topic. It is not certain in which school it will be housed. The certificate design is based on the certificate for business. The structure is based on the administration’s suggestion.

Cristina Perez: How will the healthcare info be presented?

Dolly Sacristan: It is difficult to become an effective transport and interpreter.

Kim Lorber: made a suggestion to change the language to facilitate translation and interpretation. This was an ARC motion attached to a larger report with more nuance.

Motion: ARC recommends the approval of the Spanish for Healthcare Professionals Certificate by the Faculty Assembly

Mic-Career Reflection:

1. Transfer students don’t fulfill this.

Jeremy Teigen: Many elements this would capture are part of other elements of enhanced advisement and faculty connection.

Bonnie Blake: Another issues is to do a survey to see what programs are already doing. What works? What doesn’t work?

John Pepper: Missed 1st question (sorry). What will Middle States think?

Sarah Carberry: If we could come up with a plan, assess it, we could convince them to love it. Middle States did not like CEC.

Nick: We tried very hard to stick to the new gen ed to the letter of the law but programs have different things.

Beth: Middle States wants to see how something is implemented and assessed. We have done our due diligence so since it is gen ed it comes back to the faculty.

Ruma Sen: Why are we. Not discussing the Capstone item now, too. That is a school requirement.

Sarah: Senior presentation will be implemented later. We are not talking about that yet.

Beth: Is not only a 2 year process. The Chronicle had many interesting things last week about gen ed looking beyond the 2 years inclusive of a capstone experience.

Paula: She is concerned about the slippery slope and the capstone project. Can’t we table this and decide later?

Sarah: GECCo spent a lot of time on this; if it is going away, they do not want to spend more time on it. If there is a chance, they cannot spend more time on it.

Nick: It was discussed in some Unit Councils and not in others. Some schools may feel one way or another.

Sarah: This is not a grad requirement nor allowed to make it a gen ed requirement.

Tae: We are returning sovereignty to the program.

Nick: I worked on this for 3 years and wanted this.

Ashwani: Is on GECCo again after 2 years. He trusts they busted a gut to make it work. He feels we should vote yes. Once this happens, the slippery slope has been breached.

MOTION “The FA recognizes the Mid-Career Reflection (MCR) component of the GE to be exceptions and untied to any coursework, and endorses dropping it as a graduation requirement leaving both academic advising and career counseling to appropriate units, programs, and centers.”