FAEC MINUTES 01/22/2020

[DRAFT] FAEC Minutes 1/22/2020

Faculty Assembly Executive Council [FAEC] Meeting Minutes

Date: Wednesday, January 22, 2020  | Location: B 226  | Time: 10:00 am to 12:00 pm

Attendees: Tae Kwak, Donna Flynn, Roark Atkinson, Eva Ogens, Scott Frees, Kathy Zeno, Christina Connor,

Guests: Faculty, President Mercer, Provost Becker, Vice Provost Gaulden, Edward Saiff, Aaron Lorenz, Naseem Choudhury, Maya Poran, Robert Becklen

Secretary: Nakia Matthias

—————————————————————————————————————————-

FAEC Minutes Approved 

1. Process for Selecting Sabbatical Candidates

The Provost’s methods for examining applications for sabbatical, promotion, and tenure are alarming as the Provost goes beyond the faculty handbook to impose his own criteria which is unknown to faculty.

Last December, the Provost agreed to begin the process of revising the Faculty Handbook.  Since no progress has been made, FAEC will be charging a Task Force with reps from AFT, ER, FA, and the Provost’s Office.  

2. Faculty Concerns and TPO’s 

Faculty are skeptical of TPO’s based on financial projections that were shared in a previous meeting as the

model excludes crucial information and does not account for minority enrollment.  It does not include important details and demonstrates that unless there is robust enrollment and growth (45 students + net 20% growth each year) there may very well be a net loss for RCNJ as a result of taking on the “pilot program” with PCCC.

3.  TPO’s and Faculty Concerns

The Provost is pursuing the opportunity to roll out RCNJ courses at Passaic County Community College [PCCC] as a pilot program.  Faculty pointed out that assumptions made about passaic will be different as it is not representative of any other of the colleges that are sought for TPO’s.  Faculty suggested that the procedures taken in pursuit of TPO’s illustrates a breakdown of shared governance. 

Faculty maintained that assessment of the RCNJ courses offered at PCC is critical for understanding the efficacy of the course content delivery and the performance of students enrolled in the college since it is  being used as a pilot program for TPO agreements with RCNJ. Intellectual integrity and academic rigor are concerns for faculty who suggested a blind assessment of any pilot courses in order to determine whether they satisfy RCNJ standards. The maintenance of academic integrity is also a concern and faculty suggested that online proctoring services would need to be employed to ensure the proper administration of tests and exams.

At present, 2 + 2 models exist in Psychology but these models differ from the proposed TPO structure where 300/400 level courses would be taught at two year institutions.Faculty asserted that currently 300/400 level RCNJ courses are not taught by adjuncts and not taught at community colleges which is what would make TPO courses distinct from courses currently taught at RCNJ and require extraordinary oversight. 

Faculty also expressed concern that TPO’s technically require students to be enrolled for 1.5 years at RCNJ as the fourth and final term within any proposed TPO.  Faculty suggested that this be stated and disclosed in the framing of the program in its presentation to potential students and faculty.

Furthermore, faculty sought understanding about whether students enrolled at RCNJ’s campus in a 4 year degree program could enroll in a two-year institution’s offering of  300/400 level courses. The provost and vice has not considered this possibility and will get back to FAEC regarding this matter.

The notion of the RCNJ course content for TPO’s as equal in rigor and integrity in support of learning outcomes denotes that the 300/400 level courses at two-year institutions are the same as those offered at RCNJ’s campus.  

4. Provost Becker and AFT

The Provost confirmed that faculty would be reimbursed should faculty contributions toward carrying out any oversight and participation in TPO’s exceed “reasonable expectations”.  He explained that reasonable expectations is vague and requires definition. He proposed the negotiation of this matter with AFT.

5. TPO’s and Potential Risk for RCNJ

It was presented that the TPO’s serve as model option courses taught at RCNJ and offsite.  However, according to financial projections divulged at a previous closed meeting, RCNJ assumes the least risk when potential TPO students can be absorbed into existing sections on campus.  

Some faculty proposed alternatives to alleviate financial concerns and potential risks that RCNJ would assume under TPO’s including the acceptance of more high school students and placing a cap on students ability to transfer out of RCNJ in order to obtain a degree in a TPO program.

6. ARC Review Processes

Vice Provost Gaulden and Provost Becker affirmed that pursuing the option to develop tracks rather than concentrations is permissible and viable for enlarging RCNJ’s offerings for contract major programs and for potential TPO’s.

Faculty suggested that if such practices become the norm or default method for delivering courses in new or extraneous programs it would constitute administrative abuse of the ARC review process as it sidelines the purview of ARC and functions to subvert the purpose of ARC review processes.   It would be viewed as intentional circumventing of ARC as an effort to ‘push’ through course and curricular changes that would ordinarily be subject to extensive vetting.

Faculty suggested that boundaries need to be drawn whereby RCNJ’s campus should be characterized as ‘Ramapo Main’ and RCNJ TPO programs should be identified differently while indicating that the course content and offerings are the same. For instance, the proposed program with PCC could be called ‘RCNJ at Passaic’.  There are ethical issues involved with discussing RCNJ as the same program as those offered via a TPO offsite or in conjunction with a community college.

Vice Provost Gaulden stated that this would pose complications for the Middle States Accreditation process as this structure reflects a main-satellite campus arrangement that requires new applications for programmatic accreditation.

Faculty want it to be known that administrators are pursuing a track development process in order to craft majors outside of faculty governance.

7. Miscellaneous Items

An FAEC CA Representative is sought to replace David Oh.  CA will be briefed about this need, requested to ask for volunteers and nominate a representative during the Unit Council Meeting scheduled for 1/22/10.

Meeting Adjourned at 12 pm

Categories: FAEC MEETING MINUTES 2020, RAMAPO FAEC