October 18, 2017DRAFT FA Minutes, 10/4/2017

DRAFT FA Minutes Wednesday, October 4, 2017

 

Began at 1:30 PM

 

13 Years ago there was an academic structure committee (ASEC). Provost has agreed to give us access to any needed data in preparation for the new cmte.

 

Make sure major and minor fair should not overlap with the meetings.

 

Approved minutes.

 

Provost update

 

17 teaching and learning grant applications, and 20 (?) of Europe apps.

 

Tae update

 

Conflicts found in Final Exam Schedule. We tried to change this over the summer, but were unsuccessful. FAEC. The longer exam schedule led to problems. We’re working with Registrar to create 4-exam per day exam schedule.

 

Will now end at 10:05PM, 15 minutes in between.

 

SGA proposed having a liaison to FAEC. They are really on the ball (Jaime Vasquez and Stephan Lolly, veep and Pres. respectively).

 

Get in touch with us about final exam schedule by next Wed.

 

TF on Online Learning

 

Michael Bitz

 

Convened Spring 2017, report delivered Oct 2, 2017

 

Asked to adapt online course manual, consolidate policies, consulted with deans and other stakeholders, considered scale of online and hybrid courses at RCNJ.

 

Distance enrollment is rising nationally, as campus enrollment is declining. Rising esp. at places like RCNJ.

 

Stockton has an office devoted to online teaching. Keane has design team for it. Thomas Edison is completely online.

 

Hybrid courses have increased:

2015: 42

2016: 154

2017: 214

 

Online as well, but not as dramatically.

 

Cmte recommends that ARC have a standing sub-cmte for online/hybrid learning.

 

Wants to create an online Wiki of best practices.

 

Wants alternatives to Moodle. Can’t check for cheating. Other systems use biometrics, for e.g.

 

College should expand its tech support hours. Should be 24/7.

 

Need training for instructors.

 

Also for students. Since online/hybrid courses are not necessary easier than in-class.

 

College should review policies for these courses. If one teaches entirely online, how much time should they be on campus? Unclear if there is an existing policy.

 

College should clarify intellectual property issues. In house counsel did not respond. Who owns the assignments, etc.?

 

Q: What about student evaluations? Person received very few the first time she taught the course.

 

A: All evals. are online for online courses.

 

Martha Ecker: when under contract, the trend is that online materials become the property of the college. What kind of college do we want to be? None of the ones we aspire to have online courses.

 

Q/A: We do not know how many courses were taught in-load vs. out of load.

 

Q: Can we get a better Moodle? Other people have nicer Moodle.

 

Q: Are our online students local to NJ? Most of them are.

 

Q: More concern about cheating. It’s an international scandal.

 

Q: Will there be courses that are ONLY online, vs. having in-class alternatives? Issues of accessibility, etc.

 

Tae: Remedial math class is fully online. Those students are the least confident in their math skills, and the online model is not working for many of them.

 

Ed Saiff: It’s actually very helpful, since it is adaptive for each student.

 

Q: Bergen C.C. has a composition course that meets 2 weeks online for credit. What about Winter course offerings, which couldn’t meet the same time as a semester course?

 

Bitz: Courses are supposed to be equivalent.

 

Q: One person likes Moodle.

 

Q: How often do you have to meet to be hybrid?

 

Q: Concern about final exam schedule for hybrids, which is hard to do given the flexibility of scheduling.

 

Q: All evaluations should be done online?

 

Q: Some students have many accommodation/mobility issues.

 

Q: Need to work with OSS for accommodations for online learning.

 

More Q? Email: mbitz@ramapo.edu

 

================

Coordinator for Senior Presentation Requirement—Nick Salter

 

[didn’t type the others]

 

Unanimous approval of slate of candidates 2:25PM

 

Nov 8 Teach in until midnight

 

We cannot submit proposals for distribution category. There is a freeze. There was no announcement.

 

There will not be any courses reviewed this year.

 

This will be frozen for one year. We have “plenty” of courses in the dist. cats. (Beth)

 

[Something about NJ transfer]

 

Q: It amounts to a 2-year freeze.

 

GECCO is doing final assessment of previous GE. They are also taking time to deal with rejected courses. They are also developing course review procedure.

 

Tae: As is, if your class is not already in GE, then it cannot be taught until Fall of 2020. But if ARC and GECCO accept them now, then we can have them run by 2019.

 

Q: We will have to offer both GEs anyway. Some courses will stay in old GE, transfers will take new.

 

Q: Does this mean we have enough of an option for students to take new GE courses that year. Less choice for them.

 

Tae will consult with Sarah Carberry and Steve Anderson about all of this.

 

[[[[Can we get the last word on the procedure of sit cat courses? My head is spinning]]]

 

Raul Peck I am Not Your Negro film Sharp Theater etc.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

---

October 18, 2017FAEC 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

---

October 18, 2017FAEC Minutes 10/11

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes October 11 2017 ASB 008 Room 10:30 am to 12:30 pm

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

Excused: Gladys Torres-Baumgarten, Kim Lorber

Secretary:​ Hugh Sheehy

Guests:​ Leigh Keller and Liz Siecke; Beth Foster and Jaime Velazquez; Stephan Lally

Meeting called to order by Tae Kwak at 10:30

11/4 minutes approved

It was stated that FAEC would attempt to adjourn by noon to attend the State of the College Address.

10:30-11:30 Keller and Siecke Visit: There are concerns about the progress of the library renovation. A faculty member expressed concern with the transparency of the process of the renovation and some of the decisions about what will be included in the renovation; it was stated that the source of some decisions was unclear; it was stated, for example, the inclusion of the Krame Center in the library seems like a questionable choice and that increased visibility of the logic of the choice might help to clarify the issue. Guests explained that there a number of aspects of the renovation process that are in flux.

        A faculty member expressed concern that the Task Force for Library Renovation (CORRECT NAME?) reflects a failure of shared governance; it was agreed that the role of the TF in the process is unclear; a faculty member stated that faculty members (including librarians) were never consulted about important renovation choices and that the decision-making structure for renovations remains unclear. There was some discussion of the possible rationale for including a Mindfulness Center in the new library; there was the question of whether the issue of the Center’s location should be brought to an upcoming Faculty Assembly for discussion and a possible vote to clarify the faculty’s position on this issue. A faculty member emphasized that the focus of any such discussion should be on the essential role the library should play on the campus; this question (of role) should be prioritized over questions of more specialized interests and also to evaluate those specialized. There was discussion of the best way to communicate this possibility to the Provost and the President in the interest of shared governance. It was proposed that this issue be taken to Unit Councils on 10/18 to develop talking points on this issue in advance of the Faculty Forum and the Faculty Assembly. It was decided that a topic for the Forum will be “Library Renovation.”

        Keller and Siecke agreed to return for the 10/18 FAEC meeting.

        A faculty member raised the issue of whether there should be a standing ARC subcommittee for online and hybrid courses. It was agreed that this subcommittee should concern itself not only with course review but also with solving problems related to exam scheduling and future mandatory attendance-taking.

        11:30 Foster and Velazquez Visit (Stephan Lally also present): FAEC considered new exam schedule proposal:

        8:00 am-11:20 am

        11:35 am-2:55 pm

        3:10 pm-6:30 pm

        6:45 pm-10:05 pm

With respect to proposed schedule, Velazquez stated it was his sense that students could deal with taking up to three exams in one day at most. A faculty member stated that three exams in a day seemed like too many. It was confirmed that there was no College policy against having three exams scheduled in a single day; it remains a possibility that holding four exams in a day would result in some students having four exams in a day. Foster explained that given the current number of exams, assuming no more than three exams are scheduled per day, that it is impossible to avoid certain inconvenient exam times. Foster explained that one solution might be to do away with the final exam week and simply add another week in which classes would meet and administer exams (though this might require exam revision for some faculty). It was stated that many faculty and students would like a due-date for grades made publicly available each year. Lally stated that students have asked that EOF start- and end-dates be posted each year; he also stated that students have transportation-related concerns they would like brought to the administration.

        It was suggested that the four-exam option be brought to 10/18 Unit Councils. Foster indicated that noon 10/27 would be a desirable time-and-date by which to have a solution. Faculty members will aim to supply solution on 10/25.

        It was proposed that FAEC table discussion of whether to replace exam week with extra week of classes for time being.

12:08 Meeting adjourned

       

 

Categories: Uncategorized

---

September 28, 2017FAEC Minutes 9/20

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes September 20 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:​ Martha Ecker

Meeting called to order by Tae Kwak at 10:30

1.     Minutes of 9/13 approved
2.     A faculty member suggested that it might be useful for College Deans to meet on their own to allow for inter-School communications; a faculty member stated that it depends largely on the function of the Deans in the College.
3.     School reactions to charge for Provost’s Task Force for School Structure (TFSS):

• CA declines to staff Task Force; they argue TFSS is inappropriate at this point, given the arrival of a new Provost in the following academic year.
• SSHS has not nominated any faculty for TFSS. They argue TFSS charge is unclear and poorly timed and suggests that the task force should be a subcommittee of the Middle States Committee. While not opposed to change, the School faculty feel this is not the time.
• HGS has yet to nominate faculty and argues the charge for TFSS does not demonstrate a thorough study of the state of the College finances as they relate to a motivation to restructure. The last line of the charge reads, “All members must be individuals who are able to evaluate potential structure using the outlined [sic] guiding principles as the primary metrics of evaluation.”  However, no clear “guiding principles” are outlined in the charge.  Some HGS faculty support an idea of Units nominating major Conveners to assess current School structure.
• TAS Dean assigned two faculty members in Spring 2017 but  Unit willingness to participate remains unclear. TAS faculty expressed skepticism about the TFSS, particularly with the new Gen Ed implementation looming.
• ASB nominated two faculty members in Spring 2017; the Unit had following concerns: 1) there is a charge to restructure without a vision for the College’s overall direction in the current higher ed environment, 2) there is no assurance that faculty time and energy will be well spent let alone valued and considered by a new Provost, 3) Board of Trustees and Deans should be involved in this process as they will be ongoing stakeholders after implementation, 4) it might be more constructive to undertake restructuring after the new Provost arrives, 5) faculty should be involved in search for new Provost and in the development of job description, 6) the College structure should be assessed before faculty act on a charge to restructure, 7) the timetable for the TFSS is “rushed/ optimistic” and does not allow adequate time to determine the need to restructure now.
• Overall: there seems to be no faculty resistance to 1) assessing School structure or to 2) College mission-driven changes to School structure.
• Furthermore, there is deep reluctance to for faculty to sign on and blindly commit to personally endorsing “two or more” restructuring proposals to be imposed on the whole College community.

4.     A faculty member noted Provost’s charge calls for each Dean to produce two faculty members to staff the Task Force for Restructuring. There is not yet a deadline for the task force to be constituted. A faculty member noted that ASEC Report from 2004 states that “the process for any academic restructuring should commence prior to the implementation of both Gen Ed and CLA.” A faculty member discussed the peculiarities of the School structure as determined by the College’s history and observed that restructuring could be a good thing; the complications within the current structure also reflect effective solutions; this issue requires assessment prior to any process for recommending a new College structure. These reports and the larger issue will be brought to the next Faculty Forum and Faculty Assembly.
5.     Martha Ecker’s Visit: 2004 ASEC Report reflects College’s vision of interdisciplinary, liberal arts teaching. Since then, hiring practices have not consistently supported that vision. The 2004 Report contributed to an effective reform of the College’s organization and an envisioning of Ramapo as New Jersey’s public liberal arts college. A faculty member stated that the Provost’s charge and rationale do not seem to reflect an awareness of the ASEC recommendations. Ecker responded that some recommendations were followed but that the College nonetheless moved away from the liberal arts vision for reasons not unified under any single rationale, despite the fact that hiring practices were required to reflect a commitment to said liberal arts mission. Ecker stated that while Ramapo is similar to many liberal arts colleges, it remains distinct in certain ways. A faculty member pointed out that there has been an unnecessary limitation placed on convening groups offering majors identified with their primary areas of identification and that more majors might be administered by multiple convening groups (e.g. Physics and Chemistry might collaborate to offer Physical Chemistry) and that this might be considered in the act of assessing the College structure. Ecker responded that some programs have done this (ASB houses convening groups that have done this), though not all of them. She added there was no clear overriding reason that the College adopted or rejected the ASEC Report recommendations. A faculty member noted that students identify with Units in danger of elimination by restructuring. Ecker noted that the vocationalization of majors and the Gen Ed has moved education at Ramapo away from what was previously a more robust liberal arts programme. Ecker stated that the timeline for restructuring is counterintuitive and could use clarification. The faculty and Ecker are together in disagreement with the Provost on the relationship between the Middle States process and the charge for restructuring. There was general agreement that the charge to restructure needs greater clarification with respect to how the College understands the relative profitability of Schools. A faculty member raised the question of how Deans in larger Schools could be expected to fairly weigh the requests of faculty from very different programs for resources; larger Schools present more challenges in leadership, staffing, and management. There was some discussion of what students come to Ramapo for; the feeling among all faculty members is that the liberal arts mission of the College is a primary value and a determining factor in their choice to attend Ramapo. A faculty member stated a concern that the College is losing its identity. A faculty member suggested one problem might be that the College has not conceived of an effective way to market a liberal arts degree. A faculty member articulated the impression that the restructuring is being driven by cost concerns and not in connection to the Gen Ed when the two changes should be considered together. Ecker stated that the “liberal arts college” identity described in 2004 was intended to secure Ramapo’s niche at a time when declines in birth rates would affect the student population, but that the College has not remained as faithful to that identity as it might have.
6.     There was some discussion of the target adjunct rate; the “Goldilocks Zone” is about 25%. A faculty member stated that the expectation to hold all Schools to the same standards of profitability and adjunct instruction is 1) untrue to the reality of delivering a good liberal arts education, and 2) inconsistent with accrediting bodies’ standards (e.g. AACSB and ASB).
7.     A faculty member suggested creating phases for the TFSS charge, establishing separate deadlines within the charge to first Assess, and then Restructure that would be more rational.
8.     Faculty members discussed the importance of the faculty genuinely contributing to the process in any restructuring. A faculty member stated that doing so will hold the process to a high standard of accountability; it also makes more sense for the faculty to do this because faculty have stakes in the mission of the College. The first step will be to assess the current College structure. A faculty member proposed charging an FA Academic Structure Committee in which rationale, timeline, and phases are clearly articulated. The document will be presented to Units at Unit Councils next week and presented at Faculty Assembly on October 4 for endorsement.
9.     A faculty member noted that Student Government is interested in having a liaison to FAEC.
10.  Meeting adjourned 12:34.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

---

September 20, 2017FAEC 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

---

April 16, 2013Hello world!

Welcome to Ramapo College of New Jersey Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Categories: Uncategorized

---