FAEC 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