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

---