Baruch College Faculty Senate Special Meeting

Baruch College Faculty Senate Special Meeting

Minutes of September 23, 2014

MINUTES

Senators Attending: M. Carew (Eco/Fin), A. Croker (S/CIS), S. Dishart (COMM), B. Ferns (S/CIS), K. Frank (ENG), R. Freedman (ZSB), M. Goodman (COMM),S. Korenman (SPA), T. Main (SPA), J. O'Keefe Bazzoni (COMM), A. Pearlman (PSY), G. Petersen (Soc/Anth), L. Rath (LIB), M. Seltzer (SPA).

Senators Absent: E. Axelrod (Law), C. Bellamy (Soc/Anth), C. Christoforatou (ENG), W. Finke (ModLang), C. Gengler (Mkt/Int’lBus ), A. Grein (Mkt/Int’lBus), K. Guest (Soc/Anth), C. Hessel (Eco/Fin), R. Jain (S/CIS), S. Johnson (PSY), D. Jones (PolSci), G. Jurkevich (ModLang), C. Kulatilleke (NatSci), A. Levitus (CNSLNG/PSY), W. McClellan (ENG), T. Martell (Eco/Fin), B. Murphy (HIS), R. Ormsby (LIB), M. Ozbilgin (ACC), P. Sethi (MGT), M. Stark (SPA), A. Vora (Eco/Fin), J. Weiser (Law), S. Wine (S/CIS), S. Wong (MTH), J. Ye (ACC)X. Yin (MGT),R. Yue (S/CIS).

The meeting was convened at 12:57 p.m. in VC 14-250 by Professor Michael Goodman, Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate.

Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved by assent.

Approval of the Minutes: Minutes of September 4, 2014 were approved by assent.

Report from the Chair (M Goodman)described the conduct of this Special Meeting as an “open meeting,” without a structured agenda.

Professor Michael Goodman spoke to his objectives for faculty only for the purpose to identify and discuss issues of specific interest of the faculty main focus of today’s meeting.

Professor M. Seltzer explained the concept of the meeting set by the Faculty Senate Executive committee being an opportunity for a “grounds up” setting of the agenda of Faculty Senate deliberations.

Several Faculty mentioned the lack of information of the Pathways initiative and its progress. Specifically whether the enrollment in courses at Baruch been impacted by the Initiative, and a more “holistic” view of what the repercussions of the Initiative. The Chair suggested in response that a request be made of the provost to report on the impact of the Initiative.

Professor McGlynn noted some of the enrollment impacts in the English Department. Further what can be done to respond to the Initiative and its impacts. Professor Goodman suggested that a request to Vice president Ben Corpus on the data of transfers.

Professor Angela Anselmo emphasized the effect on the College’s diversity of the Initiative. In term she volunteered to join the Enrollment Management Committee. She then explained the role of the advisory council on diversity. Professor Seltzer inquired as to what Unpacking” the diversity issue would imply. Professor Anselmo provide some approximations of the effect on diversity based upon the SEEK numbers. She was asked whether she was concerned whether the Initiative was undermining our diversity achievement.

Professor McGlynn amplified her concern noting that the faculty should be apprised and be aware of how well prepared our new transferred students are.

Professor Anselmo noted that her experience with SEEK, that the transfer students are unable to gain entry into the Zicklin because they are unprepared for the prerequisites. The transfer students arrive wanting to become Business majors and are unable to come to Baruch and have to spend another four years.

Professor Glenn Peterson expressed his concern that we have a persistent emphasis on GPA scores and not on providing for student needs. The question comes down to the difference between the access to Baruch and the quality of what we do is emphasis on excellence. As a Senate we must resolve our position on education, access or excellence.

Professor Goodman gave recognition to the evaluation of Baruch this and next year regarding our process of self-assessment in the development of teaching skills and expertise.

Professor William Ferns noted three points regarding the Pathways Initiative. First the failure of CUNY-First and therefore our inability to know what is happening. Secondly we need to do something to assure that H.R. need to get adjuncts getting paid on time. Specifically Katherine Cobb must be asked to clarify her policy to promptly pay adjunct. Third, the transfer issue: as it bears upon the College’s revenues as it is aggravate by the decline in graduate enrollment. He then explained some of the anomalies of the GPA computation and the measurement differences between transfers and “native” freshman. This results in bi-modal distribution of capacity in our classrooms. With the 2,100 transfers in August, we only know in August what our student need.

Professor Seltzer noted that the issues facing the adjuncts is more than merely payroll, is this a “big tent” issue for the Faculty Senate.

Professor Goodman noted the graduate enrollment failure derives from the lack of marketing of the Baruch Graduate programs, and the need therefore a robust budget allocation for marketing.

Professor Steve Dishart as an adjunct explained the mysteries of payroll deductions and the dysfunctions faced by the adjunct faculty.

Professor Anselmo noted that the Baruch “cross border Teams” would report many of these same issue.

Professor Michael Williams, School of Public Affairs as a recent adjunct, now full time faculty recounted many of the shortfalls of support for adjuncts. There a great deal of things that could be done to improve service to adjuncts.

Professor Goodman suggested that a request be made to the administration that the same type of orientation that is provided to full-time faculty be also provided to adjuncts.

Professor Peterson recounted the theory of “harmony of interests.” That the sentiment of divisiveness among the schools sometimes operates to discriminates against individual departments and schools. The Zicklin School seems to be happy as long as it continues to receive a larger portion of the available resources. The Faculty Senate is the appropriate forum for the resolution of the available resources. The administration has wrested the determination of curriculum from the faculty. Professor Good man sought amplification and which committee should be responsible for the defining and recommendation on this issue.

Professor Seltzer noted that the ExecutiveCommittee announced that he had spoken to the Chief Diversity Officer requested a delay in her report until the Department heads had the opportunity to review prior to publication. Therefore the report will be coming to the Senate.

Professor Peterson requested that the available flyers concerning the Union’s negotiations be carried back to Departments

Meeting Adjourned at 2:12 pm

Respectfully Submitted

Michael G. Carew, Faculty Senate Secretary