DRAFT
FAEC Meeting w/ President Mercer and Provost Barnett
September 13, 2006
York Room
9:00 am
Members Present: Eric Karlin, Susan Eisner, Stephen Rice, Jason Hecht, Anita Stellenwerf, Maria Vail, Sue Scher, Erin Augis, Irene Kuchta, Amruth Kumar, Marcia Sexton, President Peter Mercer, Provost Beth Barnett
Welcome by Eric Karlin and Introductions of Members Present
Agenda Items:
· Flex Units
· Committees & Task Forces
· Summer session and spring semester
Calendar issues
Academic dimensions
Overview of summer work: budget issues, CEP, Banner implementation.
Brief Report on Meeting with Jane Oates from the Governors Office: President Mercer
A. Honorarium policy: public institutions are drafting a response. Public hearing on Ethics concerns scheduled for 10/3/06. : what is the Board of Trustees input?
B. Transfer articulation agreement between community colleges and four-year institutions: in need of consistency across agreements; suggestion of standardized curriculum to be counter-countered proposed by four-year institutions; President Mercer to meet with community college presidents to work out agreement issues; problems might be at upper level courses rather than at general education levels.
C. Stigma of UMDMJ scandal and its impact on view of higher education: President Mercer is a member of the accountability task force that is reviewing possible business models for funding colleges; Rutgers’ highly visible and vocal complaints over budget cuts does not help statewide view of higher ed at the Governors level.
D. Courting legislators at the local and federal level: on the whole they are sympathetic to higher education and have attempted to restore cuts as best they can; community colleges still have a better pull with legislators because of their impact on serving a wider community base.
E. What is the Governor’s position or opinion on higher educaiton? If/when the budget improves it is unlikely that base state support would not increase; property taxes and other tax issues are a higher priority for the Governor.; it is to easy for students to be expected to keep paying higher tuitions in order to offset costs.
Issues for consideration:
1. Flex Units: need to be clearly defined; and explained as to how they can be used needs to be clarified; what is the dean’s input? [See Statement on the Award of Flex Units from Dean’s Council]
Brief background of flex units provided by Susan Eisner: the purpose of the flex unit was to level the playing field and support scholarly endeavors. Questions arose regarding extraordinary work such as convenorships and all-college service, compensation, and a need for transparency and equality. The dean’s want control of the flex unit to be at the unit level, which may exclude college-wide service. There are also concerns over the suggested Strategic Planning Task Force and the proposed Constituent Assembly stretching the faculty to thin. The flex unit was supposedly a budget issue that impacted the adjunct rate. Union input and various interpretations further clouded the definition. What is needed is an agreed upon definition and clarification of what can/can’t be counted as a flex unit. Originally the decision was supposed to be at the convening group level and not at the dean level. The previous Provost kept bringing up concerns regarding the adjunct rate which needs to be tracked in order to make a data driven decision.
Work on external grants by necessity needs release time but wWhat else constitutes as scholarship under the flex unit? Faculty life-spans and varying expectations of scholarship and administrative duties for younger/newer faculty should also be consideredare also concerns. What ratio of full-time faculty to adjuncts are teaching classes? The dean’s statement on flex units suggests that individual schools need to define scholarship among themselves. There still needs to be a common understanding on what constitutes scholarship within each school or if not scholarship, what other duties can be counted towards the flex unit?
Provost Barnett brought up the wording of “reassigned time” (rather than “release time”) for work on grants. The Provost’s Office is working on a list for current reassigned time that is under review by deans. Currently there is an over estimated number of reassignments but Provost Barnett will honor commitments that were made under Provost Pfieffer for at least this academic year. The institution is aiming for 75 % of courses to be taught by full-time faculty. The impact of CEP will need to be considered at a later date. Flex for grant work (external vs internal) and service was discussed.
Grant work equaled only one reassigned unit per faculty member with program planning at the unit level. Separately budgeted research was brought up since the committee now only awards summer stipends, which brings up the internal vs. external grant work question. The flex unit was originally proposed as an accounting scheme. The deans need input into faculty development and should have some say in the approval procedure according to Provost Barnett. The original language of the flex unit said deans had the power to solve disputes and were to review the final report but not part of the approval process. Convening groups were supposed to make the decision. Current goal is to minimize the bureaucracy as much as possible and establish criteria for the flex unit. What are the priorities vs. what can’t be done?
President Mercer’s response: from the trustees view the flex unit gave faculty less to do when in reality it was a reallocation method for enrichment of the curriculum and a redeployment of resources within each unit. What about at the all-college level? What is deserving of reward? Scholarship vs. administrative work depends on where individual may be within the faculty life-span.
[Additional information provided by Provost Barnett] According to the Unit Plan Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding between AFT Local 2274 and Ramapo College, "Specific flex unit activities and responsibilities will be proposed by the faculty member and the relevant convening group with the approval of the Unit Dean in accordance with a schedule determined by the Office of the Provost. Said Schedule shall be tied to the Academic Calendar. Proposed flex unit activities and responsibilities must further the goals and objectives of the Unit and Convening Group and be consistent with the Mission of the College."
2. Committees & task forces
There has been a concerted effort to reduce the workload of multiple committees. As an Eexamples are, the new Faculty Assembly Executive Council and a reduced full Faculty Assembly meeting schedule. There is a concern over the creation of new task forces and where will the work load will fall? The faculty have attempted to streamline the process and there is concern over who will be involved in these new endeavors. How will involvement be decided in terms of faculty representatives? The Constituent Assembly, where heads of units will be ex officio, should become a super executive council. The Strategic Planning Task Force will act as a sign-off mechanism but not for approval of academic programs. Faculty still has overview of the curriculum but the Constituent Assembly will be a forum for practical implementation questions. The Cabinet still has power to make decisions but the Assembly will review relevant information before a decision is made. The College needs a discussion forum to also hear the students and staff voices. Are there bodies already in existence that can pursue these considerations? The Strategic Planning Task Force is the top priority. FAEC suggests the Faculty Assembly President and a union representative should be on the Task Force. [Clarification of Constituent assembly and what its real purpose and jurisdiction are.] To much us vs. them, academic vs. administration mentality. From President Mercer’s memo: academic policy should read institutional policy (that which is not under the purview of the Board of Trustees). The make-up of membership counted the deans as faculty. Could the Strategic Planning Task Force morph into the Constituent Assembly? President Mercer doesn’t think so based on the time needed for each body to work. What will be the impact on the upcoming Middle States review? The intent of the Constituent Assembly is to get every “silo” to speak to each other. As an example: there was never any discussion on switching the focus of the campus from a commuter school to a residential school. This will also be an attempt to cut down on unilateral decision making.
3. Summer session & spring semester
Dr. Angela Cristini, Executive Director of Special Programs, has been reviewing summer programs and offerings but no official report has been submitted. The dissolution of the winter session is already impacting the spring semester and summer terms. Calendar issues: the spring semester starts 2 weeks earlier than beforewhat was originally agreed upon. What is the calendar approval process? Provost Barnett will look into this for a later meeting. Provost Barnett has met with Nancy Mackin & Peter Goetz on various ideas for the summer semester including a possible 3 week Maymester. This should be coming to the schools for overall unit discussion although nothing has been decided upon except the need for feedback on various ideas. Curriculum maps for completion of majors/programs should be reviewed by the units to see what might work for summer school. Question of how to attract an audience for using the campus over the summer? What about students from other institutions needing 3 credits? Targeting an audience, either internal or external, is also a question. Summer session will probably be more important to current students as the impact of CEP is reviewed. Charging per course vs. per credit was suggested for a later discussion. What is needed is unit input on the pros or cons of ideas for the summer session.
4. For our next meetings we plan to: build a common agenda with a number of issues to work on.
Adjourned at 11:02 am
Submitted by M. Sexton, September 13, 2006
Edited by M. Sexton, September 14, 2006