Minutes
114th Meeting of the New Brunswick Faculty Council
October 25, 2002


Members Present: L.Bethel, S. Bhuyan, P. Bruner, R. Bumby, J. Burton, S. Carroll, T. Chase, M.Cotter, D. Denhardt, D. Fishman, S. Hansell, J. Haviland, H. Hirsh, R. Hyman, F. Kauffman, K. McKeever, J. Kokini, J. Krenos, J. Miklojcik, Jane Miller, H. Mokros, C. Nanry, J. Niessen, D. O’Connor, P. Panayotatos, F. Popper, R. Reid, A. Rogers Farmer, K. Scott, M. Siewierski, C. Sims, B. Smith, J. Spector, C. Stevens T. Szatrowski, J. Walkup, C. Weibel, J. Worobey, E. Zambraski

Also attending: University Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Joseph Seneca; Tim Casey for Executive Dean Adelaja of Cook College.
 
1. Call to Order-  F. Kauffman called the meeting to order at 1: 40PM in Brower Commons Rms ABC, College Avenue Campus.
 
2. Approval of the Agenda and Acceptance of the Minutes of the September 20, 2002 Meeting.  The Agenda and Minutes of the meeting of September 20, 2002 were approved with these corrections: S. Carrol added to attendance. Retract the first response from VP Seneca under Questions and Answers. This was a question from the floor and not a statement by VP Seneca.
 
3. Report of the Chair – Frederick C. Kauffman

   F. Kauffman welcomed all members and guests to the 114th NBFC meeting. New members present, P. Bruner, J. Miller, F. Popper, and C. Stevens, stood and introduced themselves. F. Kauffman expressed enthusiasm over the news that Richard L. McCormick had accepted the Board of Governers’ offer and would be appointed the 19th President of Rutgers University on Dec. 1, 2002.  Members who had not selected a committee to serve on were asked to do so or be assigned to a committee by the Chair.  He announced that the meeting with representatives from the firm of Ayers, Saint and Gross, and representatives of Facilities Management to discuss the Physical Master Plan would be rescheduled.

   He closed his report by asking P.Panayotatos to make a few remarks in tribute to member Richard Pelz, who died tragically as a result of complications during cardiac surgery since the last meeting of the Council. 
 

4. Report of the University Vice-President for Academic Affairs - Joseph Seneca:

    V. P. Seneca opened his report by indicating his pleasure that  Richard L. McCormick, had  been chosen as the University’s next president. He indicated that the next president had deep roots in New Jersey, and that the McCormick name is part of Rutger’s history.   He indicated that R.L. McCormick had a strong commitment to academic excellence and a loyalty to Rutgers University.

Report of the New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education and Training
   V.P. Seneca indicated that the report provides an important opportunity for higher education that has not arisen for some time.  He noted that it is very encouraging to have the attention of a governor who is voicing public support for higher education and academic excellence in New Jersey. He raised the possibility that it is not unrealistic for the University to follow development trajectories similar to those followed by universities such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Berkeley. He indicated the importance of responding to the document in relation to budgetary shortfalls the University has experienced (e.g. 7% declines in state support and an increase of 18 million dollars required for salary increases in the current fiscal year).   He indicated the importance of appointing a new president, who will bring strong leadership to the University, at a time associated with evaluating and responding to the issues raised in the Commission’s report.

Questions and Answers:
    P. Panayotatos pointed out that R.L.  McCormick understood the need for faculty to be heard. 
D. Fishman asked what measures would be taken to foster faculty input and participation in evaluation and implementation of decisions emanating from consideration of the Commission’s report.  V.P. Seneca responded that wide faculty involvement would be sought.
.

5. Graduate and Professional Education Policy Committee Report on Enhancement of TA Training and Supervision – Henrik Pedersen

   Professor Pedersen reported that the Committee on Graduate and Professional Educational Policy met with staff of the English as a Second Language Program and various deans in New Brunswick during the 2001/02 academic year to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced TA training and ESL preparation of graduate student instructors made possible by funds awarded by V.P. Seneca.   Prof. Pedersen reviewed the committee’s findings regarding the utility of  a standardized 20 minute test (SPEAK) to evaluate proficiency in communicating in English and identifying students needing further ESL courses.  The committee also evaluated ESL courses made available to international TAS.  These enhanced resources have enabled classroom time to be increased by 50% and have permitted  future TAs to be included in these classes.  Since these enhancements were only implemented in the Spring 2002 term, the committee recommended that the effectiveness of these resources in enhancing TA training be re-examined in the 2002/03 academic year.

     He indicated that funds were also made available, on a competitive basis, to supplement the salaries of head TAs ($1500), and research funds ($1000) of faculty coordinators monitoring, training and supervising TAs.  Monies awarded for this first year of the program were distributed to 16 programs that had applied.   A major concern expressed by the committee was that the funds available for this aspect of  enhancing TA training and supervision were too restrictive. 

   Based on the finding presented in the report, the Committee made the following recommendations:
1. Continue to examine the effectiveness of enhancements in ESL testing and education, and TA training and report to the full council at the end of the 2002/03 academic year.
2. Make resources available to enhance TA training more flexible, and more broadly available on campus.
3. Organize a best-practices session of graduate and undergraduate program directors to share the results of new initiatives in discipline-specific TA training at the end of the 2002/03 year.
4. Identify resources to extend training in instruction and  ESL testing to PTLs who are graduate students.
5. Identify resources to increase the number of TAs, as recommended in many previous reports.

   The Faculty Council voted unanimously to approve and accept the Committee’s report, a full copy of which is posted at http://nbfc.rutgers.edu/TATraining.htm
 

6. PFAC Report – Paul Panayotatos

   Prof. Panayotatos reported that the meeting with President Lawrence was scheduled  a week after he announced that he was stepping down. No meeting with Dr. Samuals had been scheduled. P. Panayotatos plans to arrange a meeting of the PFAC with R.L McCormick, through the UPVAA, as soon as possible to convey the faculty’s concerns and to keep the  PFAC visible. 

   A question was raised concerning the nature of the “PFAC”.  P. Panayotatos indicated that the President's Faculty Advisory Committee consists of 3 NBFC representatives, 3 Newark Council members , and 3 Camden Senate members, who  meet with the  President three or four times a year. Also in attendance are the University Vice President for Academic Affairs, and the two Provosts. The faculty supplies one agenda and the Administration another and the two are merged.  In the past, exchanges have been frank and occasionally off the record.
 

7. New Business- Discussion of the Report of the New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education and Training – Martha Cotter

    In response to V.P. Seneca’s request to the Council for its reaction to the Commission’s Report, the NBFC Executive Cabinet drafted a response to serve as a stimulus to discussion.  M. Cotter read a copy of this draft to the Council and asked for comments and concerns. She indicated that M. Gliserman had sent a response from the English Dept.  R. Bell, on leave at the Univ. of Colorado, had also sent his input.  Both of these responses had elements that overlapped with what was presented in the draft of EC response, and brought up during the following discussion by the Council.

   Major points of agreement in the discussion that followed were:

  • Adequate funding is essential to any structural change in the University that is ultimately adopted.
  • The review and implementation process needs to move forward with careful deliberation involving all stakeholders.
  • Aside from a few selected faculty members, faculty at Rutgers had not been consulted by the Commission during development of the report.
  • Faculty members at Rutgers need to be involved intimately in the evaluation and implementation of planned restructuring of the University;  for example, chairing and serving as members on suggested committees and issue working groups.
  • Split may be reasonable for the New Brunswick and Newark Campuses, but questionable for the  Camden Campus.
  • The proposed plan does not deal with question of maintaining shared resources and infrastructure, e.g., library, electronic networks.
  • The proposed plan does not deal with units and programs that operate on more than one campus or, in some cases, throughout the state.
  • It is premature to endorse the proposed restructuring until the its projected impact on all university programs and services, not just those related to health, has been evaluated.
  • The proposed new structure could leave the research university(ies) considerably more vulnerable to political pressure than Rutgers is now.
   A motion by T. Szatrowski against the split of the three campuses was tabled.  However, substantial support was voiced for the idea that , it would be better to merge Rutgers, UMDNJ, and NJIT into a one-university, three-campus system with one president and three campus provosts, rather than into a three-university system with a chancellor and three presidents.

    D. Fishman suggested that the response from the Council should be organized around the following three points:
1. Funding
2. Structure
3. Faculty Input

   It was finally agreed that M. Cotter would revise the draft response based on the discussion and circulate it to all Council members for their comments, after approval by the Executive Cabinet and Budget and Planning Committee.
 

8. Old Business – none
.
9. Adjournment:  Meeting adjourned at 3:34 PM.