Members Present: R. Bell, S. Bhuyan, R. Boikess, R. Bumby, J. Burton, S. Carroll, J. Cassel, T. Chase, M.Cotter, D. Denhardt, A. Farmer, D. Fishman, S. Gifford, D. Gimenez, M. Gliserman, S. Golbeck, H. Hirsh, R. Hyman J. Junn, M. Kalelkar, F. Kauffman, J. Krenos, P. Leath, U. Linke, M. Matthewson, H. McGary, K. McKeever, J. Miklojcik, H. Mokros, C. Nanry, J. Niessen, P. Panayotatos, F. Popper, K. Scott, C. Sims, N. Sinha, B. Smith, J. Spector, C. Stevens, T. Szatrowski, M. Vodak, J. Walkup, C. Weibel, J. Worobey.
Also in Attendance: Elizabeth O’Connell Ganges and Paul
Herman, Brian Rose, University Vice President for Academic Affairs, Joseph
Seneca, and Rutgers University President, Richard McCormick.
|1.||Call to Order
F. Kauffman called the meeting to order at 1: 36 PM in Brower Commons ABC, College Avenue Campus.
|2.||Approval of the Agenda and Acceptance of the Minutes of the November
15, 2002 Meeting
The agenda and minutes of the November 15, 2002 minutes were approved.
|3.||Report of the Chair - Frederick C. Kauffman
At the request of F. Kauffman, Haym Hirsh announced the passing of Saul Amarel with a few brief words and a moment of silence.
F. Kauffman’s report included a summary of two new initiatives undertaken as the result of Council’s recommendations, and an update on the Council’s actions in response to the report of the New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education and Training.
A. New Initiatives
The first example was that the system-wide advisory committee for the library recommended by the Council held its first meeting on Dec.4, 2002. Some of the issues discussed at this meeting included:
The possibility of developing a new office tentatively titled “the Digital Publications Office”, coordinated under the office of the University Vice President for Academic Affairs.
|4.||Report of the University President - Richard McCormick
President McCormick began his report by indicating his pleasure at being able to attend the 116th meeting of the Faculty Council, a body which he played a key part in founding under the direction of Provost Paul Leath in 1989. He expressed his appreciation for the value of faculty governance and his pleasure at being able to attend the entire meeting of the Council. President McCormick’s report centered on his initial impressions of important issues, his vision of core goals of the University, and his perceptions of the report of the NJ Commission on Health Science, Education and Training.
A. Initial Impressions, Vision and Core Goals
President McCormick indicated that an early goal of his is to listen intently to faculty, students and alumni in order to accurately discern their sentiments and identify issues of importance in his role as chief advocate for the University. Some observations noted in his general remarks were the following:
University Vice President for Academic Affairs, Joseph Seneca, will continue in his current role in the immediate future.
President McCormick’s general impression was that the report presents a significant opportunity for the University to enhance its academic programs and advance into the upper tier of public research universities. He acknowledged that there were glaring deficiencies in the report concerning major academic programs that were not health science related. Specific details concerning these programs were obviously missing from the report. President McCormick felt that on balance, the opportunities presented in the report outweighed its deficiencies. The report identifies underfunding of the University as an important issue. He remarked that the gross underfunding of Rutgers University given the population density and wealth of New Jersey is not completely understood. He indicated that multiple complexities abound in the report that will have to be dealt with as the process of evaluating the Commission’s report proceeds. He also emphasized that those involved in the work of the University, i.e. faculty, need to be involved in the various university committees and working groups to be established in evaluating and implementing the commission’s report. He concurred that conclusions reported in the initial response of the New Brunswick Faculty Council were “right on the money”. Finally, President McCormick indicated that his visions and goals for the university are what ultimately matter in the process of restructuring the University. Some further comments regarding benefits and risks associated with suggestions put forth in the Commission’s report are the following:
Specific opportunities related to the geographic locations of each of the three public research university campuses would emerge.
R. Boikess asked what planned merger and restructuring would do to Rutgers admission to the AAU in 1989. R.M. indicated that he expected Rutger’s New Brunswick ranking not to be affected significantly. Boikess also asked if financing could be achieved through issuing bonds.
P. Leath commented that a simplified structure of some sort with a chancellor as a voice for the university in Trenton would be useful. Leath also suggested that the establishment of an “excellence fund”, as existed during the Blaustein administration might be a good use of initial funds supplied by the state in connection with restructuring.
Several members commented that business education is necessary on the New Brunswick Campus.
D. Fishman indicated that it would be useful to establish a process for orchestrating and implementing restructuring. This process should be transparent and open. Establishing a website open to all would facilitate this process. R.M. agreed with this comment and added that a steering committee with various working committees was being established and that he would be Rutger’s main spokesperson on the committee.
M. Cotter expressed concern for the hazard of a politically appointed Chancellor in Trenton removed from the affairs of the university.
H. Hirsh expressed satisfaction at hearing R.M.'s comments and expressed hope that interaction of the steering committee with the Faculty Council would continue. R.M. indicated that discussions concerning restructuring were quite flexible and moving slowly. RM indicated that continued interaction with Council would occur.
R. Bumby expressed concern that what UMDNJ has to offer was of little relevance to undergraduate education.
Programs in the business school in Newark and New Brunswick are interacting with business in N.J. and are establishing new corporate liaisons. There was no strict dividing line delineating geographic areas that programs in Newark and New Brunswick were establishing. R.M. indicated that Commission’s report encourages the development of entrepreneurial interactions and that it would be foolish to sever collaborations already established.
John Burton asked about commitment to collegiate athletics in connection with the two year reappointment of Greg Schiano. RM indicated that he had met with Robert Mulcahy and indicated that he and Mulcahy were on the “same page” in terms of the University’s Athletic Program which were to: 1) emphasize academic success, 2) insure integrity of the academic program, 3) have self-supporting athletic teams, and 4) success on the field.
In response to a question by C. Sims concerning the proportion of part time lecturers and tenured faculty at U.N.C and the Univ. of Washington., RM indicated that a higher proportion of tenure track faculty than PTLs were engaged in teaching at these two institutions compared to Rutgers, and recognized that these patterns reflected budgetary pressures.
R. Bell argued that separate geographic centers of excellence on specific campuses serving other locations in the state may be desirable and necessary to avoiding duplication across the state.
H Hirsh asked on what time frame did RM see the evaluation and planning
for restructuring to occur. RM indicated that work of the steering committee
would take at least a year, with some idea of the structure being known
within the first quarter of 2003.
|5.||Interim Report of the Academic Standards and Regulations Committee,
“Review and Analysis of Rutgers Existing Policy on Academic Integrity”-
John Krenos and Brian Rose, Director Compliance and Student Policy Concerns
John Krenos summarized the charge to his committee on academic integrity and introduced Brian Rose, Director of Compliance and Student Policy Concerns, who reviewed the current policy at Rutgers. A draft of Mr. Rose’s review and analysis of the existing policy on academic integrity was distributed to members in attendance. The full policy is available at http://teachx.rutgers.edu/integrity . Briefly, the policy is aimed at preventing academic dishonesty by students, and when necessary dealing with it when it occurs. The policy defines conduct that is dishonest and defines four levels of infringement. Levels one and two are mild infringements and are dealt with at the collegiate level. Levels three and four are severe acts of dishonesty and are adjudicated at the university level. Faculty and student acceptance of the policy and adjudicating cases of infringement was identified as a major problem. The pervasive incidence (80-85%) of academic dishonesty among high school students is a serious impediment to instilling a code of academic integrity among students entering universities. Mr. Rose raised the question of whether the current policy is the right process to resolve issues of academic integrity. He indicated that the ultimate goal of an effective policy is to promote academic integrity.
The general sentiment of discussion that followed Mr. Rose’s presentation
centered on establishing best practices among various colleges and departments
that minimized academic dishonesty and promoted academic integrity. Estimates
of the magnitude of incidents of academic dishonesty at Rutgers were alarming
and there is an urgent need to educate incoming students on the value of
academic integrity and to enhance means of dealing with infringements.
|6.||Interim Report of the Budget and Planning Committee on the.Physical
Master Plan - Martha Cotter
M. Cotter distributed a summary of the Physical Master Plan to the membership, but because of limited time remaining, agreed to delay her report to a later meeting.
|7.||New Business, Suggestions for PFAC – Paul Panayotatos
Items suggested included: the “Vagelos” report, restructuring the administration, revisiting undergraduate education, composition of the administration team for contract negotiations, erosion of faculty governance, erosion of departmental budgets, deferred maintenance, and the ongoing schedule of PFAC meetings.
|8.||Old Business - None
|9.||Adjournment - 3:35 PM|