116th Meeting New Brunswick Faculty Council
December 20, 2002

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: 

  • A new initiative has been undertaken by the library employing Luna Insight. Software has been acquired by the library to create and maintain large databases of multiple images that can be used in teaching and research.  This project is typical of the new role that libraries are assuming and illustrates the new practice that libraries have in assisting in the creation and dissemination of information. Issues of copyright and collaborative development were discussed in connection with this project. 
  • Difficulties encountered by faculty, particularly junior faculty, in publishing work in monographs produced by university presses. Alternatives considered at the meeting included utilizing discipline specific publishing models that are faculty-based, e.g., professional society-based new journals that compete with commercial publishers. 

  • 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.
The second example was the response made to recommendations made by the Research Committee to ORSP to recruit a cadre of faculty from behavioral and social sciences to serve as liaisons between the Institutional Review Board and their departments on issues of the use of human subjects in research. Accordingly:
  • ORSP has obtained funding from NSF to develop a program (human subject 101) to communicate fundamental aspects of regulations and practices associated with using human subjects in research. Michael Breton or Karen Janes have agreed to present a report to the Council at a late Spring meeting concerning the utility of this new program.
  • The first meeting of the Liaison Committee was held on Dec. 17, 2002.  Council member S. Bhuyan, who is a member of the new committee, reported favorably on the first meeting, which was attended by 18 faculty from various behavioral and social science departments. A new course has been initiated, “Investigator 101”, that deals with basic principles of research with human subjects as well as a textbook was distributed to the 18 new members. 
B. Response to Report of the Commission on Health Science, Education and Training
  • The Council has developed a list of nominees from members of the Council that bring expertise to the issue working groups suggested in the Commission’s report. The list was developed initially by the Executive Cabinet and circulated subsequently to the general membership for review and suggestions. Several members volunteered to work on specific committees.  Feedback received indicated general approval of the list of nominees. The list will be submitted to VP Seneca and the Senate Executive Committee in connection with their plan of responding to further steps taken in the review and implementation committees being developed by the current task force composed of top administrators and governing bodies of NJ’s Public Universities.
  • A letter from governance bodies of the three New Jersey Public research universities (Rutgers, NJIT and UMDNJ) to Dr. Vagelos applauding Gov. McGreevy and the Commission on Health Science Education and Training on their vision of advancing NJ’s research universities into the top tier of such institutions has been cosigned by the Chair. The letter indicated that adequate, sustained and predictable funding to the next level of academic excellence be made available by the state independently of support to the University Hospital, and that major stake holders in higher education play a leading role in all stages of the restructuring. 
  • Executive Cabinet Members of the Council have served on the Senate Governance Committee that has developed a resolution asking that:
    • The University Working Groups on each campus include faculty, students and alumni in addition to administrators from each campus.
    • The Issue Working Groups, both local and system-wide similarly include faculty, students and alumni as well as administrators.
    • President McCormick immediately establish a Rutgers-wide Advisory Committee with representation of these stakeholders to assist in the establishing and staffing of the working groups. The advisory committee should have equal representation from each of the three current campuses.
F. Kauffman ended his report by thanking Joseph Seneca for the close and collegial relationship that he has established between the administration and the Council over the years that he has held the office of Vice President for Academic Affairs.His monthly administrative reports and active participation in discussions have become an important component of our meetings. All members of the Council deeply appreciate the collegial and productive interactions that we have had with Vice President Joseph Seneca.
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: 

  • Plans to listen intently to views of all stakeholders in the University in order to be a better advocate for Rutgers.
  • Interacting with governor and key legislators to establish personal and productive relationships on issues related to Rutgers.
  • Elaborated themes for his new administration which include: creating a culture of transparency and trust in which issues related to matters such as budget and other important issues to faculty are discussed in an open fashion; listening to and becoming aware of the entrepreneurial spirit that exists in local collages and departments of the University; devolution of decision making from Old Queens to separate campuses, faculties and deans.
  • Will enhance shared governance involving faculty, staff and students.

  • University Vice President for Academic Affairs, Joseph Seneca, will continue in his current role in the immediate future.
B. Report of the New Jersey Commission on Health Science, Education and Training.

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:


  • The planned merger could reduce impediments and provide significant opportunities for synergy between the medical school and University. He experienced such synergy between faculties in the medical school and faculties in bioengineering and arts and sciences participating in N.I.H.-sponsored Human Genome Centers at the University of Washington during his tenure as president.
  • Funding opportunities are expanded.
  • Enhanced opportunities for university students to participate in research.
  • New opportunities in knowledge-based innovated economies in the state would be fostered.

  • Specific opportunities related to the geographic locations of each of the three public research university campuses would emerge. 
Risks and Concerns
  • Complexity of structure.  Can benefits be achieved with a simpler structure?
  • Separation of Camden. Is this campus mature enough to endure as a completely independent campus?
  • Maintenance of cross-campus structures (e.g. library, computer networks) and programs (e.g. business, nursing, departmental collaborations).
  • Governance, i.e., a politicized system isolated from issues of the University. Essential to use the historic model of Board of Trustees with divided representation of 6 members appointed by governor and 5 members elected from University.
  • Funding.  All sources including state, federal and private need to be developed. Must assure that support of University Hospital does not occur at expense of university academic programs (a “firewall" needs to be developed). Competition for limited funding between three separate research universities a potential problem. Beginning of a compact with the State for restructuring needs to be established,e.g., via “good faith dollars” committed initially to launch process of restructuring. Governor is aware that dollars are required.
Comments, Questions and Answers

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