Minutes
113th New Brunswick Faculty Council Meeting

September 20, 2002


Members Present: R. Bumby, J. Burton, M. Cotter, D. Fishman, M. Gliserman, S. Hansell, J. Haviland, H. Hirsh, R. Hyman, F. Kauffman, P. Leath, J. Matthewson, H. McGary, J. Miklojcik, H. Mokros, C. Nanry, J. Niessen, D. O 'Connor, P. Panayotatos, H. Pederson, R. Reid, A. Rogers Farmer, K. Scott, J. Seneca, M. Siewierski, C.Sims, N. Sinha, B. Smith, T. Szatrowski, M. Vodak, A. Walker Andrews, J. Walkup, J. Worobey, E. Zambraski
 
Also in Attendance:  Vice-President for Academic Affairs Joseph Seneca, University Librarian Marianne Gaunt, Assistant University Councils Frances Loren and Beckman Rich
 
 
1. Call to Order
F. Kauffman called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM in Brower Commons ABC, College
Avenue Campus. 
 
2. Approval of the Agenda and Acceptance of the Minutes of the May 10, 2002 Meeting.
The Agenda and minutes of the May 10, 2002, with no changes, were approved unanimously.

3. Report of the Chair - Frederick C. Kauffman
F. Kauffman welcomed all members to the 2002-2003 session of the Council and asked that all new and continuing members to stand and briefly introduce themselves and the units that they represented.
 
Announcements:
  • As of September 20, 20 new members had been elected to the Council.   
  • Important continuing and new issues that the council would be dealing with in the 2002/2003 term are:
 1. Fostering the adoption of the Revised Copyright Policy, developed by the University wide Copyright Steering Committee chaired by University Librarian Marianne Gaunt and Professor Robert Wood.
2. Working with the University administration and the firm of Ayers Saint Gross in developing a Physical Master Plan for space construction and renovations of the New Brunswick and Piscataway campuses that will address aesthetic and environmental issues. A representative of ASG plans to meet with the Council at the next meeting scheduled on October 25, 2002.
3. Provide input and assistance with the recruitment and inauguration of a new president of the University.
F. Kauffman concluded his report by thanking M. Cotter for her leadership of the Council as past chair, and expressed his appreciation for her collegiality and generosity of time in helping him assume the responsibilities of chairing the Council, and mastering the intricacies of maintaining the NBFC web site.

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

Vice-President Seneca began his report by expressing pleasure to participate with faculty colleagues in shared governance at the beginning of the 2002-2003 academic year.  He asked that members of the Council celebrate and reflect on the inauguration of the undergraduate class of 2006.

Follow-up on Master Plan
VP Seneca asked the Council to become involved with the physical master planning process for the New Brunswick and Piscataway campuses.   An architectural firm, Ayers Saint and Gross, has assessed the University's current space and projected space needs to the year 2011. They have also compared Rutger's space with that established by national guidelines.  Details of this report will be shared with the Council at the October 25, 2002, meeting.   He mentioned that a goal of the process is to establish a pattern of new development of transportation, landscaping and architecture.    The focus of work for the Council would be on issues related to the New Brunswick and Piscataway campuses. The architectural firm seeks faculty input and opinions on issues related to the physical master planning process.

Copyright Policy      
VP Seneca thanked the council for its good will in working with the University-wide Copyright Committee to adopt the revised copyright policy, which has been actively considered over the past two years.   He emphasized that the document under development is to serve the entire university community and is aimed at fostering the free exchange of scholarship and research.  He commented on the autonomous development of software.

Enrollment Statistics:
Latest figures indicate that undergraduate enrollment is 28,557, which is down 347 (1%) from last year.   Graduate enrollment is up by 683, 10% increase from last year.   He mentioned that he would have an official statement of enrollment figures at specific campuses at next council meeting in October.

Early Retirement  
Over 400 took advantage of the package and of this number 100 were faculty.   This contrasts with a normal year in which there are usually 50 retirements.  He indicated that the basic core of university faculty lines will be retained and that   100% of the positions vacated by faculty who have retired under the early retirement incentive will be replaced.   The university is obliged to pay faculty incentives for three years, after which salary dollars would ultimately return to lines.
 
Funding
VP Seneca indicated that the previous year had been good with a total 0f $242,000,000 in grants and contracts obtained, which is up by 15% compared to the previous year.   The Capital Campaign has raised $425,000,000 to date, which is 85% of the goal of $500,000,000.  Based on this figure, he anticipates meeting the goal, and possibly exceeding the goal by $100 million, by the end of this academic year, for this campaign .  It is not unrealistic to plan $1 billion as the goal for the next campaign.

Prospects for the future
VP Seneca raised the point that the future is uncertain.   The Only certainty is uncertainty.   Unknown what September 20, 2003 would be like. Factors shaping the future would be the recruitment of a new university president, content and impact of the report of the Commission on Health Science, Education and Teaching chaired by R. Vagelos, and the university budget in an era of falling state revenues. He underscored the importance of the faculty to remain focused on the core values and mission of the university.

Question and Answer Period

 In response to questions from the floor, VP Seneca made the following points:
  • A question was raised concerning what response, if any, RU was taking about the possibility that UMDNJ is hiring a consultant paid $100, 000 to fight the proposed merger of UMDNJ with Rutgers and NJIT. VP Seneca indicated that he had not seen much from Rutgers or UMDNJ concerning this question. That although the proposed merger would have marked fiscal and structural implications, the Board of Governors had not taken a position on the issue of merging UMDNJ with Rutgers. 
  • Recommendations of the Commission were being rapidly assembled and that he expected there release in a month if not sooner.
   
5. Report of University Librarian on the Draft Copyright Policy - Marianne Gaunt

M. Gaunt thanked the Council’s Library Committee for their careful review of the draft Copy Write Policy and for their comments and recommendations made in their report of May 10, 2002 ( http://nbfc.rutgers.edu/CopyrightRpt.htm ).  She indicated that the Copyright Committee had carefully studied copyright policies of other universities including Stanford and Colombia, and that what is being proposed in Rutgers policy is not unique. She mentioned that the small drafting committee had met over the summer and had arrived at the following three points: (1) the Library Committee had been persuasive in their recommendations, (2) certain language and terminology would be clarified, and (3) that legitimate differences of opinion existed, which would be addressed in a formal response to the Council. Much of Librarian Gaunt’s address was directed at describing the process, which would be followed in having the proposed copyright policy reviewed by the broader university community prior to presentation to the University Senate and administration for adoption in Spring 2003. The basic process presented by M. Gaunt is summarized below:  
 
The small drafting committee had reviewed their report and made some changes in the draft based on comment from the NBFC Library Committee.   She noted that the full Copyright Committee would be given the revised draft for review within a few weeks. Following full committee agreement, the draft would go on the Libraries web site for individual comment, it would be accompanied by an FAQ giving some background and some examples in areas that are likely to be difficult to understand, and the context document.   Additionally, the co-chairs of the Copyright Committee, and any other interested members of the committee, would meet with groups on each campus that wished to discuss the report. This would last through the semester. Comments that would affect changing the draft would be incorporated into a "final" draft, approved by the full committee and sent to Senate at the beginning of the second semester for approval.

Question and Answer Period
  • D. O’Connor raised a point of information concerning any rough estimate of base line of potential dollar value and ownership of copyright material covered in proposed policy.
    • University Associate Lawyer B. Rich responded that the exact value of copyright material is difficult to establish. The copyright policy is primarily about protecting academic freedom, with the primary goal of preserving intellectual property rights.   The Copyright Policy Committee has been working to bring the current policy into the main steam of current university copyright policies.
  • Questions concerning filling requirements and definitions of academic freedom were raised and responded to:
    • M. Gaunt:  There are no changes in filing requirements. Faculty members within the University get copyright forms from the publisher and can confer with university lawyers should there be areas requiring clarification. With traditional publishers, faculty retain ownership.   Faculty members also retain the right to self archive.
    • P. Panyatotos suggested that a ready made copyright form be available from the University and  substitute for what is required.
  • Questions concerning the use of University patent policy as a template for copyrigh were raised and responded to:
    • M. Gaunt: The University generally does not claim ownership in the case of copyright policy University interest may generate a revenue stream. Patent policies have been around for a long time but are not applicable to copyright material.   Patent policy cannot be used as a default policy.
    • B. Rich: Patents are used externally - 100/year – awarding of patents is rare. In terms of copyright, the University does not claim ownership; the University claims the right to elect ownership.   There is a significant difference between these two.
    • T. Szatrowski suggested that it would be useful to identify items that are particularly valuable in terms of university interest.
Concluding Comments:
 
M. Cotter requested a broad estimate of which recommendations made by the Library Committee would be incorporated into Copyright policy.   She understood that patent policy would not be used as default copyright policy, but. requested further clarification of items, the creation of which, involves substantial use of university resources, e.g., certain types of software, packaged courses, laboratory manuals, videotapes, release time for course development.
   
D. O’Connor indicated that he remained concerned about liability issues and academic freedom.
 
M. Gaunt noted that the proposed copyright policy review committee would be a resource that individuals may go to for advice.

6. Academic Services Committee Interim Report on Survey of Advising Systems in the Undergraduate Colleges ( http://nbfc.rutgers.edu/InterimAdvisingRpt.htm )  - Charles Sim

C. Sims indicated the committee’s report on the state of undergraduate advising was prepared in connection with one of three charges received last year.   In his overview of the report he indicated that there are major impediments to developing efficient and effective means of advising students, e.g., difficulty in communicating with students via common modalities such as post or e-mail, lack of consensus of faculty responsibility in advising students).   In preparing the report, the committee met with officials in the Admissions Office, Deans, and faculty representatives from various constituencies. The committee did not feel that it was not yet ready to respond fully to the charge to make suggestions for improving the advising system and increasing faculty involvement in the process.   Two recommendations were made in this interim report: first, to continue to study advising during the 02/03 year, and, second, to request that V.P. Seneca appoint a committee to review the technical, financial and procedural feasibility of implementing software to provide deans, advisors and students accurate and timely information concerning students’ progress toward their degrees.   The latter suggestion was expressed in terms of a resolution to be considered by the council.
           
Comments from Members in Attendance:
There was a general consensus that acquisition of software that tracked students’ progress toward degrees would be very beneficial.  In line with this goal, it was learned that Registrar K. Iuso plans to acquire software this semester to track student’s progress. V.P. Seneca indicated his strong support for the acquisition and implementation for this software.
 
There was also general sentiment that a “one size fits all” mode of advising system could not be applied to the New Brunswick campus. A number of suggestions were made indicating best practices for some departments, e.g. Physics appoints a single person to be in charge of advising, and offers incentives such as salary increases and release time from course work as rewards for advising

There was a general consensus that the committee should work on identifying best practices in advising and develop recommendations based on this.

7. Graduate and Professional Educational Policy Committee Report on Enhancement ofTA Training and Supervision - Henrick Pedersen

A motion was presented to adjourn due to late time (3:30 PM) and absence of members who had left the meeting. Professor H.  Pedersen agreed to present the report of his committee at the next meeting of the Council on Oct 25, 2002.

8. Old Business
Martha Cotter agreed to continue to update the website. 
 
9. New Business
Kathy Scott has agreed to be the Parliamentarian.
 
10. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 3:35 PM.