Meeting Minutes #275
Members Present: Alexander Pichugin, Alisa Belzer, Alvaro Toledo, Ana Pairet, Andrew Baker, Anna Haley, Bret McCandless, Cara Cuite, Daijiro Okada, Dave Smith, Dilafruz Nazarova, David Kryscynski, Ed Cohen, Edward P. DeMauro, Francis Ryan, Francois Berthiaume, G. Tony Bell, Glenn Amatucci, Hanan Kashou, Heather Moulton, Heather Pierce, J. Sophia Fu, Janice Gobert, Jehan Mohamed, Jennifer Shukaitis, Jessey Choo, Jing Jin, Justin Kalef, Kaysha Corinealdi, Kemal Gursoy, Kenneth McKeever, Khadijah Costley White, Kraig Williams, Kristin O'Brassill-Kulfan, Laura White, Lei Yu, Luis Soto, Marci Meixler, Meenakshi Dutt, Michele Bakacs, Miranda Lichtenstein, Narayan Mandayam, Rebecca Reynolds, Rebecca Biebel, Rob Isenhower, Sanjib Bhuyan, Santiago Cuesta, Silke Severmann, Sue Shapses, Thomas Figueira, Tim Power, Tom Davis, Tom Stephens, Triveni Kuchi, Xenia Morin, Jeffey Zahn.
Non-Members Present: Wendie Cohick, Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor for Research, Rutgers New Brunswick; Jackson Lockhart, Parliamentarian.
1. Call to Order and Welcome Statements:
Chair Anna Haley called the meeting to order at 1:12 PM and opened with a set of technological and logistical housekeeping notes. She informed members that Microsoft Teams had recently updated its interface: the “Files” tab was now labeled “Shared,” which still houses all committee documents and introduces improved search capabilities across posts and materials. The Chair noted this would help members navigate resources more efficiently.
Chair Haley also greeted the Council from Madison, Wisconsin, where she was attending the Big Ten Academic Alliance Senate Leadership Conference. She briefly described the session she had just left on “effective communication by shared governance entities,” noting she hoped to integrate insights into upcoming Council communication planning.
The Chair then reflected on the recent NBFC open houses held earlier in the week. These sessions aimed to give faculty an informal space to raise concerns, better understand the Council’s internal processes, and help identify future council priorities. She acknowledged that not all members could attend but expressed appreciation for those who did.
Chair Haley then turned to the status of communication planning within the Council. She explained that the Executive Committee was considering piloting a Council newsletter to help faculty summarize key activities, decisions, and resources. She invited members to assist with developing communication strategies—such as op-ed writing or outreach initiatives—and said a call for volunteers would be distributed.
Finally, she reminded the Council that this was the final full council meeting of the term, with the next full meeting scheduled for January 30, 2026. She encouraged members to participate in the in-person Fall Social, to be held on Thursday, December 4, 5–7 PM at Pino’s in Highland Park.
2. Chair’s Statement Preempting Committee Reports:
Chair Haley opened by situating the meeting in the broader context of ongoing governance work across Rutgers. She referenced the Chancellor’s office coordinating multiple shared-governance-related committees and noted that NBFC members were serving on several of them. She emphasized the importance of transparent communication among governance bodies, particularly given escalated concerns regarding academic freedom, public expression, research strategy, and institutional response structures.
Haley also described the emerging need to organize Council-level discussions surrounding faculty safety, academic freedom, and institutional responsibility in the aftermath of the Mark Bray incident, which had generated significant movement among governance groups and faculty stakeholders. She indicated that these concerns would be addressed later in the meeting through updates from both the committee chairs and the Ad Hoc Response Committee.
3. Committee Reports
The Chair then opened the floor to standing committee reports, calling on committees in the order in which they appeared in the transcript.
A. Budget, Planning, and Infrastructure Committee (BPI)
Report delivered by Co-Chair Anne McPherson
Co-Chair Anne McPherson opened the committee reports by updating the Council on BPI’s recent work. She explained that the committee met earlier that day and dedicated significant time to its collaboration with Senior Vice Chancellor for Finance Nalin Smith on the development of a comprehensive budget transparency primer. The committee is compiling a detailed set of faculty questions intended to guide the creation of a resource that clarifies university budgeting structures and practices. Their goal is to produce a tool that offers meaningful insight without duplicating information already available. The committee plans to finalize the question set and forward it to Dr. Smith’s office before the semester concludes.
McPherson then reported on the committee’s continued examination of university-wide IT systems, including platforms for course scheduling, graduate admissions, research administration, financial aid, and donor relations. The committee intends to meet with Chief Information Officer Michelle Noren and is collecting faculty feedback on persistent challenges and areas where IT systems fail to support academic work effectively. She encouraged Council members to share specific experiences, as these will shape the committee’s upcoming conversation with OIT.
She also briefed the Council on transportation and infrastructure updates arising from the committee’s meeting with Vice President of Business Services, Henry Xelez. These included the transition to a new campus bus service operator, scheduled for full implementation around July, and plans to expand EV charging station availability and electric vehicle usage within campus fleets. McPherson noted improving communication between BPI and Business Services and said the committee looks forward to hosting Vice President Xelez again in the spring.
B. Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee (FPA)
Report delivered by Chair Heather Pierce
Chair Heather Pierce reported that the Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee has been focused on the evolving role of lecturers and non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance. She noted that while contingent faculty now comprise roughly 70 percent of the national academic workforce, many governance structures were created decades ago and do not reflect current academic realities. As a result, lecturers often lack mechanisms to participate meaningfully in departmental decision-making.
Pierce explained that both NBFC and the University Senate are examining these issues, and her committee is working on proposals aimed at strengthening governance pathways for teaching faculty across departments. She acknowledged that several units are already reexamining their bylaws and offered to meet individually with any department seeking guidance as they consider structural reforms.
C. Student Affairs Committee
Report delivered by Chair Alisa Belzer
Professor Alisa Belzer, speaking as the primary co-chair for the fall, reported that the Student Affairs Committee is currently working in close collaboration with the Office of Student Affairs to help make student-support resources more visible and accessible to faculty and students. She explained that Student Affairs has created a one-page document summarizing the many services they offer. The committee reviewed this document earlier that morning and plans to provide feedback so the office can revise and finalize it.
Once the updated resource is completed, the committee intends to encourage faculty to distribute it widely, including embedding it in syllabi, posting it on Canvas course sites, or mentioning it in welcome materials. Belzer noted that many faculty—and students—are unaware of the range of available services, and that simply making the one-pager more visible could substantially increase student access to support.
Belzer also emphasized that the committee will draw on previous work by members Cara Cutie and Steph Freshia, who partnered with the Tyler Clementi Center to raise campus awareness about the Basic Needs Center. The committee hopes to build on their strategies for helping faculty understand available student resources and pass that information along effectively.
In addition, Belzer reported that she and co-chair Ana Pairet were asked to join a small group exploring the issue of students and free speech, which grew out of discussion at a prior Council meeting regarding the Council’s free speech document and concerns raised after the Mark Bray incident. The group is examining the tension between supporting students’ expressive rights and ensuring safety for faculty and other students.
Their first step, she said, is to gather information from the Office of Student Conduct about how conduct policies define harassment, threats, and doxing; what types of incidents that office is currently seeing; and where they perceive the most significant challenges. The committee has not yet determined what the ultimate goal of this work will be. Possibilities include amplifying messaging from administrative offices, clarifying protocols for faculty or students who feel threatened, or offering policy recommendations. Belzer emphasized that the focus is specifically on student conduct processes and faculty awareness of those policies.
She concluded by stating that the committee remains interested in the issue and plans to determine next steps after learning more from Student Conduct officials.
D. Athletics Affairs Committee
Report delivered by Chair Kenneth McKeever
Chair Ken McKeever gave the Athletics Affairs Committee report. He explained that the committee is paying close attention to ongoing budget pressures within athletics and how these constraints affect both the student-athlete experience and academic coordination. He shared that the committee recently met with the new Athletic Director and used the opportunity to raise longstanding concerns about communication, academic support systems, and the need for stronger alignment between Athletics and the academic mission of the university.
McKeever also discussed the committee’s attention to Rutgers’ role in the Big Ten Academic Alliance, noting that committee members are reviewing how conference-level academic initiatives intersect with the needs of student-athletes. Another topic of discussion has been the evaluation and acceptance of transfer credits, which can significantly influence student-athletes’ pathways to timely degree completion.
He added that the committee continues to monitor how athletic financial aid is awarded and communicated, emphasizing the importance of clarity and timeliness in assisting students. McKeever closed by acknowledging that the committee has open seats and encouraging faculty with interest in athletics governance or academic policy to reach out.
E. Academic Affairs Committee
Report delivered by Chair Xenia Morin
Chair Xenia Morin presented the report of the Academic Affairs Committee, explaining that the committee had recently welcomed several new members and continues to address a broad and interconnected range of academic issues. Morin noted that the committee’s charge is expansive and often overlaps with other committees, making collaboration essential.
She reported that the committee discussed multiple ongoing concerns, including staffing issues at the Honors College and the need for clearer communication and collaboration between Honors leadership and academic units. The committee agreed that greater transparency is needed regarding Honors College planning and procedures.
Morin also highlighted persistent challenges around disability accessibility, noting that both students and faculty with temporary conditions often struggle to obtain support through the university’s disability services processes. Committee members agreed that the issue required clearer institutional guidelines and earlier intervention by relevant offices.
The committee discussed ways to improve communication between language instructors and academic advisors, as instructors often lack access to advisors who can help advocate for appropriate placement and course sequencing for students studying world languages. Morin noted that this remains a significant barrier for departments.
She also described concerns about the university libraries, particularly staffing shortages and resource constraints that affect access and academic support. Members expressed that sustained investment is needed to reverse long-term erosion in library capacity.
The committee additionally discussed the impact of AI tools on academic integrity, while acknowledging that AI offers instructional benefits when used responsibly. Members discussed the importance of developing guidelines that balance innovation with integrity.
Finally, the committee reviewed issues related to academic freedom, reliability of student instructional surveys, and the implementation of a potential new General Studies School. Morin noted that the committee intends to coordinate with other NBFC committees where overlap occurs and will continue monitoring developments closely.
Before transitioning to the invited presentation, Ana Pairet raised the issue of free speech protections for non-citizens. She reported attending a forum titled Teaching in Changing Times and asked presenters whether free speech rights extend to individuals without U.S. citizenship. She noted the presenters were unable to provide clarity.
Chair Haley responded that the NBFC had requested an evaluation from the presenters of that forum. Faculty are encouraged to complete the feedback form. Additonally, General Counsel should be involved in developing future training sessions to ensure legal and procedural accuracy.
F. Reports from NBFC Representatives on the Chancellor’s Shared Governance Committees
1. Shared Governance Committee
Report delivered by NBFC representative Rob Isenhower
Rob Isenhower reported on the early activities of the Chancellor’s Shared Governance Committee, which held its first meeting on November 19. He explained that the committee’s charge remains broad and somewhat open-ended, and the group is currently working to determine which areas would benefit most from focused attention. Their goal is to identify one or two major priorities to pursue through coordinated data gathering and campus engagement.
Isenhower suggested that some of the committee’s work may overlap with issues explored by NBFC’s Student Affairs Committee, and he expressed hope for inter-committee dialogue to avoid duplication. He noted that he will be able to provide more concrete updates once the committee meets again.
2. Research and Innovation Committee
Report delivered by NBFC representative Janice Gobert
Professor Janice Gobert provided an update on the Chancellor’s Research and Innovation Committee, which will meet again on December 4. She stated that one major area of interest for the committee is the development of industry-based internships that would provide high-impact learning opportunities for students and facilitate partnerships with external organizations.
Gobert expressed some surprise that the committee had not been tasked with addressing technology transfer, a significant area of institutional growth and opportunity. She expressed hope that the committee might later broaden its scope or that the Council might consider raising the issue independently, given its importance for research productivity and institutional competitiveness.
G. Ad Hoc Federal Response Committee
Report delivered by NBFC representative Andrew Baker
Professor Andrew Baker began by referring members to documents already available in the Faculty Council’s Teams folder from both the October meeting and the current meeting. He explained that the Ad Hoc Response Committee had developed two sets of recommendations—one set on academic freedom, and another related to research—which were submitted to the Provost shortly after their last meeting. Although there had been an opportunity for additional comments from Council members, few were received, which Baker interpreted as a sign that the recommendations generally seemed reasonable to those who reviewed them.
He reported that the committee has a follow-up meeting with the Provost scheduled for next week to discuss those recommendations in more detail. Baker encouraged any members who may have missed the opportunity to comment to review the materials in the Teams folder. The documents are labeled with filenames beginning with “AHRC recs.”
Baker then noted that, in parallel with this formal recommendation process, Chair Haley has done substantial work following the Mark Bray situation discussed during the previous NBFC meeting. He explained that Haley’s efforts helped coordinate input from multiple shared governance bodies across the university, from the faculty union, and from faculty who had been targeted in prior incidents. These conversations centered on strengthening protocols for how the university should respond when faculty come under threat in future cases.
As a result of those wide-ranging discussions, Baker reported that a new consolidated document—titled “Academic Freedom / Free Expression Initiatives: For Input”—had been placed in the folder for the day’s meeting. This document gathers and organizes the suggestions and materials Haley has collected. The Ad Hoc Response Committee is reviewing it, but Baker stressed that it would benefit from broader Council input.
He explained that the new document expands upon earlier academic freedom discussions by offering a more fully developed framework for how university units should respond when faculty members are targeted or threatened, outlining clearer roles and expectations for different levels of administration.
Finally, Baker highlighted two additional items requiring support from outside the Ad Hoc Response Committee:
- The Academic Freedom Event Series, and
- The Academic Freedom Resource Hub.
The committee does not have the capacity or the specialized expertise to implement these initiatives alone. Baker explained that a call for volunteers—either Council members or recommended colleagues—would soon be circulated so the work can be taken up by a larger group.
Chair Haley closed the item by noting that there would also be upcoming needs related to research faculty involvement in university research strategy, and confirmed that additional opportunities for participation would be announced.
4. Presentation: Office of the Vice Provost & Vice Chancellor for Research
Chair Haley introduced Dr. Wendie Cohick, Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor for Research for New Brunswick, inviting her to give an overview of her office and discuss research-related challenges.
Dr. Cohick joined from Newark, where she was attending a meeting at the medical school. She explained that her office is relatively new in Rutgers’ institutional history. Its formation reflects Chancellor Conway’s prioritization of research and infrastructure development. The current environment—especially federal research uncertainty—makes strategic research support even more important.
Cohick described her team:
- Executive Director Shayla Borges Rogguro leads operational oversight and is an expert in research development, which the office aims to expand across New Brunswick.
- Two Leadership Faculty Fellows, Victoria Obrera and Kathy Newman, are working on issues related to centers and institutes.
- Undergraduate research development interns support office initiatives.
She emphasized that the office focuses on building capacity for proposal development, not just compliance. Cohick clarified Mike Zwick’s central office oversees grant submissions, compliance, and intellectual property across all four chancellor-led units (New Brunswick, Newark, Camden, Rutgers Health). Her office focuses specifically on New Brunswick research strategy, interdisciplinary partnerships, and resource allocation.
She highlighted robust communication structures:
- Monthly meetings with research deans, who disseminate information to chairs and departments.
- Regular meetings with Zwick and with the research leads from Camden, Newark, and Rutgers Health.
She encouraged faculty to raise concerns through their research deans or contact her directly.
Cohick described the office’s guiding values: Interdisciplinarity, Transparency, and Equity. These values shape resource distribution, interdisciplinary community development, and adaptation to federal policy disruptions. She presented Chancellor’s Signature Initiatives aligned with the Academic Master Plan, including:
- Rutgers Climate and Energy Institute (RCEI)
- Rutgers AI and Data Science Collaboratory (RAD)
- Life Sciences Collaboratory
- Behavioral and Health Equity Task Force
Each initiative supports cross-unit collaboration. Additional slides outlined:
- Building networks for research proposal support
Addressing the lack of centralized research development capacity in New Brunswick - Creating opportunities for faculty to pivot research agendas as funding landscapes change
Andrew Baker asked whether the office could share details about:
- How federal administrative changes are affecting Rutgers faculty
- The number of affected research grants, postdocs, graduate students, and staff
Cohick agreed that more communication is needed and said she and her team would determine the best way to disseminate that information.
Baker then asked whether “excellence” could be elevated to a co-equal guiding value alongside interdisciplinarity, transparency, and equity, noting concern that an overemphasis on interdisciplinarity might signal undervaluing disciplinary excellence.
Cohick engaged openly, acknowledging the feedback and indicating she would reflect on how the values are framed and communicated. Discussion briefly returned to the broader context of federal actions affecting academic environments and research agendas. Chair Haley thanked Dr. Cohick for her time and presentation. Cohick asked the Chair to relay any additional questions sent through NBFC email, as she could not see the Zoom chat during her talk.
5. Adjournment
Chair Haley adjourned the meeting at 2:47 PM without objection.