Meeting Minutes #264

Members Present: Jeff Zahn, Ted Szatrowski, Jessey Choo, Ralph Bowen, Anna Haley, Tom Stephens, Carmel Schrire, Jeremy Morgan, Sanjib Bhuyan, Francois Berthiaume, Peter J. Morrone, Glenn Amatucci, Francis Ryan, Ana Pairet Vinas, Thomas Figueira, Nikolaos Linardopoulos, John Evans, Eleanor LaPointe, Robert Boikess, Changlu Wang, Kenneth McKeever, Karen Thompson, Jennifer Shukaitis, Thomas Davis, Mariann Bischoff, Alisa Belzer, Lei Yu, Marci Meixler, Mei Ling Lo, Tuğrul Özel, Linda Oshin, Heather Pierce, Gary Rendsburg, David Kryscynski, Rafiq Huda, Ronnee Ades, Sue Shapses, F. Javier Diez, Anne McPherson, Dilafruz Nazarova, Crystal Akers, Alexander Pichugin, Ronnee Ades, Benjamin Paul
 

Non-Members Present: Francine Conway, New Brunswick Chancellor, Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chair Haley on Friday, March 29, 2024, at 1:10 pm via Zoom.

2.  Approval of the Agenda

The agenda was approved.

3.  Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 23, 2024

Chair Haley reminded everyone that the initial version of the minutes posted had an error, but it was corrected. The Council was notified when the corrected version was posted several days prior to the meeting. The minutes were then approved without objection.

4. Chair's Report – Anna Haley 

• Chair Haley began with an apology for the confusion that surrounded the handling of the discussion of the test optional resolution at the last meeting.
• She then announced that the teaching webinar on Artificial Intelligence (AI), which was to serve as a prelude to the teaching conference in the fall was canceled due to lack of time and the fact that several lectures on this topic were already happening around campus. It was decided to wait until the fall to prepare for a more in-depth event. Input from NBFC members is welcome.
• She then reminded NBFC members to stay tuned for the announcement of the date and location of the NBFC social event that is coming up in April.

• Finally, Chair Haley announced that two sets of Council elections would be held soon. The first will take place within the individual academic units for those positions whose current occupant's term is ending this academic year. Chair Haley and Chancellor Conway will contact the respective schools/departments. The second election will be for the NBFC officers that comprise the Executive Committee (EC). The elected members of the EC include the Chair, the Vice chair and the five other elected EC members. The Chair can serve a maximum of two consecutive one-year terms, while there are no restrictions on the number of one-year terms the Vice Chair and the other five EC members can serve. An email will be sent out shortly to the NBFC membership about the process and timeline for submitting self-nominations for one of the EC positions. This will be followed by an online vote.

  Open Discussion

• Martha Cotter, the NBFC Parliamentarian, offered her apologies about the incorrect use of Robert's Rules of Order at the last meeting. She clarified that for the test optional resolution, the proposed amendment to strike the first part of the resolution should have passed with a simple majority of the yes/no votes. (The abstentions should not have been counted). If someone feels strongly about deleting the paragraph in question, we could entertain a motion to amend the previously passed resolution. No one wished to do that, but it was agreed to add a footnote to indicate that an amendment to remove the first part of the resolution should have passed, but it was incorrectly determined that it had not passed at the time of the meeting.

5. Resolution on the Use of the GRE Test for Graduate Admissions (Presented by the Academic Affairs Committee)

Ted Szatrowski, Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, moved the resolution, which says that the decision whether or not to use the GRE should be left to the individual graduate programs. The ensuing discussion focused on some of the wording in the background section that portrays the GRE negatively, more specifically on the issue of bias. Glenn Amatucci argued that the GRE is useful for determining baseline competency and that the negative wording should be removed. Tom Figueira proposed an amendment to remove this language from the background. He subsequently said it would be justified doing so because we haven't done a study on the GRE and there are various opinions regarding the use of standardized tests.

At this point, discussion of the resolution was paused for the report of the Chancellor, who had just joined the meeting.

After the Chancellor's report was completed, discussion on the resolution resumed. The focus was on the amendment to remove a negative sentence in the background section about the GRE test, suggesting that it is biased and a poor predictor of success. Several NBFC members spoke in favor of removing that sentence because they were unfamiliar with the relevant research and because it was inconsistent with the resolution itself, which allowed programs to keep the GRE if they felt it was useful to them. Ultimately, this amendment passed with an overwhelming majority.

Discussion of the amended resolution then followed. Thomas Figueira said he supported the resolution. Tuğrul Özel said that he opposed it because the background suggested the GRE should not be used while the resolution said it should be up to the individual graduate programs to decide. Chair Haley pointed out that with the revised background, that was much less the case. Bob Boikess said he supported the resolution because it empowers the departments to do what they feel is best for them, and that we should protect them from outside pressure. Karen Thompson and Sanjib Bhuyan both spoke in favor as well, highlighting the fact that each program is best suited to decide whether the GRE is useful or not. Vice-chair Berthiaume, who also represents the School of Graduate Studies (SGS) in the NBFC, said he was also in favor because it is consistent with current SGS policy.  Glenn Amatucci asked whether this resolution was necessary at all, since it describes the status quo. Chair Haley responded that the Council can still vote on such a resolution to put the NBFC's opinion on the record. The vote on the amended resolution was then held and it passed with a large majority. 

6. Chancellor's Report

Chancellor Conway was welcomed by Chair Haley. The Chancellor said that she would address three things in today's report: (1) how she can work together with the Council; (2) her responses regarding the status of prior resolutions passed by the Council in the last two years; (3) the campus climate as it relates to the war in the middle east.

• Chancellor Conway noted that there are several ways that work goes on between the administration and the Council, including consultations, exchanges of information, and the Chancellor's seeking of input from the Council in order to make more informed decisions. On the last point, she thanked the Council for providing input on the Discovery Advantage report, and said she was looking forward to working with the Council on the teaching conference in the fall. She then asked for suggestions on how we can better work together. Some of the committee leaders spoke up about some of the issues that they had been working on recently and suggested that reports and collected opinions on specific topics could be shared with the Chancellor. In addition, the NBFC should try to turn around queries fairly quickly to maximize impact.
• Chancellor Conway mentioned that a lot of times resolutions come to her without knowing where they are coming from, and that sometimes there is work being done in parallel. There is information that could be exchanged while this work is in progress. We should not be disconnected from each other as we are working for the same purpose and we should find some common ground. The Chancellor also said that there are things that she is unaware of and that we should all assume good intent and pursue, in a very collegial way, our explorations with each other.
• One the issue of campus climate, the Chancellor expressed her concern about the impact on students and the community caused by the war in the Middle East, and that some students, staff, and faculty are struggling with these events. In addition, some individuals are being targeted by others with differing points of view. She asked whether NBFC members had witnessed such situations, and for any advice on how to handle them. Tom Figueria responded that actions that veer into illegality, such as threats of violence, should be handled by the police and that false accusations that are made just to further inflame a situation should be treated as cases of academic dishonesty. Heather Pierce added that we should also defend the democratic rights of our students to debate and take positions regarding this issue and others.

7. Committee Reports

Student Affairs – Crystal Akers and Ana Pairet Vinas, Co-Chairs

 Co-Chair Pairet reported that subcommittees spoke to Dr. Jennifer Jones-Demis, the Director of CAPS and to Vice Provost Carolyn Moehling, the latter conversation being about the First Day™ program offered by Barnes & Noble College, which ensures students have all required materials by the first day of class and provides digital textbooks at below market prices. Based on these conversations, the committee created a shared document to identify charges to address for the spring and beyond; namely, communication and transparency around issues that impact the student experience such as dorms and dining, and the First Day program. They also had a conversation with Dr. Salvador Mena, Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, and plan to be in frequent communication with his office from now on.

Faculty and Personnel Affairs – Francois Berthiaume and Heather Pierce, Co-Chairs

Co-Chair Berthiaume reported that the committee discussed two things: (1) The role of Lecturers in departmental decisions, voting privileges for Lecturers, and so forth. The committee would like to move forward to start drafting a resolution that would ask the Chancellor to request deans and department chairs to include Lecturers in decision-making at all levels. This resolution would be based on a Rutgers-Camden resolution that's previously been put together; (2) Term limits for department chairs. Such limits do not appear to exist in many departments and schools and some chairs have been in that position for a very long time, almost as if the chair position was a lifetime appointment. There are also instances where the Dean does not accept the departmental faculty vote and picks the second or third candidate in the voting results. Therefore, there's an issue that deans sometimes do not respect the desires of the department. We will begin drafting a report based on the by-laws that we collected from different departments and schools; this will be shared to get input from everybody on the Council.

Academic Affairs – Ted Szatrowski, Chair

Chair Szatrowski said that the committee discussed an issue at SEBS, in which some policies for online courses involve limiting exams to account for no more than 30% of the grade, which is a potential violation of academic freedom. The committee is waiting to hear from the Senate, which is also working on this issue. Committee members also discussed potential work for the next academic year while staying flexible to accommodate last minute requests.

Athletic Affairs – Ken McKeever, Chair

Chair McKeever said that members of the committee are collecting information on how the big 10 Academic Alliance provides opportunities that benefit the academic mission of the individual faculty members and their departments. This will eventually be organized into a report with a potential resolution attached to it. The committee also thought about future areas to look into, one being how to achieve a better integration between athletics and recreation in a sort of a whole community approach to exercise.

Budget, Planning, & Infrastructure – Thomas Figueira, Chair

Chair Figueira said the committee discussed the progress on various items that they have been working on. First, changes to the Amazon marketplace were implemented following a resolution from last year, which is good news. Second, a committee is going to be appointed to address the question of faculty dining, and we'll have to try and get some good input to that through the people who are appointed. Third, the matter of clarifying commissions and fees raised on the contracts for travel seemed to get the Chancellor's attention. The next thing coming up will be a parking resolution that's long been in the works. Finally, we plan to study the nature of the financial crisis and how it plays to our governance issues (aside from any issues we might have as bargaining unit members).

Open Discussion on Committee Reports

• Sanjib Bhuyan asked whether it is possible to find out whether the use of Concur for travel entails a mark-up and is that extra money going to the University. Tom Figueria said that they are trying to understand information that was given to them by a staff member from Rutgers CFO Michael Gower's office.
• Ted Szatrowski and Bob Boikess asked for more details about the planned parking resolution. Tom Figueria replied that it would be an interrogatory resolution asking questions about how the system works.
• Ted Szatrowski asked whether the Faculty & Personnel Affairs Committee is looking at the Course Atlas scheduling system. Committee Chair Berthiaume said that it hasn't been on that committee's list of charges recently. Chair Haley added that although the Senate is looking into this issue, it appears that the New Brunswick campus is the most impacted.
• Ana Pairet Vinas mentioned that the issue of Course Atlas is also something that the Student Affairs committee is interested in pursuing in the future. The NBFC appealed to the Senate, which also worked on this issue but it seems as if it was shelved and implementation did not happen. Tugrul Ozel added that we should press upon issues to be resolved even though administrators change.
• Chair Haley then added that the committees can get more involved in the implementation of the resolutions by communicating with the relevant people on the administration side and see what is happening.

8. Discussion of Changes to NBFC By-laws

Chair Haley began the discussion about the by-laws revisions by stating that the current by-laws are outdated, uneven in the level of detail, and don't tell a coherent story of our purpose and operations. She added that moving forward, the by-laws document will not contain all of the details about operation; these details will be in a separate handbook that will also contain an orientation for new NBFC members and officers. In addition, a sixth standing committee is being proposed, which will focus on community engagement and, speak to administrators and other faculty councils. She encouraged NBFC members to put their comments and suggestions in the shared document in Box.

Open Discussion

• Tugrul Ozel thanked Chair Haley for taking the initiative to update the by-laws.
• Ted Szatrowski asked about the text stating that temporary ad hoc committees may occasionally be established by vote of the full Council. His concern is that the timeline to do that may be too long if an emergent issue comes about suddenly. He suggested that the EC could authorize such ad hoc committees. Chair Haley suggested that this information be added to the shared document so it is easier to consider it when drafting the next version.
• Chair Haley said that she set the deadline for comments on April 16, so there's enough time to read the new version before the next NBFC meeting on April 19.

9. Old Business

NBFC Parliamentarian Martha Cotter reported that based on her reading of Robert's rules, the minutes don't have to have as much detail as we've been putting in them. According to Robert's rules, minutes should simply say what was done, what actions were taken, and what reports were accepted and are not supposed to be a summary of the meeting. This matter will be taken into consideration for next year.

10. New Business

No new business was discussed.

11. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 2:57 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Francois Berthiaume, Vice Chair, and Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian