Meeting Minutes #265

Members Present: Alexander Pichugin, Alisa Belzer, Anna Haley, Benjamin Paul, Changlu Wang, Crystal Akers, David Kryscynski, F. Javier Diez, Francois Berthiaume, Glenn Amatucci, Heather Pierce, James DeFilippis, Jeffrey Zahn, Jennifer Shukaitis, Jeremy Morgan, Jessey Choo, John Evans, John Kolassa, Julia Maxwell, Karen Thompson, Kenneth McKeever, Lei Yu, Lisa Rodenburg, Marci Meixler, Mei Ling Lo, Narayan Mandayam, Nikolaos Linardopoulos, Peter J. Morrone, Rafiq Huda, Ralph Bowen, Robert Boikess, Ronnee Ades, Sanjib Bhuyan, Ted Szatrowski, Thomas Davis, Tom Stephens, Tugrul Ozel
 

Non-Members Present: Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Chair Haley on Friday, April 19, 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 March 29, 2024

The minutes were approved.

4. Chair's Report – Anna Haley 

• Chair Haley explained the process for the upcoming elections to the NBFC, as well as for the NBFC officer positions. Elections to the NBFC are carried out in each department, usually for a 3-year term. NBFC officer elections are carried out among the current membership of the NBFC.
• Chair Haley thanked the NBFC members for their service, with a special shout out to those who are leaving because they reached the end of their term.

5. Discussion on the NBFC By-Laws

The NBFC Parliamentarian, Martha Cotter, explained that this discussion would take place in a Committee of the Whole. Ken McKeever moved that we go into this Committee, and the motion was seconded by Sanjib Bhuyan. Instead of taking a vote on this motion, it was asked if anyone objected and no one did; therefore the motion passed and the Council went into Committee of the Whole.

Parliamentarian Cotter explained the rules under which this Committee of the Whole would function. Chair Haley gave a brief overview of the previous rounds of editing to the by-laws that were incorporated into the draft document that was circulated to the NBFC membership before this meeting.

The discussion began with a recommendation that "staff" be removed from the description of responsibilities of individual committees because the NBFC does not directly deal with staff matters. Comments followed that graduate workers, postdoctoral fellows, and research scientists should be included if the term staff is removed. Others stated that "research and teaching staff" may encompass Rutgers employees classified as staff that teach students and/or carry out academic research. However, others pointed out that the working conditions of other clerical staff may have an impact on faculty. Additional comments suggested that there isn't much harm in keeping the term "staff" in place. In the end, there was no consensus on this issue.

Another recommended change is to remove statements that allow individuals who are not members of the NBFC to serve on an NBFC committee. The main reason offered for this suggestion was that if someone wants to participate in a committee, he or she should be willing to join the Council. In addition, there are procedures already in place whereby any faculty member can give input to an NBFC committee. However, it was pointed out that a committee may want to invite an outside expert to work on a particular issue, in which case that expert could not be an NBFC member.

The draft recommendation of having up to 10 lecturers serving on the NBFC was positively received by several speakers, although it was recognized that getting that many lecturers to serve without some compensation will be difficult. The by-law language should not imply that lecturers could be elected for terms as short as one semester, but rather say that the standard term is 3 years. A mechanism should be put in place to replace a lecturer elected to the NBFC in case of non-renewal of their semester-to-semester appointment at Rutgers.

Another recommendation was to increase the number of NBFC representatives from one to two per department to increase participation, with the additional suggestion to have one tenure-track/tenured and one non-tenure track representative per department.

Due to time constraints, Chair Haley said that we need to stop this conversation, but all comments have been recorded and will be added to the draft by-laws working (Word) document. Furthermore, given the number of comments and suggestions, further discussion will be needed and this discussion is thus "to be continued."

Parliamentarian Cotter added that in the current by-laws, the description of the individual standing committee's responsibilities should also be examined closely. It was pointed out earlier that many of these descriptions were modeled after the Senate's.

Ted Szatrowski moved that we leave the Committee as a Whole and this was seconded by Sanjib Bhuyan. There were no objections, and the Council returned to the normal NBFC meeting procedures.

6. Discussion of Chancellor's Responses to Prior Resolutions

Chair Haley shared a document containing previous resolutions passed by the Council and Chancellor Conway's responses. She suggested that the EC and the individual committee co-chairs look at the responses and discuss whether they are satisfactory or require further information/justification from the Chancellor.

7. Committee Reports

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

The Committee met with a Barnes & Noble representative to discuss their inclusive textbook program. The purpose was to investigate how students enrolled in this program benefit from it in terms of cost savings and in other ways. Since Barnes & Noble did not share their proprietary data in this regard, the Committee will investigate these questions using the Registrar’s and other University sources. If there is truly a benefit, we should try to make sure the program is supported for the future. The Committee also discussed a range of other matters, such as mental health issues, student dormitories and dining, and possible committee directions for the fall.

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

The Committee discussed the Chancellor’s responses to previous resolutions and will prepare a request for follow up. The Committee also discussed two other documents that are being worked on. First, a document on how better to include lecturers in departmental decision-making will be turned into a proposed resolution to be presented in the fall. Second, the Committee is preparing a report and draft resolution on departmental chair limits. The intent is to recommend that chairs should not serve in that position for more than 10 years continuously. The report will also urge deans to respect departmental votes and wishes with regard to appointment of chairs.

Academic Affairs – Ted Szatrowski, Chair

The Committee discussed a report that emanated from SEBS prescribing policies on grade distributions for online courses; some of these policies may violate academic freedom. Issues of academic integrity and how they are handled on different campuses and in different schools was also discussed, as was the fact that many faculty members are unfamiliar with ChatGPT and other AI tools and would benefit from an educational initiative in this area.These tools are becoming more widely used in many fields.

Athletic Affairs – Ken McKeever, Chair

No one was available to provide the committee report. (See, however, the relevant discussion in the follow-up open discussion below).

Budget, Planning, & Infrastructure – Thomas Figueira, Chair

In the absence of committee chair Figueira, Glenn Amatucci spoke on behalf of the Committee and discussed several items having to do with transparency in the University budget. More specifically, the Committee would like to know more about the true cost of the many initiatives that are being pursued by the University, how they are prioritized, and how that cost compares with supporting staff, students, lecturers, etc. The Committee would like to have a better picture of the overall budget distribution at the university. 

Open Discussion on Committee Reports

Budget and Finance Committee members asked about the Chancellor’s response to the dining hall resolution, more specifically who is forming the committee to address that resolution (the Chancellor and/or the NBFC) and what is the timeline for doing so. Chair Haley replied that the Chancellor has asked for NBFC members to join that committee and she will put the Budget and Finance Chair in touch with the Chancellor to discuss this matter. Chair Haley asked if others in the NBFC want to be involved.

In the absence of a presentation from the Athletics Committee, members of the Committee present were asked about their future plans. One of the Committee members, Ronnee Ades, spoke about the desire to bring back the discussion about the impact of being in the Big10 on academic departments. Another issue that was mentioned is that the availability of athletic facilities to (noncompetitive) clubs is very limited. Ronnee also talked about the high level of success of student athletes in the business school. Some discussion followed on what should and should not be under the purview of the Athletics Committee, but in general, it is agreed that the NBFC is interested in understanding the costs associated with the athletics program. Another point was made about the impact of Title IX on women’s sports and that volleyball and rowing are especially successful and will need to be given appropriate resources for the future.

8. Report from the NCAA Representative to the NBFC

The outgoing NCAA representative, Tom Stephens, gave a brief report about the NCAA, which is usually given at the last NBFC meeting of the academic year. Tom said that Ann Gould has been newly appointed as NCAA representative by the Chancellor. There was a discussion on the ever-expanding Big10 Conference, which now includes universities on the West Coast. As a result, Rutgers teams have to travel across the country, which can require transport of major sports equipment, with associated high costs. As this happens, the friendly rivalries among local universities that have excited fans for decades are being weakened because local competitions are less frequent. There are NCAA discussions on how potentially to reorganize the NCAA divisions that may address some of these problems. In addition, there was a discussion of some policies on student athletes transferring between universities.

8. Old Business

Pertaining to the ongoing revision of the NBFC by-laws, there was a discussion on how to appoint the parliamentarian in future years and how the NBFC should interact with the Chancellor (such as which meeting(s) the Chancellor should be invited to attend).

9. New Business

No new business was discussed.

10. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:02 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Francois Berthiaume, Vice Chair and Martha Cotter, Parliamentarian