Executive Committee Meeting - Rutgers University Senate Skip to main content
Loading Meetings
  • This meeting has passed.
Friday
Jan 8th
12:00 pm

Executive Committee Meeting

Zoom

Agenda Items Due On
Wednesday, December 23rd 2020


Agenda Distributed On
Tuesday, January 5th 2021

UNIVERSITY SENATE
Executive Committee

A G E N D A

January 8, 2021 – 12:00 noon

https://rutgers.zoom.us/j/93000396247?pwd=cDJZNTlHQ3JMRldTVDQranBVSlBkdz09

1. Chair’s Report– Jon Oliver, Senate Chair

2. Secretary’s Report– Mary Mickelsen, Senate Executive Secretary

3. Administrative Report– Prabhas Moghe, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

4. Diversity and Inclusion Report – Enobong (Anna) Branch, Senior Vice President for Equity

5. Standing Committees/Panels

Issues/Proposed Charges:

Proposed Charge to the Academic Standards, Regulations, and Admissions Committee on University Policy 10.2.4 Units of Credit– Submitted by: Senator Robert Boikess, SAS-NB (F)

Proposed Charge: Determine the current viability of University Policy 10.2.4 Units of Credit and propose changes as appropriate to make consistent with current practice.

Background: This regulation was first formulated more than 60 years ago. It defines the measurement of a credit on the basis of the estimated amount of time a median student can be expected to devote to the course, at the rate of three hours a week per credit, including time in class, in laboratory, in conference with the teacher, or in reading, writing and preparing for class.

This articulated measurement cannot be made with any accuracy and in fact it is a very well-established practice to assign credits based on time in class or laboratory. Indeed, with the exception of the obligation of the University to maintain minimal academic standards, implementing Regulation 10.2.4 would represent a violation of the academic freedom rights of faculty. Clearly the correlation between time in class and time outside of class is very discipline dependent.

One of the ways in which this regulation is anachronistic can be seen in the way in which credit is currently assigned to laboratory courses. A three-hour laboratory course is assigned one credit. Adhering to this regulation would mean that the instructor would not be permitted to assign any work outside of class. An even more egregious “violation” of this regulation is at Mason Gross, where 1 credit is given for the Rutgers main orchestra, which meets two evenings a week for at least 3 hours of rehearsal each evening, in addition to the time spent practicing that is necessary to learn the parts before coming to rehearsals Another problem with this regulation is that it does not address how much time should be devoted by students at the top or the bottom of the class. Should they be expected to devote more time or less time? Nor does it address quality of time, the correlation between time and effort. Students who learn of this regulation may well be seriously misled about how to achieve maximal academic success.

While until recently it seemed that this regulation was universally ignored, the recent Resolution from the ICA Committee specifically referenced it.

Proposed Charge to the Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee on Code of Ethics for PTLs– Submitted by: Oded Palmon, Rutgers Business School Faculty

Proposed Charge: Determine whether the university should develop a version of the code of ethics that is more suitable for PTLs.

Background: Currently, PTLs are required to abide by the standard University code of ethics (which was probably written with full-time employees in mind). I suggest that the committee members consider whether the university should develop a code of ethics that is more suitable for PTLs. For example, that code of ethics need not require PTLs to disclose, and be subject to university approval of, business connections with other organizations to the same extent that full-time faculty members are required to do. Another example is the requirement to report, and secure a university approval of, teaching employment at other institutions. Imposing the standard code hinders the ability of departments and schools to hire the best PTLs who may consult many other organizations, and may frequently add new clients.

Committee Reports/Resolutions:

Academic Standards, Regulations, and Admissions Committee (ASRAC) Response to Charge A-2021: Re-Examination of the Add-Drop Period During the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond – Robert Schwartz, ASRAC Chair

The ASRAC was charged as follows:

Consider if and how the Add-Drop period should be adjusted for Spring 2021 assuming that the University will once again be offering most instruction remotely. Also, evaluate the standard structure of the Add-Drop period and assess whether the changes instituted by the Senate several years ago, having the Add period extend one day beyond the drop period, have had the desired effects.

Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee (FPAC) Response to Charge S-1905: Teaching Loads – Farid Alizadeh and Joseph Markert, FPAC Co-Chairs

The FPAC was charged as follows:

Consider Rutgers Strategic Plan, our aspirations as a research university and the demands of our teaching commitment; investigate norms for teaching loads at Rutgers and make recommendations regarding how such norms are implemented and followed in practice.

Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Response to Charge S-2001: Re-Evaluation of Student Fee Consolidation – Menahem Spiegel, BFC Chair

The BFC was charged as follows:

Re-evaluate the consolidation of student fees which occurred before/around the time of TUE and done in accordance with recommendations of the University Senate and its Budget & Finance Committee and the corresponding administrative task force; provide recommendations if needed.

Supporting Documents:

Committee Requests for Charge Extensions and/or Releases

  • Budget and Finance Committee
    • S-1811: Review of Rutgers’ Commitment to Renewable Energy – BFC requests to be released from this charge due to efforts by a better resourced committee at the administrative level.
    • S-2010: Evaluation of the RCM Implementation at Rutgers – BFC requests an extension to March 2021. The committee intends to make this their current priority.
    • S-2002: Challenges Related to Parking and Transportation – BFC requests an extension to April 2022. The committee would like to evaluate this issue during the post-Covid “new normal”.

6. RCM Committee Update – Brian Ballentine, Senior Vice President of Strategy, Romayne Rotti and Ashwani Monga, RCM Committee Co-Chairs

7. New Business

8. Old Business

9. University Senate January 22, 2021 Agenda

  • Regular Senate Meeting via Zoom
  • Administrative Report by University President Jonathan Holloway

10. Adjournment

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SENATE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

M I N U T E S

January 8, 2021

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Boikess, Borisovets, Crews, Giraud, Gillett, Immidisetti, Oliver (Chair), Schwartz, Simonds, Struble, Thompson, Willett, Van Stine, Yamaoka

MEMBERS ABSENT:  Shobut

ALSO ATTENDING: F. Alizadeh (FPAC Co-Chair), B. Ballentine (Senior Vice President of Strategy), E. Branch (Senior Vice President for Equity), P. Moghe (EVP for Academic Affairs), M. Speigel (BFC Chair), T. Shinbrot (BoG Faculty Representative) and R. Rotti and A. Monga (RCM Committee Co-Chairs

The regular meeting of the University Senate Executive Committee was held on Friday, January 8, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. remotely via Zoom.

1. Chairs Report– Jon Oliver, Senate Chair

Chair Jon Oliver called the January 8, 2021 Senate Executive Committee meeting to order at 12:08pm. He wished the committee a Happy New Year and let members know that Mary Mickelsen was out sick, and that Morgan Smith will be taking the minutes this afternoon.

2. Secretary’s Report– Morgan Smith, Senate Administrative Assistant

The Executive Committee expressed concerns regarding the lack of the Administration’s feedback on “Code of Student Conduct” and the “Title IX Policy and Grievance Procedures.

3. Administrative Report– Prabhas Moghe, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs

EVPAA Prabhas Moghe delivered an administrative report, which included comments on:

  • Current and recent events and how they are affecting educators and exceptionalism regarding teaching and communicating with students;
  • The pass/no credit option for winter 2021 and spring 2021 will be handled on a campus-by-campus basis;
  • The COVID-19 vaccinations at Rutgers are being rolled out in phases beginning with healthcare workers;
  • The search for a new Camden Chancellor is underway;
  • RCM review and refresh, strategies are ongoing ensuring faculty groups are included;
  • Looking to encourage the innovation mindset among students and replenish the inventors’ portfolios here at Rutgers with the help of David Kimball.

Moghe then engaged in a short question and answer period which included clarification on the above topics and the following subjects:

  • The Patent Policy’s old system vs. the new system that was recently put in place,
  • RCM and the concerns of the lack of faculty and student input,
  • The student innovation projects being held at the libraries to allow likeminded students to brainstorm about projects in a central working space,
  • The first pilot project was launched in New Brunswick called “IDEA

4. Diversity and Inclusion Report– Enobong (Anna) Branch, Senior Vice President for Equity

SVP Branch introduced herself and thanked Jon and the EC for having her. She spoke briefly about her background and the challenges the University is facing addressing what is happening in the country. She then spoke about how her department is rolling out strategic plans and asked in what ways the faculty could be involved. She then answered questions on the following topics:

  • Pay equity issues at Rutgers,
  • Changing how decisions are being made by starting from the bottom up,
  • The struggle of attaining and retaining people of diversity in management positions at the University,
  • The exploitation of PTL’s being overlooked and concerns about the University following suit with their big 10 peers,
  • Looking at ways to change institutional racism regarding SAT testing, student evaluations, underrepresented groups and diverse hiring.

5. Standing Committees/Panels

Issues/Proposed Charges:

Proposed Charge to the Academic Standards, Regulations, and Admissions Committee on University Policy 10.2.4 Units of Credit– Submitted by: Senator Robert Boikess, SAS-NB (F)

Proposed Charge: Determine the current viability of University Policy 10.2.4 Units of Credit and propose changes as appropriate to make consistent with current practice.

Background: This regulation was first formulated more than 60 years ago. It defines the measurement of a credit on the basis of the estimated amount of time a median student can be expected to devote to the course, at the rate of three hours a week per credit, including time in class, in laboratory, in conference with the teacher, or in reading, writing and preparing for class.

This articulated measurement cannot be made with any accuracy and in fact it is a very well-established practice to assign credits based on time in class or laboratory. Indeed, with the exception of the obligation of the University to maintain minimal academic standards, implementing Regulation 10.2.4 would represent a violation of the academic freedom rights of faculty. Clearly the correlation between time in class and time outside of class is very discipline dependent.

One of the ways in which this regulation is anachronistic can be seen in the way in which credit is currently assigned to laboratory courses. A three-hour laboratory course is assigned one credit. Adhering to this regulation would mean that the instructor would not be permitted to assign any work outside of class. An even more egregious “violation” of this regulation is at Mason Gross, where 1 credit is given for the Rutgers main orchestra, which meets two evenings a week for at least 3 hours of rehearsal each evening, in addition to the time spent practicing that is necessary to learn the parts before coming to rehearsals Another problem with this regulation is that it does not address how much time should be devoted by students at the top or the bottom of the class. Should they be expected to devote more time or less time? Nor does it address quality of time, the correlation between time and effort. Students who learn of this regulation may well be seriously misled about how to achieve maximal academic success.

While until recently it seemed that this regulation was universally ignored, the recent Resolution from the ICA Committee specifically referenced it.

Senator Boikess reviewed the work of the committee and the background of the charge. The EC discussed the report and made recommendations to the background and proposed charge language (appended below). The charge was issued to ASRAC with a due date of December 2021.

Charge Issued to ASRAC: Determine the current viability of University Policy 10.2.4 Units of Credit and propose changes as appropriate to make the definition consistent with its use in current practice.

Proposed Charge to the Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee on Code of Ethics for PTLs– Submitted by: Oded Palmon, Rutgers Business School Faculty

Proposed Charge: Determine whether the university should develop a version of the code of ethics that is more suitable for PTLs.

Background: Currently, PTLs are required to abide by the standard University code of ethics (which was probably written with full-time employees in mind). I suggest that the committee members consider whether the university should develop a code of ethics that is more suitable for PTLs. For example, that code of ethics need not require PTLs to disclose, and be subject to university approval of, business connections with other organizations to the same extent that full-time faculty members are required to do. Another example is the requirement to report, and secure a university approval of, teaching employment at other institutions. Imposing the standard code hinders the ability of departments and schools to hire the best PTLs who may consult many other organizations and may frequently add new clients.

The proposed charges merit was discussed by the committee. It was suggested that Chair Oliver/Vice Chair Gillett speak to the Senior Vice President for Human Resources and Organizational Effectiveness about including PTL’s in the University Code of Ethics before charging this to a committee. The EC will revisit this proposal under New Business at the February Executive Committee meeting.

Committee Reports/Resolutions:

Academic Standards, Regulations, and Admissions Committee (ASRAC) Response to Charge A-2021: Re-Examination of the Add-Drop Period During the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond – Robert Schwartz, ASRAC Chair

The ASRAC was charged as follows:

Consider if and how the Add-Drop period should be adjusted for Spring 2021 assuming that the University will once again be offering most instruction remotely. Also, evaluate the standard structure of the Add-Drop period and assess whether the changes instituted by the Senate several years ago, having the Add period extend one day beyond the drop period, have had the desired effects.

Senator Schwartz reviewed the work of the committee and their subsequent recommendations. After discussing the report and its resolution, the EC concluded it was not ready to be docketed and should be sent back to the committee. Due to the time sensitive nature of this issue, it was asked the ASRAC to respond to the recommendations of the EC in one week. At that time, the EC will vote on docketing the report for the January Senate meeting via email.

Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee (FPAC) Response to Charge S-1905: Teaching Loads – Farid Alizadeh and Joseph Markert, FPAC Co-Chairs

The FPAC was charged as follows:

Consider Rutgers Strategic Plan, our aspirations as a research university and the demands of our teaching commitment; investigate norms for teaching loads at Rutgers and make recommendations regarding how such norms are implemented and followed in practice.

Senator Alizadeh reviewed the work of the committee and their resolutions. After discussing the report and recommendations of the FPAC, the EC decided to docket the report for the January 22 Senate Meeting.

Budget and Finance Committee (BFC) Response to Charge S-2001: Re-Evaluation of Student Fee Consolidation – Menahem Spiegel, BFC Chair

The BFC was charged as follows:

Re-evaluate the consolidation of student fees which occurred before/around the time of TUE and done in accordance with recommendations of the University Senate and its Budget & Finance Committee and the corresponding administrative task force; provide recommendations if needed.

Senator Speigel reviewed the work of the committee and its recommendations. The EC discussed the report and voted to docket for the January Senate meeting.

6. RCM Committee Update – Brian Ballentine, Senior Vice President of Strategy, Romayne Rotti and Ashwani Monga, RCM Committee Co-Chairs

Brian Ballentine presented his report on the RCM update, and answered questions about the following topics:

  • Concerns about RCM continuing and the composition of the committee working on it,
  • Looking for ways to collaborate more with faculty and staff while allowing them to make recommendations on how to move forward collectively,
  • Proper representation from faculty members.

7. University Senate January 22, 2021 Agenda

  • Regular Senate Meeting via Zoom
  • Administrative Report by University President Jonathan Holloway
  • Add the reports above that were approved for docketing

8. Adjournment:

The Executive Committee adjourned at 4:43pm.

Minutes prepared by:  Senate Administrative Assistant Morgan Smith

 

 

 

Present Senators

Robert Boikess Natalie Borisovets Russell Crews Peter Gillett Ralph Giraud Amanda Immidisetti Jon Oliver Robert Schwartz Thomas Struble Karen Thompson Michael Van Stine Laura Willett Marie Yamaoka

Excused Senators


Absent Senators

Sarah Shobut Adrienne Simonds