RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
MINUTES
September 9, 2022

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bachmann, Boikess, Cooper, Den Bleyker, Foster, Giraud, Oliver, Roth, Schwartz, Simonds (Chair), Szatrowski, Thompson, Van Stine

ALSO ATTENDING: F. Alizadeh (FPAC Committee Chair), K. Anderson (ITC Committee Chair), S. Andreassen (Vice Chancellor and Chief of Staff, RBHS), D. Boison (RGPEC Committee Chair), V. Hewitt (University Senate Executive Secretary), P. Moghe (Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs), A. Murtha (Dean, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School), T. Ozel (BOT Faculty Representative), S. Rabinowitz (BOG Faculty Representative), K. Schroth (USGC Committee Chair), M. Smith (University Senate Administrative Assistant), B. Strom (RBHS Chancellor), S. Valverde (BFC Committee Chair), C. White (BFC Committee Chair)

The regular meeting of the University Senate Executive Committee was held on Friday, September 9, 2022 at 12:00 p.m. remotely via Zoom.

Chair’s Report– Adrienne Simonds, Senate Chair

Chair Simonds called the September 9, 2022 Senate Executive Committee meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. She welcomed all attendees to the meeting and to the new semester. She invited committee members to send her feedback on Senate functioning and described some measures undertaken to increase efficiency so far, including updates to the Senate website. She reminded members that Executive Committee meetings, as well as other committee and caucus meetings, will be fully remote for the 2022-23 academic year. Meetings of the full Senate will be in hybrid format, with both in-person and Zoom options available. There will be two luncheons in November; lunch will be served before the Executive Committee meeting on Friday, Nov. 4 and the full Senate meeting on Friday, Nov. 18 as an opportunity for social gathering and networking. She thanked Jon Oliver, Lucy Foster, Vicki Hewitt, and Morgan Smith for their assistance in her first few months as Chair.

Secretary’s Report– Vicki Hewitt, Senate Executive Secretary

• The September 9, 2022 Executive Committee Agenda was approved.
• The June 7, 2022 Senate Executive Committee Minutes were approved via email after that meeting.
• The Executive Committee luncheon will be held on Fri. Nov. 4 at 11:45 a.m. in 222 SC&I. The full Senate luncheon will be held on Fri. Nov. 18 at 11:45 a.m. in the College Avenue Student Center Multipurpose Room.
• The following policies have been updated in the University Policy Library:
  • University Policies 3.1 and 50.3.14 were rescinded and merged to form University Policy 50.3.19: Patent Policy
  • University Policy 90.1.1: Sponsored Programs Facilities and Administrative Costs Policy
  • University Policy 100.3.1: Immunization Policy for Covered Individuals
  • University Policy 100.3.3: Housestaff Immunizations and Health Requirements
  • University Policy 80.1.1: Permission for External Companies to Film, Videotape, and Photograph at Rutgers
  • University Policy 60.3.22: Flexible Work Arrangements for Regularly Appointed Staff
• The following responses by President Holloway to Senate reports were received:
  • Response to S-2107: Review of the University Policy 20.1.22 – No Smoking
  • Response to S-1909-1: Searches for University Leadership
  • Response to Resolution on Academic Freedom and Racial, Gender, and Social Justice
  • Response to S-2113: PTL Pay and Recognition
  • Response to Recommendation to Upgrade/Update the Presentation of Rutgers University’s Annual Budget

Committee members noted additional follow-up may be requested on S-2113: PTL Pay and Recognition after consultation with the Faculty and Personnel Affairs Committee.

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

Dr. Moghe provided the Administrative Report consisting of the following topics:

• Faculty input in the patent policy revisions
• COVID vaccination requirement and mask mandate continuing in Fall 2022
• New administrative leadership and current searches
• Enrollment data
• Tobacco-free by 2023 campaign
• Processes for continuous academic improvement.

Dr. Moghe then answered questions on the following topics:

• Enrollment of international students
• Masks not being required in the University fitness centers
• Post-pandemic changes to University infrastructure
• Student disability services.

Chancellor Report – Dr. Brian Strom, RBHS Chancellor, and introduction of Dr. Amy Murtha, Dean of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School

Dr. Strom introduced Dr. Murtha and provided a report consisting of the following topics:

• Implementation of the RBHS strategic plan
• Update on the New Jersey Innovation & Technology HUB in New Brunswick
• Renovation of the Medical Science Building in Newark
• Re-engaging the review of medical education and the structure of the medical schools
• Administrative searches for the Institute for Health, Health Care Policy and Aging Research and the School of Health Professions
• Recruitment of tenure-track faculty, especially clinician researchers
• Review of the criteria for promotion in the clinical educator track and the teaching track.

Dr. Strom then answered questions on the following topics:

• Use of space in the Piscataway buildings after the New Jersey Innovation & Technology HUB opens
• Status of the search for a director of the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School-Princeton University M.D./Ph.D. Program
• The current state of COVID
• Masks not being required in the University fitness centers.

Appointment of University Senate Parliamentarian

Lucille Foster was appointed University Senate Parliamentarian for 2022-23.

Big Ten Media Revenue

Chair Simonds will request additional information on this topic from President Holloway.

Enrollment Concerns at Rutgers-Camden

Chair Simonds will request additional information on this topic from Dr. Moghe.

Standing Committees/Panels

2022-2023 Committee Chair Positions

The 2022-23 committee chairs were announced, with the exception of the Student Affairs Committee. Chair Simonds asked Executive Committee members for suggestions of senators to chair that committee.

Proposed Charges:

Proposed Charge on TIAA’s Divestment from Fossil Fuels – Submitted by David M. Hughes, Professor of Anthropology, School of Arts and Sciences-New Brunswick

Charge: The Faculty Affairs and Personnel Committee should investigate the means of communicating to TIAA the desire of the University community that it should divest our retirement funds from coal, oil, and gas firms – and possibly reinvest the same funds in more socially responsible sectors.

Rationale: Institutions are increasingly divesting their assets from coal, oil, gas corporations (as well as from banks and other corporations that provide ancillary services to the fossil fuel sector). This activism rests on three principles: 1) one should not support planetary-scale environmental and social destruction; 2) divestment will undercut these firms social license to operate and ability to influence Congress; and 3) in the fiduciary sense, the expected transition away from fossil fuels is already eroding the value of these holdings. In making these judgments, universities have played out-sized role: we have generated the science undergirding divestment, and we act upon a robust mission and conscience.

In 2021, Rutgers University announced that it would divest its endowment (the Rutgers University Foundation) and its reserves from fossil fuels. In July 2022, the American Federation of Teachers – which represents the plurality of Rutgers employees – will vote on a resolution encouraging the divestment of all its members retirement funds from fossil fuels.

In virtually all cases, entities have considered other strategies besides divestment, chiefly stockholder resolutions. They have found that those mechanisms – especially when attempting to change the core product of a firm – do not work. In the course of divesting from fossil fuels, entities have also considered whether and how to reinvest in renewable energy, in low- and moderate-income communities, and/or in employment creation for workers displaced from fossil fuels firms.

Currently, Rutgers faculty, administrators, and many staff invest their retirement funds in the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA, formerly TIAA-CREF). That not-for-profit firm provides financial services in academic and governmental fields and manages $1.4 trillion dollars in total assets. Although TIAA has taken steps towards socially responsible investment, it has not publicly addressed or explained its investments in the fossil fuel sector. Rutgers employees who invest in TIAA, therefore, have no choice but to contribute financially to coal, oil, and gas.

Outcome: The committee declined to charge this to a committee at this time. Executive Secretary Hewitt will contact the charge submitter with the committee’s suggestions for revisions.

Proposed Charge on Assuring Students Continued Access to Student Academic Records – Submitted by Michael Van Stine, Graduate School-Camden, Student

Charge: Many student records are kept as paper files and various storage locations. In recent years, many courses have utilized changing online platforms, on which all matter of student academic records become housed. These range from academic course materials and resources, syllabi, research, and work assignments both given and submitted for grading including student tests and papers and other forms of course documents and records. In electronic locations, these classes have been organized in the past both on Sakai and Blackboard platforms which have undergone university-wide consolidation into Canvas. In many if not most cases, students have assured continued access to these records after class completion. This is not always the case. And it is unclear what are prevailing access protocols for students after they graduate. There needs to be a uniform policy that assures continued access to these records in accordance with good academic policy and compliance with applicable laws.

Rationale: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is the federal law that governs the rights of students and institutional responsibilities with respect to student records. The University keeps a policy iteration on this law at: https://scarlethub.rutgers.edu/registrar/ferpa-information/confidentiality-security/ Among other things, the law provides students with the right of access to their education records (even after graduation), the right to inspect, review, and obtain copies of records, and the right to know what records are kept, under whose jurisdiction, and for what period of time. Some preliminary research indicated that this policy would extend to all student records kept both in paper form stored in various locations as well as on academic online platforms. The only exclusion seems to be confidential personal notes that might be made and kept by professors that otherwise would not be in any accessible files. All else should be maintained as ongoing accessible.

Outcome: The committee declined to charge this to a committee at this time. Vice Chair Foster will work with the charge submitter on suggestions for revisions.

Proposed Charge on Equitable and Transparent Policies for Academic Performance Grading and Appeals – Submitted by Michael Van Stine, Graduate School-Camden, Student

Charge: Rutgers does not have one comprehensive grading policy. It has one that designates grading concepts and symbols by the academic unit and allows for substantial diversity between undergraduate and graduate applications as well as unique characteristics among classifications and units. While grading characteristics may logically need to differentiate as they do, it is troubling that prevailing policies may not be in relative conformity with peer institutions. Whatever may be the grading policy, there needs to be a reasonable appeal policy in all applications to insure fairness and transparency in grading decisions.

Rationale: There are many examples of extremely closed system grading policies among various academic units. In some cases, these policies are not in reasonable conformance with our peers. While it should be respected that there needs to be diversification of policies among units and student classes, there needs to be found some compromise that in all cases assures reasonable equity and transparency in all cases. Undergraduate and graduate policies by varied academic units need to be compared to peer equivalents and recommendations need to be made where policy updates are warranted. It should be assured that in all cases there is a reasonable mechanism for fair objective grade appeal submission and review.

Outcome: Senator Van Stine withdrew the proposed charge to revise and resubmit.

Committee Reports/Resolutions

Proposed Resolution on Labor Relations – Robert Boikess, School of Arts and Sciences-NB, Faculty

Background: Every senator and indeed virtually every member of our academic community, administrators, faculty, staff, and students, share a common goal: to make Rutgers as good as it can be. The articulation of this goal in terms of a “Beloved Community” is a very important step forward and a break with the past. But an even more important step would be the recognition and implementation of the principle that all of us, administrators, employees in collective bargaining units, and students are on the same team.

We are now at a moment in time when this principle is being sorely tested. The collective bargaining agreements of all the faculty unions and many of the staff unions expired this past June 30. Indeed, at this time, more than 15000 workers at Rutgers, represented by 17 bargaining units are working under expired contracts. Despite many attempts by unions to begin negotiations earlier, they are only now underway. Collective bargaining inevitably will have some adversarial aspects. But a focus on the “same team” principle and a recognition that we have many mutual interests are especially important now.

Unfortunately, some members of the administration who are directly or indirectly involved in labor relations are taking actions that are moving us in the wrong direction. Here are some examples.

• Rutgers has retained the law firm of Jackson Lewis, the leading anti-union law firm in the United States, to advise on labor relations.
• RWJ Medical School has made an agreement with RWJ Barnabas under which all new Professional-Practice Track faculty hired by Barnabas will not be members of the faculty union.”
• Serious demoralization of many of our staff has resulted from a number of the aspects of negotiations and interactions between the labor relations administrators and the 13 staff collective bargaining units. When staff feel undervalued and believe that there is no concern for their fundamental needs, the resulting work environment is not only bad for the staff, but also for the students and faculty to whom they provide essential services.
• A number of faculty bargaining units have voted to merge into one unit in order to be covered by one faculty contract. The labor relations administrators refuse to recognize such a new unit.
• More than 2/3rds of the faculty has no job security or health insurance. Many are even working semester to semester. Such working conditions have a negative effect on student learning conditions. Attempts by the unions to reach agreement on improvements to these conditions have been rejected.
• The principle of “Equal pay for equal work” regardless of campus or faculty title or gender or race, has long been embraced by Rutgers unions. But only in the previous collective bargaining agreement with full time faculty was any slight consideration given to this important principle.

Transparency is an especially important feature of an academic community. Yet negotiators for the administration have objected vigorously to union members attending bargaining sessions remotely and have canceled bargaining sessions for that reason.

Resolved: The University Senate calls upon the University Administration and all the Employee Collective Bargaining Units to work as quickly and collegially as possible to reach new collective bargaining agreements that best serve the interests of the entire academic community and reflect principles and values previously endorsed by the University Senate.

Outcome: The Executive Committee revised the third paragraph to read “Here are some examples that may be concerning toward the goal of negotiation.” With that revision, the Executive Committee docketed the resolution for the Sept. 23 Senate agenda.

Adding a Report to the Senate on the State of Collective Bargaining

A motion was made to add a report to the Senate on the state of collective bargaining while negotiations are ongoing. The motion was lost.

Old Business

Proposed Charge on Student Representation on the President’s First Amendment Advisory Panel

Immediate Past Chair Oliver reported that he reached out to the Office of General Counsel after the June Executive Committee meeting. Given the nature of the panel and the work it does, panel members are limited to First Amendment scholars and those who have passed the Bar Examination.

New Senator Orientation and Senate Mentorship Program

Chair Simonds reminded the committee that New Senator Orientation will be held on Fri. Sept. 16. She asked any committee members who are interested in participating in the Senate mentoring initiative to contact her.

New Business

None

Adjournment

The Executive Committee adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

Minutes prepared by: Vicki Hewitt, Executive Secretary of the University Senate