Faculty Senate Meeting- October 8, 2003
Biology Bldg. 209
Roll Call:
Excused: Allyn, Behre, Carney, Leake, Leven, G. Miller, Rao, Strassman, Vincelette
Absent: Knobler, R. Miller, Tebbe
Faculty Work
Dan Crofts: explains that Provost had discussed drafts of “Comparing Faculty Work in the Current and Transformed System” in meetings with him and Ralph Edelbach, and in a meeting with the Senate Exec on 26 Sept. Most recently, on 6 Oct., Crofts and Marcia O’Connell met with Provost to report that many faculty took exception to the statement put on the Academic Affairs listserve on 30 Sept. They asked Provost to issue a statement to the faculty, saying that the 30 Sept. version was preliminary and making the case for the elements of that statement that the Provost considered most necessary.
Ralph Edelbach: notes that Provost statement was issued with no explanation. Mentions that he (Edelbach) is the author of the document identifying seven key unresolved issues raised by Provost’s statement; this is not an official AFT response.
Dan Crofts: commends Edelbach document, and calls attention to related document presented by himself and Marcia O’Connell?that Provost statement could not be considered finished or definitive, that it appeared to run contrary to the process he announced on 10 Sept., and that it raised a number of contentious issues that had not been discussed or resolved.
Hank Fradella moves to suspend normal rules and debate
Seconded and voted unanimously
Open Debate
Leslie Rice: Provost statement appears to increase workload for faculty, requires exorbitant amount of student contact time and office time, that faculty is being dictated to through the document instead of being respected as professionals. Objects to being forced to document every action. She is upset; Provost statement is repressive.
Jean Konzal: after reading document she believes that it changes the role of chair from a leader among peers to a supervisor.
Hank Fradella: document is fundamental betrayal of faculty after good-faith negotiations, extra effort to teach courses is being ignored, “additional opportunities” is ominous, faculty must speak in loud and clear voice.
Don Lovett: displeased with administration’s refusal to explain or defend 30 Sept document. Also complains about Dr. Osagie’s contradictory advice about whether or not faculty should apply for SOSA.
Pam Lieb: on the “extra 6 hours committee” in her school. Her school has no chairs, area coordinators do not have chair status, everything is left to Dean’s discretion-Dean says that if teaching has been done well before then there shouldn’t be additional time needed to teach a transformed course.
Art Hohmuth: most people in his department are upset, angry, betrayed-seems that everyone who has spoken so far in Senate wants a stronger statement of disagreement than Edelbach’s list of unresolved issues or the Crofts-O’Connell proposal.
John Karsnitz: faculty and students together will be filling the 6 hours with course-related work; the administration is not giving the faculty anything.
Tom Hagedorn: dislikes system of private negotiations that Provost will not support in public; disagrees with anything that would require scholarship to be approved by Dean; control of one’s own research is an academic freedom issue.
Beth Paul: upset and very angry about “additional opportunities”; tenured and untenured faculty will be played with when seeking grants; blatant disagreements between Provost’s 30 Sept statement and Dean’s CFA response issued the same day; all this is embarrassing.
Rick Kamber: two issues stand out: 1) faculty should not have to submit plans on 6 hours, but rather provide a brief update on what they have done during the previous academic year, 2) the discussion of six extra hours is unrealistic; each new course will require on average 3.5 faculty weighted hours, so that the number of extra hours might better be pegged at three (3.5 x 6 = 21). Also, SOSA will remain important. The administration does need to have something to explain to the State of New Jersey on this matter.
Ed Conjura: commends Provost for uniting faculty, agrees with Fradella, does not want another evaluation.
Hank Fradella: CFA opposed any new evaluation and was completely disregarded.
Ann Marie Nicolosi: dislikes threatened penalties in last paragraph of 30 Sept. document.
Bob McMahan: teaching a transformed course requires fitting seven hours of material into three hours; students are working a lot harder; his student evaluations will suffer.
Simona Wright: she has more students in each class; it requires more than .5 fwh extra (Kamber) to teach each transformed class; she has many more hours of work. SOSA has been reduced. Students know they are being cheated, and having to pay more tuition for fewer courses.
David Venturo: the six hours is a fiction; we need a strong resolution.
Georgia Arvanitis: shares Hagedorn anxiety about Deans and Osagie scrutinizing research.
Hank Fradella: introduces resolution, which was seconded and amended to read as follows:
“On September 30, 2003, the Office of Academic Affairs released a document entitled, ‘Comparing Faculty Work in the Current and Transformed System.’ Having supported transformative change, the Faculty Senate rejects this document. The document violates the spirit and the letter of the CFA Final Recommendation on Implementing the 3-3 Workload for Faculty issued in May 2003. Moreover, it violates the key principle of academic freedom. Finally, it appears to be inconsistent not only with some of the fundamental premises of academic transformation, but also with other documents that have been issued from the Office of Academic Affairs. Accordingly, the Faculty Senate condemns the issuance of this document and calls for its immediate withdrawal.”
Steve Klug: commends faculty unity; has never seen such a focused group of faculty in the past several years.
Rick Kamber: suggests combining his resolution with Hank Fradella’s; it would call for a simple report to chair at the end of each academic year regarding scholarship, service, and advising/mentoring, but without language on Dean approval.
Michael Robertson: likes Kamber idea; does not think that c.v. is the way to report.
Don Lovett: proposed amendment to ask Provost to constitute a conference committee to complete CFA report.
Gladys Word: Reject Provost document totally and see what happens; it is unfair and no good and destroys academic freedom.
Don Vandegrift: was CFA report accepted?
Jean Konzal: urges faculty to remember that the concept of transformation is something that we accept.
Steve Klug: feels there is a basic communication problem between Provost and faculty.
Rick Kamber: opposes putting word “betrayed” into resolution; feels it might cause embarrassment later on.
Ann Marie Nicolosi: stay away from “betrayed.”
Question called by Hank Fradella.
Rick Kamber proposes adding his resolution to Fradella’s.
Hank Fradella: wants separate resolutions.
Motion to close debate on Fradella resolution, seconded-unanimous affirmative.
Fradella resolution (see above) passes 31-0-0, none opposing or abstaining.
Kamber resolution moved and seconded.
Simona Wright: objects, not good.
Marcia O’Connell: agrees with Kamber; sharing information with chair not an infringement of faculty rights.
Georgia Arvanitis: objects to having to tell the Dean about scholarship.
Michael Robertson: doesn’t see Kamber proposal as a burden; it will benefit the College.
Steve Klug: Kamber motion not ready to be voted on; moves to table.
-Motion to close debate: passed.
-Motion to table Kamber resolution; seconded and passed; Kamber resolution tabled.
-Meeting adjourned shortly before five o’clock.
Faculty Senate Meeting Draft Minutes- October 22, 2003
12:30-1:50 p.m.
Biology 209
Roll call:
Excused: Hank Fradella, Maureen Gorman, Tom Hagedorn, Art Hohmuth, Ruane Miller,
Beth Paul, Michael Robertson, Teresa San Pedro
Absent: Adam Knobler, Bob McMahan, Consuelo Preti, Patrick Tebbe
Dan Crofts: Normal rules will be suspended for this special meeting, which has been called in response to a request from President Barbara Gitenstein and Provost Steve Briggs. The Senate made it plain two weeks ago that we did not accept “Comparing Faculty Work in the Current and Transformed Systems.” The question now is to develop a reasonable alternative. The Faculty Senate since 1998 has moved from an adversarial to a constructive relationship with the administration, and it is in this spirit that we welcome the President and Provost today.
Barbara Gitenstein: Emphasizes shared purposes in common and broad agreement on academic transformation, notwithstanding honest disagreements. Sees three key points of agreement:
. enriched experiences for the students.
. a higher standard of scholarship/mentorship/service for faculty.
. a notion of accountability regarding certain matters, especially scholarship.
Honest disagreement can be healthy, and will be taken seriously by administration when faculty raise legitimate concerns. The resolution will have to be a compromise.
Steve Briggs: Appreciates emphatic response from faculty. The document of September 30 was a working discussion document. He will retract it. Sees the need to make a fresh start in defining Faculty Work without using three “A” words (“additional,” “approval,” “accountability”). Perhaps the President’s “notion of accountability” can be a useful substitute for the third.
Understands that quantitative approach was off-putting. Time now to start with a clean sheet and to seek a consensus on the eight issues mentioned in his statement to the Faculty dated October 14, and a “Principles of Transformation” document dated October 22 and handed out at this meeting. Seeks affirmation on the need for “powerful learning experiences,” offered by teacher-scholars, that will challenge students to become “engaged and accomplished learners.” How can these powerful learning experiences be credited? How can they be demonstrated? The purpose is not to assess but to demonstrate, both to external constituencies and to each other, that we are accomplishing the goals that we say we say we intend to accomplish. What roles for chairs and deans?
Barbara Gitenstein: some aspects may need to be delayed.
Steve Briggs: Mark Kiselica has suggested the need for delay, but we need to have a system in place for September 2004, and the end of this semester is a practical deadline for redefining Faculty Work. Some weighting details can wait.
Ed Conjura: commends Briggs for bringing faculty together and for retracting document.
Steve Briggs: believes in consultation, realizes that the way in which the document was released was not good. It appeared to lack consultation, even though consultation had been taking place.
Don Lovett: disagrees on not having to address teaching weightings right away. Labs, etc., must be assigned.
Steve Briggs: give priority to student needs.
Barbara Gitenstein: even if transition costs are higher than expected, she is prepared to provide support.
Steve Briggs: invest in resources that will have the most impact on students.
Bill Behre: the college places a premium on faculty research. Worries about departure from the earlier model that gave equal weight to service.
Barbara Gitenstein: scholarship and creativity are number one.
Bill Behre: people are not being rewarded for service.
Steve Briggs: acknowledges service responsibilities. Reassigned time may offset heavy service responsibilities.
Bill Behre: questions assumption that service workload is the same in all schools.
Steve Briggs: departments have responsibility for figuring out how to divide up the work.
Pamela Lieb: can standard courses count for 4 fwh?
Steve Briggs: expects to have students in transformed programs in September 2004, with students taking four courses per semester and teachers teaching three. But crediting all courses with 4 fwh blurs differing course experiences. As said before, a quantitative approach creates difficulties.
Marcia O’Connell: thanks to President and Provost for coming today. There was a lack of communication two weeks ago. Few faculty believe that the problems were intentional, and most see a lack of understanding.
Barbara Gitenstein: not bothered by disagreements, they are healthy.
Rick Kamber: doubts the wisdom of including service as part of the 24 fwh. Service is what full-time faculty are expected to do, over and above teaching and scholarship.
Scholarship is hard to do during a teaching semester; should it be included inside the 24 fwh?
Also believes that transformed courses require more time, even if not contact hours. It is not true to say that we have six “free” fwh.
Barbara Gitenstein: wants scholarship emphasized. Calls attention to study by Eugene Rice on how faculty invest their time.
Rick Kamber: Service and scholarship are over and above 24 fwh.
Steve Briggs: faculty should contribute in various ways; there should not be “free riders.”
Rick Kamber: disagrees on putting service inside the 24 fwh.
Barbara Gitenstein: no perfect system can address all problems.
Steve Briggs: argues for flexibility.
Steve Klug: applauds new document on working principles just handed out by Provost. Three things can now be learned:
1. faculty know that it will require more than 3 fwh to teach a transformed course.
2. faculty understand that there must be some kind of accountability, or process to that effect. At meeting of October 8, Faculty Senate tabled such a resolution for lack of time. The faculty regarded the method of accounting in the September 30 document as insulting.
3. lack of confidence on process of accountability for 6 fwh, especially when going to deans. There is a disconnect between department and dean offices.
Steve Briggs: has already referred to first two points raised by Steve Klug in opening remarks. September 30 document is retracted. Lack of confidence in deans is more of an issue in some schools than others. Deans are new, they will get better with experience.
Romulo Ochoa: we agree on principles but differ on specifics. Any November 15 deadline for deciding will be impossible to meet. We do not yet know what numbers of Gen Ed/Liberal Learning sections will be needed. Wonders how science courses are to be weighted.
Steve Briggs: Liberal Learning is still not final because we have to figure out resources. The key sticking issue: will there be one or two required science sections? Even if there are disagreements we can plan for Fall 2004. If cost estimates are within a 10% range, that is close enough.
Don Vandegrift: what about equity across schools? Business courses have 30% more FTEs.
Steve Briggs: one of most difficult things is to allocate resources fairly across schools. All can demonstrate a legitimate need for lines, as the Business dean has done. Hard issues: how do you credit labs? Field experiences?
Bozena Leven: will three transformed courses require as much faculty effort as four old ones?
Steve Briggs: various ways to enhance learning experiences, some of which involve more faculty time than others. Modern Languages will have groups of students meeting outside of class. Even though he is quantitatively oriented, he is content to get away from numbers. Find ways to create powerful learning experiences that are efficient. Powerful learning experiences are not necessarily inefficient.
Georgia Arvanitis: wants resolution on how to weight lab hours. Chemistry is shorthanded with only three full time-faculty. Hard to hire without being able to tell candidates about lab weighting.
Steve Briggs: labs are powerful learning experiences. We need to know what is best and what we can afford.
Marcia O’Connell: can this be done by November 15?
Steve Briggs: by the end of the semester.
Simona Wright: are there precedents for students taking four courses and faculty teaching three?
Briggs: Yes, many, although most don’t have a contractual 24 fwh. Gettysburg and many others have a standard 3-3 teaching load. Only the richest schools have standard teaching loads lower than 3-3.
Ralph Edelbach: 24 fwh is an upper limit; the Union does not mandate 24 hours and would not care if it was lower
Dan Crofts: thanks Provost and President and declares meeting concluded.
Steve Briggs: welcomes any comments, can be reached through e-mail.