Faculty Senate MeetingMinutes # 441October 27, 2017
Faculty Senate MeetingOctober 27, 2017
Excused:Janna Heyman, Jude Jones, Diane Rodriguez
Meeting:O'Hare Special Collections, Walsh Library, Rose Hill Campus
Guest:Lesley Massiah-Arthur, Associate VP for Government Relations
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Senate President Micki McGee at 11:42 a.m. in the O'Hare Special Collections, Walsh Library.
2. Invocation
Senator Blumberg delivered the invocation.
3. Guest presentation on DACA: Lesley Massiah-Arthur, Associate VP for Government Relations
Lesley Massiah-Arthur, Associate Vice President for Government Relations, gave a brief presentation on the campaign she is coordinating for the University in response to the Trump administration's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). The campaign is a collaborative effort, involving all three campuses, and including the Provost's Office, the Office of Campus Ministry, United Student Government (at RH and LC), and Residential Hall associations. This is a 2-week campaign focusing on 3 efforts:
1) a postcard writing campaign (postcards are being distributed)
2) a letter-writing campaign (an email will be sent out to the whole Fordham community)
3) a phone bank (at LC and RH) to allow students, faculty, and staff to call legislators.
She is also developing a series of four WFUV podcasts dealing with immigration, the first of which will be a discussion of DACA led by Fr. McShane.
Following a brief Q&A, Senators thanked Lesley Massiah-Arthur with a round of applause.
4. Minutes -- approval of the minutes of September 8th, 2017 meeting
The minutes of the September 8th meeting were approved by a vote of 18-0-2
5. Report from the Provost -- Stephen Freedman
The Provost addressed three items, inviting questions and discussion:
1) online education at Fordham
The Provost is very pleased with the Senate's decision to form an Interdisciplinary Task Force on online / hybrid learning, and will be providing the Task Force with detailed information about plans for online-, hybrid-, and distance-learning. Addressing the partnership with 2U, Inc. in some detail, the Provost discussed the decision made over the summer to sign a contract with the company to partner with two Schools: GSE and GSS. The decision was made after extensive conversations with the Deans of each School and based on the judgment that it was necessary to sustain the strength and to ensure future competitiveness in existing programs. The Provost noted that 2U works with premier institutions (e.g. Harvard and USC) and that the company approached Fordham, not the other way round. More information about the involvement of faculty prior to signing the contract and following that will be communicated to the Task Force. Looking ahead to the possibility of other Schools' involvement (Gabelli, Law School, Grad School of Religion and Religious Education), the Provost wants to ensure faculty engagement in the process. He has asked Ron Jacobson (AVP for Academic Affairs) to work with the Task Force to provide whatever information it may need.
2) the appointment of Rafael Zapata as Chief Diversity Officer
The Provost met with the new CDO this week to congratulate him on his appointment and to underscore the Provost's commitment to his success. The Provost noted that he will play a principal role working with Jonathan Crystal and Ellen Fahey-Smith to provide departments the support they need for recruitment and retention efforts as well as to provide encouragement to departments that may have been less effective in diversity initiatives. The Provost stated that significant resources were made available in the budget to support the position and will be ongoing.. He welcomed feedback from faculty on how the Provost might most effectively work with the CDO. He concluded by thanking members of the search committee, and Anthony Carter for his outstanding work chairing the committee.
3) Town Hall sessions
Both the Provost and AVP Jonathan Crystal emphasized that the Town Hall sessions they have been holding over the last 2 months (and will continue to hold) have been significant in calling their attention to a broad range of faculty issues.
Following the Provost's report, the Senate President addressed the Senate concerning an article that had appeared that morning in the student newspaper, the Observer, on the appointment of the Chief Diversity Officer. The President said she was deeply disappointed to learn that a confidential search committee document, prepared by faculty who had participated in the interview process, had been leaked to the newspaper. She expressed grave concern about the breach of confidentiality, noting that this was both a statutory and a professional issue. She noted that her concern was not primarily with the student journalists' actions, but rather with any person willing to leak confidential concerns raised during the hiring process. She underscored her praise for the search committee's work, including that of its chair.
There was a lengthy discussion following this in which Senators expressed the hope that any damage done might be offset by a full, supportive, and open engagement with the incoming CDO. There was discussion, too, about the implications of this breach for assessing the newly restructured Observer (especially the role of faculty advisors), and for the participation of students in Senate meetings.
The Provost was asked by one Senator about the News and Media Relations announcement on the results of the investigation into the conduct of the Dean of Students in Resident Assistant Training sessions. Concern was expressed by a number of Senators about the pattern of using outside investigations to absolve the University of any blame, to stifle student concerns, and to avoid responsibility for effecting structural change.
The Senate voted by acclamation to go into Executive Session. At 12:47 the Senate went into Executive Session, returning at 1:00 p.m.
Following a brief break, the Senate President introduced the next agenda item with a brief comment on rumors that had been circulating about the proposed discussion of merit considerations. She noted that it was erroneous that the Senate was planning to vote on eliminating merit during this meeting, but that discussions of merit were entirely appropriate, and seeking out the faculty's views on this was key to the process.
On a motion from Senator Chase (seconded by Senator Saharia [?]), the Senate voted to go into Executive Session again, by a vote of 16 - 3 - 2.
The Senate went into Executive Session at 1:10 and came out of Executive Session at 1:21.
6. Report from the Committee on Salary & Benefits - Professor Andrew Clark, Chair, Faculty Committee on Salary and Benefits
a. update on healthcare safety-net fund mediation
A $250,000 annual hardship fund was part of our AY2017 negotiation over health care. The precise terms of that fund were to be worked out this summer and in the early fall with a deadline of September 30, 2017. Although in late August the Chief Counsel had said she would share a written proposal with us, we only received an email with some ideas sketched out as to what the Administration was thinking. The Senate President McGee and the Chair of Salary and Benefits worked with our lawyer to submit a detailed proposal to the administration. Fordham’s Chief Counsel made a series of changes to this proposal that we found unacceptable. Initially she wanted faculty to establish eligibility criteria for establishing a “financialhardship” that looked at the percentage of uncovered medical expenses as measured against the employee's household adjusted gross income, which would require submitting tax returns in order to be eligible for reimbursement from the hardship fund. We rejected that proposal and insisted that the hardship fund kick in after faculty spent down their HRA and a to-be-determined sum after that. The precise sum of that was negotiable. The Chief Counsel then appeared to endorse our proposal for the most part, but wanted to remove all the language we had put in that would ensure transparency (specifically regarding the contract).
We requested a copy of the contract with the Third Party Administrator to help ensure full transparency and proposed the following safe guards:
- a fair mechanism for calculating the reimbursement that would be shared in advance
- safeguards against incentives for the Third Party Administrator, the Administration had allegedly hired, for not reimbursing faculty
- anonymous random checks of the pay outs
- consultation at the end of the year to see whether the current system was working, among other details
Citing a desire not to have us co-manage, the Chief Counsel removed all these safe guards and all transparency. We said we would be willing to increase the amount of money faculty would have to pay out if we could have the transparency, but the Chief Counsel still refused. Our lawyer submitted another revised document to the Chief Counsel in advance of the September 30 deadline. The Chief Counsel didn’t respond until Saturday, September 30, when our lawyer was absent, and the Chief Counsel communicated that the deadline would not be extended and they didn’t agree to our terms.
Fortunately, conversations were able to resume in October and we decided on using a mediator to work out our differences. A mediator recommended by our counsel and the University’s external counsel was hired. We are using the Senate legal fund to pay our portion of this mediator. On Thursday, October 19, Senate President McGee, our lawyer, and Chair of Salary and Benefitsfaced Tom Dunne–VP of Administration, Martha Hirst–CFO, Nick Milowski–VP of Finance, Elaine Crosson–Chief Counsel, Kay Turner–new VP of HR, and Doug Catalano–the University’s external counsel, as we met with the mediator for four hours. Although Doug Catalano had no copy of our proposal and appeared not to have been informed on any of its details, he initiated his statement by stating he didn’t see that there were any problems with our requests. The mediator also seemed not to understand why the University wouldn’t want to give us the transparency we requested. After multiple caucuses and back and forth, the administration conceded verbally to the majority of our requests and it was decided that the two lawyers would work with the mediator to finalize the document.
We are still finalizing the document but are relatively happy with the protections we have put in place for faculty. In particular, we will be able to see the portions of the contract that deal with the hardship fund and the HRA which the Third Party Administrator (TPA) will also manage. The mediator will review the entire contract to make sure there are no incentives for the TPA to withhold money. We will be able to see and comment on the mechanisms that will be used to determine reimbursement in advance. And we will be able to do so before meeting with the TPA. Other checks during the process will also be preserved and will help ensure that faculty are being treated fairly and are reimbursed.
Of course, we expressed concern from the beginning with the actual TPA that the University has hired. They appear to have extremely bad reviews online, in fact the worst possible ratings for their customer service. The mediator also asked whether it was in everybody’s interest to work with such a poor TPA. Although we had been told since early September that the TPA had been chosen and a contract had been signed, when the mediator asked Fordham’s Chief Counsel whether the University had signed a contract with the TPA, she said no. We were also able to keep the amounts to be eligible for the TPA relatively low. They will be $200/$400 after spending down the HRA. It will be important that faculty are aware of the hardship fund and that they submit requests for reimbursement if they experience hardship so that we are assured to use the $250,000 that we secured during our negotiations. We expect the finalized language on the document to be in place before the end of the month.
During the report one Senator noted that in past years Salary and Benefits has been suspicious about things hidden in past agreements. Senator Clark noted again that the Senate President and Chair of Salary and Benefits will see the portions of the contract pertaining to the hardship fund and the HRA. The mediator will see the entire contract.
b. proposed referendum on merit increments
Senator Clark briefly presented the recommendation from the Salary & Benefits Committee that the Senate hold a faculty-wide referendum to consider the allocation of merit for this year and annually for the term of the contract. He explained that the motion was passed unanimously by all 12 members of the Salary Benefits committee, and is now being brought to the Senate.
A number of Senators sought clarification on the wording of the resolution being brought to the Senate, as well as the implications of that wording. Over the course of the discussion, it was emphasized that the intention of the Senate was to
1) develop the referendum languageafter a full faculty forum to be held in November;
2) consider proposed wording of the referendum at its November meeting, following the full faculty forum (pending scheduling) and before the referendum is sent to faculty;
3) the referendum would necessarily be non-binding in accordance with the statutory processes regarding merit.
Among the points raised and discussed by Senators were the following:
*the need to inform faculty of the way merit has been apportioned
*the urgency of timing involved, given that individual applications for merit are due early in 2018
*the question of whether the 3-year contract legally obligates us to apportion merit
Over the course of discussion, two friendly amendments were added to the original motion: 1) to clarify that the referendum will be non-binding; and 2) that the proposed text of the referendum will be presented at the next Faculty Senate meeting.
At 2:20 am there was a motion to call the question from Senator Saharia, second by Senator Blumberg. The motion was passed by a vote of 16 - 1 - 2.
The following resolution was voted on:
The Senate resolves to develop a faculty-wide referendum to consider the allocation of merit for this year and annually for the term of the 3-year salary contract. This will be a non-binding referendum. The proposed text of the referendum will be presented at the next Faculty Senate meeting.
The resolution passed by a vote of 17 - 0 - 2
At 2:25 p.m., the Senate voted on a motion from Senator Saharia, seconded by Senator Vernon, to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. The motion passed by a vote of 16 - 2 - 0.
7. Updates on ongoing business
President Micki McGee noted that Senator Jones was unable to attend and so discussion of Student Life Committee Membership and Work Structure (along with discussion of Lincoln Center student concerns, the last item on the agenda) would need to be postponed.
Senate Online/Hybrid Learning Task Force
Motion to extend the deadline for the Interdisciplinary Task Force on Online/Hybrid Learning
The Senate approved a motion from Senator Saharia, seconded by Senator Vernon, to extend the deadline for the Interdisciplinary Task Force on Online/Hybrid Learning to report back to the Senate; the deadline is extended from December 31 to February 2, one week before the February Senate meeting.
The deadline for the Interdisciplinary Task Force on Online / Hybrid learning to report back to the Senate is extended from the end of this calendar year until one week before the February 2018 Senate meeting.
The motion was passed by acclamation.
On phased retirement language, Senator Baumgarth (chair of the Handbook Committee) announced that he would be returning to the Senate with a report at a future meeting.
On the return of funds to senate donors, President McGee noted that the language has been drafted and will be going out soon, pending data from Senator Vernon
8. Chief Diversity Officer -- discussion of rank
Senator Clark reported that the Arts & Sciences Council had voted to recommend that the position of Chief Diversity Officer be elevated to the rank of Vice President and be part of the President's Advisory Council. He recommended that Senate pass a similar motion, given that there was a consensus amongst all those involved in the hiring process for this position and given that this was a recommendation made by all the various Task Forces that recommended this position, including the President's Task Force on Diversity, as well as by CUSP.
Following discussion about the feasibility of the recommendation being adopted, about the timing, and about its symbolic significance, Senator Clark proposed the following motion, seconded by Senator GoGwilt: