Seton Hall University Faculty Senate

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

Meeting of June 6, 2014

9:30 a.m.

Beck Rooms

Walsh Library

Agenda

1. Sign in for quorum

Mary Balkun, Gita DasBender, Patrick Fisher, Anthony Haynor, Amy Hunter, Diana Alvarez-Amell, Tin Chun (Tina) Chu, Martha Easton, Jonathan Farina, Sean Harvey, Alexandra Hennessy, Mark Molesky, Kelly Shea, Kyle Heim, Theresa Henry, A.D. Amar, Luke Stedrak, Gerard Babo, Robert Kelchen, Beth Bloom, Alan Delozier, Richard Stern, Marcia Gardner, Donna Ho-Shing, Judith Lothian, Judith Lucas, Judith Egan, Mary Patricia Wall, Gregory Glazov, Eric Johnston, Philip Moremen, Benjamin Goldfrank, Irene De Masi, Richard Boergers

2. Call to order

*The meeting was called to order at 9:34 a.m.

3. Communications from Provost Robinson

i. Responsesto resolutions (dated April 28)

ii. Responsesto resolutions (dated May 30)

Provost Robinson began by thanking the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate for their hard work, time, diligence, and efforts during the past year. He is grateful and stated that the University benefits from the Senate’s work. The University Board of Regents and Trustees also reflect the same sentiments. The Provost stated that in our role of shared governance, the Senate is deeply valued and that we should always agree to work effectively for the benefit of Seton Hall.

The Provost then commented on current enrollment figures as we finish up the semester and enter summer. A total of 15,613 applications were received. Deposits are currently at 1,339 (a 5 percent decrease from this same time last year). Transfers are down 11 percent. This appears to be completely driven by a decision to decrease transfer students in the College of Nursing. Last year, there were a total of 257 transfers, 97 of which were in the College of Nursing (a large proportion, which we have taken steps to address). There is a lot of work to do over the next year, but we will reach our goal of 260 transfer students.

Graduate deposits are holding steady. Last year, we were down 3 percent. Initial calculations indicate we will be down 5 percent this year. The Provost’s hope is that we will come in on what we project. Every 1 percent decrease in graduate equates to $525,000. Gradate enrollments make 35-40 percent of our overall budget.

The Provost commented that campus construction projects are on pace. Stafford Hall, Aquinas Hall, and the parking deck addition should be ready by the Fall. Meetings are currently taking place to designate suitable parking space for faculty and staff.

The Provost stated that as we prepare for next year and years after, it is increasingly important to address some major challenges we are going to face. There is a change in demographic in regard to enrollment pattern, shifts in student demand, and reduced affordability. Our quality and selectiveness helps us enhance our academic reputation. He also added that there is a lot of competitive pressure. In looking at the discount rates, ratios, and populations of the 4,000 other higher education institutions in the United States, we are going to have to plan differently with regards to our program inventory. Seton Hall is tuition-driven by over 90 percent (it should be under 85 percent). The Provost stated that in the not-too-distant future, because of the ratios that exist, there are smaller, private institutions that will no longer be in existence in the next 5-7 years. Therefore, there are substantial challenges in regards to how we compose our classes and continue to evolve as an institution. If you do not have substantial endowments or a national reputation, there is vulnerability. Our reputation is evolving (80-point increase in SAT scores in the last two years). Our deposits are down because our students are competing for greater merit scholarships. These challenges are formidable. In the next 7-10 years, one-third to half of the 4,000 higher education institutions will be in serious trouble. The upper-tiered schools are matching us in discount rates and the lower-level schools are exceeding what we give because they are trying to get the numbers, but that is not sustainable. We have to depend on our program inventory because it generates our health and capacity.

The Provost stated the University needs the body’s leadership, improved operations, and management that are sensitive to this changing landscape. Only top-tiered institutions will be able to make substantial investments in salaries, financial aid, and facilities. Our endowment is a work in progress, so our program inventory is something we will have to look at closely because we are tuition-driven. These challenges will have to be planned for, confronted, and effectively addressed.

Finally, the Provost concluded by stating that he is always sensitive and appreciative of the resolutions brought forth by the Senate and alluded to the May Senate resolution requesting the creation of a task force charged with ensuring substantial faculty participation in the selection of future honorary degree recipients and commencement speakers, which he did not sign off on. He stated that he is in the process of examining all aspects of commencement from reviewing the venue itself (e.g., IZOD Center, Prudential Center, returning to campus) to how future speakers are considered (whether to have one or not). He stated that early in the Fall, he will have a discussion with the leadership of the Senate to see where we are. At the moment, he would like to make a commitment to shorten the ceremony itself.

*Questions:

Q: A task force member inquired on the status of the Intellectual Property Policy that was approved by the Senate.

A: The Provost responded that in early July, a visitor from Penn State University, who is well-versed on this issue and has substantial experience in this area, will provide Penn State’s perspective on handling intellectual property to the deans. When we return in the fall, we hope to have something on hand.

4. Approval of agenda without objection

5. Approval of thedraft minutesof the May 2 meeting without objection

6. Executive Committeereport

*Questions:

Q: A Senator asked if there has ever been a probationary faculty member that has received a multiyear contract or if it is okay for a dean to give someone a tenure-track contract.
A: Dr. Lothian replied that the Faculty Guide does not permit that to happen.

Q: A Senator asked why peer schools were being used in the Sibson study when the body was initially told they would be doing cluster analyses.
A: Dr. Balkun replied that it is still a cluster study and that Sibson describes it as peer schools because it is the peer list based on the cluster.

Q: A Senator asked how to get access to the peer list.
A: Dr. Lothian replied that it is available on the Senate website under the Compensation & Welfare Committee page.

Q: A Senator asked how Sibson selected the schools they put on the list.
A: Dr. Balkun commented that the real question is in the methodology used to arrive to the list.

Q: A Senator asked if Sibson will compare the School of Business salaries to the AACSB (accreditation body) peers.
A: Dr. Lothian replied that this would likely be one of the criteria for how they choose the peer institutions.

7. Reports of standing and special committees

a. Academic Facilities Committeereport

*Dr. Lothian stated she would inform Senior Associate Provost Guetti that she should expect to hear from the committee soon.

b. Admissions Committeereport

*C Lynn Carr presented the report on behalf of Eric Johnston.

*The committee requested increased involvement from the faculty to encourage students interested in attending Seton Hall.

c. Calendar Committeereport

d. Compensation and Welfare Committeereport

i. Motion: We resolve that the Senate Benefits Advisory Committee members bring the inclusion of bariatric surgery, including pre-surgery tests and post-surgery tests and/or procedures, to this year’s discussions about healthcare.

*Some Senators expressed their dissatisfaction with their current salaries and that faculty compensation is not a priority at the University.

*Dr. Lothian commented that there is investigation at the Provost-level related to faculty compensation and that he is committed to doing something about it, which is why the Sibson study is being conducted. The Senate requested an adjunct task force out of the Provost’s Office 18 months ago but it never happened, which is why the committee was commissioned to collect this data.

e. Graduate Studies Committeereport

f. Library Committeereport

*Beth Bloom presented the report on behalf Alan Delozier.

8. Committees with no reports

a. Academic Policy Committee
*Amy Hunter & John Saccoman were elected co-chairs.

b. Core Curriculum Committee
*Beth Bloom was elected chair.

*Proposed bylaws will be sent to the Faculty Guide & Bylaws committee to review.

c. Faculty Development Committee

d. Faculty Grievance Committee

e. Faculty Guide and Bylaws Committee

*Mary Balkun was elected chair.

f. Instructional Technology Committee

g. Nominations, Elections, and Appointments Committee

*Richard Dool was re-elected chair.

h. Program Review Committee

i. Intellectual Property Task Force

9. Committee Motions

a. Executive Committee

i. Motion: To suspend the Faculty Senate by-laws for a first and second reading of changes to the Faculty Guide in order to allow a vote on the revised version of the Lecturer Line.

*Vote: the motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.

ii. Motion: To approve therevisedLecturer Line.

*Questions:

Q: A Senator raised a question about release time, believing that some lecturers should be able to engage in research.
A: Dr. Balkun responded that this line does not award for research. Individuals on this line are being hired purely for teaching.

Q: A Senator wanted to know how many individuals are expected to be on this line.
A: Dr. Lothian responded as many as the University would be willing to give us.

Q: A Senator asked what release time would be used for.
A: Dr. Lothian responded, most likely administrative work.

Q: A Senator asked if this line is meant to replace faculty associates.
A: Dr. Lothian stated that this line allows some individuals who are on a term to stay longer. There are instances right now where the Faculty Associate Line is not being used the way it is outlined in the Faculty Guide, but it is the only place we can put some individuals if they are not on a tenure-track line and we want them here for longer than 5 years.

*Vote: the motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.

iii. Motion:Given the delay in having the Lecturer line approved, and given its anticipated approval by this body and the provost, we propose that the contracts of the term instructors, which were extended for a sixth year, be extended for one additional year, with the approval of the department, dean, and provost. Also, we propose that the contracts for those ending their fifth year also be extended for a sixth year, with the approval of the department, dean, and provost.

*Questions:

Q: A Senator asked if this is a one-time occurrence.
A: Dr. Lothian responded, yes, to just allow for transition.

*Judith Lucas proposed an amendment to the motion to add the academic year as specified below:

Given the delay in having the Lecturer line approved, and given its anticipated approval by this body and the provost, we propose that the contracts of the term instructors, which were extended for a sixth year, be extended for one additional year AY 2014-2015, with the approval of the department, dean, and provost. Also, we propose that the contracts for those ending their fifth year also be extended for a sixth year AY 2014-2015, with the approval of the department, dean, and provost.

*Vote on Dr. Lucas’s amendment: passed unanimously by voice vote.
*Vote on the revised motion: passed unanimously by voice vote.

b. Compensation and Welfare Committee

*Marcia Gardener proposed an amendment to the motion to add benefits, effective 2015 as specified below:

We resolve that the Senate Benefits Advisory Committee members bring the inclusion of bariatric surgery, including pre-surgery tests and post-surgery tests and/or procedures, to this year’s discussions about healthcare benefits, effective 2015.

*Vote on Dr. Gardner’s amendment: passed unanimously by voice vote.

After more discussion, the question was called.
*Vote on the revised motion: passed unanimously by voice vote.

10. Old Business

i. Draftcriteria & procedures for Hakim Faculty Service Award
*The draft criteria & procedures were presented by Richard Dool.

*Questions/Comments:

*A Senator commented that determining the winner of the Hakim Medal is a qualitative issue but is being made quantitative through the point system proposed in the draft.
Q: A Senator Sean Harvey asked why there is an urge to change the criteria.
A: Dr. Lothian responded that there have never been any set criteria.
*A Senator commented that the point system should be eliminated.
*Elizabeth McCrea proposed an amendment to remove the point system but leave the criteria outlined in the draft.

*The amendment was seconded by Judith Lucas:

*Vote on Dr. McCrea’s amendment: passed unanimously by voice vote.
*A Senator commented that the quantitative element to service (i.e., serving on 20 committees versus 2) should be retained. A.D. Amar, a member of the committee, stated that there are criteria outlined gauging the leadership role in the service activity as well as the impact and longevity of the impact. Dr. Balkun added that the criteria request participation in various service projects.
*Vote to the amended draft criteria & procedures for Hakim Faculty Service Award: passed unanimously by voice vote.

11. New Business

*None.

12. Communications

*None.

13. Adjournment

*The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 a.m.