SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of September 6, 2013
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Manfred Minimair, W. King Mott, Jon Radwan, Peter Reader, John
T. Saccoman, Mary Balkun, Gita Das Bender, Patrick Fisher, Anthony Haynor, Amy Hunter,
Nathaniel Knight, Diana Alvaraz-Amell, A.D. Amar, John Shannon, Theresa Henry, Hongfei Tang,
Ben Beitin, Eunyoung Kim, Lauren McFadden, Laura Palmer, Richard Stern, Beth Bloom, Judith
Lothian, Pamela Galehouse, Marcia Gardner, Donna Ho-Shing, Mary Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas,
Eric Johnston, Gregory Glazov, Phil Moremen, Ann Marie Murphy, Richard Boergers, Irene De
Masi, Mara Podvey, Cathy Maher
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 1:06 pm.
3. Communications from President A. Gabriel Esteban & Provost Larry Robinson
* Dr. Esteban welcomed the Senate back to campus. He stated that the university received approval
on a new parking deck, which will add 550 new parking spaces, but is not sure if the project will be
completed by next fall. He thanked everyone for their cooperation with the numerous construction
projects on campus and, specifically, the faculty members who were displaced from their offices
because of maintenance projects, such as painting and carpet replacement, in their buildings. He
hopes the new improvements will increase the quality of life on campus for both students and
faculty, as this is the second largest class Seton Hall has welcomed in the last 33 years. He stated that
undergraduate transfer numbers and retention are slightly above budget, but graduate numbers are
much lower than projected. This is an issue he plans to look at much more closely, but, for the time
being, the increase in undergraduate students is compensating for the decrease in graduate students.
* Dr. Robinson stated that yesterday he visited with Dr. Esteban to discuss budget and financial
issues. Among the discussion was the fact that graduate enrollments make up one third of the
university’s budget and that we are 13 percent below budget. Albeit, the 2 percent raise for faculty
will be enacted effectively immediately. Reason being is that the undergraduate enrollment goal for
this academic year was 1,250-1,275; however, as of yesterday, enrollment was at 1,340 students (1
percent higher than planned). Dr. Robinson stated that for the last 3 or 4 years, the melt rate was
12-14 percent; now it is 7.4 percent. Historically, dropouts should have kicked in, but did not.
However, this will help impact some of the graduate issues.
* Dr. Robinson reported that as of the end of the add/drop period this week, SAT scores have
increased 51 points in 2 years; 20 points of which was experienced this year. Over the past 3 years,
SAT scores have increased an average of 40 percent. Thirty-five percent of this incoming class was
in the top 10 percent of their graduating class. This trend reflects institutional momentum. As of
yesterday, the inquiries for Fall 2014 are up 20 percent at SHU. Dr. Robinson stated that he is
seeing evidence of people wanting to move to the South Orange area because of an increase in
SHU’s reputation and prestige. It is his hope that SHU will become one of the top 10 catholic
schools and top 100 schools in the nation.
* Dr. Robinson reiterated that graduate enrollments are down 13 percent (143 students less than last
year). He commented that graduate enrollments have been flat, but yet, there were the same number
of applications completed and submitted for this academic year as there were the year before. He
wants to look at how graduate departments are handling and marketing their enrollments and
programs. He plans on doing the same at the undergraduate level as well and stated that Senior
Associate Provost Guetti is leading this effort.
* Dr. Robinson reported on the undergraduate population. He stated that there are 5,777 total
undergraduate students, 5 percent of which are humanities majors (e.g., English, history, language,
music), 33 percent are health and science majors, and 20 percent are business majors. Because of
this disparity, he wants to place additional emphasis on particular areas and focus on them.
Compared to national levels, some of the enrollments in specific areas such as the humanities have
fallen at SHU. He stated that this creates stress with regards to the demand and composition of the
class (e.g., too many nursing majors). The university never had this opportunity to examine the
unique enrollments of each area of study before because the primary consideration used to be
having a class that met the bottom line. As SHU continues to grow in reputation and prestige, he
wants to give thought to its composition and look at how many majors we have in each department
and ways to elevate programs with lesser students.
* Dr. Robinson also mentioned our Middlestates regional accreditation visit is very important. We
have a preliminary visit in October and the actual self-study will occur in April.
* Dr. Robinson commented on the current condition of parking on campus. He stated that all 100
construction workers on campus will be now be parking off-campus and shuttled in to release 100
parking spots in the deck. He promised that we will see some congestion diminished after this week
and be able to manage it better. He mentioned that Stafford Hall, our new academic building, will be
opened in the fall and will contain 8 new classrooms.
* Dr. Robinson addressed the strategic plan and stated that the university has Centers of Excellence
that have been designated and that more will be approved this fall. Every department cannot be a
center of excellence, but he stressed that this does not mean there is not excellence in departments
without this distinction. By the spring semester, there will be major developments for faculty for
research and scholarship, and opportunities for research fellows and teaching fellows so that the
same opportunities available in Centers of Excellence will be available to everyone. He stated that he
was able to secure revenue from SHU joining the Big East and $750,000 of it is being designated to
academics. There will be many opportunities for people to develop within the strategic plan.
* Dr. Robinson also received information about faculty submitting late grades. He stated that late
grades have an impact on students’ graduation and scholarships and their ability to apply for jobs,
licensures, or certifications. He asked the deans to be more attentive to this issue and wants the
faculty to be sensitive about submitting grades on time.
* The last thing Dr. Robinson wanted to share is that he feels good about where SHU is as an
institution.
Questions:
* A senator expressed concerns about graduate admissions. He stated the strategies and tactics that
bring graduate students to a university are different than those employed with undergraduates.
President Esteban replied that the total number of undergraduates nationwide is declining and will
continue to decline until 2016 by half a million students per year. This will undoubtedly impact the
number of graduate students. In addition, demographics and the economy are impacting graduate
enrollments, which we have no control over. Dr. Esteban remarked that there are many state
schools signing large deals with graduate students that are affecting our university and he believes
the Provost’s office will address this.
* A senator expressed concern over Provost Robinson’s analysis of distribution of undergraduate
majors. He stated that a lot of the departments in the humanities impact every student and he felt
they may not be reflected practically in the Provost’s figures. Provost Robinson replied that his
intent was not to devalue the department but create diversity of majors on campus. Because there
has been a decrease in the humanities and arts majors, he wants to maintain a certain level of
support and commitment to the humanities and the arts in order to elevate these areas, specifically
classes that provide the bedrock of the baccalaureate.
* A senator asked when opportunities for scholars to do research within the Provost’s strategic plan
would be available and if there was a formal policy from the Provost’s office on how to apply yet.
Provost Robinson replied that Drs. Guetti and Burton are in the process of developing this now and
that he would like to have it ready for scholars to apply to by the spring.
* A senator expressed concern about having a third of the university’s budget rely on graduate
admissions. Provost Robinson replied that the university moved in this direction to diversify
income. Relying only on undergraduate enrollments is too risky. Likewise, if the university totally
focuses is on graduate levels it creates vulnerabilities. Between 1968-1970, 80 percent of all
advanced degrees were only awarded from 20 percent of schools because they diversified their
program inventory to create additional revenue. To have the budget contingent only on
undergraduate enrollments would be a strategic mistake.
* A senator expressed concerns about 30 general education students being admitted to the university
and how they would adapt the learning environment of other advanced students. Provost Robinson
replied that these are non-scholarship students. Last year there were 100 general education students
and that number is diminishing because the university’s profile is increasing. It is part of our historic
profile and will continue. As such, 30-35 additional general education students may be admitted in
the spring. However, the university’s admissions will continue to go down each year because of the
overall quality of our students.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the June 10 meeting without objection.
6. Executive Committee report received without objection.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Facilities Committee report was received without objection.
* Per a motion from the June 10 meeting requesting an investigation of the painting and
carpeting renovations that left many faculty displaced from their offices over the
summer, Richard Stern, chair of the committee, is meeting with Dennis Garbini, Vice
President for Administration at SHU, to discuss current construction projects that are
affecting academics.
b. Compensation & Welfare Committee report was received without objection.
* A senator asked how ObamaCare will impact the faculty healthcare plan. Dr. Mary
Balkun, chair of the committee, replied that the committee is reviewing 5 different
proposals from various insurance companies and that if the current plan does not
change, we will be grandfathered in.
c. Core Curriculum Committee report was received without objection.
* Mary Balkun was elected as chair. Dr. Balkun remarked that members are needed from
the schools of theology and diplomacy.
d. Faculty Guide Committee report was received without objection.
* A senator asked if the committee was in need of more members, and Dr. Ann Marie
Murphy, chair of the committee, replied that she would like a member from the School
of Business.
8. Committees with no reports
a. Academic Policies Committee
b. Admissions Committee
* Eric Johnston was elected as chair.
c. Calendar Committee
d. Faculty Development Committee
e. Faculty Grievance Committee
f. Graduate Studies Committee
* Kelly Goedert, chair of the committee, remarked that members are needed from the
schools of business, theology, and diplomacy.
g. Instructional Technology Committee
h. Library Committee
i.
Nominations, Elections & Appointments Committee
9. Committee motions
a. Executive Committee
i. The Executive Committee moves to reconstitute the Task Force on Intellectual
Property, with members continuing from last year.
Vote: the motion to reconstitute was approved unanimously by voice vote.
10. Old Business
i.
Second reading of the Provost’s suggested changes to Article 10.1.a
“Department chairpersons are elected by majority vote of faculty members (including fulltime tenured faculty members, probationary faculty, and faculty associates) who will be
continuing employment at the university in the subsequent year. Since eligibility is based on
continuance in the following year, eligibility may need to be clarified with the dean. Faculty
members on a terminal contract are not eligible to vote.”
* The motion was discussed and is being sent to the Provost’s office for review.
11. New Business
12. Communications
13. Adjournment
* The meeting was adjourned at 2:18 pm.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of October 4, 2013
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Matthew Escobar, Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Jon Radwan, John Saccoman, Mehmet Sahiner,
Cathy Zizik, Mary Balkun, C Lynn Carr, Rick Dool, Patrick Fisher, Anthony Haynor, Diana AlvarezAmell, Marco Morazan, Mitra Shojania-Feizabadi, A.D. Amar, John Shannon, Theresa Henry, Mark
Holtzman, Ben Beitin, Eunyoung Kim, Laura Palmer, Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj, Richard Stern, Beth
Bloom, Judith Lothian, Marcia Gardner, Donna Ho-Shing, Mary Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas, Eric
Johnston, Ellen Scully, Phil Moremen, Ann Marie Murphy, Richard Boergers, Irene DeMasi, Mara
Podvey
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m.
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
Provost Robinson greeted the Senate and stated that we are now in the sixth week of the academic
year and it is going by quickly. He feels that most of the parking and construction issues have been
addressed.
Dr. Robinson then commented on undergraduate enrollment. The full headcount as of October 4 is
5,777 undergraduate students, compared to 5,474 last year. Of the 5,777, 5,387 are full-time
students, compared to 5,027 full-time students last year. These numbers indicate that Seton Hall is
evolving, especially since retention rates have increased. He anticipates we will grow 10 percent over
the next 3-4 years. There may be some things that happen to change this, but hopefully
circumstances will allow us to continue on this trajectory. Dr. Robinson then commented on gradate
enrollment. The full headcount as of October 4 is 3,067 graduate students compared to 3,115 last
year. Of the 3,067, 1,218 are full-time, compared to 1,238 full-time students last year. Graduate
enrollment continues to be one of the areas the Provost is asking deans and department chairs to
pay special attention to, as these numbers have been flat over a period of time. He wishes to revisit a
number of needs in graduate programs at every level, including processing of applications.
Dr. Robinson stated that the Law School is also down in enrollment. Current total enrollment is 748
students (486 full-time; 262 part-time) compared to a few years ago when enrollment was over 1,200
students. A year ago, there were 610 full-time law students, compared to 486 today.
Despite the deficit the university faces mainly due to the drop in graduate enrollments, there have
been across-the-board raises this year. This was possible because of the 1 percent increase in
undergraduate students this year.
Nonetheless, the Provost stated that the university is off to a good start. Dr. Alyssa McCloud, Vice
President of Enrollment Management, has reported that things are looking good for next year as
well.
Questions:
Q: A senator asked if there are other mechanisms in mind for increasing graduate enrollment.
A: Dr. Robinson replied that his main interest is looking at enrollment numbers; he either wants to
reinvest in graduate programs or reexamine them, but there are most definitely other mechanisms,
which include the Provost’s Graduate Advisory Board and the Senate’s Graduate Studies Committee
to look further into this issue. Did he say this? I remember him saying he was doing his own
research on this
Q: A senator asked if there will there be opportunities for scholarship or financial aid for graduate
students since there are currently none.
A: Dr. Robinson stated that he gets this question very frequently. He replied that the university is
trying to reduce financial aid ratios because they have an overall impact on the bottom line and
revenues. The university nets more revenue with regards to its population since it is totally tuitiondriven. The number of graduate assistantships and the amount they are awarded is an area that
might possibly be examined. Nevertheless, we have to prioritize our needs since graduate studies
have lost $3 million this year alone.
Q: A senator asked what the consideration is when awarding financial aid to undergraduate
students. Does aid go to best qualified students or to students who are in most need it?
A: Dr. Robinson replied that, in general, all financial aid is geared towards need. The university’s
hope is to reduce financial need. As we become a more prominent institution, we become more
competitive. Either you have a strong reputation or a large endowment. The university is trying to
support its students but, at the same time, trying to reduce this ratio since we are in competition
with major universities.
Q: A senator expressed concern of how the current government shutdown is impacting the
university.
A: Dr. Robinson replied that there is no impact at this time. If it continues, there may be
ramifications, but it is premature to speculate.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the September 6 meeting without objection
6. Executive Committee report was received without objection
*Dr. Lothian commented on the long anticipated approval of the nursing clinical line, which was
approved September 25, 2013 after being initially sent to the Office of the Provost in January 2012.
*A senator asked if there have been any guidelines concerning release time for scholarship in Spring
2014, as the Provost’s email was not clear. Specifically, what amount of scholarship will be required,
who will the proposals written to, who will make the decisions, and how the awards will be
distributed across disciplines? Dr. Lothian stated that there are guidelines and that the EC was told
that if faculty have any questions, they should contact the Office of the Provost.
*Finally, Dr. Lothian congratulated Jack Shannon for being awarded the Albert A. Hakim Service
Award.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Policy Committee report was received without objection
i. Resolution regarding the 3+2 B.S. Psychology/M.S. Experimental Psychology
Degree.
Resolved: The proposed 3+2 B.S. Psychology/M.S. Experimental Psychology
Degree is approved.
→ Proposal of the 3+2 B.S. Psychology/M.S. Experimental Psychology Degree
ii. Resolution regarding revisions to the Undergraduate Curriculum for Diplomacy.
Resolved: The proposed revision to the Undergraduate Curriculum in Diplomacy is
approved, with the amendment of deleting the 4th category (University
Core/Signature 3).
→ Proposal to revise the Undergraduate Curriculum for Diplomacy
iii. Resolution regarding a proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare
Administration from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and
Medical Sciences.
Resolved: the proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare Administration from the
College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and Medical Sciences is
approved.
Out of concern for maintaining the faculty’s role in the review and approval of all
programs, the Senate notes that: the SHMS faculty body did not have the
opportunity to vote on the addition of the MHA program to its curriculum and that
the SHMS GMEC did not formally vote on the program.
→ Proposal regarding the transfer of the Masters in Healthcare Administration from the College of
Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and Medical Sciences
b. Academic Facilities Committee (presented as an oral report)
*Richard Stern, chair of the committee, reported that Dennis Garbini, Vice President
for Administration at SHU, met with the AFC to discuss the renovations over the
summer. One major renovation was in the School of Nursing (air system) and
Jubilee and Fahy Halls, where there was painting and carpet replacement. A number
of faculty complained it was disruptive because it required them to clear out their
offices and they were not given enough notice to so. Vice President Garbini stated
that he and Dean of A&S were going back and forth on dates for when the
renovations would be planned. He agreed to give sufficient notice about any future
renovations. When asked why money was being spent on some renovations that
seemed unnecessary, he stated that the university wants to keep up on regular
renovations. Some faculty suggested to him during the meeting that funds should
have been allocated to classroom improvements instead. He replied that such
recommendations should be discussed with the Office of the Provost.
*A senator asked if a suggestion was made during the meeting to have faculty
involved when communications transpire between the Vice President and the deans.
Richard Stern replied that it was requested that the AFC should be consulted. VP
Garbini stated that he would make every effort to do so.
c. Admissions Committee report was received without objection.
*Eric Johnston, chair of the committee, stated that open houses are a really valuable
part of how SHU recruits students. Something the committee wants to learn more
about is how the university is being marketed. We know marketing is being done, but
we do not know what is being marketed. Dr. Johnston also commented on graduate
applications, which increased 250 percent last year, yet the number of graduate
acceptances decreased this year. It was discussed how we could better represent our
graduate programs, get approval from the Provost’s office on new programs, and
offer financial aid to graduate students. Many Senators agreed that it is the Faculty
Senate’s responsibility to ensure that the Provost’s Office makes graduate studies a
priority. Another point of concern centered on students changing majors within the
university and transferring into programs where they do not meet the admissions
criteria (e.g., current students transferring into the nursing program without the
minimum GPA required to enter the program).
d. Calendar Committee report was received without objection
*Patrick Fisher, chair of the committee, distributed a survey to the senators inquiring
on their preferences to begin the fall semester before/after Labor Day, spring
semester before/after MLK Day, and whether there should be a fall break. In the
past, academic calendars were posted 2 years in advance; however, they are currently
only available through the next semester. A number of issues related to the final
exam schedule were also discussed. The Calendar Committee would like to meet
with Associate Provost Guetti to discuss these issues.
e. Compensation Committee report was received without objection
*Mary Balkun, chair of the committee stated that the Compensation Committee will
meet on October 9 if there are any senators interested in joining. Salaries versus
facilities were of key importance during discussions at the September 17 meeting. A
number of concerns were raised by the senators pertaining to adjunct stipends, the
recent 2 percent raise, and ways to compensate senior faculty, which will be
discussed at the committee’s next meeting.
f. Faculty Development Committee report was received without objection
*Pete Reader, chair of the committee, stated that he is attempting to set up an
appointment with Nicholas Snow to understand the guidelines and application
process for the URC scholarships.
g. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report was received without objection
*Ann Marie Murphy, chair of the committee, reported that the FG&BC is currently
reviewing 3 primary issues: multiyear contracts, lecturer lines, and faculty grievance
bylaws and that individual subcommittees have been created to examine each of
these issues.
*Dr. Lothian commented that during lunch earlier today with the Provost and
President, the EC was told a lecturer line would not affect tenure.
h. Graduate Studies Committee report was received without objection
*Kelly Goedert, chair of the committee, announced that the next GSC meeting will
take place on October 9 and would like feedback from the Senate on ways to
improve graduate enrollment.
i. Intellectual Property Task Force
i. Copyright Policy
*The Copyright Policy was presented to the Senate by John Shannon and Lisa WilesRose for possible vote at the November 1 meeting.
j. Library Committee report was received without objection
k. Program Review Committee report
*Ben Beitin, chair of the committee, stated that all program members have been
finalized.
8. Committees with no reports
a. Core Curriculum Committee
b. Faculty Grievance Committee
c. Instructional Technology Committee
d. Nominations, Elections, & Appointments Committee
9. Committee motions
a. Executive Committee
i. Motion: A Task Force be created to examine issues related to the relationship
between the Senate, the Core Advisory Board, the Core Curriculum Committee, and
the APC. The committee will include the Chairs of the CAB, the CCC, the APC, the
Senate, and one other member appointed by the Chair of the Senate. The Task Force
will make recommendations to the Senate by the November meeting.
*Vote: the motion was approved unanimously.
b. Academic Policy Committee
i. Resolution regarding the 3+2 B.S. Psychology/M.S. Experimental Psychology
Degree.
Resolved: The proposed 3+2 B.S. Psychology/M.S. Experimental Psychology
Degree is approved.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
ii. Resolution regarding revisions to the Undergraduate Curriculum for Diplomacy.
Resolved: The proposed revision to the Undergraduate Curriculum in Diplomacy is
approved, with the amendment of deleting the 4th category (University
Core/Signature 3).
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
iii. Resolution regarding a proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare
Administration from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and
Medical Sciences.
Out of concern for maintaining the faculty’s role in the review and approval of all
programs, the Senate notes that: the SHMS faculty body did not have the
opportunity to vote on the addition of the MHA program to its curriculum and that
the SHMS GMEC did not formally vote on the program.
Resolved: The proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare Administration from
the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and Medical Sciences is
approved.
*A.D. Amar proposed a motion to split this motion into 2 separate motions.
Marianne Lloyd seconded this motion.
*Vote: the motion to split was passed unanimously.
iv. Resolution regarding a proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare
Administration from the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and
Medical Sciences.
Resolved: The proposed move of the Masters in Healthcare Administration from
the College of Arts and Sciences to the School of Health and Medical Sciences is
approved.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
v. Resolution Out of concern for maintaining the faculty’s role in the review and
approval of all programs, the Senate notes that: the SHMS faculty body did not have
the opportunity to vote on the addition of the MHA program to its curriculum and
that the SHMS GMEC did not formally vote on the program.
Resolved: Out of concern for maintaining the faculty’s role in the review and
approval of all programs, the Senate notes that: the SHMS faculty body did not have
the opportunity to vote on the addition of the MHA program to its curriculum and
that the SHMS GMEC did not formally vote on the program.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
10. Old Business
11. New Business
i. Intellectual Property policy on copyright submitted by the Senate Intellectual Property
Task Force for discussion and possible vote at the November 1 meeting
12. Communications
i. Provost response to June 10, 2013 resolution regarding the approval of documentation for
the clinical line in nursing.
*Dr. Lloyd stated that the Faculty Guide has been updated to reflect the clinical line.
ii. Dr. Lloyd asked the senators to take note of next month’s meeting time, which will occur
at 2 p.m. due to All Saints Day Mass on campus at 1 p.m.
13. Adjournment
*The meeting adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of November 1, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Manfred Minimair, King Mott, Jon Radwan, Peter Reader, John
Saccoman, Mehmet Sahiner, Cathy Zizik, Mary Balkun, C Lynn Carr, Gita Das Bender, Rick Dool,
Patrick Fisher, Amy Hunter, Nathaniel Knight, Diana Alvarez-Amell, Martha Easton, A.D. Amar,
John Shannon, Theresa Henry, Ben Beitin, Eunyoung Kim, Margaret Farrelly, Richard Stern, Beth
Bloom, Judith Lothian, Pamela Galehouse, Marcia Gardner, Mary Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas, Eric
Johnston, Gregory Glazov, Ann Marie Murphy, Richard Boergers, Mara Podvey
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 2:07 p.m.
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
Provost Robinson began by stating that Seton Hall has reached a new milestone with an
undergraduate enrollment of 5,839 students. The University’s overall enrollment is a little over
9,900, which also reflects the law school’s enrollment of 732 students (a figure that has constricted
substantially from 1,150 students last year). We have 1,342 first-year students. Their average SAT
score is 1122—20 points higher than last year and over 50 points higher than the last two years.
Dr. Robinson reported that this past Sunday was first Fall Open House of the year, which resulted
in a turnout of 730 people (down from last year’s attendance of over 800). The next Open House is
scheduled for November 24.
Dr. Robinson stated that he has reached out to Vice President for Administration, Dennis Garbini
for a supplemental salary study to an original study that was done in 2007. Dr. Robinson believes
the University’s financial strength will continue to improve. Sibson, a financial consulting firm, will
conduct a supplemental study of the work they did in 2007 to assist the University in planning for
salaries, compensation, and staff. The total cost of this study in 2007 was over $250,000.
Dr. Robinson reported that the Middle States regional accreditation visit, which is done every 10
years, will be chaired by Dr. Keith Taylor. Dr. Taylor visited the University on October 8. The
faculty will have the opportunity to read the initial draft of his visit and provide feedback, as it will
address the criteria Middle States requires for their accreditation. The Provost applauded the faculty
for their work and leadership in the evaluation process, which is being led by Dr. Susan Nolan.
Dr. Robinson commented that construction continues on campus. In January 2014, construction of
fitness center will be completed. Stafford Hall will be completed by August 2014. Aquinas Hall is on
schedule as well.
Questions:
Q: A senator asked if the supplemental study to be conducted by Sibson will be as expensive as the
first.
A: The Provost replied that it will not be as expensive because it is supplemental. The first study
was quite extensive and added $3 million to the bottom line. There has been interest by faculty to
do a salary study and, as we move forward, we need to continue to examine the progress Sibson
provided in 2007 and ask them to work with us on the primary architect of their original study and
to look at our peer groups which we aspire to be.
Q: A senator asked when the study would be ready.
A: The Provost replied that he would let the Senate know when the study will begin. He needs
feedback first on what the supplemental study will look like and then approve it. When that is
finalized, a schedule will be drafted. It is important to have insight on how we can look at our salary
structure and the competition from our peers. He expects to have more information on this at the
next Senate meeting.
Q: A senator asked how much the student body is expected to grow as a result of the residential
expansion.
A: The Provost replied that more of our students will want to stay on campus: 58-77 percent. This
will impact our retention rates because if we maintain 1,200-1,275 students, our growth should be to
a total of 6,000-6,200 undergraduate students in the next 3-4 years. This is a very healthy number
and this is why we have elected to increase our classroom size by 25-30 percent just by adding
Stafford Hall alone. SHU is a tuition-driven university (over 90 percent). The incoming freshmen
class makes up 15 percent of current budget. They are academically-strong students and they will
help us grow, as opposed to a few years ago when 53 percent were below average.
Q: A senator expressed concern over graduate studies, particularly, overcrowded classrooms and
the University’s decision to push back graduate classes to start after 3 p.m. to accommodate
undergraduate students. How can we make graduate life a little better?
A: The Provost commented that no one has informed him of this issue before. He will be
supportive of any efforts to increase graduate enrollments and if there are compelling reasons things
need to be addressed, he will revisit it. He wants to be sensitive to anything that will have a
disproportionate impact.
Q: A senator asked if the faculty could have access to electronic copies of the proposed operating
budget.
A: The Provost replied that he is not opposed to this and would have Stephen Graham, the
University’s Chief Financial Officer, check into this.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the October 4 meeting without objection
6. Executive Committee report was received without objection
*Dr. Lothian commented on the email received shortly before the Senate meeting indicating a 2.5
percent increase for health benefits and that out-of-network would be reimbursed at 200 times
Medicare. The decision was made before there was any involvement by the Senate. An email was
sent out by the EC to the benefits department as to why the process to involve the Senate and the
Compensation Committee was not followed.
Q: A senator inquired on costs to go out of network and if there are any other alternatives available.
A: Dr. Lothian replied that these questions would be brought to the benefits department.
Q: A senator stated that the Compensation Committee is currently working on a salary study and
that they have come up the criteria on how to complete an in-house study to save money. What is
the utility of the Compensation Committee if the Provost will be conducting a supplemental study?
A: Dr. Lothian commented that this was the first time the EC heard definitively about the
supplemental study and that the EC will follow up with the Provost on this.
*A Senator suggested that the Senate was not an effective means for shared governance and a
discussion ensued echoing these concerns.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Facilities Committee report
*A senator asked what the process is for requesting improvements in academic buildings
(e.g., Mooney Hall does not have a wheelchair ramp)? Richard Stern, chair of the AFC,
replied that going to disability services, the building manager, or the dean would be the
appropriate route.
b. Academic Policy Committee report
i.
Resolution regarding the Stillman School proposal
.
Resolved: The Stillman School proposal is approved.
→ Stillman School proposal
ii.
Resolution regarding off-site provision of the Stillman School’s Graduate
Accounting and Graduate Tax certificates, as well as the MBA and MS in
Accounting.
Resolved: the Stillman School’s Graduate Accounting and Graduate Tax certificates,
as well as the MBA and MS in Accounting, may be offered offsite at Verizon and
other off-campus locations. Approval of specific offsite offerings will be subject to
the faculty review processes of the Stillman School.
iii.
Resolution regarding the proposed 3 + 2 B.A. in Biology and M.S. in Athletic
Training.
Resolved: The proposed 3 + 2 B.A. in Biology and M.S. in Athletic Training is
approved. Further resolved: the Senate recommends that the Deans of SHMS and
the Library coordinate so that adequate library resources can be purchased for the
future.
→ Proposal and supporting documents of the 3 + 2 B.A. in Biology and M.S. in
Athletic Training
c. Calendar Committee report
*Patrick Fisher, chair of the Calendar Committee, reported that the committee will
be meeting with Associate Provost Joan Guetti next week to articulate the results of
the survey administered to senators at the October 4 meeting.
d. Compensation Committee report
*A senator commented that as the number of undergraduate students increase, the
number of students faculty advise should also be examined.
e. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report
*A senator asked if lecturer lines would be ready for the Senate to review at the
December meeting. Dr. Murphy replied that this is a possibility.
f. Graduate Studies Committee report
Kelly Goedert, chair of the committee, requested senators to attend the GSC
meeting on November 13, as potential strategies for seeking graduate funding will be
discussed. Dr. Goedert also remarked that Ben Beitin is chairing a graduate
subcommittee examining the number of graduate assistantships available within the
University and financial aid available at other universities.
g. Report from the Senate Representative of the Graduate Policy Advisory Board
h. Program Review Committee report
*Dr. Lothian inquired on the status of Nursing and Dr. Beitin replied that Associate
Provost Greg Burton stated that they are to begin the university process of internal
review.
i.
CAB/Core Curriculum Task Force report
i. First reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate Bylaws, under the Academic Policy Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under the Academic Policy Committee
reads:
The Academic Policy Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters of
academic policy, including proposed new academic programs, changes in existing programs
or in general School or College requirements, and policies affecting the academic work of the
University, with the exception of matters referred to other committees of the Senate.
Motion: To add the following to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under
the Academic Policy Committee:
A senator who is jointly invited by the Chairperson of the APC and the
Director of the Core Advisory Board and appointed by the Chairperson
of the Senate will be a liaison to the Core Advisory Board and sit on the
APC. The liaison will keep the APC and Senate informed about Core
Curriculum and keep the Core Advisory Board informed about APC
requirements.
ii. First reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate ByLaws, Standing Committees, under the Core Curriculum Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, Standing Committees, under the Core
Curriculum Committee reads:
The Core Curriculum Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters
relating to the design, revision, administration and implementation of the Core Curriculum.
Motion: To delete under Article XIX Standing Committees: The Core Curriculum
Committee
Rationale: The oversight of the core curriculum will be within the APC with the
proposed liaison.
ii.
Motion: The Senate recommends that the Core Advisory Board amend their bylaws to reflect the current practice of the A&S EPC reviewing Signature 1 & 2
courses and Signature 3 courses being reviewed by the EPC of the school that
developed the specific course.
*Some senators expressed concern over eliminating the CCC. Dr. Lothian stated that
the way the CCC was set up did not provide it with a lot of authority. Because this is
the first reading, there will be plenty of time in the coming meetings to review any
implications of this motion.
j.
Intellectual Property Task Force
i. Motion: To adopt the Intellectual Property Copyright Policy at Seton Hall
University.
8. Committees with no reports
a. Admissions Committee
b. Core Curriculum Committee
c. Faculty Development Committee
d. Faculty Grievance Committee
e. Instructional Technology Committee
f. Library Committee
*Manfred Minimair, chair of the Library Committee, reported that the library is
updating its IT infrastructure and they will involve the Instructional Technology
Committee to get input from colleagues.
g. Nominations, Elections, & Appointments Committee
9. Committee Motions
a. Academic Policy Committee
i. Resolution regarding the Stillman School proposal.
Resolved: The Stillman School proposal is approved.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
ii. Resolution regarding off-site provision of the Stillman School’s Graduate
Accounting and Graduate Tax certificates, as well as the MBA and MS in
Accounting.
Resolved: the Stillman School’s Graduate Accounting and Graduate Tax certificates,
as well as the MBA and MS in Accounting, may be offered offsite at Verizon and
other off-campus locations. Approval of specific offsite offerings will be subject to
the faculty review processes of the Stillman School.
*A senator inquired if the off-campus offerings would be live or online instruction.
At this point it is live instruction.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
iii. Resolution regarding the proposed 3 + 2 B.A. in Biology and M.S. in Athletic
Training.
Resolved: The proposed 3 + 2 B.A. in Biology and M.S. in Athletic Training is
approved. Further resolved: the Senate recommends that the Deans of SHMS and
the Library coordinate so that adequate library resources can be purchased for the
future.
*A senator commented that the library dean did not sign off on this program yet
because it takes time to assess a library collection and was not given advance notice
to do so. It was expressed that programs should give ample time to have collections
assessed.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
b. CAB/Core Curriculum Task Force
i. First reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate ByLaws, under the Academic Policy Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under the Academic Policy Committee
reads:
The Academic Policy Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters of academic
policy, including proposed new academic programs, changes in existing programs or in general School
or College requirements, and policies affecting the academic work of the University, with the
exception of matters referred to other committees of the Senate.
Motion: To add the following to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under
the Academic Policy Committee:
A senator who is jointly invited by the Chairperson of the APC and the
Director of the Core Advisory Board and appointed by the Chairperson of the
Senate will be a liaison to the Core Advisory Board and sit on the APC. The
liaison will keep the APC and Senate informed about Core Curriculum and
keep the Core Advisory Board informed about APC requirements.
* The motion was discussed.
ii. First reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate ByLaws, Standing Committees, under the Core Curriculum Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, Standing Committees, under the Core
Curriculum Committee reads:
The Core Curriculum Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters relating to
the design, revision, administration and implementation of the Core Curriculum.
Motion: To delete under Article XIX Standing Committees: The Core Curriculum
Committee
Rationale: The oversight of the core curriculum will be within the APC with the
proposed liaison.
iii. Motion: The Senate recommends that the Core Advisory Board amend their bylaws to reflect the current practice of the A&S EPC reviewing Signature 1 & 2
courses and Signature 3 courses being reviewed by the EPC of the school that
developed the specific course.
c. Intellectual Property Task Force
Motion: To adopt the Intellectual Property Copyright Policy at Seton Hall
University.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously.
10. Old Business
None
11. New Business
None
12. Communications
None
13. Adjournment
*The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of December 6, 2013
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Jon Radwan, Peter Reader, Mary Balkun, C Lynn Carr, Gita Das
Bender, Rick Dool, Patrick Fisher, Anthony Haynor, Nathaniel Knight, Diana Alvarez-Amell,
Martha Easton, Joel Sperber, A.D. Amar, John Shannon, Theresa Henry, Hongfei Tang, Mark
Holtzman, Daniel Ladik, Ben Beitin, Eunyoung Kim, Lauren McFadden, Laura Palmer, Richard
Stern, Beth Bloom, Judith Lothian, Pamela Galehouse, Marcia Gardner, Donna Ho-Shing, Mary
Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas, Eric Johnston, Philip Moremen, Richard Boergers, Irene DeMasi, Mara
Podvey
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m.
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
*Responses to all outstanding resolutions
Provost Robinson wished first to formally announce that in working with the Executive Committee
of the Faculty Senate, he proposed that the University employ Sibson to do another salary study
effective immediately. One preliminary meeting already occurred and he wishes to have members of
the Senate meet with them to discuss needs of the University body. The Provost noted that this
study has a sense of urgency because we have great interest in the information that will be provided.
The Provost gave feedback in regards to campus safety and a discussion he had with Vice President
of Student Services Tracy Gottlieb related to the same. The Provost stressed that the University has
gone to great lengths to ensure safety and that an internal audit will be done concerning issues and
additional steps we can take to maintain security and enhance things we are already doing, which
include a close working relationship with South Orange Police, surveillance, cameras at entryways,
increased lighting, etc. The Provost stated that he has received preliminary recommendations with
regards to monitoring. While our campus is safe, we live in an area that is susceptible to certain types
of behaviors that we must be vigilant of.
The Provost commented that the Board of Regents is pleased of where we are as a University. Our
two most recent open houses resulted in positive turnouts and indicate a heightened interest in
enrollment. As such, we expect to meet our goal of approximately 1,250 to 1,275 new students for
the coming school year.
Questions:
Q: A senator expressed concern over having classes start at 8:00 a.m. when media services and DSS
are not readily available.
A: Dr. Robinson responded that he would follow-up to address this concern and that Associate
Provost Guetti would make note of it.
Q: A senator requested an update on progress of graduate enrollment.
A: Dr. Robinson responded that the Board of Regents asked him to complete a high overview of
graduate enrollment, which was prompted by the $3 million deficit we were facing due to lower
graduate enrollments (and was subsequently offset by enrolling 80 additional undergraduate students
above our normal 1,250 new-student enrollment). Dr. Robinson commented that each college is
impacted differently. What we are aware of is that graduate enrollment has been impacted
nationwide, more so in some areas than in others. He has asked the deans to do analysis of
programs that have healthy graduate enrollments. He stated that he has personally examined each
school, college, and department on campus concerning enrollment in the last five years and can
show where enrollment is flat and where it is stable. Not all programs are created to have substantial
margins with regards to cost, but there are some programs that are not performing well in terms of
numbers and, perhaps, we need to reinvest in and reexamine programs or see if certain programs are
even needed on our program inventory. The graduate program inventory will need to continue to be
assessed. We currently have 55 undergraduate programs and 64-67 graduate programs. While we do
have more graduate programs in our program inventory than undergraduate, it is not necessarily a
bad diversity, as graduate programs represent 21 percent of our $253 million budget. This, thus,
impacts our overall health. The Provost has requested the deans to look at this as well.
Q: A Senator asked if there is a way to change the model of delivery of summer courses,
particularly, pricing.
A: Dr. Robinson responded that he is currently looking at ways to alter the model and that there
should be announcements on this soon.
Q: A Senator commented that years ago we used to recruit students outside of Seton Hall and then
asked if we can do something about recruiting students living within 50-100 miles of campus?
A: Dr. Robinson responded that it is certainly something that has been entertained and that he is
looking at ways that we can attract students that may want to take classes at Seton Hall during the
summer. He commented that he does not object to reducing fees for summer courses if it will not
affect margin.
Q: A Senator asked if there were any new faculty not hired after background checks were
completed on them.
A: Provost Robinson responded that there were no such faculty known to him. He is aware of
some hits that indicated an adjunct should not be hired, but stressed that the University’s hiring
policy is reasonable, fair, and being handled in the right way.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the November 1 meeting with additions
6. Executive Committee report was received without objection
*There was a discussion of intellectual property and agreement that there is a need for an Intellectual
Property policy and well-developed guidelines of online education to ensure quality and
compensation.
*A Senator, concerned about the lapse in time in receiving a response on the previously proposed
Masters in Public Relations, asked about what happens when the Office of the Provost receives the
Senate’s resolutions.
*The Executive Committee will follow-up on the Masters in Public Relations at their next meeting
with the Provost.
*A Senator asked about the deadline for the URC.
*The deadline may be found on the URC application, according to URC guidelines. According to
the Office of the Provost, awards are expected to be announced by March 15th.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Policy Committee report
b. Admissions Committee report
*With regards to faculty calling students, a Senator stated that this is something faculty has
already being doing, but organizing it and getting people to agree to do it, is difficult.
Because it is incredibly time-consuming, there must be compensation for it.
c. Calendar Committee report
*A Senator suggested that an extra day for final exams should be added since many classes
have conflicting final exam times and students find themselves with more than one exam in
the same time slot.
d. Compensation Committee report
*A Senator inquired on the Sibson study and how much input the faculty will have in
framing the parameters of the study.
*Dr. Lothian responded that the input from the faculty will guide the way the study is
structured. When presenting this to the Board of Regents, it is much more powerful to have
an outside review company than doing an internal study.
e. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report
i. First reading of the proposed Lecturer Line
f. Graduate Studies Committee report
g. Report from the Senate Representative of the Graduate Policy Advisory Board
h. Library Committee report
i.
Program Review Committee report
*Dr. Ben Beitin, chair of the committee, reported that the Dean of A&S has not submitted
any reports for programs that are currently up for self-study and that Associate Provost
Burton has not sent out the schedule for self-studies, either letting programs know they need
to send in their reports or begin to prepare them.
j.
Intellectual Property Task Force report
8. Committees with no reports
a. Academic Facilities Committee
b. Core Curriculum Committee
c. Faculty Development Committee
d. Faculty Grievance Committee
*Dr. A.D. Amar, chair of the committee, reported that the Faculty Grievance Committee
met with the Faculty Guide Committee and that some progress was made on the draft of
bylaws but they are still not where they need to be.
e. Instructional Technology Committee
f. Nominations, Elections, & Appointments Committee
g. CAB/Core Curriculum Task Force
9. Committee Motions
a. Executive Committee
*Dr. Lothian made a motion to go into Executive Session at 2:30 p.m. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Mary Balkun and approved unanimously.
Background: In the absence of an approved University Academic Integrity policy, Associate
Provost Burton appointed a panel of faculty to review an allegation of academic misconduct
by a faculty member. In accordance with Faculty Guide, Article (7.1.e), Dr. Burton contacted
the Chair of the Faculty Senate to review the process being used. Dr. Burton met with Marta
Deyrup, Philip Moremen and Judith Lothian on Nov. 14 and 21. The panel will follow the
process proposed in the Senate approved Academic Integrity policy (Feb. 2011) as closely as
possible. Since the investigation is already in process the Senate is being asked to ratify the
appointed faculty panel.
Moving forward, the Senate and the Provost’s office will work to finalize the Senate
approved Academic Integrity policy. The policy will be revised based on feedback from
Provost Robinson (clarification of conflict of interest) and Associate Provost Burton
(timeline issues) and be presented to the Senate for review in Spring 2014. Marta Deyrup,
Philip Moremen and Judith Lothian will work in collaboration with Dr. Burton on the
revisions.
Resolved: The faculty panel appointed by Associate Provost Burton to review and make recommendations
related to a current case of potential academic misconduct is ratified by the Faculty Senate.
*After some discussion, there was a motion to amend the proposed resolution by adding
“(This approval is limited to only the issue under current investigation and with the expectation of the
approval of an Academic Integrity policy.)”, as indicated below:
The faculty panel appointed by Associate Provost Burton to review and make recommendations related to a
current case of potential academic misconduct is ratified by the Faculty Senate. This approval is limited to
only the issue under current investigation and with the expectation of the approval of an Academic Integrity
policy.
*The body remained in Executive Session for 16 minutes. While in executive session the
amended motion was voted on.
*Vote: 1 nay; all remaining votes were yeas. The motion passed.
*Dr. Lothian made a motion to end Executive Session at 2:46 p.m. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Mary Balkun and approved unanimously.
b. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee
i. First reading of the proposed Lecturer Line
Questions:
Q: A Senator asked if there is an intention to get rid of the Faculty Associate.
A: Dr. Lothian replied, no, there are currently Faculty Associates being used under the
description in the Faculty Guide.
Q: A Senator asked for clarification on the difference between the proposed lecturer line and
the Faculty Associate?
A: Dr. Balkun replied that there is a limit on the number faculty associates in any given
department. There are also many faculty associates who do not meet the criteria of the
Faculty Associate as outlined in the Faculty Guide. This gives us the opportunity to address
the term faculty that we need.
Q: A Senator asked if anyone can apply for tenure in the lecturer position.
A: Dr. Lothian replied, no.
Q: A Senator asked for clarification on the term probationary.
A: Dr. Lothian clarified that it means tenure-track.
Q: A Senator asked if the proposal could be more specific and be limited to departments
that provide large service courses.
A: Dr. Balkun replied that during the draft of the proposal, the Faculty Guide & Bylaws
Committee opted not to name specific departments because a department can be put in the
position where it does offer a lot of service courses, such as English, math, modern
languages, which have traditionally and consistently hosted large volumes of courses. We
want to leave it open enough so as to not leave anyone out.
*A Senator expressed concern over hiring individuals that will simply teach and not produce
scholarly research.
*Dr. Lothian responded that these are the individuals that are teaching writing courses,
math, languages, etc. They might hold doctorates and cannot get on a tenured line anywhere.
*A Senator expressed concern over compensation for these individuals and a need for them
to participate as much as they can within the department. How will we title them and give
them security?
*Dr. Nathaniel Knight proposed a motion to delete the second paragraph of the proposed
Lecturer Line: “The Lecturer position is limited to departments that provide large service courses to the
university.”
*The motion to delete was seconded by Diana Alvarez-Amell
*Vote: 17 yeas, 10 nays, 1 abstention. The motion passed.
c. CAB/Core Curriculum Task Force
i. Second reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate ByLaws, under the Academic Policy Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under the Academic Policy Committee
reads:
The Academic Policy Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters of academic
policy, including proposed new academic programs, changes in existing programs or in general School
or College requirements, and policies affecting the academic work of the University, with the
exception of matters referred to other committees of the Senate.
Motion: To add the following to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, under
the Academic Policy Committee:
A senator who is jointly invited by the Chairperson of the APC and the
Director of the Core Advisory Board and appointed by the Chairperson of the
Senate will be a liaison to the Core Advisory Board and sit on the APC. The
liaison will keep the APC and Senate informed about Core Curriculum and
keep the Core Advisory Board informed about APC requirements.
ii. Second reading of the proposed changes to Article XIX of the Faculty Senate ByLaws, Standing Committees, under the Core Curriculum Committee.
Article XIX of the Faculty Senate By-Laws, Standing Committees, under the Core
Curriculum Committee reads:
The Core Curriculum Committee shall make recommendations to the Senate on matters relating to
the design, revision, administration and implementation of the Core Curriculum.
Motion: To delete under Article XIX Standing Committees: The Core Curriculum
Committee
Rationale: The oversight of the core curriculum will be within the APC with the
proposed liaison.
iii. Motion: The Senate recommends that the Core Advisory Board amend their bylaws to reflect the current practice of the A&S EPC reviewing Signature 1 & 2
courses and Signature 3 courses being reviewed by the EPC of the school that
developed the specific course.
*Some Senators spoke against the motions, believing that the CCC should be
allowed to continue for 2-3 years until the Core matures or redefining the CCC to
meet current concerns. Other Senators spoke in favor of the motions, believing that
the oversight of the core curriculum should be within the APC through the proposed
liaison.
*Vote on the motions by secret ballot: 16 yeas, 10 nays, 3 abstentions. The
motions failed to pass by the required 2/3 majority.
10. Old Business
None
11. New Business
None
12. Communications
None
13. Adjournment
*The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of February 7, 2014
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Matthew Escobar, Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Manfred Minimair, Jon Radwan, Peter Reader,
John Saccoman, Mary Balkun, C Lynn Carr, Gita Das Bender, Rick Dool, Patrick Fisher, Amy
Hunter, Diana Alvarez-Amell, Martha Easton, Mitra Feizabadi, A.D. Amar, John Shannon, Theresa
Henry, Hongfei Tang, Mark Holtzman, Ben Beitin, Eunyoung Kim, Lauren McFadden, Laura
Palmer, Richard Stern, Beth Bloom, Judith Lothian, Pamela Galehouse, Marcia Gardner, Donna
Ho-Shing, Mary Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas, Eric Johnston, Gregory Glazov, Philip Moremen, Ann
Marie Murphy, Richard Boergers, Irene DeMasi, Mara Podvey
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m.
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
i. Responses to resolutions
Provost Robinson updated the Senate on undergraduate applications for next year. We are up 27%
in applications from last year. We have accepted 13% more and have waitlisted 50% more students.
Deposits are at 95 as opposed to 117. The next open house is scheduled for February 16, weatherpermitting.
Transfer student applications are at 488 compared to 575 last year, a 15% decrease. We have
accepted 96 as opposed to 222 last year (a 57% decrease).
As we look at this year’s budget and after meeting with the CFO, we have reason to be positive
about where we are but what gives Dr. Robinson pause is the graduate population (30% of the
budget). Enrollments have been flat or dipping. Dr. Robinson went over various percentages of
change. This will have budget impacts, the extent of which is yet to be fully realized. There are also
analyses of summer enrollments happening right now.
Dr. Robinson addressed the concerns that came his way for furniture choices for Stafford Hall.
Questions:
Q: A Senator asked if the figures Dr. Robinson projected were based on projection and if the rise in
application fee affected the projections.
A: Dr. Robinson responded that these are only preliminary numbers and this is a concern that is not
unanticipated, given cycles. There are about the same number of graduate applications now as last
year. A positive sign is that 685 applications are ready for review this year.
Q: A Senator commented that Dr. Robinson’s figures are different than those from Associate
Provost Burton.
A: Dr. Robinson reiterated that his figures are still preliminary. There may not be easy answers as to
why but we need to know how we are marketing and supporting our programs as well as the needs
of our programs.
Q: A Senator asked if we are changing the summer approach.
A: Yes, Dr. Robinson stated that he wants to try to leave opportunities for people who want to
teach and ideally these margins will go back to departments.
Q: A Senator asked if the same applied to winter intersession or Saturday classes.
A: Dr. Robinson replied that he is open to a winter intersession and other departments are already
conducting Saturday classes.
Q: A Senator commented that the figures presented are consistent with the US trends and asked if
any study exists that examines if physical improvements improve recruitment.
A: Yes, Dr. Robinson responded that there is a direct impact on yield. We are competing with other
opportunities being offered to students. A challenge has been the $33-36 million in deferred
maintenance but we are making progress.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the December 6 meeting without objection
6. Executive Committee report was received without objection
Q: A Senator asked if the Executive Committee meets with Middle States.
A: Yes, Dr. Lothian responded that we should possibly look at a bigger voice than schedule appears
to look like. This will be discussed with the Provost. We do not want to meet with students, we want
our own meeting.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Facilities Committee report
b. Academic Policy Committee report
i.
Resolved: The proposed certificate in Post-Conflict State Reconstruction and
Sustainability is approved.
ii.
Resolved: The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Public Relations
is approved.
iii.
Resolved: The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Communication
Studies is approved.
c. Admissions Committee report
*Some Senators recommended that the Admissions Committee communicate with the
Office of the Provost and not just the University Admissions Office.
*According to the Faculty Guide, we get to set standards for admission. Some Senators
asked if the Senate sees this as a priority. The Senate does see this as a priority.
*A Senator asked if we know how much faculty are involved at a higher level in
determining SAT scores and other admissions criteria.
*A Senator asked if there could be caps placed on some majors to prevent flooding.
*Senators expressed that we have shared governance and should be accorded those
rights.
d. Compensation & Welfare Committee report
*A Senator expressed concern about using ALA for compensation because it does not
have regional comparison. Dr. Balkun replied that if we get to that point, we will make
sure things are fixed.
e. Core Curriculum Committee report
f. Faculty Development Committee report
g. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report
i. Second reading of the proposed Lecturer Line
ii. Faculty Guide Interpretation of Article 7.4
Article 7.4 of the Faculty Guide reads:
Research Expectations
a. Faculty are expected to have an active research program
during their tenure at the university.
b. Departments shall establish guidelines for assessing progress in
research for tenure-track and tenured faculty. Faculty will submit an
annual report on their research to the department chair.
c. Chairs may assign equivalent departmental duties for non-research
active faculty.
Interpretation:
7.4 b. The Departmental guidelines for assessing progress in research shall
be written by the full-time faculty of the departmental involved.
The authority to assign equivalent departmental duties resides with the
department chair.
7.4 c. Equivalent departmental duties are those faculty responsibilities
outlined in Article 7 of the Faculty Guide.
*Some concern was raised that perhaps the Library needs separate language in this
article of the Faculty Guide.
h. Graduate Studies report
i.
Provost Graduate Advisory Board report
j.
Nominations, Elections, & Appointments Committee report
8. Committees with no reports
a. Calendar Committee
b. Faculty Grievance Committee
c. Instructional Technology Committee
d. Library Committee
e. Intellectual Property Task Force
f. Program Review Committee
9. Committee Motions
d. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee
i. Second reading of the proposed Lecturer Line
*The proposed Lecturer Line was approved unanimously by voice vote.
ii. Faculty Guide Interpretation of Article 7.4
Article 7.4 of the Faculty Guide reads:
Research Expectations
a. Faculty are expected to have an active research program
during their tenure at the university.
b. Departments shall establish guidelines for assessing progress in
research for tenure-track and tenured faculty. Faculty will submit an
annual report on their research to the department chair.
c. Chairs may assign equivalent departmental duties for non-research
active faculty.
Interpretation:
7.4 b. The Departmental guidelines for assessing progress in research shall
be written by the full-time faculty of the departmental involved.
The authority to assign equivalent departmental duties resides with the
department chair.
7.4 c. Equivalent departmental duties are those faculty responsibilities
outlined in Article 7 of the Faculty Guide.
*The Interpretation of FG Article 7.4 was approved unanimously by voice vote.
e. Academic Policy Committee
i.
Resolved: The proposed certificate in Post-Conflict State Reconstruction and
Sustainability is approved.
*The proposed certificate in Post-Conflict State Reconstruction and
Sustainability was approved unanimously by voice vote.
ii.
Resolved: The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Public Relations
is approved.
*The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Public Relations was
approved unanimously by voice vote.
iii.
Resolved: The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Communication
Studies is approved.
*The proposed Five Year Dual Degree Program in Communication Studies
was approved unanimously by voice vote.
f. Executive Committee
i. Motion: The last day to submit course withdrawal forms with professor/dean signature
shall be changed from Friday March 7, 2014 to Friday March 21, 2014.
Rationale: Classes that meet on Mondays and Wednesdays have missed at least 2 class
meetings due to this semester’s inclement weather. This means that students will have less
feedback about their semester grades by the time they have to make a decision about
withdrawing. The current withdrawal deadline is the Friday before spring break. Approval
of this motion would move the withdrawal deadline to the Friday after spring break.
*The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
10. Old Business
None
11. New Business
None
12. Communications
i. Changes to PirateNet
*Some faculty have expressed a desire to have a PirateNet layout that is similar to what
students see. This will be a big change.
*The Forms Tab includes the most frequently used forms for teaching, advising, and
employee info. If there is a specific form that should be there but is not, please contact
Marie Somers.
*There will be a channel map that will let you see in one place the various channels (home,
school, blackboard, advising) that is easier to customize and more flexible than the old
format.
*This is likely occur between the end of February or early March.
*A Senator recommended adding electronic form submission.
*A Senator recommended that in the future, PirateNet should be more customizable and
there should be a message board (with threaded discussions) added at some level.
ii. Additional communications from Dr. Mary Balkun regarding the new locker room
facilities in the recreation center.
13. Adjournment
*The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of April 4, 2014
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Kelly Goedert, Marianne Lloyd, Jon Radwan, John Saccoman, Cathy Zizik, C Lynn Carr, Gita Das
Bender, Rick Dool, Patrick Fisher, Amy Hunter, Nathaniel Knight, A.D. Amar, John Shannon,
Theresa Henry, Hongfei Tang, Mark Holtzman, Ben Beitin, Lauren McFadden, Laura Palmer,
Margaret Farrelly, Richard Stern, Beth Bloom, Judith Lothian, Pamela Galehouse, Marcia Gardner,
Mary Patricia Wall, Judith Lucas, Eric Johnston, Tim Fortin, Philip Moremen, Ann Marie Murphy,
Richard Boergers, Irene DeMasi
2. Call to order
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
i. Responses to resolutions
Provost Robinson began his address to the Faculty Senate by mentioning several important events
taking place on campus in the coming days. Prior to today’s meeting, he stated that he had just
concluded a meeting with the University Board of Regents. The University is sponsoring a
Scholarship Meeting today and there is a Higher Review Meeting tomorrow, which is a major yield
event. On April 6, the Middle States team arrives to begin their regional accreditation of the
University, which is very important since all program approvals are derived from this. On April 10,
there will be a Board of Trustees meeting.
The Provost then commented on fall enrollment, which appears to be on track. At this time, there
is a 6-8 point increase in the average SAT score for the incoming class (1128-1130). This will be
subject to change, however. Another good indicator in regards to the University’s efforts is that for
the second year in a row, the top 10 percent of high schools in New Jersey represent 35 percent of
our entering class. 15,107 applications have been received for the fall (23 percent increase from last
year) and 1,197 students have been admitted for the fall (15 percent increase from last year). Our
undergraduate education is trending. Our value as an institution is growing, it gives us market
strength, with is critical for Seton Hall and all of us.
Two areas we continue to be sensitive to: (1) transfers (last year we had over 300; this year, we are
preparing for 250). We accepted a majority of these students into the College of Nursing and it had
an adverse impact. We are reexamining our transfer students and do not want to enroll too many in
one college. Our objective for our budget its 250 students and we are 1.1 percent down this year in
transfer applications (1,018 last year versus 1,007 currently). (2) Graduate enrollments, which we are
making headway with. We dropped substantially in revenue ($56 million last year versus $53 million
this year). Will this trend continue? Initially we said there would be a 3 percent drop, now there
might be a 5 percent drop, and our budget is contingent on these figures (freshman only make up
15-20 percent of our budget). We are running comparable right now to this time last year.
Enrollment is on track, and when transfers matriculate, they will put us in good shape. Graduate
enrollment will need to be addressed because, at times, it makes up to 40 percent of our budget. In
the past (as far back as 1978), programs looked at how they were running in times of financial
distress.
The Provost reminded the body that the board approved our budget and that there will still be a 2
percent across-the-board raise, which will be handled the same way it was this year.
We are adding 132 beds to Aquinas Hall (for a total of 475). Stafford Hall will add 12 classrooms.
The annex to the parking deck will add 538 new parking spaces (for a total of 3,082). There has only
been one increase in parking fees since 2002. The Provost promised that two floors in the new
parking annex will be dedicated to faculty and staff.
The Provost stated that as we continue our efforts moving forward, we have a lot of reasons to be
optimistic about the future. However, he believes our challenges are still formidable. Uncertainty
and unpredictability have created a landscape that will need to be continuously navigated. The
Senate must heighten their sensitivity to this changing landscape. We cannot expect good things to
happen—we must plan for them. The Provost stated that he is optimistic about where we are, but in
looking at the discount rate, budget, margins, and our competitors, he thinks that we have to ask
ourselves about what kind of conversation we need to have as we move forward as an institution.
This is not business as usual. There are many challenges, but there are many opportunities. From
our numbers, we have a strengthened position that demonstrates institutional value, which means a
strong market position that we did not have a long time ago. When the Provost looks at the
University’s financial aid discounts, he sees that our competitors are giving significantly more aid
than we are. What drives our budget is our program inventory. We do not have large endowments
that support what we do. How we support our institution, students, and faculty is through tuition.
We have 55 undergraduate and 57 graduate programs. The Provost has been asked for data
concerning the productivity of each one. He stated that when he looks to see the cost and the
recommendation for a 2 percent raise, and how we address major issues such as decreasing graduate
enrollments, you either cut your way out of something or you grow your way out. He stressed once
again that looking at our capacity and program inventory is important because we are tuition-driven.
He believes that we have opportunities for strategic growth that we can benefit from but we must
continually assess this.
The Provost stated that he recently shared with the Senate leadership that we will be challenged in
the next 3-5 years in dealing with expenses and revenue. We are essentially on the right trajectory but
as we move forward, we have to think of how we do business. We have to be more nimble and
responsive to opportunities. We have to think differently about how we approach such issues. If we
do not grow where we can and should, this will impact our bottom line. Program development and
assessment will be major moving forward. If we need to invest more in some programs, then we
need to do that. Colleges and schools need to assess these opportunities and be responsive. Right
now, we are in good shape. We added $1.8 million to our budget this year to account for the 2
percent raise and next year faculty will likely ask for another 2 percent raise. We had a 3.2 percent
tuition increase this year but we cannot rely on tuition completely. As our prestige and reputation
continues to grow, we will continue to compete. Looking at our practices will be critical. We cannot
have a situation where it takes a year to get something approved (like an online program).
The Provost concluded his address by stating that when he looked at the faculty who were tenured
yesterday, it was clear to him why students want to come to Seton Hall.
*Questions
Q: Several Senators asked what the outcomes are of taking in higher caliber students when they are
charged more for taking higher credit course loads (as opposed to other universities where students
are not charged more beyond a certain number of credits per semester).
A: The Provost responded that he is willing to look into this and stressed that we need to strengthen
our program inventory in a number of ways.
Q: A Senator asked if the Provost’s Office is willing to allow undergraduate students to retain their
University scholarships if they plan to pursue graduate degrees within the same department.
A: The Provost responded that if an opportunity exists to increase our margin, we must seize it and
be attentive to it. We can move along and not do anything, but we will be impacted adversely.
Q: A Senator asked what kinds of measures the Provost looks for when measuring productivity of
graduate programs.
A: The Provost responded that he looks at the number of graduates of the program within the last
5 years, the number of credit hours that are generated per semester, and the amount of revenue.
4. Approval of agenda without objection
5. Approval of the draft minutes of the February 7 meeting without objection
6. Executive Committee report
*Dr. Lothian wished to add that in their meeting with the Board of Regents yesterday, Provost
Robinson set the stage for bringing down the number of transfer students, especially in nursing, and
its implications on the budget. He also supported across-the-board raises.
*Questions:
Q: A Senator asked Dr. Lothian to explain the transfer issue in Nursing further.
A: Dr. Lothian responded that two-thirds of transfer students last year were accepted into the
College of Nursing, a majority of whom came in with community college science courses. We are
going into the third year of poor passing rates on the board exam. Upon examination, it was found
that transfer students only have a 30 percent passing rate. The program will likely be put on
probation as a result.
Q: A Senator asked on the status of beginning the spring semester after MLK Day.
A: Dr. Lothian responded that the Provost’s Office is very interested in a winter intersession, which
would necessitate pushing back the start of the spring semester.
Q: A Senator commented on the Provost’s remarks about being more efficient with program
reviews. Many Senators stated that this is certainly not just a Senate issue and that the Provost’s
Office needs to review their own approval timeline. If we are all in this together, as the Provost
commented, we all need to look at making things more nimble.
A: Dr. Lothian responded that the EC will have a large focus on this at their next meeting with the
Provost’s Office.
7. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Policy Committee report
i. Resolved: the proposed MBA Program in Zhuhai, China is approved contingent on the
following:
1. The conditions in the Stillman School Graduate Education Policy Committee
(GEPC) Protocol for Offering Stillman’s MBA Program in Zhuhai, as approved
by Stillman faculty and incorporated here by reference, are observed. A copy of
the protocol is attached. These conditions include, but are not limited to, the
following:






Approval is limited to one complete program cycle, i.e. one Zhuhai
student cohort from admission through graduation. The Stillman
School GEPC and faculty will evaluate the feasibility of continuing
the Zhuhai program after completion of the first cohort cycle.
The program must be pre-approved by the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education and the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business, as necessary.
The Zhuhai instructor may use the syllabus for a South Orange
course only after receiving written permission of the faculty member
that created the syllabus.
The curriculum and structure of the Zhuhai MBA program must be
the same as the MBA program offered in South Orange. All aspects
of the curriculum and course offerings in the Zhuhai program are
subject to the policies and procedures required by the Stillman
School and Seton Hall University.
The local faculty hired to teach in the Zhuhai program must be
approved and validated by the Stillman faculty pursuant to the
policies and procedures of the Stillman School and Seton Hall
University.
All course requirements should generally be the same as typically
required for the same course at the South Orange campus.


All assessment data must be provided Stillman on a specified
schedule and the Stillman MBA Director will be responsible for
assessment of the Zhuhai MBA Program.
The criteria and procedure for admission of students must be the
same as that used for admission to the Stillman MBA program
offered in South Orange.
2. The conditions in the GEPC Protocol parts A through E will be reflected in the
final agreement between the University and its Chinese partner (Viagold).
3. As stated in the Stillman School proposal, “the formal agreement with Zhuhai
will include language that protects faculty members’ intellectual property rights in
the syllabi and teaching materials that are shared.” (p. 2-3).
4. Stillman School faculty should be provided with adequate resources to meet their
significant and essential oversight obligations for the Zhuhai MBA program,
including but not limited to, translation services where needed, course releases,
stipends, travel for site visits, and administrative support.
5. The Senate requests that Stillman School faculty report to the Senate on the
status of its oversight and assessment 12 months after the implementation of the
Program.
ii. Resolved: The revisions to the Stillman School’s MBA Curriculum are approved.
iii. Resolved: The revisions to the SHMS Master’s Program in Occupational Therapy are
approved.
b. Admissions Committee report
*A Senator commented that, historically, the University has had a commitment to
first-generation students whose parents have not gone to college. However, if we are
looking for wealthier and higher performing students to increase revenue, that will
not map well since the University gets more money from some of the worst
academically-performing students.
*Dr. Lothian asked the body if they would like to bring to the Provost’s attention
that increasing our selectivity might decrease our diversity. The body agreed.
c. Compensation & Welfare Committee report
*Dr. C Lynn Carr presented the report on behalf of Dr. Mary Balkun.
*Questions:
Q: A Senator asked who the 2 percent raise will be going to.
A: Full-time faculty; not adjuncts.
Q: A Senator asked about fixing issues with the adjunct survey.
A: Dr. Carr replied that any issues brought to her were resolved.
Q: A Senator asked how the adjunct survey fits into greater pay for adjuncts.
A: The Compensation Committee’s strategy is to collect data first to push for higher
adjunct pay. Obviously, it will not be in the budget this year, but hopefully next year.
*A Senator commented that if adjuncts get higher pay it is because the Provost
advocates for it. It may be time for demanding increases in adjunct pay. In reply,
another Senator stated that there are times when the Senate makes the call, such as
when the Senate agreed to the Provost’s request for increasing the Library’s budget.
d. Core Curriculum Committee report
i. Proposed Bylaws
Q: A Senator asked for clarification on the meaning of retention rate.
A: Freshman to sophomore year.
e. Faculty Development Committee report
*Dr. Lothian presented the report since no committee members were present.
f. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report
g. Graduate Studies Committee report
i. Motion: The Senate requests that within the next year the University develop a
comprehensive plan for increasing the number of graduate assistantships and for
addressing the immediate gap in graduate student stipends with planned cost of
living increases built into future-year budgets.
*Supporting documents: Funding and Stipends at peer institutions.
*Q: A Senator asked what the discount rates for graduate students are.
A: There are none.
h. Nominations, Elections & Appointments Committee report
8. Committees with no reports
a. Academic Facilities Committee
*Dr. Richard Stern, chair of the committee, stated that there will be work in McNulty Hall
that may require the vacuum system to be down for a period of time in the future. The
Walsh Library will be replacing its cooling system in the reference area over the summer.
The new Stafford Hall will have 9 out of 12 of its classrooms furnished with tablet chairs.
b. Calendar Committee
c. Faculty Grievance Committee
d. Instructional Technology Committee
e. Library Committee
f. Intellectual Property Task Force
g. Program Review
*Dr. Ben Beitin, chair of the committee, stated that the History program and Police Studies
program self-study reports are complete but are awaiting approval from the deans.
Sociology, anthropology, English, and Higher Education Leadership programs have also
been reviewed. They will also be delayed until approval from the deans is received.
9. Committee Motions
a. Academic Policy Committee
i. Resolved: the proposed MBA Program in Zhuhai, China is approved contingent on the
following:
1. The conditions in the Stillman School Graduate Education Policy Committee
(GEPC) Protocol for Offering Stillman’s MBA Program in Zhuhai, as approved
by Stillman faculty and incorporated here by reference, are observed. A copy of
the protocol is attached. These conditions include, but are not limited to, the
following:

Approval is limited to one complete program cycle, i.e. one Zhuhai
student cohort from admission through graduation. The Stillman
School GEPC and faculty will evaluate the feasibility of continuing
the Zhuhai program after completion of the first cohort cycle.







The program must be pre-approved by the Middle States
Commission on Higher Education and the Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business, as necessary.
The Zhuhai instructor may use the syllabus for a South Orange
course only after receiving written permission of the faculty member
that created the syllabus.
The curriculum and structure of the Zhuhai MBA program must be
the same as the MBA program offered in South Orange. All aspects
of the curriculum and course offerings in the Zhuhai program are
subject to the policies and procedures required by the Stillman
School and Seton Hall University.
The local faculty hired to teach in the Zhuhai program must be
approved and validated by the Stillman faculty pursuant to the
policies and procedures of the Stillman School and Seton Hall
University.
All course requirements should generally be the same as typically
required for the same course at the South Orange campus.
All assessment data must be provided Stillman on a specified
schedule and the Stillman MBA Director will be responsible for
assessment of the Zhuhai MBA Program.
The criteria and procedure for admission of students must be the
same as that used for admission to the Stillman MBA program
offered in South Orange.
2. The conditions in the GEPC Protocol parts A through E will be reflected in the
final agreement between the University and its Chinese partner (Viagold).
3. As stated in the Stillman School proposal, “the formal agreement with Zhuhai
will include language that protects faculty members’ intellectual property rights in
the syllabi and teaching materials that are shared.” (p. 2-3).
4. Stillman School faculty should be provided with adequate resources to meet their
significant and essential oversight obligations for the Zhuhai MBA program,
including but not limited to, translation services where needed, course releases,
stipends, travel for site visits, and administrative support.
5. The Senate requests that Stillman School faculty report to the Senate on the
status of its oversight and assessment 12 months after the implementation of the
Program.
*Questions:
Q: A Senator asked about the amount of revenue the University is expected to make
from this program.
A: The University will receive 35 percent of gross profits (approximately 1.3 million
per 60-student cohort).
Q: A Senator asked if it is correct that the SSOB is partnering with another party for
this program.
A: No, Viagold is a Chinese company listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Q: A Senator asked if this program is done in conjunction with another higher
education institution in China.
A: Not in the way we would describe it. Viagold has an education subsidiary who will
offer the program. The students will receive a SHU degree. Viagold has met the
requirements in China to offer such a program.
Q: A Senator asked if there will be compensation to faculty for using their materials.
A: The program was offered for the first time in Shanghai without the awareness of
the SSOB faculty and their materials were shared without any request to do so. This
current proposal has been written in order to protect the intellectual property rights
of the faculty. The dean has told the faculty that there is currently no plan to provide
them with any additional compensation; however, a professor can refuse to have
their work shared.
Q: A Senator asked who makes the determination of who teaches in this program.
A: The protocols call for everything that is part of the program to be subject to the
same policies and assessment protocols we employ on the South Orange campus.
This is very important to the school’s accreditation.
Q: A Senator asked what Viagold’s role is in this program.
A: The South Orange faculty make the admissions decisions and have a colleague
working with Viagold to recruit students. They are providing facilities, faculty, etc.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
ii. Resolved: The revisions to the Stillman School’s MBA Curriculum are approved.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
iii. Resolved: The revisions to the SHMS Master’s Program in Occupational Therapy are
approved.
*This is a reaction to accreditation and market pressures. The faculty is shaping the
curriculum to be responsive to those two things. They have reorganized where they
are delivering particular topics. It is not a different program; content is very similar,
but is updated and expanded with new names to meet the market demands that the
current curriculum design is not commensurate with.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
b. Graduate Studies Committee
i. Motion: The Senate requests that within the next year the University develop a
comprehensive plan for increasing the number of graduate assistantships and for
addressing the immediate gap in graduate student stipends with planned cost of
living increases built into future-year budgets.
*Many Senators commented on the importance of the motion, especially since the
Provost stated earlier in the meeting that the University is putting 40 percent of its
budget into graduate studies.
*Vote: the motion was passed unanimously by voice vote.
10. Old Business
*None
11. New Business
*None
12. Communications
*None
13. Adjournment
*The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
Meeting of May 2, 2014
1:00 p.m.
Beck Rooms
Walsh Library
Agenda
1. Sign in for quorum
Mary Balkun, Gita DasBender, Patrick Fisher, Anthony Haynor, Amy Hunter, Nathaniel Knight,
Diana Alvarez-Amell, Tin Chun (Tina) Chu, Martha Easton, Jonathan Farina, Sean Harvey,
Alexandra Hennessy, Mark Molesky, Kelly Shea, Kyle Heim, Marianne Lloyd, 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
Guests: Williamjames Hoffer, Judith Stark, Roseanne Mirabella, Dean Andrea Bartoli
2. Call to order
*The meeting was called to order at 1:08 p.m.
3. Communications from Provost Robinson
Provost Robinson extended his congratulations to the newly-elected Senate and expressed his
appreciation to those who have served and continue to serve.
He reported that Middle States has given the University favorable feedback in their self-study and
visit and that their initial feedback indicates that we are meeting all criteria associated with
excellence. Provost Robinson expressed his gratitude to the faculty because this feedback is
substantial to the University.
The Provost reported that undergraduate applications are 23 percent higher over this same time last
year. Thus far, 1240 freshman deposits have been received (down 7.6 percent where we thought we
would be). The Provost stated that he is more concerned about transfers and graduate enrollments
as we move forward this coming fall. Transfers are down 32 percent (more than we would like).
Incomplete graduate applications are down (a good sign). Complete graduate applications are down
3 percent compared to this same time last year. Currently, there are 407 graduate students ready for
review. Graduate deposits are down 3.8 percent compared to this same time last year.
We remain committed to increasing our academic profile. The profile of incoming class is
exceptionally strong. The average SAT score for the incoming class is 1132, which is 10 points
higher than last year and 80 points overall higher in the last two years.
The Provost then addressed the demonstrated interest in this year’s baccalaureate commencement
speaker. Provost Robinson stated that he is well-advised of the issue surrounding the speaker and
that he has heard numerous perspectives and respects the different points of view on this matter. He
stated that a serious review of the speaker would suggest a published, very accomplished individual.
He cannot help but contemplate if she is being protested against due to her research and writing. If
in fact this is the case, this may be an issue of academic freedom and she should be protected against
such institutional retribution.
Provost Robinson asked the body why this speaker should be censored due to her viewpoints. He
stated that she has a right to voice her perspectives just as faculty do and reminded the body of a
similar scenario that occurred when Governor Christie spoke at commencement a few years ago. If
we cannot discuss issues of opposing viewpoints on a university campus then where can we? Would
we apply the same standards to someone with a contrary perspective? Are we saying we can only
speak, say or write the same things? Just because it is contrary to our views does not mean it cannot
be analyzed in an intellectual way. We should expand our views of other viewpoints. The Provost
stated that he has held this perspective when University faculty are found in the same situation. We
have a responsibility and obligation to respect different ideas.
Provost Robinson requested no public opposition to the speaker. In the future, he stated that he will
consider eliminating a commencement speaker and have the valedictorian and salutatorian give the
address instead. After all, the event is about our students, their families, and their accomplishments.
At the same time, it is an unreasonable expectation to have a speaker who would give some sort of
commentary that would not be in alignment with our institutional values. Where does that leave us?
We are a Catholic institution but subscribe to certain values. How do we navigate and deal with this?
In the future we need to examine the way we look at such ceremonies because we will never reach a
consensus on what is appropriate and what is not. The Provost asked for the serious consideration
of the Senate to this matter, as he respects the role and right of the Senate to have different views.
Questions:
Q: A Senator asked the Provost to comment on the status of the current summer session, as there
were expectations that there would be changes, particularly in pricing of credits.
A: Senior Associate Provost Guetti stated that no changes have been reviewed because if the price
per credit is reduced, enrollment will need to be increased, which has been an ongoing issue that we
are struggling with. Provost Robinson stated that he will revisit this issue because he has not looked
into it lately.
Q: A guest asked for more information on how the commencement speaker is selected, specifically
how the Provost’s office is involved in the process and what the Senate could do to strengthen their
hand in this regard.
A: The Provost replied that he is involved after the vetting process and that is part of where the
challenge comes in. Anyone can nominate a speaker in regard to how that person supports the
mission of the University. Afterwards, there is a list of nominations that are reviewed.
Q: A guest asked the Provost to comment further on the vetting process and his comments about
academic freedom since the body understands this concept to be about faculty teaching, research,
and service.
A: The Provost responded that this institution does not relinquish the rights to speakers that it
offers to faculty. If he felt there was a reasonable way to go forward, he would not be considering
eliminating a speaker in the future.
Q: A guest commented that the objection to the speaker is that her writing does not uphold
University values, particularly those on racial and ethnic discrimination, and stated that we are not
opposing her right to share her view publicly but that her views are dismissive to the views we
uphold as a Catholic institution.
A: The Provost stated that he understands these issues and that he has heard pros and cons with
regards to the speaker.
Q: A Senator commented that she is having a hard time understanding this as an issue of academic
freedom since this is an invitation that was extended by the University and expresses the position of
the University in choosing to invite her as a speaker. If the speaker were invited to give a talk, there
would at least be the opportunity for a counter-talk. Putting this in the frame of academic freedom is
not accurate in the very least.
A: The Provost responded that there is no consensus on this matter and that he understands and
appreciates the body’s thoughtful sensitivity and feedback. He understands there is major
opposition, but, at the same time, there is already an invitation that has been sent to this speaker.
The Provost stated that we should have tolerance to someone’s views we may not agree with. In
regards to views that we are sending a statement about the University, the Provost reiterated that he
is at the point where he does not know if there will ever be a commencement speaker again. He
stated that he is not here to debate the issue. He has heard a variety of positions on this issue,
including many strong opinions about this individual’s suitability to speak. His concern is how we
move forward and deal with this issue and handle the commencement.
Q: A guest stated that he was troubled by the Provost’s understanding of tolerance and respect for
differing viewpoints. He asked the Provost if he understood the difference between someone who
vets a set of writings and finds them to be deficient in logic, which is the peer review process we
engage in as faculty, and someone who makes an attempt to disguise bigotry as scientific.
A: The Provost stated that he understood.
4. Welcome and Communications from the Chair: Procedures for participating in the Faculty Senate
* The chair appointed Dr. Philip Moremen as parliamentarian for the meeting and welcomed
all newly elected senators.
5. Approval of agenda
*Gregory Glazov proposed a motion for the New Business motion to be discussed first on
the agenda.
*Vote: 7 yeas, 9 nays, rest were abstentions. The motion failed.
6. Approval of the draft minutes of the April 4 meeting without objection
7. Executive Committee report
*No questions. The report was received without objection.
8. New Executive Committee Election
*Nominations:
*Chair:
Dr. Judith Lothian. She accepted the nomination.
Dr. Lothian’s nomination was uncontested; she was re-elected as Chair unanimously.
*Vice-chair:
Dr. Mary Balkun. She accepted the nomination.
Dr. Balkun’s nomination was uncontested; she was re-elected as Vice-chair unanimously.
*Executive Secretary and Treasurer:
Dr. Philip Moremen. He accepted the nomination.
Dr. Moremen’s nomination was uncontested; he was elected as Executive Secretary and
Treasurer unanimously.
*Two Members-at-Large:
Ms. Beth Bloom. She accepted the nomination.
Dr. Irene DeMasi. She accepted the nomination.
Dr. Elizabeth McCrea. She was not present to accept the nomination but asked the
Executive Committee to accept on her behalf.
*Vote by secret ballot: Ms. Beth Bloom and Dr. Irene DeMasi were elected as the membersat-large.
*The 2014-2015 Faculty Senate commences, with a new Executive Board*
9. Reports of standing and special committees
a. Academic Facilities Committee report
*Questions/Comments:
Q: A Senator asked about how big the Marylawn property is and where it is located.
A: It is a former high school. There is an article linked about it in the report.
*A Senator commented that the Maplewood community is very excited by the prospect
of SHMS taking over the Marylawn property.
*A guest commented that the current building projects on campus are not compliant
with LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) certification.
b. Academic Policy Committee report
i.
Resolved: the proposed Minor in Middle Eastern Studies is approved.
ii.
Resolved: the proposed merged and new major and minors in Communication
and the Arts are approved, namely:


iii.
Art and Design Major with three tracks: Fine and Digital Arts; Graphic
Design and Advertising; Interactive Multimedia.
Minors: Fine and Digital Arts; Graphic Design and Advertising; Interactive
Design and Multimedia; Web Design; Animation.
Resolved: the Senate endorses the TLTR, Online Learning
Committee recommendations regarding online and hybrid courses.
c. Compensation & Welfare Committee report
i.
Adjunct survey results
ii.
Full Professor survey results
d. Core Curriculum Committee report
e. Faculty Guide & Bylaws Committee report
*Beth Bloom presented the report on behalf of outgoing chair, Ann Marie Murphy.
f. Graduate Studies Committee report
g. Instructional Technology Committee report
h. Library Committee report
i.
Nominations, Elections & Appointments Committee
i. Draft criteria & procedures for Hakim Faculty Service Award
*A.D. Amar presented the draft criteria on behalf of the chair, Richard Dool.
*Dr. Lothian stated that we will not vote on this draft until the June meeting in order
to give the body enough time to review and send feedback to Dr. Amar.
j.
Program Review Committee report
i. Police Graduate Studies Program Review Committee report
*Dr. Mary Balkun presented the report on behalf of the outgoing chair, Ben Beitin
10. Committees with no reports
a. Admissions Committee
b. Calendar Committee
c. Faculty Development Committee
d. Faculty Grievance Committee
e. Intellectual Property Task Force
11. Committee Motions
a. Executive Committee
Whereas undergraduate commencement is a celebration of the academic
achievement of our students;
Whereas the presentation of an honorary degree is the university’s highest level of
academic commendation;
Whereas, there has been no significant role for faculty in the selection of
commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients;
The Faculty Senate moves that the Provost’s Office create a task force charged with
ensuring substantial faculty participation in the selection of future honorary degree
recipients and commencement speakers.
*Questions:
Q: A Senator asked if the EC has a sense of what kind of commentary the Provost
will offer on this motion.
A: Dr. Lothian responded that the Provost’s preference is in the direction of a task
force that will at least consider having no commencement speaker, but there is still
the issue of an honorary degree. He knows this is still a very important issue and is
not against a task force.
Q: A Senator, speaking against the motion, asked about the role of the Provost and
the proposed task force in selecting the commencement speaker. The Senator
suggested that the Provost could be involved in two stages of the process: (1) he
could gather petitions and forward them to the Board of Trustees, at which point (2)
he and the task force would be involved in choosing the speaker.
A: Dr. Lothian concurred.
Q: A Senator asked about the limits of the task force being envisioned and
commented that the body should take time to delineate its aims and objectives
before voting.
A: Dr. Balkun, speaking in support of the motion, stated that there was a
Commencement Committee in the past that was solicited for recommendations and
suggestions for speakers. Its current role is unclear and we do not even know if it
still exists. This motion calls for a conversation between the Provost’s Office and
the faculty on how the speaker is selected (if there will continue to be a speaker).
Q: A Senator, speaking in support of the motion, asked if commencement speakers
are paid or are expected to make a contribution.
A: It is unclear.
*Dr. Amar proposed a motion to amend the language to charge the Senate with
creating a task force to develop the selection process for choosing honorary degree
recipients and commencement speakers, as indicated below. The motion was
seconded by Irene DeMasi.
Whereas undergraduate commencement is a celebration of the academic achievement of our students;
Whereas the presentation of an honorary degree is the university’s highest level of academic
commendation;
Whereas, there has been no significant role for faculty in the selection of commencement speakers and
honorary degree recipients;
The Faculty Senate moves that the Provost’s Office Senate create a task force charged with
developing a process ensuring substantial faculty participation in the selection of future honorary
degree recipients and commencement speakers.
*After more discussion, Dr. Lothian called the question.
*Vote on Dr. Amar’s amendment: the motion failed unanimously by voice vote.
*Dr. Jonathan Farina proposed a motion to amend the language to charge the Board
of Regents, instead of the Provost’s Office, to create the task force, as indicated
below. The motion was seconded by Mary Balkun.
Whereas undergraduate commencement is a celebration of the academic achievement of our students;
Whereas the presentation of an honorary degree is the university’s highest level of academic
commendation;
Whereas, there has been no significant role for faculty in the selection of commencement speakers and
honorary degree recipients;
The Faculty Senate moves that the Provost’s Office Board of Regents create a task force charged
with ensuring substantial faculty participation in the selection of future honorary degree recipients
and commencement speakers.
*Some Senators spoke in support of the amendment, believing that the Board of
Regents has more influence over the selection of the speaker than the Provost does.
Other Senators spoke against the amendment, believing that it does not uphold
shared governance and that speaking against the Board will not aid in the Senate’s
objective to engage administration in greater faculty inclusion. The Provost should
be our first point of contact since he deals with academic affairs. Others stated that if
the Provost has the power to eliminate having a commencement speaker in the
future, he must also have some authority in who gets chosen.
*After more discussion, Dr. Judith Lucas called the question.
*Vote on Dr. Farina’s amendment: the motion failed unanimously by voice vote.
*After more discussion, Dr. Nathaniel Knight called the question.
*Vote on the Executive Committee’s motion by secret ballot: 24 yeas, 4 nays, 0
abstentions. The motion passed.
b. Academic Policy Committee
i.
Resolved: the proposed Minor in Middle Eastern Studies is approved.
*Vote: approved unanimously by voice vote.
ii.
Resolved: the proposed merged and new major and minors in Communication
and the Arts are approved, namely:


Art and Design Major with three tracks: Fine and Digital Arts; Graphic
Design and Advertising; Interactive Multimedia.
Minors: Fine and Digital Arts; Graphic Design and Advertising;
Interactive Design and Multimedia; Web Design; Animation.
*Vote: approved unanimously by voice vote.
iii.
Resolved: the Senate endorses the TLTR, Online Learning
Committee recommendations regarding online and hybrid courses.
*Questions:
Q: A Senator asked if this rubric is only to be used for hybrid courses.
A: No, it is applicable to both hybrid and online courses.
Q: A guest asked what “endorsement” means in the motion’s language.
A: The Senate recommends that online and hybrid courses go through this
review process.
Q: A Senator stated that when an existing online course is transferred to a new
instructor, there is no guarantee that the course will be vetted through this
process and that there is not much institutional support for revamping new
online courses.
A: A re-review of courses can be requested by faculty and department chairs.
Q: A Senator asked if the recommendations include a yearly peer review of
courses.
A: This is for new and existing courses. It is a one-time procedure but there is a
provision for re-review. This is not a course review.
*A Senator stated that Quality Matters has nothing to do with curriculum review.
It is a separate issue. This about the appearance of the course, whether the
technology works, and the level of ease students have when using it.
*A Senator commented that the recommendations draw attention to
accommodating students with a variety of disabilities, which is positive.
*Vote: 2 abstentions, all remaining votes were yeas. The motion passed.
c. Program Review Committee
i.
Police Graduate Studies Program Review Committee report
*Vote: the motion was approved unanimously by voice vote.
12. Old Business
*None.
13. New Business
i. Resolution Re: Commencement Speaker Eberstadt
Whereas, the commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient, Mary T. Eberstadt, is
both unqualified to receive such an honor and her writings espouse views contrary to the
educational mission of Seton Hall university;
Whereas, her writings also contradict the inclusive, Catholic mission of the university as
embodied in the Catholic intellectual tradition broadly understood;
Whereas, commencement speakers should have messages that inspire all of our students
regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, and employment status;
Whereas, there was no significant role for faculty in the selection of the commencement
speaker, which could have prevented this unfortunate choice;
Whereas, this choice does not embody or reflect well on the true spirit of this university;
Be it resolved, this faculty assembly expresses its disapproval with the choice of Mary T.
Eberstadt both as commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient.
*A Senator spoke against the motion, providing the body with a list of Mary Eberstadt’s
qualifications to be speaker. A guest spoke in favor of the motion, expressing disapproval of
Eberstadt’s writings.
*Several Senators spoke against the motion because they did not have the opportunity to
read Eberstadt’s writings. For the faculty who have a deep concern about Eberstadt, the
message has gotten through loud and clear to the Board of Trustees. A Senator commented
that we have worked hard this past year to develop a good working relationship with the
administration and a motion condemning this speaker will not result in her being disinvited
and will instead set up an antagonistic relationship with the Board. A divisive message will
not help the faculty.
*Other Senators continued to speak against the motion because there was no evidence
brought to the body to evaluate what Eberstadt has written to be inflammatory and
contradictory to the University’s values, thus making it impossible to support the motion.
*Dr. Sean Harvey proposed amending the motion by eliminating the first two paragraphs.
The motion was seconded by Irene DeMasi.
*Vote on Dr. Harvey’s amendment by voice vote: 10 yeas, 8 nays, 4 abstentions. The
motion failed to pass by the two thirds majority.
*A Senator commented that the June Senate meeting will occur after commencement, at
which point we can create another motion. Another Senator commented that, in the
meantime, the body should review Eberstadt’s website and publications and state if they
have any concerns.
*Dr. Lothian called the question.
Vote on the motion by secret ballot: 8 yeas, 17 nays, 1 abstention. The motion failed.
*A Senator suggested arranging for a panel discussion or town hall meeting inviting faculty
specializing in politics, gender, and religion and students to discuss the implications of
Eberstadt’s address after commencement.
14. Communications
*None.
15. Adjournment
*The meeting adjourned at 4:36 p.m.
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.
Responses to resolutions (dated April 28)
ii.
Responses to 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 the draft minutes of the May 2 meeting without objection
6. Executive Committee report
*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 Committee report
*Dr. Lothian stated she would inform Senior Associate Provost Guetti that she
should expect to hear from the committee soon.
b. Admissions Committee report
*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 Committee report
d. Compensation and Welfare Committee report
i.
Motion: We resolve that the Senate Benefits Advisory Committee members
bring the inclusion of bariatric surgery, including pre-surgery tests and postsurgery 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 Committee report
f. Library Committee report
*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 the revised Lecturer 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
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.
*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.
Draft criteria & 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.