Behrend Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, April 17, 2024
4:00–5:00 p.m.
114 Reed

  1. Call to Order – Lena Surzhko-Harned, Faculty Senate Chair
    Approval of the minutes from February 20, 2023
    1. Motion: Luciana Arrone
    2. Second: Mike Rutter
  2. Remarks from Chancellor Ford and Leadership Team
    1. Ralph Ford
      1. We appreciate the good attendance at the enrollment sessions this week. There is a national concern with FAFSA – we look at admit numbers, perform basic analysis, week to week comparisons, etc. Andrea Konkol says there is movement in the system starting this week. We should see enrollment continuing to grow residentially.
      2. Not much of an update with the budget – we have not yet received our number; not sure we will see it for a while. There is an aggregate number being submitted to Board of Trustees and they will pass at the summer board meeting, but no insight as to what the Behrend number is. There was a budget presentation to Faculty Senate leaders yesterday, hoping to hear Matt’s feedback. Neeli is holding a meeting next week and you can submit questions in advance. Student reps planning on going down to Altoona for the meeting.
      3. Vice Chancellor candidates coming next week, calendar invites have been sent out to Council members.
      4. Question: Thoughts on the new Provost?
        1. Very capable and approachable. Likely to be overwhelmed initially.
      5. Eclipse planning for 4/8 went phenomenally well, kudos to Mike and Tracy, and Darren Williams. Consider watching the WJET-TV clip during totality. We’ve had a great 75th year so far, let’s do everything we can to end on a positive note.
      6. If you hear rumors of things being ‘cancelled’, or rumors in general, do not hesitate to ask because many are not true.
    2. Academic Affairs
      1. Email went out yesterday summarizing everything that’s been going on, happy to answer any questions.
      2. Working with Indian universities, also targeting South America, and working with community colleges in the area.
        1. Erie County Community – already working with them on an ad hoc basis. They aren’t accredited yet, so need to do one-offs. They’ve applied for Middle States Accreditation, may not come through until next year, so we are limited.
      3. Last spring this body passed changes to first-year seminars – ALT team just met; each school presented what FYS will look like. They are following right along with the guidance that came from Faculty Senate. Each school is trying to align common hours across seminars to improve engagement and belonging among first year students.
      4. Each school is working to distill these very large program reviews – you’ll see over the next two to three weeks they will be condensed down so that we can more easily provide feedback.
      5. APPR committees – working on them now, an email went out today. Senators brought up that this committee work would be in summer outside of contract hours. Request for funding, new Provost is aware and is looking into the possibility of that.
  3. Reports from Committee Chairs on Committee Work:
    1. Academic Computing, Elisa Beshero-Bondar
      1. Report Attached
      2. Everyone is encouraged to read the report. The findings are very relevant to the entire campus.
    2. Athletics, Adam Simpson
      1.  N/A
    3. Undergraduate Curricular Affairs, Glenn Kumhera
      1. Working on trying to create a uniform system of pushing through new courses. Going to do a test run to see if we can use CIM without ‘submitting’, but filling out, printing, and sending around. That way there’s a format and then if approved it can just be submitted.
      2. Putting together summary of what works with CIM and what pitfalls to avoid.
    4. Faculty Affairs, Lynne Beaty
      1. Presentation by Luciana Arrone
        1. Analysis of Concerns regarding NTT (NTL) Faculty regarding Annual Review and Promotion Process
          1. Two fall town halls attended by only teaching faculty to voice concerns about process.
          2. One on one sessions with Luciana were also held.
        2. Issues with process according to peers
          1. 4% vs 8% raises – we’ve submitted our request for centralized funding.
          2. Service and outreach are treated inconsistently – some people will list one activity as research, but others list the same as service.
            • Part of the issue is that it is not ‘research’ it is ‘scholarly activity’.
          3. 30% research isn’t an expectation of teaching NTL peers elsewhere.
          4. No clear set of expectations that must be met.
          5. Some departments require teaching portfolios, some do not.
          6. Policies among schools are not consistent and the criteria of BCF-10 is not always being applied consistently.
          7. Student ratings of faculty are widely known to be flawed tools by which to assess the quality of an educator. Yet still a big part of the process of considering promotions.
          8. Faculty who have served on both school and college promotion committees showed frustration that their recommendations do not have equal weight as administrative decisions.
        3. Issues with BCF-10
          1. June 2020 changes made without faculty consultation or knowledge.
          2. Administrative Guidelines 4 – if you get two negative reviews, Chancellor’s going to let you know, “the candidate may withdraw their dossier from consideration after the second negative decision if they so desire”.
            • This statement is unclear and has not been applied consistently.
            • Greg: After second negative decision, process is ended. Some candidates that go up want the additional feedback from the additional levels. Even though it’s not going to proceed, they may want feedback from College Committee and Chancellor. Or, they can withdraw and end the process without the feedback.
            • The interpretation is that some people can move forward after two negative reviews and others don’t.
          3. AC 23 is referenced but only applies to tenure track and tenured faculty. NTL’s are only mentioned in AC 21.
        4. Annual evaluation concerns
          1. No rubric provided for annual review transparency.
          2. Good annual performance evals should generally indicate that an individual is a good candidate for promotion, but instead it is explicitly stated that the two are completely unrelated.
          3. There should be an informal process of rebuttal for annual evaluations.
            • Sometimes faculty feel that key areas in Digital Measures are looked over.
            • Perhaps it should be formal.
          4. No mentorship program for teaching has been developed, though it has been asked for repeatedly by faculty.
            • Greg: One of his first charges with directors was to modify or develop a formal mentorship program. Those policies will be coming across ALT in the next month. All four schools WILL have policies in the Fall and there WILL be accountability for it.
      2. Presentation Attached
    5. Graduate Affairs, Mike Rutter
      1.  Will be working with undergrad curricular committee to align.
    6. Research Committee, Babajide Osatuyi
      1. On track to finalize charges, first two focused on sabbaticals and the Council of Fellow research awards. Made modifications to see how the rubrics work.
      2. New charges – sent out a survey and analyzing data, will be writing a report and sharing recommendations.
    7. Scholarships and Awards, Aimee Pogson
      1. N/A
    8. Student Life, Michelle Cook & James Hodge
      1. N/A
    9. Undergraduate Studies, Phil Stuczynski
      1. N/A
    10. Institutional, Educational, and Diversity, Kyeiwaa Asare-Yeboah
      1. Working to increase student/faculty awareness of resources. Hoping to share pertinent information at beginning of year meetings. Working with the Office of Disabilities and Learning Differences.
      2. Investigate and make recommendations to get students to interact with underrepresented groups. Working with Andy to try and connect international students and other groups during NSO.
      3. Create some type of faculty mentorship program – college wide. Focus on international faculty, faculty of color, faculty of underrepresented groups. Working with HR to create those groups.
  4. Faculty Senate Updates, Matt Swinarski
    1. APPR – Academic program and portfolio review. Emails have been sent out, so this is likely one of her first tasks. Senators were concerned about summer work; it was brought up.
    2. Presentation by Dean Esters about graduate school, after that presentation about budget by Sara Thorndike. About 15 minutes, did meet with University planning committee earlier, they asked a lot of questions (Matt is not on that committee) she was very open to explaining the models and another session is expected. Only the very high-level picture was shared thus far. Commonwealth caucus discussion – the $54 million IS the number. Would have been higher without the subvention and other monies put in. Sara did mention that there are investments, carry overs, etc. so there is money that may be used to help offset some of the cuts, but unlikely to be significant offset.
    3. Individual units don’t have their budget – reported to commonwealth caucus that they are thinking December is when units will get their allocations. Already after the budget has been approved by Trustees. Defended by Sara – traditionally when budgets proposed to Trustees, they don’t break out the units. No precedence to say it must be broken out before the Trustees.
    4. Bursar policy – students can currently take $500 and put it on their billing and use that towards books and supplies. Recommendation that the $500 might not be enough. Barnes and Nobles will charge them full price but could get them cheaper elsewhere. Could computer equipment be included. Senate put forth many recommendations. How they get implemented is beyond Senate’s control.
    5. Pass/Fail policy did NOT pass. Sticking point was credits. Policy was up to 18 credits pass/fail, amended it down to 12 credits. Then an amendment for 24 credits. Transfer students cause an issue. Send it back to committee to discuss again. Hope was that there would be a vote. Official policy is 2021, allows students to take up to 24 credits pass/fail. But has NOT been implemented so they cannot do it. Operational policy is 1986 policy – 6 credits determined at start of semester.
    6. Committee reports are on Canvas. Each committee, top three items for March. Expecting the April one in about two weeks or so. Likely focused on charges expected for next year.
    7. Even though we only have 8 senators from Behrend (4%) if we get the Commonwealth caucus on board then we have about half, so questions/issues that you have are worth bringing up.
       
  5. Updates from Ad Hoc Committees
    1. Constitutional Reform Committee, Jason Bennett
      1. Delayed things because we’ve been preoccupied by budget issues. Come up with a new structure for faculty senate and new committee structure – starting to write into the new constitution. Putting this on hold – next fall when we have a better idea of the processes, we will make it open for faculty to comment before going up for vote.
    2. PaSSS
      1. N/A
         
  6. New Business
    1. Fireside chat with Kim Paris Friday at 1pm in Metzgar. Issues of morale and other HR related questions.
    2. Chairs – keep eye out for an email from Lena requesting reports to be sent to incoming president Jason Bennett.
    3. Letter to administration about budget concerns, since board of trustees meeting in July. Matt has been working with senate on the letter – went to Shelly Stine, chair of commonwealth caucus, distributed to a bunch of other people. Discussions about having a committee to look at it. People are waiting to see what some of the answers are.
       
  7. Adjournment
    1. Motion: Luciana Arrone
    2. Second: Matt Ciszek

Appendix: