SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

							                    SETON HALL UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
                                   Meeting of April 3, 2009
                                             1:30 p.m.
                                          Beck Rooms
                                             Agenda
In attendance: Peter Ahr, Mary Balkun, Kelly Goedert, Anthony Haynor, Williamjames Hoffer,
Amy Silvestri Hunter, Nathaniel Knight, Anne Mullen-Hohl, Bert Wachsmuth, David Beneteau,
Charles Carter, Roseanne Mirabella, King Mott, Thomas Rondinella, Thomas Rzeznik, Michael
Taylor, Cathy Zizik, C Lynn Carr, Colleen Conway, Eliot Krause, Jeffrey Levy, Leigh Stelzer,
Gary Kritz, Athar Murtuza, Pamela Foley, Vivienne Carr, Robert Massey, Anita Talar, Beth
Bloom, Ann Marie Mauro, Theodora Sirota, Marycarol Rossignol, Victor Velarde, Assefaw
Bariagaber, Irene DeMasi, Catherine Maher, Gary Bouchard

The meeting was called to order at 1:34pm.

Provost Esteban announced that he has committed to staying at Seton Hall for a few more years
and expressed his thanks for the Senate resolution of support. He also thanked the Senate for the
resolution regarding the University budget, which was discussed at the Board of Regents
meeting. He indicated that while money may not have been taken out of the budget strategically,
it should be put back in that manner. The strategic planning committee will soon release a draft
document to the Seton Hall community.

The agenda was approved as posted without objection.

The minutes of the March 20, 2009 meeting were approved as posted without objection.

The Executive Committee Report was received.

Reports of standing and special committees with reports:
    a. Compensation and Welfare Committee Report
       The report was accepted.

    b. Core Curriculum Committee February Report (separate document)
       The report was accepted.

    c. Instructional Technology Committee Report
       The report was received.

8. Standing and special committees with no written reports:
     a. Academic Facilities Committee
     b. Academic Policy Committee
     c. Ad hoc Committee on University Ombuds Office
     d. Admissions Committee
     e. Calendar Committee
     f. Faculty Development Committee
        The FDC recommends that David Beneteau, Colleen Conway, and Amy Hunter serve on
     the provost’s faculty development committee. Two other members are needed; interested
     senators should contact the FDC chair.
        The oral report was received.
     g. Faculty Guide and Bylaws Committee
     h. Grievance Committee
     i. Library Committee
     j. Graduate Council Liaison
     k. Grievance Committee
     l. Nominations, Elections, and Appointments Committee
     m. Program Review Committee

9. Committee motions
    a. A motion was made to approve the appointment of Roseanne Mirabella as the director of
    the core curriculum for one year.
    After discussion, the question was called without objection.
    The motion was approved unanimously.

     b. Compensation Committee motion
     There was no discussion of the motion and the question was called without objection.
     The motion was approved unanimously.

     c.   Core Curriculum Committee motions

The original motion was modified to read as follows:
   1. The Core Curriculum Committee moves that Core Proficiencies will be part of the
       University Core Curriculum starting with the entering class of 2009, to become a
       requirement for that class starting in fall 2010. This information will become part of the
       undergraduate catalog for 2009-10.

       After discussion, the question was called without objection. The motion was approved
with 2 abstentions.

   2. The Core Curriculum Committee moves that the Senate approve the definitions and
      objectives included in the document titled "Proficiency Policies." This document extracts
      the definitions and objectives from the larger documents sent to the Senate for its review.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to call the question. There was objection to
calling the question. The body voted in favor of calling the question. The motion was approved.

   3. Whereas, the Core Curriculum Committee acknowledges that different strategies and
      methods for incorporating the proficiencies into courses may be employed, as will
      emerge through discussions between the Core Proficiency Committee and the various
      schools, colleges, and departments.
       Whereas, the Core Curriculum Committee also acknowledges that a gradual rollout of the
       Core Proficiencies may be necessary and that it will keep the Senate apprised of progress
       in its work with the schools, colleges, and departments.
       Therefore, the Core Curriculum Committee moves that a schedule of Proficiency
       requirements for undergraduates be submitted for the Senate’s approval by the October
       2009 Senate meeting.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to call the question. There was objection to
calling the question. The body voted against calling the question.
A motion was made to amend the motion by adding “whereas” at the start of each paragraph.
The question called without objection. The motion to amend the motion was approved.
Discussion on the motion continued until the question was called without objection. The motion
was approved unanimously.

   4. The Core Curriculum Committee moves that the Senate approve the processes for
      developing and approving proficiency-infused courses listed in the document titled "Core
      Proficiency Review and Accreditation Process."

A change was made to the “Core proficiency review and accreditation process” document (from
“Core Curriculum Committee Documents” file, page 27):

B. College of Arts and Sciences:
    The PRC works with departments and programs to identify infused courses and to help
       develop additional courses if necessary
    Courses are submitted to the PRC for review and accreditation
    The PRC sends courses to the A&S EPC for approval; the EPC will then submit to the
       College for approval, as necessary
    The Faculty Senate APC resolves any conflicts

After discussion, the question was called without objection. The motion was approved.

The meeting adjourned at 4:24pm.
Executive Committee Report, April 3, 2009.


The EC reports to the Senate that the budget recommendations were presented to the Board of
Regents on March 26. We are pleased that the resolution was discussed in great detail and that there
were numerous questions related to the views of this Body. It is important to note that the Senate
should continue to demonstrate leadership on all issues related to our academic mission.

The Doctor of Nursing Practice was approved by the Regents. Rank and tenure recommendations
were also presented (the Chairperson of the Senate is excused during these discussions).

The EC is watching closely the status of the Budget Committee. This Committee did work in a
unique way to resolve the budget crisis of the past three months. Now is the time to continue with
these meetings so that all of the information coming from Enrollment, Finance, Student Affairs, and
Academic Affairs is available at the same meeting. Perhaps as significant is the real need to respond
to the possibility of strategic re-investment following a positive enrollment and attrition in the
upcoming academic year. The EC is working with the Provost and the Academic Deans to ensure
that we have a plan in place; this will happen over the next few months and the results will be
presented to this Body.

The EC provides the following updates:

   1. As discussed in our last meeting, the Provost has agreed to establish a working group to re-
      evaluate all resources made available to faculty development. The goal is to create a more
      favorable method of supporting faculty research and development in general. The Senate
      has been asked to nominate five individuals to this working group. We should do this today.

   2. The strategic plan will be made available to the faculty for comment and critique within the
      next two weeks.

   3. While compensation is frozen for this fiscal year, the committee meetings to determine the
      mechanism for the next market evaluation will continue; additionally, the Senate must be
      prepared to respond to the Administration regarding faculty salaries and benefits should the
      University meet enrollment targets. The Compensation Committee will present information
      to the Body today so that we can begin to prepare for this possibility.

   4. The EC asks that all Senators pay particular attention to the University Core Curriculum
      Committee Report as we have a considerable amount of work to review coming from this
      Committee.

   5. The EC is sending commendation letters to all Senators this year. This letter will be copied
      to each Academic Dean and Chairperson so that it may be part of faculty records.


Finally, the Senate is reminded that a new EC will be elected in May. It is our opinion that we pay
close attention to both those members that will be elected by the Colleges and Schools and that we
begin to consider new leadership for the upcoming academic year. The EC is willing to discuss the
options available for all colleagues at any time.
Respectfully submitted,


W. King Mott
Chairperson of the Faculty Senate

**return to agenda**
                                  Compensation Committee Report

                                             February 2009

The Compensation Committee met on March 25 and 31 to discuss several pressing
compensation issues.

Foremost among these is the issue of changes to faculty health benefits including requiring
faculty with individual plans to assume 15% of the premium cost and a reduction of the
medical waiver from $2,000 to $1,000. After much deliberation, including discussions with
Susan Basso, the committee proposes the following:

Motion:

Whereas the University has announced that beginning in January 2010 there will be an unprecedented
change in policy and all faculty with an individual medical plan (no dependents) will be required to
assume a percentage of the premium (15%), and

Whereas it has also been announced that the medical waiver will be reduced from $2,000 to $1,000 for
those faculty opting out of the University plan, and

Whereas these changes were made without any consultation with the faculty or its representatives in
clear violation of Middle States requirements for shared governance, and

Whereas the faculty of the University will be receiving no salary increase next year due to the budgetary
constraints facing the university, and

Whereas faculty salaries continue to remain far less competitive than faculty at peer institutions,

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate is opposed to any decrease in current faculty compensation.


In addition, the Compensation Committee would the Senate to discuss faculty compensation
going forward as the budget situation unfolds. In particular, we would like guidance on the
following:

       If summer enrollments are down as a result of flat tuition and the reduction of credit
        requirements to 120, what will happen to the faculty salary allocation for summer?

       If freshmen enrollment and retention of current students in fall 2009 exceeds
        budgetary expectations, how will the additional revenue be allocated?


Respectfully submitted,

Roseanne Mirabella
Chair

**return to agenda**
Report on Senate IT Committee Meeting on Friday, March 27, 2009, 12 – 1pm.
The IT committee met on Friday, March 27, in the Curriculum Room of the Walsh library. In
attendance were: Bert Wachsmuth (Chair), Anne Pumfery (Secretary), Dongdong Chen, Ming
Bao, and Abe Zakhem.
IT Faculty Survey: The 2008/09 IT Faculty Survey, created jointly by the TLTC and the Senate
IT committee, went out to all faculty members last week via email. Please fill it out and
encourage your colleagues to do the same. If you lost the survey link, please contact Paul Fisher
(fisherpa@shu.edu).
TLTR Town Hall meeting: The Senate IT committee and the Teaching, Learning, and
Technology Roundtable are co-sponsoring a “Technology Town Hall Meeting” entitled "How Do
We Teach the Class of 2013?" on Monday, April 6, 2009, from 5:30 - 7:00 pm in the University
Club (2nd Floor University Center). The meeting will be an open forum for faculty to discuss the
changing culture of instruction, to find out who the graduates of 2013 are, to review the
technology tools that our faculty are using, and to talk about any other areas of concern related to
IT. The session will be moderated by Jack Shannon, Stillman School of Business. Please attend
and encourage your colleagues to attend as well.
Faculty/Staff Email conversion: The conversion of faculty and staff email to the new Exchange
system has started, including conversion of existing and archived mail. Everyone needs to
convert this semester! Nathanial Knight, Anne Mullen-Hohl, and Bert Wachsmuth met with
Steve Landry on Wed, 3/25, to discuss our objections to a new policy to “automatically delete
email older than 180 days from the server”. Steve Landry, who already retracted the policy prior
to our meeting, agreed with our concerns and removed that policy permanently. IT is now
investigating the possibility of implementing an automatic server-side archiving system to
preserve all old emails automatically for multiple years. An email quota of 500 MB, not counting
archived email, will remain in effect to keep the email system fast and responsive for all. Steve
Landry will continue to work with us to ensure that “an appropriate archiving solution is
implemented and the University community is satisfied that they have convenient, uninterrupted
access to their archived email from any computer”. The committee agreed to use the switch to a
new email system and the ensuing discussions as an opportunity to revise and update the “Draft
Report to the Faculty Senate on the Question of Faculty Use of E-Mail”, submitted to the Senate
in April 2005, in the near future.
Faculty Laptop Refresh Priorities: Amongst other responses to the recent budget cuts IT has
decided to extend the default faculty laptop refresh period from 2 to 3 years, starting this
summer. Faculty may apply for an earlier refresh and the IT committee was asked to help
develop guidelines for evaluating such requests. Our guidelines will include a recommendation
to upgrade all 2-year old Lenovo X60 tablets because they run slow under Windows Vista. In
addition, the policy will take special needs of faculty into account as well as need-based
replacement of parts such as batteries. We will attempt to propose a policy after our next
meeting.
The next scheduled meeting, our last for this academic year, is on Fri, April 24, 12-1pm.

       Respectfully submitted,
             Bert G. Wachsmuth


**return to agenda**