ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, September 13, 2021

Academic Council Packet for Meeting

September 13, 2021 page 1

ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA

Monday, September 13, 2021 3:30 to 5:00 PM: NHS 404

0. Selection of Recording Secretary, Election of Chair and Executive Secretary 2021-2022 1. Presidential courtesy 2. Report from the Secretary of the General Faculty 3. Report from the Executive Secretary

a. Approval of minutes: i. Meeting on May 3, 2021 (attachment)

ii. Meeting on May 10, 2021 (attachment) iii. Meeting on May 19, 2021 (attachment) iv. Meeting on August 5, 2021 (attachment) v. Meeting on August 23, 2021 (attachment)

b. Correspondence i. Memo Re: Meetings and Roster (attachment)

ii. Memo Re: Taking Minutes of Academic Council Meetings (attachment) iii. Note to AC from International Studies and International Business (attachment)

c. Oral Reports 4. Council Subcommittee Reports

a. Standing Calendar Review Subcommittee b. Subcommittee on Reconciling Sexual Misconduct Policies (AC 4/1/19) c. Subcommittee on Guidelines for Non-Tenure Track Faculty Practices (AC 5/11/20)

(attachment) d. Subcommittee considering Dual Degree Graduate Programs (AC 2/8/21) (attachment) e. Subcommittee Exploring forming a Graduate Curriculum Committee (AC 3/15/21)

5. Petitions for immediate hearing 6. Old Business 7. New business

a. Election of Members to Academic Council Calendar Review Subcommittee b. Report from Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees on Spring meetings and

preparation for September meeting c. Faculty liaisons to the Board and Election of AC member as liaison with Board

committee on Mission (attachment) d. Update from Public Health Advisory Committee e. Correction of JoR language re coordinators of signature elements of Magis Core (attachment) f. The use of Zoom for committee meetings

Lists of Attachments, Pending Items, and Ongoing Items are on page 2.



List of Attachments and other materials: For item 3.a.i.: Draft minutes of meeting on May 3, 2021 (pages 3-12) For item 3.a.ii.: Draft minutes of meeting on May 10, 2021 (pages 13-22) For item 3.a.iii: Draft minutes of meeting on May 19, 2021 (pages 23-25) For item 3.a.iv.: Draft minutes of meeting on August 5, 2021 (pages 26-35) For item 3.a.v.: Draft minutes of meeting on August 23, 2021 (pages 36-41) For item 3.b.i.: Memo Re: Meetings and Roster (page 42) For item 3.b.ii.: Memo Re: Taking Minutes of Academic Council Meetings (page 43) For item 3.b.iii.: Note to AC from International Studies and International Business (pages 44-45 ) For item 4.c: Report from Subcommittee on Guidelines for Non-Tenure Track Faculty Practices (pages 46-52) For item 4.d: Report from Subcommittee on Dual Degree Graduate Programs (page 53) For item 7.c: Faculty liaisons to the Board and Election of AC member as liaison with Board committee on

Mission (page 54) For item 7.d: Notes from Public Health Advisory Committee meetings can be found here For item 7.e.: Memo from GFS and Magis Core Director about JoR language concerning coordinators of

signature elements. (page 55) Pending Items: A. Faculty Data Committee (AC 12/3/07). B. AC revisits the accessibility of teaching evaluation data, Due spring 2012. (AC 4/19/10) C. AC review of Merit Appeals Policy, once one or more have been adjudicated. (AC

11/1/10 & 5/13/14) D. AC three-year review of Intellectual Properties Policy, spring 2014. (AC 3/7/11) E. MPA, five-year review in 2017-2018 (AC 9/10/12) F. Revisit report from ACSC on Mission Statement re non-tenure track faculty in fall 2014 (AC

9/8/14) G. MS in Business Analytics, initial review due Spring 2020 (AC 10/6/14) H. Review and evaluate the Pass/Fail option in fall 2020 (AC 12/1/2014) I. Digital Journalism major five-year review due Spring 2021 (AC 3/2/15) J. Public Relations major five-year review due Spring 2021 (AC 3/2/15) K. Five-year Review of MA and SYC in Remedial Reading and Remedial Language Arts in 2022 (AC

2/6/17) L. Public Health major and minor five-year review of due Spring 2023 (AC 10/2/17) M. FUA BLS review due no later than Spring 2024 (AC 4/9/18) N. Every five-year review of AC and UCC seat allocation (done AC 5/1/17; GF 10/17), next due Spring

2022 (AC 2/7/2000; GF 3/4/2000) O. Consider revising charge to Library Committee (AC 5/31/19) P. MBA/MSBA dual degree program five-year review due Spring 2026 (AC 2/8/21)

Ongoing Items: 1. Report by SVPAA to AC each semester to inform the council of any approved exceptions to the

Athletic Department’s policy of not scheduling athletic events that conflict with final exams. 2. Report from the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees after each meeting with board

members. At the end of each academic year, discuss items for the Conference Committee to put on the agenda for their meetings with members of the board the following year

3. Standing Calendar Review Subcommittee: A subcommittee of two people will be elected by the AC each September from its elected membership. The subcommittee’s charge is to review all Fairfield academic calendars before their publication and make any necessary recommendations for changes to the Academic Council and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/AC/2021-2022/Minutes/PHATMinutes/PHATMinutes2021-2022.html



Academic Council Meeting Monday, May 3, 2021

3:30 to 5:00 PM via Zoom

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Faculty Members Present: Profs. Uma Balaji, Katsiaryna Bardos, Cynthia Bautista, David Downie, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Erica Hartwell, Jerelyn Johnson (Chair), Evelyn Lolis, David McFadden, Camelia Micu, Kathy Nantz, Shawn Rafalski, Susan Rakowitz (GFS), Linda Roney, Adam Rugg (Executive Secretary), Aaron Van Dyke, Carl Scheraga (Scribe) Administrators Present: Provost Christine Siegel, Deans Andres L. Carrano, Richard Greenwald, Laurie Grupp, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li Student Observer Present: Mr. Vincent Gadioma Guests: Profs. Emily Smith (7c) and Stephanie Storms (7c)

After several rounds of polling, it was decided that if the Council needs to reconvene it would be on Monday May 10th from 3:30 to 5:00 pm. Presidential Courtesy Brief update from undergraduate admissions shows (May 3rd deadline) that University has met or exceeded expectations for the first-year class. Numbers are still fluid because there is always melt and final number may be affected by waitlist activity at other schools. Admissions is confident that we will have another academically strong class. Report from Secretary of the General Faculty Zoom link for the General Faculty meeting on the May 5 is forthcoming. Final scheduled General Faculty meeting is on May 20. There will be remarks by the President with Q&A. This will be followed by a celebration of our retirees. Thanks were extended to this year’s Executive Committee. Report from the Academic Council Executive Secretary

Motion (Rugg/Bautista): to approve the minutes of 3/29/21. Vote: 17-0-0.

Subcommittee Reports No subcommittee reports Petitions for Immediate Hearing No petitions for immediate hearing 1. Proposal for Credit/No Credit Policy The UCC reported to the Council on March1st. The Council discussed the issue on March 1st, March 8th, and then March 15th. Language for the proposal was then worked on by the Executive Committee. The minutes package of March 29th contains the proposed language:



The credit/no credit option is intended to encourage intellectual exploration and risk-taking. Over the course of their undergraduate career, students may elect to take up to two (2) courses credit/no credit. • Under this option, if the student earns a C or above (73-100), the instructor will enter the

grade as "credit" and the credits will count toward graduation, but will not be factored into the student’s GPA. If the student earns a C- or below (0-72), the instructor will enter a grade of "no credit." The course will be listed on the student’s transcript as "no credit," but will not be factored into their GPA. The student is responsible for determining how and when to make up the course/credits. The student will not receive any allowance/refund for a course that is designated as “no credit.”

• Students may not use this option for: o courses in their major(s) or courses required by their major(s); o courses that are part of competitive programs that they have joined upon successful

application, including, but not limited to: the Honors Program, Study Abroad, and the Residential College program.

• Students may use this option for: o no more than one (1) course used to fulfill a Magis core requirement. o any courses not otherwise restricted by the limitations above.

• Students are eligible for this option once they have completed 30 credits. • Students must declare (to the Registrar's Office) their intention to take a course credit/no credit

no later than the deadline for withdrawing from the course. The decision is irrevocable. Students are strongly urged to consult with their academic advisor, instructor, and/or academic dean when considering this choice.

Professor McFadden: There a couple of things, based on this semester’s pass-fail policy, that are worrisome to the History department. Students are deciding at a very late date to examine their GPA and the impact on it of making a particular decision. Some these students may currently be earning grades like a B+. Once they make their decision, they cannot change their decision. They then “forget” the rest of the semester. How does one look at their final papers? How does one look at their take-home final exams? This makes a mockery of our system. He is totally opposed to this policy and he does not believe that the Academic Council has the right to make this decision. If we are moving in this direction, it needs to be referred to the General Faculty for a robust discussion. Provost Siegel: She respects what Professor McFadden has said. However, she disagrees and speaks in favor of the proposal. The motion has been fully vetted by the UCC and the Academic Council and discussed since last year. The policy currently in place is different from the one that is being recommended. We can look at the last three semesters under the current policy and she has asked Vice Provost Mark Ligas for numbers to date as to students electing the pass-fail option. The numbers are: Spring 2020, 2,000 requests, fall 2020, 1,300 requests, and spring 2021, 500 requests. The number has gone down over time. We can anticipate that as we come out of the Covid-19 environment the number will go down lower if that trend continues. Consider that as a rough estimate we have 4,000 undergraduate students, each taking on average five classes, which translates into 20,000 grades. Of those, 500 will be pass-fail. The data does not bear out that students will abuse the system. She is not discounting Professor’s McFadden experience. However, it needs to be put in the context of the overall numbers. The option for credit/no credit (or pass-fail) was developed in line with what institutions similar to Fairfield have. The UCC and the Academic Council did their work to come up with this policy.



Professor Rakowitz: She wanted to speak specifically to the issue of what the Council’s role is in this issue. Certainly, the Council could send the proposal to the General Faculty. However, it is not required to do so. The language in the faculty handbook states that the Academic Council “is empowered to consider, make decisions and make recommendations on any matter of academic concern that falls within the purview of the faculty except for matters specifically reserved to the General Faculty” like handbook amendments. This discussion has not been rushed but spans several meetings. This was done so that people could go back to their colleagues, discuss their concerns, and then bring them back to the Council. Professor McFadden: The FWC held a Brown Bag lunch on this issue and the overwhelming sentiment at that meeting was that this issue should go to the General Faculty. The entire History department would be very upset if this was not sent to the General Faculty. Professor Van Dyke: He would like to speak in favor of the motion. He echoes what Professor Rakowitz said. The discussion spanned several meetings to allow us to talk to our faculty colleagues in our departments and program areas so that this can be a thoughtful and reasoned discussion. The Council did listen to the petition for immediate hearing from the History department. They raised several important points that the Council considered. However, there has been a clear hearing of this issue. It is important not to conflate the credit/no credit policy as being the same as the pass-fail policy that is currently in place. We are not seeking to extend the measures that are currently in place for accommodations of learning. We are seeking to give students a choice and empowering them in their learning going forward. The proposal does a nice job of doing this and balances the options for core classes that students can take as an option with other classes that are in students’ learning tools. Professor Epstein: Anecdotally, he can confirm to some extent some of what Professor McFadden has said as to how students will calculate their GPA but not as a reaction to any immediate stressor but as means to explore courses without affecting GPAs. Many students have approached him with calculations of their GPA and would like to know what impact on said GPA would occur (sometimes by fractions of an amount) by electing pass-fail. Some of our students pay a lot of attention to their GPA and do these calculations. Some students will continue to do this if we continue with the proposed policy. However, he speaks in favor of the proposal. As we have seen with comparisons with other schools and the other options that were considered, especially those we had under Covid-19 conditions, this proposal is an extremely delimited and narrow application of a non-grade option. Students can elect the option only twice. They cannot do it in their freshman year and only once in the Core. They are not going to be able to exercise it very often. Faculty will not be facing this very often and students really will not be able to game-out the system. We can move forward with the proposal and still have a discussion with the General Faculty because there is a lot of misunderstanding, some misinformation and some misperceptions about the relationship between the proposal and the current in-place system. Professor Lolis: We need to talk about a couple of things. The first is the notion as to what is the spirit of what we are trying to do, i.e. comparability to other institutions and the provision to students the opportunity to explore classes that they might not otherwise undertake. The notion that our students will take advantage of the system mirrors real life and the work environment. Students, as they go forward, are going to have to make these kinds of decisions. The powers that be cannot always control these decisions. The University needs to act in good faith and do what is right. Student contemplations and extrapolations of the policy will vary but the overall consensus and the



spirit of the proposal is what we need to think about. We are giving students the opportunity to make mature decisions. The second is the notion as to whether faculty need support in grading under the regime of this policy. How do we go about getting our courses ready and have integrity in the assessment process, integrity in assignments and achieve the objectives of the course and at the same honor this proposal? This may be a question for the CAE or perhaps workshops. Professor Johnson: Reading over VP Ligas’ e-mail to students concerning pass-fail this semester, he mentioned that when a formal, permanent policy was instituted, courses taken pass-fail over the last three semesters would count towards the two-course lifetime limit. Did the Council think otherwise? Professor Rakowitz: That was part of the language discussed by the Council this past fall. The UCC recommended against that. However, it is not in the current proposal. Professor Gerry: The current policy we are discussing is credit/no credit. How do we take into account pass-fail? Wasn’t the grading system different if it was pass-fail versus credit/no credit? Under pass-fail a D- was passing, under the current proposal a C- is passing. Professor Johnson: The e-mail from VP Ligas said that courses taken pass-fail under that regime will count towards the total required number of credits. What happens to the student who received a D- under pass-fail – will this still count towards the total credit requirement when the new proposal is implemented where a C- is required to pass a course? Professor Epstein: This sounds like an important question. He was not aware that VP Ligas had sent this information out. He was under the impression that whatever we implemented going forward was a new policy. The pass-fail regime was a contractual agreement with students and should not be changed after the fact. If students are making pass-fail decision now, those decisions should not affect a policy coming in of which they were not aware. We can put some language in about “grandfathering.” Provost Siegel: We could come out with corrective language. Mark was just trying to say to students choose wisely. He was going on the last position that the Council had at that point in time. We might just want to say that going forward, credit/no credit is different. Professor Nantz: How many classes were students allowed to declare pass-fail in spring 2020, fall 2020 and the spring 2021? Has the cap always been two? Comment from several faculty: It was unlimited in spring 2020, then two in the fall 2020 and two in spring 2021. Professor Nantz: So we could have students going into fall 2021with as many as nine courses pass-fail. She is not in favor of this policy, but will vote for it because it has been vetted enough. We need to try something and if it does not work, we can reconsider it. This is not typically how she goes into policy-making. She is not in favor of how this has come around. It has been a failure in our conversations as faculty members from the very beginning when we started talking about it. Still she is going to vote for it because students need a “pass-fail” option. She does not know the difference between pass-fail and credit/no credit. Her major concern with this is with regard to group projects. There is the question as to the willingness of students taking the pass-fail option to engage with their



peers in meaningful group activities. These are central to her pedagogy. Thus, she worries about the impact over time. She is going to vote for the proposal because she believes students need some flexibility. Provost Siegel: The difference between pass-fail and credit/no credit is that if a student “fails” they get an “F” on their transcript and that’s factored into their GPA whereas if a student gets “no credit” they get no grade and that does not affect their GPA. Pass and credit are the same with the total number of credits counting towards graduation. Professor Rafalski: He is in favor of the proposal. He is opposed to students who have taken at least two courses pass-fail being able to apply the proposed policy later on. The November motion was clear that if you have taken two courses pass-fail the past three semesters you cannot take advantage of the current proposal. His anecdotal experience suggests that almost all pass-fail decisions will be about math. Business students cannot take their two math classes pass-fail because they are required in the business core. However, after that he has found that business students who are math minors are electing to take his classes pass-fail. He has warned pass-fail students about “checking out” of group projects. He will put this into his syllabus – students do this will get no credit for the course.

Motion as stated above (Johnson/Bardos) Vote: 17-1-1.

Professor McFadden: He moved that the Council send its decision and the rationale for it to the General Faculty There was no second. Professor Rakowitz: She noted that the Council needed to make a decision about the issues of counting previous pass-fail courses. A student could read the proposal (as passed) and argue that a permanent pass-fail policy was not passed but rather a credit/no credit policy so previous pass-fail courses should not count in the cap of the credit/no credit policy. Like Professor Nantz, she is concerned that a student could have their tenth and eleventh course without grades. She suggested that if we wanted to come up with a policy we need not focus on just “two.” For example, if a student has taken four courses pass-fail, then they could not take any courses credit/no credit. That is, some number could be chosen. Professor Van Dyke: He agreed with Professor Rakowitz (on choosing a number). For example, a student could have taken two courses pass-fail and now would like to take one course credit/no credit. This is borderline, at the other end of the spectrum from the case suggested by Professor Nantz. Some of the previous language adopted by the Council suggested that such (pass-fail) decisions on the part of students should be discussed with their academic advisor. Perhaps we should adopt similar language with regard to the credit/no credit policy. Professor Epstein: If we are crafting policy via language we could say, for example, that if a student has taken one or two Core classes pass-fail then the credit/no credit option cannot be used for any remaining Core classes. Going forward, in such cases, the credit/no credit option would be available only for electives.



Professor Garvey: It might be helpful if we took spring 2020 out of the mix when all courses could be taken pass-fail and just start with fall 2020 in determining a specific number. Professor Johnson: We need to think about and discuss the “number” issue when the Council reconvenes. 2. Motion on Returning to In-Person Classes Professor Rakowitz: At the last Academic Council meeting, she suggested the following motion, which after much discussion about the wording was tabled to this meeting:

The Academic Council supports the plan to return to fully in-person learning in the fall. Any consideration of changing that plan should be brought to the Academic Council and Public Health Advisory Team for discussion.

In light of concerns raised at the meeting and alternative phrasings offered in the chat, Professor Rakowitz moved to amend the original as follows:

The Academic Council supports the plan for undergraduate courses, except for those designated “online,” to return to in-person in the fall of 2021. In other words, faculty can expect that students will attend classes in person; students will not have the option of being remote learners. Any consideration of changing that plan should be brought to the Academic Council and Public Health Advisory Team for discussion. Graduate programs, in consultation with their Dean, continue to evolve program delivery to meet the needs of their students and curricula.

She noted that the point of the amended language is that the students no longer have the option of being remote but it does not preclude faculty from incorporating hybrid components into their courses.

The motion to amend was seconded by Professor Epstein. Professor Nantz: She is concerned about the wording, “students will not have the option of being remote learners.” Professor Johnson asked Professor Rakowitz for the intent of this phrase. Professor Rakowitz: This was the thing faculty were most concerned about. The intent was to preclude students from simply saying that they had left campus, say for the weekend, and wanted to simply “Zoom” in. The motion does allow for the situation where the pandemic environment changes and the University needs to move back to a hybrid environment. Professor Nantz: She is still concerned about students who truly need to be remote. Would we entertain admitting them to a course for the semester? Provost Siegel: She noted that certainly, if a student had a significant health concern or ADA issue they would go to the Office of Accessibility, participate in the interactive process for any ADA accommodation and the office would reach out to the individual faculty member concerned and



negotiate the accommodation. It could be that for some classes even where there is ADA accommodation, remote learning is not appropriate. The student would then work to take a different class or take the class in a different manner. Certainly, we cannot override the Federal government and ADA. The wording simply does not allow students to circumvent the appropriate process. In speaking with Megan Buxton, Director of the Office of Accessibility, we could have maybe five total undergraduates, no more than ten, who have complex medical conditions who may not be able to return in the fall. A professor could have outreach from the Office of Accessibility but it would be on a one-on-one basis. Professor Nantz: She asked if the Provost was comfortable with this language being on our website for a student and a family looking at Fairfield University who want their child/student be able to work remotely for appropriate reasons who now think that we will not allow that. Provost Siegel: This would not be the case for ADA accommodations. Families with such accommodations know they have a right to these. Professor Downie: He supports the amendment. All of us have had students this semester going remote without going through channels and it has impacted the ability to have in person classes, when a person was able to get a large enough room. Professor Epstein: He also supports the amendment. Just for clarification, do we not want to have in this motion language “except for accommodations” or steer people to accommodations? In addition, he posed a question to the Provost as to how sure Director Buxton was that the whole category of remote accessibility might not have expanded. An increase may have happened from twelve months ago when people were initially not aware of the possibility. Prior to this year’s events, there were discussions in some academic contexts about the possibility that expectations on attendance in general being inhibiting or burdensome for certain categories of students. He expects, in the post-Covid-19 environment an increase in the number of people seeking some sort of remote accommodation – not just based on complex medical conditions but also based on individuals’ ideas of what complex medical conditions or other accommodations might entail. Do we not want to say in the language “excepting those with “Federal accommodation” and do we really think it is unlikely such request will increase a lot in the post-Covid-19 environment? Provost Siegel: It is likely that such requests could increase in the post-Covid-19 environment. She has had a couple of meetings with Director Buxton and continues to meet with her to make sure her office is prepared to respond to and engage with each student, their families and their professors. She wants to offer Accessibility some general parameters within which to operate. The language of the amendment actually helps with this. We are a residential-based campus. We are not a remote, on-line campus. It could discourage a student who wants a totally on-line experience from applying to Fairfield University and that is all right. For students who are here, the language does not preclude accommodations. Prior to the pandemic, Director Buxton did have requests from students to be remote learners and was able to respond that ADA requires such requests be reasonable. Going forward, requests will be handled on a case-by-case basis. It does not preclude a professor from agreeing to work remotely with a student in a particular situation. It does steer students to a formal process as opposed to an informal one that we have now. That is consistent with the way we have articulated the policy to employees and staff about returning to work. There will be accommodations but one has to go through HR more formally than we have done this year. This is what the language of the amendment is doing and is why she supports it.



Vote to amend original motion: 17-0-0.

Motion to accept the amended proposal, Professor Johnson. Second, Professor Scheraga. Vote to accept the proposal: 18-0-0.

3. Proposal for Minor in US Government – Professor Downie Professor Downie: Motivation for this proposal is similar to those proposals recently brought to the Council from the Politics department. The approach of the Politics minor is breadth rather than depth. This was decided upon after the department’s last external review. Students who want to get exposure to all the sub-fields by taking the Politics major are denied the ability to get credit for doing a deep dive into any one area. This minor is intended to give students official recognition of having taken four or five extra courses within the Politics department. The minor conforms to the norm that no more than two courses that count for a major can count for a minor and it uses all existing classes. The name has been changed from American Government to US Government following a discussion with the EPC.

Motion to approve the minor in US Government: Professor Scheraga. Second, Professor Nantz. Vote: 17-0-1.

4. Proposal for Ed.D. in Educational Leadership – Professors Smith, Storms, Dean Grupp Professor Storms: This proposal is for a hybrid, on-line three year 57-credit program with two face-to-face summer residencies. The program focus on teacher leadership builds on the strength of the GSEAP faculty and the untapped potential of our Education graduates, to develop leaders who can lead from the classroom as they work towards equity, diversity and inclusion goals in education. The initial focus on teacher leadership allows GSEAP to draw on the expertise and collaboration of its current faculty, as evidenced by their collective ability to develop 19 courses for this program across three areas of coursework. The three areas are Inquiry and Action, the Foundational Core, and Teacher Leadership. Professor Smith: Currently the Ed.D. is offered by five universities in Connecticut and none of the universities offer a specialization in Teacher Leadership. Thus, the specialization in Teacher Leadership has the potential to put Fairfield University on the map as we prepare classroom teachers to be the transformative leaders that schools need right now. With the recent state funding for K-12 covid relief GSEAP believes there will be additional resources and funding available to teachers making this an opportune time to offer a program like this. More broadly, the proposal has the potential to enhance the reputation of GSEAP while also heeding the call in Fairfield University’s strategic vision of building on-line and hybrid programs to diversify and expand the audience for the program. It also anticipated that this program would make GSEAP more attractive to future colleagues, especially those of under-represented backgrounds. Additionally, it is anticipated that the teacher leadership program will be the first of other specializations within the Ed.D. degree, with, for example, additional specializations in higher education and administration. Professor Rakowitz: In the discussion documents for the program, there was the hope for a cohort group of 10-15 students, but that the program would be rolled out with a minimum of five students.



Are the 19 new courses only going to be enrolled with students in this program or are there students from other programs who might take them? Might the first cohort group go through these courses with enrollments of five each? Professor Smith: The answer is that they might go through in a cohort of five students. In the first year, there will not be exploration of having other students in these courses. However, that is something that could be an option. One cannot randomly take doctoral courses so this issue would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Again, this would not be allowed in the first year. Dean Grupp: Launching with a small cohort is not optimal but it is an opportunity to build a program. In subsequent years, as new cohorts are brought in, enrolling in different sequences can be explored outside of what is in the proposal. There is flexibility in the program to do that. In year one, there will be two courses a semester available, so there will be two low-enrolled courses. After that, there may additional students in these courses. Professor Roney: Thanked Professors Storms and Smith for the work on the proposal. The model for this program embraces the working, full-time adult. Interruptions occur in life. What happens to individuals who fall off the cohort path? Do they resume with a subsequent cohort? Professor Storms: This was talked about particularly in light of the two residencies. Things will be handled on a case-by case basis. Dean Grupp: There will be more flexibility over time as more cohorts come in so if students need to register for courses out of sequence from the rest of their cohort there will be flexibility. Also, a model for advising for the dissertation early is being set up so that support for students is being built in early on. Professor Smith: If you look at the sequence of courses, some things are sequenced for a reason and cannot be taken out of order. For other courses, there will be some flexibility. This will not be ad hoc, but at the same time, things will not be made unattractive for working adults with families. GSEAP also has the Masters of Social Work, which uses a cohort model. It has had students who had to “fall back” a little and they have been accommodated. Provost Siegel: This is not the first multi-year cohort program in GSEAP. There are masters’ degrees and certificates that are 2-3 full-time programs that have working adults. Professor Rakowitz: For the JOR, what is the actual title of this program? Professor Smith: Ed.D. in Educational Leadership for Teacher Leaders. The Council thanked Professors Storms and Smith for their presentation of the proposal.

Motion to accept the proposal for Ed.D. in Educational Leadership for Teacher Leaders: Professor Lolis. Second: Professor Roney.

Professor Lolis: This has been a work in progress and a labor of love across many departments in GSEAP. This proposal is a strategic hallmarking of educational leadership. There is nothing comparable in this area. This program focuses on creating educators for transformative change and embraces the mission and values of Fairfield University.



Professor Nantz: She speaks in favor of the motion. This program brings students to Fairfield University who will share their experiences in leadership in the area of education. The proposal has great connections with local education leaders. Leadership has become a hallmark of Fairfield University. There are strong programs of leadership in the Dolan and Egan schools. All these programs can work together to enhance our reputation in the region for leadership programs. All of these programs come out of our Jesuit tradition.

Vote: 19-0-0.

Motion to recess: Professor Scheraga; Second Professor Bautista. Respectfully submitted; Carl Scheraga



ACADEMIC COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 3:30 to 5:00 PM: Zoom

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Faculty Members Present: Profs. Gwendoline Alphonso, Camelia Micu, Uma Balaji, Cynthia Bautista, David Downie, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Erica Hartwell, Jerelyn Johnson (Chair), Evelyn Lolis, David McFadden, Kathy Nantz, Shawn Rafalski, Susan Rakowitz (GFS), Linda Roney, Adam Rugg (Executive Secretary), Carl Scheraga, Administrators Present: Provost Christine Siegel, Deans Andres L. Carrano, Richard Greenwald, Laurie Grupp, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li Regrets: Guests: Profs. Dennis Keenan and Margaret McClure (7d), Prof. Kim Doughty (7e), Mr. Curtis Ferree (4a)

The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnson at 3:31pm and the meeting agenda was reordered, moving up the agenda items with guests first.

7d. Proposal to revise University Honors Program Guests: Profs. Dennis Keenan and Margaret McClure Prof. Dennis Keenan summarized the proposed revisions to the University Honors Program and highlighted the underlying rationale for the suggested changes:

• Proposal seeks to – one, address the issue of sustainable faculty recruitment given the larger numbers of Honors Students coming into the Program in the last 3 years; and, two, better align the Honors Curriculum with the Magis Core.

• Regarding faculty recruitment, the proposal seeks to change the number of required team-taught courses from 3 to 1.

• Regarding Honors alignment with the Magis Core: There is currently a lack of alignment between the Magis Core curriculum and the current Honors curriculum, which makes it possible for many honors students to miss out on disciplinary-rich courses that are an essential component of the Magis Core.

• The revised Honors orientation (p.3 of proposal) proposes: three different courses in the Honors Curriculum as aligned with the Magis Core. These could be single taught or team-taught courses. Students would also have three options for Honors’ Capstone: (a) Honors Thesis, (b) Student-Designed Honors Mini-Seminar (students would register for an Independent Study through advisor’s department), and (c) Faculty-Designed Honors Mini-Seminar (students would register for HONR 4990: Special Topics).

• The “most important part” of the proposal, said Prof. Keenan, is its stipulation that Honors students would not be granted any waivers to the Magis Core.



• In terms of implementation, Prof. Keenan reported that Provost Siegel has indicated her willingness to fund stipends for professors. Guest-lecturers participating in Honors Seminars will be entitled to a stipend of $100 for each class. Faculty members participating in an Honors Capstone (options 2 and 3) will be entitled to a stipend of $1,000.

Prof. David Downie expressed support for the proposal as coordinator of ID and otherwise and asked if a course didn’t fall within one of the traditional silos, where would faculty go? Prof. McClure answered that courses coming out of the departments would go to the usual channels, for example Social and Behavioral Sciences courses would be evaluated by Social Science Chairs. Prof Downie observed that “true ID” courses might not fit in to any department and that this question might be worth considering at another time. Prof. Kennan responded that both appropriate departments would have to approve such a course and that Prof. Downie’s question can be addressed within the proposal, as in cases where two people from two departments work with both departments as is already done. Prof. Downie pointed to a course for Environmental studies, for example, which would fall outside the disciplinary purview of the Politics Department; to which Prof Keenan responded that it could still be worked out, depending on “what predominates as discipline.” Prof. Shannon Gerry asked about more options for Honors students, such as group capstones, for nonconventional projects. Prof. McClure agreed to the inclusion of such projects as falling within the purview of the proposed changes. Prof. Bob Epstein inquired why the seminars are placed at the 2000 level, asking if this was only a historical feature of Honors Organization, since non-Honors equivalents will not be at the 2000 level, but might be at the 1000 level, since 1000 levels courses (like Honors seminars) are those without pre-requisites. Prof. McClure responded that the HR 1101 is designed as the pre-requisite to take the Honors seminars, which is why they are at the 2000 level. Prof. Epstein asked if students can also apply their Honors courses towards the major? Prof. McClure answered that such a decision is to be left to the Department chairs, as is current practice. Prof. Kathy Nantz addressed the issue of Signature Elements (SE) and expressed the need for Honors’ courses getting SE designation, especially Dolan Students who do not have much opportunity to satisfy the SE requirements for the Core. Prof. McClure stated that Honors was working with faculty to get more SE for Honors Courses. Prof. Gwen Alphonso suggested that faculty be encouraged to get into a rotation to teach certain courses so that they have a larger incentive to get SE designation, which is a time-consuming process and not likely to be pursued for one-off courses. Prof. McClure observed that obtaining SE designation was tough for team-taught classes, but easier for individual professors and Prof. Keenan mentioned that the Honors Directors are strongly supportive of getting faculty into a rotation, depending on departmental needs.

Prof. Susan Rakowitz clarified that the proposal was seeking to replace the relevant Journal of Record’s one-page appendix, to which Prof. Keenan agreed.



Prof. Johnson clarified that the proposed Honors curriculum required five required courses plus capstone.

MOTION: (Nantz/Alphonso) – Move to replace Journal of Record Appendix 19 with the following:

University Honors Program Curriculum

HONORS ORIENTATION HONR 1101: Enduring Questions (team-taught; 3 credits) ENGL 1001 H: Introduction to Rhetoric and Composition (single instructor; 3 credits)

HONORS EXPLORATION Three different courses from the following list:

HONR 2202 H: Honors Seminar: History (single instructor or team-taught; 3 credits) HONR 2202 L: Honors Seminar: Literature (single instructor or team-taught; 3 credits)

HONR 2202 M: Honors Seminar: Mathematics (single instructor or team-taught; 3 credits) HONR 2202 N: Honors Seminar: Natural Sciences (single instructor or team-taught; 3 credits) HONR 2202 P: Honors Seminar: Philosophy (single instructor or team-taught; 3 credits) HONR 2202 R: Honors Seminar: Religious Studies (single instructor or team-taught; 3

credits) HONR 2202 S: Honors Seminar: Social & Behavioral Sciences (single instructor or team-

taught; 3 credits) HONR 2202 V: Honors Seminar: Visual & Performing Arts (single instructor or team-taught;

3 credits)

HONORS CAPSTONE One of the following options:

(1) Honors Thesis (single instructor; 1-3 credit(s)) Transcript Designation: “Honors Graduate with Honors Thesis”

Note: Students register for an Independent Study through the advisor’s department (2) Student-Designed Honors Mini-Seminar: a self-selected group of (at least) 5 students (and

no more than 10 students) would design (in conjunction with one or two faculty mentor that the students themselves would recruit) a seminar that meets 5 times during the semester (single instructor or team-taught; 1 credit)

Transcript Designation: “Honors Graduate” Note: Students register for an Independent Study through the advisor’s department

(3) Faculty-Designed Honors Mini-Seminar: a seminar of no more than 10 students that meets 5 times during the semester (single instructor or team-taught, 1 credit)

Transcript Designation: “Honors Graduate” Note: Students register for HONR 4990: Special Topics

Honors students will not be granted any waivers with respect to the Magis Core Curriculum. “HONR 1101: Enduring Questions” satisfies the Interdisciplinary requirement of the Signature Element of the Magis core. Other Honors courses may fulfill signature elements of the core at the same time that they fulfill Magis Core Curriculum and Honors Curriculum requirements (if the honors course has that signature element designation).



For team-taught classes (HONR 1101 and any team-taught sections of HONR 2202), faculty teaching the course will collegially determine which Magis core area the course will fulfill. The faculty will then follow the procedures described above for disciplinary approval. Each “HONR 2202: Honors Seminar” satisfies a designated Magis Core Curriculum requirement. In the case of History, Mathematics, Philosophy, and Religious Studies, the Seminar can satisfy a Magis Core Curriculum requirement in either Tier 1 (“Orientation”) or Tier 2 (“Exploration”). “HONR 2202: Honors Seminar” professors will be encouraged to team-teach. When this is not possible, they will be encouraged to invite colleagues to join their course as guest-lecturers for one or multiple classes. Students may take additional sections “HONR 2202: Honors Seminar” (beyond the three required) with the permission of the program directors. Honors students may satisfy a Magis Core Curriculum requirement in History, Literature, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Social & Behavioral Sciences, and Visual & Performing Arts by enrolling in a non-honors section, but they must take at least three sections of “HONR 2202: Honors Seminar.” As such, each honors student will take at least six courses designed specifically for honors students. The hallmark of an honors course is not necessarily its difficulty (or the amount of content) so much as the bold and imaginative way it invites students to ask questions from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Faculty guests lecturing in an Honors Seminar or participating in the Honors Capstone will be given a stipend. The size of the program is to be no more than 10% of each class.

Prof. Nantz spoke in favor of the motion, emphasizing its alignment with the Magis Core. Prof. Downie observed approvingly that the proposed changes do not weaken the ID requirement and also spoke in favor of the motion. MOTION PASSES: 18 / 0/ 0

7e. Update from Public Health Advisory Team (attachments) Guests: Prof. Kim Doughty Prof. Doughty highlighted the following updates from the Public Health Advisory Team (PHAT):

• Efforts underway to encourage voluntary vaccinations and to set vaccination policies for the Fall semester and beyond.

• Multiple communications sent from Karen Donoghue to encourage vaccinations by students.



• Regarding summer – PHAT recommended requiring vaccinations for students who reside over the summer on campus. That requirement has been adopted and is in place. Anyone who is commuting will have to test weekly.

• Recommended a mandatory vaccination policy for all students, as reported to General Faculty (and reiterated by that body on April 28) especially for residential students in the Fall semester. Leadership does not seem to be in favor of a mandatory vaccination policy.

• In the Fall semester, the understanding is that mask-wearing and testing (for unvaccinated) will be in place.

• There was some discussion among PHAT members about limiting certain activities in order to encourage students to vaccinate, but this is not preferred, instead a mandatory vaccination policy was deemed most preferable.

Prof. Johnson mentioned that a possible resolution in favor of mandatory vaccination policy from AC would be helpful and she thanked Prof. Doughty and the PHAT team for all their continued work. There were no other questions or discussion at this time. A relevant motion was passed at the end of the meeting. 4 a. Working Group on the Academic Commons (AC 5/31/19) Guest: Curtis Ferree Mr. Curtis Ferree provided the following update: The Academic Commons Partnership Committee met seven times over the course of the academic year, with their eighth and final meeting scheduled for May 14th. These meetings were important in terms of communicating issues that affected all Academic Commons units, such as building hours, space utilization, and the current project to upgrade the lighting in the buildings. One of the most significant accomplishments this year has been the Academic Commons “service share” presentations. At each meeting, one of the student-facing units provided an overview of their services, their staffing, their accomplishments and challenges. These proved to be essential in helping the committee understand what each member unit did to support students, and identify areas where each’s work complimented the other. At the committee’s final meeting scheduled for the upcoming Friday, they were going to discuss further areas of collaboration, and what their work would look like moving forward. This conversation was also hoped to inform the committee’s charge, which the committee planned to draft over summer. Provost Seigel mentioned that the Academic Council had formed this subcommittee at a time when the construction of the Academic commons was evolving more rapidly than the concept of the academic commons; and facilities projects did not have a conceptual space of academic commons within which to function. That function, she said, has been achieved as required cross-unit collaborations have occurred. She asked Mr. Ferree if he felt it necessary that the body continue to be constituted as a subcommittee for AC? Mr. Ferree stated that regardless of how they were formally configured, the units would continue collaborations. For example: instructional librarians would coordinate with the office of accessibility. Members expected to continue this structure regardless of their status as a subcommittee of the AC or not.



MOTION: Seigel/Rakowitz – Move that the work of the Academic Commons subcommittee for the Academic Council be considered concluded having fulfilled its purpose.

Prof. Adam Rugg expressed support for the motion

MOTION PASSES: 17/ 0/0

7 f. Faculty Handbook Revision (attachment) Provost Seigel introduced the issue – She highlighted that it has been 8 years since the publication of the current edition of the Handbook, and, as such, the Handbook (HB) was a ‘little ragged’ around the edges and in need of revision. She also pointed to subsequent changes in governance structures (such as the Graduate Programs subcommittee) and changes in Higher Education since the last revision. “I’m asking to work with the Council on what I know will be a 1-2 year project because I care deeply about shared governance.” She requested the creation of a possible subcommittee of the Council to work on a process to outline possible revisions that would be reported back to the Academic Council. Prof. Nantz asked what was the issue that necessitated such a big change. She observed that there are mechanisms already within the HB to handle prevailing concerns and expressed concern that this process would open up a free for all (not just administrators) in terms of imagining a new structure, that may or may not serve our collective interests. She believed that our current HB has served us well and is looked at as a model by other institutions. A revision process could be opening up a conversation for reasons other than for just opening it up, with an implication that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. Provost Siegal pointed to the times when prevailing shared governance structures have not served our faculty well, for example non-tenure track faculty, that ‘present tensions with the current structure”. Prof. Rakowitz stated that there a number of pending HB amendments that are not fully approved and that it would be good to have a committee look at those amendments holistically rather than in a piecemeal fashion. She cited the example of the grievance process and emphasized that there was a process of revision in place. In keeping with the existing process of revision, Prof. Rakowitz proposed the following language for a motion:

that the AC authorize the Academic Council Executive Committee to form a subcommittee for a new edition of the Faculty Handbook. In order to prepare to publish a new edition, the subcommittee will identify instances where the Faculty Handbook needs revision as a result of language or policies that are outdated; new policies that do not appear in the Handbook; language that is inconsistent with current practices and/or other internal policy documents or external regulations; and sections that could be revised to enhance (and further shared governance moving forward. The subcommittee will provide the Academic Council with a list of instances where the current (as amended) Handbook



could be revised and, for revisions that are straightforward, suggest language to amend the Handbook. In addition, the subcommittee will review all the amendments that are at various stages in the approval process and recommend to the AC next steps for these amendments.

Prof. Downie observed that revising a Handbook is akin to a constitutional Convention which could be a free for all. Provost Seigel said she was comfortable with the language Prof. Rakowitz had suggested and was grateful for her specificity in the motion. Prof. Alphonso spoke in favor of continually improving shared governance, as a laudable goal that did not imply that the HB was broken but merely underscored the Council’s interest in making it better. She mentioned that perhaps it was an open question of whether the HB needed to be significantly revised or not and the determination of the answer to that question could be included in the charge to the subcommittee. Provost Seigel agreed with Prof. Alphonso that the goal was to make the Handbook better. Prof. Nantz underscored that we are always improving shared governance and that what we do here at Academic Council is a prime example, such that she did not see the need for a subcommittee to do this. Dean Richard Greenwald expressed his support for forming a subcommittee, being mindful of his role as administrator, stating that there is a certain interpretative framework that is in play, and as the world gets more complex with more federal regulations etc. there is a need to review. If it’s everyone’s responsibility it may not be any one’s responsibility. Prof. Evelyn Lolis asked, from an organizational, business, perspective: What is the shelf life of a Handbook? Is it is meant to be static, preserving with integrity the cannons that are important and/or is it is meant to accommodate dynamics and changes in higher education, with opportunities to embed new insight? Which parts should be forward facing? What does the research say is the shelf life of such a document – 7 to 10 years? Prof. McFadden noted that he did not see the need for a subcommittee to revise/overlook the Handbook. Prof Alphonso spoke in favor of establishing a subcommittee for three reasons: (1) that the pandemic is a critical juncture in higher education inexorably altering higher education practices and needs, (2) faculty generational turnover and new faculty needs, and (3) as an opportunity to move forward in meaningful ways. Prof. Nantz underscored her concern that we were asking for a new Handbook and emphasized her position that the HB should be preserved to rely on.



MOTION (Rakowitz/Lolis): Move that the Academic Council authorize the Council’s Executive Council to form a subcommittee for a new edition of the Faculty Handbook. In order to prepare to publish a new edition, the subcommittee will identify instances where the Faculty Handbook needs revision as a result of language or policies that are outdated; new policies that do not appear in the Handbook; and language that is inconsistent with current practices and/or other internal policy documents or external regulations. The subcommittee will provide the Academic Council with a list of instances where the current (as amended) Handbook could be revised and, for revisions that are straightforward, suggest language to amend the Handbook. In addition, the subcommittee will review all the amendments that are at various stages in the approval process and recommend to the AC next steps for these amendments.

Prof. Rakowitz spoke in favor of the motion, “we absolutely need a new edition.” It’s more than just housekeeping (for example incorporation of gender neutral pronouns etc.), she said we needed to have a group that is taking a broader perspective, look over what can be changed and improved. She emphasized that the charge in the motion was narrower and far different from a broad charge of: “let’s go out and change the Handbook”. Prof. Downie expressed his support for the motion.

MOTION PASSES: 14 Favor / 2 Opposed/ 0 Abstentions. 7 a. Report from Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees regarding March Board meeting and preparation for upcoming meeting Prof. Alphonso (Chair of the Committee on Conference with the Board of Trustees, CBoT) reported on the March Board Meeting, whose agenda included the following: (1) Understanding the Impact of the Pandemic on Faculty Experience, which included an excellent presentation by Prof. Betsy Bowen from the CAS Task Force on Professional Advancement During Covid Times, (2) “Lessons Learned - Enhancing Teaching and Learning” which constituted a detailed presentation by the Center of Academic Excellence’s “Reflections on Faculty Excellence,” and (3) “Fairfield University Experience - Living History Project” – which comprised of a informative presentation by Christina McGowan from the Library on the Living History Project that documented the Fairfield University Experience During the Covid-19 Pandemic. Prof Alphonso also reported that the agenda of the upcoming June Board Meeting as including the following: A presentation by Prof. Jocelyn Boryczka, on Student-Faculty Research Collaborations, Graduate Programs Strategic Initiatives, and Bellarmine College Plans. Prof. Johnson clarified the process and asked if the Council could raise issues that the CBoT could then take to the Board? Prof. Alphonso highlighted that this could be done to the extent that the Provost includes the CBoT in setting the agenda of the meetings, or else more organically in comments during the meeting with the Board of Trustees, as CBoT members try to voice the Council’s directives/concerns when invited to share faculty perspectives.



Prof. Rakowitz remarked that planning for Bellarmine College is just preliminary as faculty have not been engaged formally. Provost Siegal emphasized the need to bring along the Board of Trustees at all levels as planning for Bellarmine College develops and solidifies. She said that the issue would be discussed in meetings with various committees of the Board: the Academic Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee etc. – with the goal of facilitating an iterative process that accommodates Board of Trustees’ concerns at multiple venues as the idea is developed. No further questions, comments, or discussions.

6 a. Proposal for Credit/No Credit Policy (see materials in 3/1 and 3/29 packets) The Council returned to the question of whether this statement: “If a permanent pass/fail policy is instituted at Fairfield, courses taken with a pass/fail option in academic year 2020-2021 will count toward maximums in that policy” (passed 11/20/20) would apply to the credit/no credit policy agreed to at the 5/3/21 AC meeting. Prof. McFadden stated that Credit-no Credit is a much better policy and that we need to put Pass/Fail in the past and move forward anew. Prof. Downie observed that Pass/Fail was related to Covid but that Credit/No-Credit provision is one of exploration. Prof. Rugg agreed that a clean slate was needed. Prof. Johnson suggested that the Council could add a motion that this is a new policy moving forward. Prof. McFadden reiterated that credit/no-credit policy is a clean slate and that the maximum number of courses a student could take for credit/no-credit was two, starting from Fall 2021.

MOTION (McFadden/Scheraga): Courses taken P/F in Spring ‘20 through Spring ’21 are not counted against the maximum of two credit/no credit courses

PASSES: 14 Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 1 Abstention.

MOTION (Rakowitz/McFadden) – Resolve that the Academic Council supports the Public Health Advisory Team’s recommendations regarding mandating Covid-19 vaccines.



PASSES: 15 Favor/ 0 Opposed/ 0 Abstention Motion to adjourn (Downie/Rafalski) was uncontested. Meeting Adjourned: 5:16pm. Respectfully Submitted, Gwendoline Alphonso



ACADEMIC COUNCIL Draft Minutes

Wednesday, May 19, 2021 12:00 to 12:30 PM

Zoom Meeting Faculty Members Present: Profs. Gwen Alphonso, Uma Balaji, Cynthia Bautista, David Downie, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Erica Hartwell, Jerelyn Johnson (Chair), David McFadden, Kathy Nantz, Shawn Rafalski, Susan Rakowitz (GFS), Adam Rugg (Executive Secretary), Linda Roney, Carl Scheraga Administrators Present: Provost Christine Siegel, Deans Andres L. Carrano, Laurie Grupp, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li Student Observer Present: Mr. Vincent Gadioma Prof. Rakowitz states that in her regular meeting with Provost Siegel and President Nemec they discussed the organizational restructuring with Kevin Lawlor’s departure. There will be a new position overseeing finance, IT, and facilities. The Faculty Handbook specifies that faculty is involved in certain positions but is silent on others. So, we’ve done a variety of things over years. Sometimes we draw from relevant handbook committees. President Nemec wants a person in the position no later than Labor Day, with the bulk of process taking place in May and June. There is already a consultant firm in place. The administration wants the General Faculty Secretary to be included in the search process. Prof. Rakowitz is happy to do it, but not comfortable with doing it alone. So, after talking they came up with a proposal: Prof. Rakowitz will be involved in the review of candidates, but will also put out a call for nominations for the Academic Council to elect four faculty to serve as an interview committee for finalists. Provost Siegel: Russell Reynolds is the consulting firm for the search. They did the presidential, provost, and Dolan dean searches. We’ve been happy with the candidates and the processes of those searches. There is no requirement in handbook to do it this way as it is not an academic role, but we would like faculty voice in the process. President Nemec is the hiring manager for this position and will make final decision. Prof. Nantz: Is there is a job description? Provost Siegal: There is not one yet. President Nemec and I are meeting with the search firm next week. We learned that Lawlors’ job had more an impact on academics than maybe we thought at the time. As we go through process, we should think about how the job will affect us on the academic side in terms of budgets, hires, and other things. Prof Nantz: Will this elevate the position of the Provost in the hierarchy?



Provost Siegel: Some of this is to be determined. Student Affairs now reports to the Provost. Institutional Research also now reports to office of Provost. Human Resources and Enrollment Management are likely to stay reporting to the president. This is a more streamlined role. Not an executive vice president, but a senior vice president. It needs to stay as senior vice president as other vice presidents will report into it. This person will still be elevated over other vice presidents but not on equal footing as the Provost. This person will still oversee the budget. Prof. Alphonso: One comment: I completely endorse Prof. Nantz’s statement that the office is important in terms of traditional hierarches and academic structures. Question: is there a timeline for when you anticipate the position is fully developed/finalized? Who is putting out the call for nominations? What is the charge for the committee and who determines the charge? Finally, what is the eligibility criteria for people to be on committee? Provost Siegel: We are meeting with Russell Reynolds next week to craft the job description. At the same time, we need to get the process of electing faculty started. Our goal will be to have the job description finalized and posted by end of May/early June at the latest. As proposed, Prof. Rakowitz, as the highest elected member of the faculty, will help narrow candidates down to the finalists (working with Provost Siegel and President Nemec). After the finalists are decided, one of the groups they will meet with will be an interview committee of faculty. Given that we don’t want this position to overstep the bounds into the academic side, we don’t want to necessarily have any candidate think they are working with faculty on the academic side. Of course, transparency is important, being able to communicate effectively with faculty is important. So, we want feedback from faculty on whether the candidates are people they can communicate with, learn from, and interact with in a productive relationship. Prof. Rakowitz: I will put out the call tonight with a deadline of next week and we will do the election electronically. In terms of eligibility, I want to think about administrators with faculty status. Generally, Academic Council rules that they are not eligible as the administration has other opportunities for inclusion in these things. The charge is to give feedback to President Nemec, so hopefully the committee will meet before interviewing candidates to figure out what they want to address and prioritize in their meetings with candidates. Afterward, they will produce written or in-person feedback to President Nemec Prof. Epstein: Another rationale for faculty co-governance is that the faculty represent a reservoir of expertise that is always relevant. In addition to the fact that faculty will work with this person and they will make decisions that affect faculty, the administration should want faculty involved because of their expertise. We have experts in finance and administration that could be helpful for the process. Proposed motion (Prof. Rakowitz/Prof. McFadden): The Academic Council authorizes a call for nominations for members of the General Faculty (not including administrators with faculty status) to interview finalists for the Senior Vice President of Finance and Administration position. The Academic Council will elect four faculty members from the nominees. MOTION PASSES - 16-0-0



Motion to Adjourn (Prof. Bautista /Prof. Alphonso). Respectfully submitted, Adam Rugg




Special Summer Meeting Thursday, August 5, 2021

2:00 to 3:30 PM: Zoom Current AC Faculty in attendance: Professors Gwen Alphonso, Uma Balaji, Steven Bayne (GFS), David Downie, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Jerelyn Johnson (Chair), Evelyn Lolis, Camelia Micu, Kathy Nantz, Shawn Rafalski, Linda Roney, Adam Rugg (Executive Secretary), Carl Scheraga, Aaron Van Dyke Incoming AC Faculty in attendance: Profs. Dave Crawford, Anita Fernandez, Jessica Planas Administrators in attendance: Deans Richard Greenwald, Laurie Grupp, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li, Provost Christine Siegel Guests: Prof. Kim Doughty AC Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 2:00pm and mentioned the agenda items - presidential courtesy, PHAT update, followed by Q&A, and a discussion of Fall 2021 Covid policies. AC Chair Johnson welcomed new incoming members (and old) stating new members had voice but no vote in this meeting. 1. Presidential Courtesy: Provost Siegel shared with council that the first to second year retention was 90.4% and stated that this is good but not great as it was 92% last year, and it had been about 92-93% over recent years. Provost Siegel stated that the incoming class is larger than anticipated. As of today it is at 1273 students, which is higher than last year’s class by 158 students. We are over our goal, and we have to house them, feed them, and teach them. We have added six visiting lines across campus to accommodate the increased numbers. There are 39 faculty leaving (retirements/resignations), and there are 45 new faculty coming in. Provost Siegel shared data on the numbers of students and employees who are known to be vaccinated with documentation, which is at 78.5%. She also shared data on the numbers of those who declared they are vaccinated, or stated that they had their first shot and will be vaccinated before the start of semester, or declared that they will not be vaccinated for religious/medical/other reasons, and included the number of individuals who have not yet declared their vaccination status. The two tables shared by Provost Siegel are as follows:



Fairfield Campus Community Vaccination Tracking Data As of 8/3/2021

Community Populations

Total Populati

on

# Known to be

Vaccinated

% Known

to be Vaccinat

ed

Notes

Fairfield Campus Community 6,640 5,215 78.5%

Fairfield University Students*

5,200 3,995 76.8%

Undergraduate 4,476 3,489 77.9% Incoming First

Years 1,273 1,047 82.2% Includes incoming 202109F cohort

Class of 2024 1,049 763 72.7% Class years based on predicted graduation year (ACYR)

Class of 2023 1,086 830 76.4%

Class of 2022 1,029 833 81.0% 82%

of OCB residents vaccinated (N=678)

All Others 39 16 41.0% Part-Time, Non-Degree, Unclassified or Other Students

Graduate Students 724 506 69.9%

Fairfield University Employees

1,246 1,048 84.1%

Faculty 533 453 85.0% Full Time

Faculty 314 298 94.9%

Fall Adjuncts 219 155 70.8% Includes adjuncts who are hired for the Fall semester

Staff 713 595 83.5% Excludes temps, volunteers, performers Fairfield Prep 92 90 97.8% FT Faculty and Staff On Campus Vendors 109 89 81.7%

Dining Services 20 20 100.0%

ABM 82 62 75.6% Efollett 7 7 100.0%

Inclusions: - Undergrad & Grad Students: includes students who are registered for the Fall semester (excludes employees and Online Only who are registered for courses)



- Full-time Faculty: includes Full-time Faculty expected to teach in the Fall semester - Fall Adjuncts: Includes those who are hired for the Fall semester - Prep employees only include FT Faculty and Staff

Fairfield Campus Community Vaccination Tracking - Scenarios with Declaration Survey Results Data As of 8/3/2021

Total Population

# Known to be Vaccinated

# Declared Vaccinated

# Declared Will NOT Vaccinate

No Info

Total Fairfield University 6446 5043 606 434

363

Students 5200 3995 555 375 275

Undergraduate 4476 3489 476 325 186

Graduate 724 506 79 50 89 Employees 1246 1048 51 59 88

FT Faculty 314 298 7 7 2 Adjuncts 219 155 30 3 31 Staff 713 595 14 49 55

Known Vaccination

Rate

Total to be Vaccinated

% Declared Will NOT Vaccinate

% Unknown

Total Fairfield University 78% 88% 7% 6% Students 77% 88% 7% 5%

Undergraduate 78% 89% 7% 4% Graduate 70% 81% 7% 12%

Employees 84% 88% 5% 7% FT Faculty 95% 97% 2% 1% Adjuncts 71% 84% 1% 14% Staff 83% 85% 7% 8%

NOTES: - Examines Declaration Survey sent to all non-vaccinated Students and Employees - Students include those registered for the Fall 2021 Semester (excludes Employees taking courses and Online Only Students)



- Faculty and Staff include known FT and PT Faculty and Staff (excludes Prep ) - Adjuncts: Includes those who are hired for the Fall semester - Declared Vaccination = 1) vaccinated but have not submitted doc; 2) vaccination in progress; 3) will get vaccine before 9/1 etc. - Total to be vaccinated includes vaccinated with submitted documentation and those declared vaccinated

After going over the numbers in the tables, Provost Siegel continued to report the following – Individuals who are not vaccinated will, at the start of the semester, be tested twice a week and need to wear a mask while indoors on campus. PHAT is monitoring changing CDC guidelines and state recommendations. By September we may declare that everyone will have to be masked indoors. We haven’t made that recommendation yet but it is being discussed. We will run vaccine clinics for those who are not vaccinated. They will be wearing masks inside and tested at least once a week and will have an opportunity to change their mind and be vaccinated. The individuals with unknown vaccination status will be allowed to report their status and have the opportunity to be on campus to be tested/vaccinated. Prof. Downie asked, on behalf of another faculty who is not on council, whether in the absence of a 100% vaccination and mask mandate will faculty members be able to require all students in a class to be masked. Provost Siegel replied faculty members can establish norms in the classroom. They can declare that students need to wear masks in the classroom. Faculty can establish behavioral protocols of wearing masks in the classroom similar to others that they may have used in past. What would not be acceptable would be if faculty were to say that students will receive points off for not wearing masks or will have to drop the class for not wearing masks. I have asked CAE to have statements be made available to faculty to include in syllabi. Prof. Bayne asked a clarification on a comment Provost Siegel made in PHAT minutes concerning whether students who had not declared their vaccination status would at some point be converted by default to unvaccinated. Provost Siegel: So right now we are saying that those of “unknown status” are not allowed on campus and those who have not declared their vaccination status will not be converted to unvaccinated. Prof. Alphonso: Asked for clarification on faculty hires - Of 39 Leaving 45 coming in how many replaced are Tenure Track (TT) and how many are Non-Tenure Track (NTT) Provost Siegel: Of the 39 leaving 21 are TT and 18 are NTT. 2 TT leaving are coming back as Pops, some others are retiring. Coming in as new faculty there are 9 TT and 36 NTT. Due to larger retirements this year, they needed to be replaced quickly, and that meant hiring NTT positions. We look forward to carrying out more TT searches next year. 2. Report from the Secretary of the General Faculty

None



3. Report from the Executive Secretary

None 4. Council Subcommittee Reports

None 5. Petitions for immediate hearing

None 6. Old Business

None 7. New business

a. Update from Public Health Advisory Team

Prof. Doughty: Based on the GF meeting reporting by Prof. Phelan, she decided to focus on the last three PHAT meetings. PHAT has consistently supported a campus vaccine mandate. Since they do not have decision making authority their strategy has been to promote vaccination. PHAT recommended that the target vaccination rate of 85% be communicated to the university community with a statement that policies will be based on whether we achieve it. Due to the Delta variant, Fall policy may change as mentioned by the Provost. Students received a clear communication this summer about the implications of not being vaccinated. A General statement was also included stating there will be restricted activities if the target vaccination rate was not achieved. The Provost has been sharing with PHAT the Fall protocols. PHAT is still refining their recommendations for those protocols. They are going to vary based on final vaccination rate, CDC guidelines and as circumstances change. PHAT wants to have a plan in place even if we may have 85% vaccination rate. For example, even if we reach 85%, the policy of no masks required indoors for those who are vaccinated may need to be changed as we may have to consider the Delta variant and have a stricter policy of masks indoors for all as we start Fall semester. But at some point we may be able to relax it.

AC Chair Johnson opened the floor to questions for Prof. Doughty. Prof. Rugg: As things are very fluid and there is often new information, is there any locked-in date by which a decision must be made. Prof. Doughty: We haven’t talked about it. A communication on Fall policy will have to go out at some point of time. We don’t have a date yet, but maybe Provost Siegel does. Provost Siegel: No date yet. At the same time, we could have a date, but something could come up later based on information from the CDC. So, all our policies will be subject to change. Prof. Crawford: Asked if there was the ability for faculty to get tested on campus if they feel sick while on campus. Prof. Doughty: We had this on agenda for today but did not get to it and will hopefully address it in next week’s meeting.



Prof. Rafalski: Mentioned that he is all in favor of universal mask mandate at the start of Fall if it became a policy. He asked, if PHAT discussed the option of faculty being informed that there are unvaccinated students or at least one student not vaccinated in class so that the faculty can make a decision about requiring masks for all students in the class. Prof. Doughty: That has come up in the meeting that faculty won’t know if there are unvaccinated students in the class, but not the communication of vaccination status to faculty. I think that disclosure would be possible, but another approach is to assume that there is at least one person in the class who is not vaccinated in a large class and require masks. We can bring this to the group. Prof. Van Dyke: Based on recent social media postings of the university are there any ideas about pursuing vaccination encouragement? Could we get any update on how we are thinking about reaching out to students to promote vaccination other than long emails sent to them that they may not read? Prof. Doughty: Part of the reason we are not pursuing this is because Karen is doing everything to promote vaccination. Although not viewable to faculty, Karen is sharing in student specific social media posts based on what is being discussed and recommended in PHAT. Provost Siegel: Piggybacking on what was said by Prof. Doughty there is a push through FUSA with students reaching out to other students very directly. Prof. Doughty: There is a lot going on that is invisible. Prof. Van Dyke: I trust that Karen and her team are pursuing this. I appreciate the emails posted on the dashboard website. Can other methods used be publicly visible so that university members can see the work that is going in communicating to students? There is a virtue in doing that. Prof. Doughty: Good point, I will pass it along. Prof. Fernandez: Students who say they won’t get vaccinated, are they being asked reasons for not getting vaccinated so that they can potentially be persuaded. Prof. Doughty: The recent declaration form did not ask specifically for reasons. An early summer form did ask though. A small number of students did respond. Some responses are in PHAT minutes. Examples include – Not enough research, just a new vaccine, long term data not being available. I do not believe that they can be convinced even if their reasons were known. Prof. Johnson: For not getting vaccinated – are we asking, medical/religious/other? Provost Siegel: I am choosing not to get vaccinated for medical/religious/other was just one check box. Prof. Doughty: The reason for not asking is that we did not mandate vaccinations so we do not need to vet as to why someone is not vaccinated. Prof. Johnson: Testing cost is not on students – is that correct?



Prof. Doughty: Yes, the university will cover the cost. Prof. Crawford: What happens if they did not show up to get tested? Provost Siegel: Non-compliance with Covid testing will deny them access to campus just like in spring semester. Prof. Alphonso: Will there be at the gate entry three categories (one for vaccinated, one for unvaccinated, and one for unknown) or will the ID swipe just show up as red or green. Prof. Doughty: Red or green at the gate. Prof. Alphonso: Can we ask students to voluntarily disclose why they are not getting vaccinated – is it possible with or without any mandate to be clear about the reasons for not being vaccinated so that there is some pressure – this may be something for the committee to consider. Prof. Doughty: Fair point. We can ask, but it may be too late since most students have completed their disclosure forms. If we do it every semester we can add this. Prof. Epstein: We have immunization requirements for students at the university. The list of mandatory vaccines are MMR, Chickenpox, Meningitis, and TB. Students have to demonstrate their proof of vaccinations. Why is it that a Covid vaccination is recommended and not among those required? Prof. Siegel: MMR, TB, and Meningitis are state mandated vaccines and are listed as required. Covid is recommended by the state and the same is applied by university. Prof. Epstein mentioned that there is nothing preventing the university from mandating a vaccine that the state lists only as recommended and asked if that was correct. Provost Siegel: State does not prevent us from listing things as required. There are other reasons and these prevent us from listing it as required. Prof. Epstein: We could mandate it then and vet the reasons for not getting the vaccine. Why we are not mandating is the question many ask. Prof. Siegel: Fair question. The president is focused on the outcomes of vaccinations and not the mandate. Prof. Epstein: Outcomes could only be increased by mandating. Most of us think that it is ideological. Most of us would like to discuss this with President himself. You (Provost Siegel) have done a wonderful job mediating between administration and faculty. It is really the president’s decision. It would be nice if we could have a town hall that we could discuss this with Mark Nemec, and I will leave it there. Prof. Johnson asked if there were any other questions for Prof. Doughty. Seeing none, she thanked Prof. Doughty before she left.



b. Fall 2021 Covid Policies Prof. Johnson: I want to discuss Fall policy, regardless of Mask mandate, do the faculty have the right to impose a mask mandate in the classroom? What sanctions can faculty employ if students do not follow the protocol? Essentially, I want to know how a faculty member will be supported by the administration in a case where a student refuses to wear a mask – what can we do, etc. Do faculty have the right to know if students are unvaccinated in the classroom, and have some sort of dashboard? Do faculty have the right not to teach on campus, getting an exemption to teach remotely for specific reasons? She Suggested that council discuss the three areas and later come with a motion. Provost Siegel: Appreciated Prof. Johnson for providing a good summary list of the faculty concern, but requested use of a very careful language on mandate and sanctions. She appreciated what Prof. Epstein mentioned earlier about a vaccine mandate. She explained that the president’s position is ideological—not political but conceptual. This is what is underneath the lack of mandate. What we know from discussion with other provosts (vice-provosts included) and presidents is that universities that have a vaccine mandate have no legitimate way to enforce it. Ideologically a mandate that cannot be enforced is illegitimate and undermines the authority of the university and does have detrimental effects. Careful language will help faculty’s relationship with students. Prof. Rafalski: There may be a student who may get Covid during the semester and get into quarantine. What can faculty expect in terms of accommodations for these situations? Prof. Siegel: Same as other accommodations in the past that were allowed for example for a flu. Prof. Crawford: My concern is for the student who is unvaccinated because they have to be for medical reasons. I will feel confident to have seminars when I know that unvaccinated students will not get it and die. One of the reasons to ask for masks is to maximize our ability to teach as intimately as we can. So, getting to know if someone is unvaccinated and having all of them wear masks will help. Prof. Lolis: It is important to come up with language in syllabi. She stated, for example we could come up with a list of classroom agreements. One way to do in a smaller class, is through discussion. But for a larger class, a collaborative conversation on why we have these agreements is important. Prof. Alphonso: Referred to the student conduct handbook and suggested that the language from handbook could be used for this purpose. Examples mentioned by her include – “A community that holds high expectation… Students held accountable for campus life …” She suggested that such statements from the handbook can be used as a directive. She said - For example - if someone is not wearing a mask correctly (as mentioned by Prof. Crawford earlier) – that shows disruptive behavior, and disruptive conduct hinders others’ educational opportunities. Statements in syllabi that are drawn from the student handbook will enhance our ability to maximize student learning from classroom. There is significant language in the student handbook that already gives us gives approved language and authority for regulating conduct in the classroom, and she is in favor of using them for this purpose. Prof. Crawford: Gwen’s idea is fantastic. But students for example can say that for a certain class (say Business as an example) - we don’t have to wear mask – why does this class have a mask mandate. This is the problem of handling public health issues individually in the classroom. If we



don’t have minimum standards in the university – it will limit ability to maximize learning. This is why a university rule would make it clear. My disagreement with the President is that we cannot handle a public health issue with differing language in individual classrooms. I leave it at that. Prof. Van Dyke: We also don’t want to create a false sense of security, knowing that everyone in a class is vaccinated doesn’t mean it is safe, because the Delta variant can be transmitted by vaccinated persons. Picking up on what David said, what’s the message that is being communicated by the university? Is it, we value your individual choice, or do we want to communicate to students that it is their moral obligation to get vaccinated, as the Pope has said. We want to communicate to the student that we are a values based institution and that there is a moral obligation to be vaccinated. Prof. Johnson: Does Provost Siegel want to say something about individual faculty accommodation to teach remotely? Prof. Siegel: Regarding the Pope’s statement and moral obligation for the record, there are lot of things that Pope and church say about things morally - about same sex marriage, birth control, abortion. There is a dangerous precedent to using at the university the moral teachings of the church about health and policies. So, I struggle with that. Regarding individual faculty accommodation, there are only 7 full-time faculty who have declared that they will not or cannot be vaccinated We are working with those who have a significant health reason for not being able to be in the classroom on an individual basis to give them other assignments that are not teaching or that does not require them to be remote in class. This is difficult for adjuncts who cannot be in class due to health reasons. Even as we value their contribution, if they are not able to teach in-person, then we do not need hire them for this semester. I am in conversation with Deans on how we could have adjuncts who only teach in-person. If the CDC makes the recommendation at some point in time, we could be going remote for Fall. But we are starting this semester requiring all to teach in-person for undergraduates. That’s my position right now. Prof. Van Dyke: Thanks Provost Siegel for the opportunity to bring out the Pope’s comment. I want to clarify from PHAT minutes that there was one student who mentioned religious objections that said that the vaccine was made from fetus cells which is incorrect. I hope that we use the language from Pope to educate people with religious conflict. Prof. Johnson conveyed to Provost Siegel the misunderstanding from Town Hall that faculty can’t tell students that they may need to wear masks and so there are faculty concerns and asked for her response. Provost Siegel: Yes, we said that. Our goal then was to take the mask off because we can’t teach or interact with mask easily. This was used as a push to have more vaccination so that we can take masks off. But now with PHAT’s recommendation we will likely start the semester with a Mask mandate and then take off masks contingent upon what’s happening with Delta variant and information from the CDC. Prof. Johnson: It seems that there will be a mask mandate and that faculty can use a language of mask mandate in syllabi. If a student complains about masks what level of support will faculty get? Provost Siegel: As said by Dave, there is no easy path with public health policy on an individual basis. I am working with Jen Anderson on a policy statement for syllabi.



Prof. Crawford: PHAT has made recommendations. Faculty voted on them, but the president said No. Do you know that any of what we are discussing right now will not be supported by the President? Provost Siegel: Regarding supporting faculty with behavioral norms in the classroom, helping faculty with language to syllabi, I have talked the president, and he supports that. VP and Deans are meeting next week on language of student conduct. We are well positioned. Prof. Johnson: It may not be necessary to make a motion at this point on syllabi language or other faculty concerns. Does it seem necessary right now or for shall we wait until after the next Town Hall as it is 3:28pm right now. Prof. Bayne: I came to the meeting expecting someone to make a motion that faculty have the right to require everyone in their classes to wear masks, but at this point I do not feel compelled to make such a motion now. It seems too early. But if anyone has one, I could be convinced to support it. Prof. Johnson: I do not feel it necessary now as it seems that administration is in support of a mask policy. Does anyone have a statement to make. We can meet again before school starts if there is not a universal mandate or if it is not going that way. Prof. Nantz: Radical hospitality should be taken into consideration as we are providing safe place to learn as Dave and Gwen pointed out. I am struggling to make a motion now. But “Radical Hospitality” might help us in language with students. Prof. Johnson: So, a motion is set aside for now. Feel free to communicate to meet sooner if needed. No call to adjourn as it is past 3:30pm now. We will meet again before the semester begins. Respectfully Submitted, Uma Balaji




Special Summer Meeting Monday, August 23, 2021 3:30 to 5:00 PM: Zoom

Current AC Faculty in attendance: Profs. Uma Balaji, Katsiaryna Bardos, Steven Bayne (GFS), Cynthia Bautista, David Downie, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Jerelyn Johnson (Chair), Evelyn Lolis, David McFadden, Camelia Micu, Kathy Nantz, Shawn Rafalski, Linda Roney, Adam Rugg (Executive Secretary), Janet Striuli, Aaron Van Dyke Incoming AC Faculty in attendance: Profs. Dave Crawford, Anita Fernandez Administrators Present:, Deans Meredith Kazer, Richard Greenwald, Laurie Grupp, Zhan Li, Provost Christine Siegel Student Observer Present: Mr. Vincent Gadioma Regrets: Guests: Profs. Kim Doughty (7a) The meeting was called to order by Chair Johnson at 3:32pm

1. Presidential Courtesy Provost Siegel reports we are moving ahead with preparing for students to move onto campus next weekend, along with orienting new faculty next week. Faculty contracts are on the way, just waiting for final confirmation from Adobe that faculty will be able to sign the contract using the Adobe form. The campus mask mandate will follow what the First Select Women of Fairfield and surrounding communities are recommending. We do have one in place now and the signs are up about the indoor mask mandate (do not have to wear if alone in a private office). We will be starting this semester with indoor masks on for 2-3 weeks and then relook at this issue, when we may be able to lift indoor mandatory mask wearing. Prof. Bayne asked if there is any conversation in the administration about a vaccine mandate now that the Pfizer vaccine has been approved by the FDA. Provost Seigel said she hadn’t spoken to anyone about this since the approval of the Pfizer vaccine this morning.

2. Report from the Secretary of the General Faculty GFS Bayne reports that there has been a redesign of the GFS website. Please send any suggestions to improve the website to Prof Bayne. There is another meeting on Thursday to continue to work on setting up the password protected documents such as our minutes.

3. Report from the Executive Secretary Executive Secretary Rugg stated nothing to report.



4. Council Subcommittee Reports None

5. Petitions for immediate hearing None

6. Old Business None

7. New business (7a) Update from Public Health Advisory Team

Prof. Doughty described the main topics of discussion from the Public Health Advisory Team (PHAT) meetings. We had 3 meetings: 8/12/21 We recommended the following (1) communicate to students and employees the implications of HIPAA for vaccination status questions (2) in the absence of an official policy requiring masks indoors for all, post signs in buildings communicating that it is “expected” that all will wear masks and that masks remain “mandatory” for those who are unvaccinated (3) endorses a plan to require pre-arrival testing of all members of the campus community, regardless of vaccination status. 8/18/21 We recommended the following (1) maintain indoor mask mandate for all individuals, regardless of vaccination status, for at least the first 4 weeks of the fall semester. This time period will allow University officials to assess the impact of both repopulation and students’ typical social interactions on COVID transmission on campus (2) assess the feasibility of a vaccine mandate for Department of Public Safety and Student Health Center employees (3) make the vaccination and testing dashboards public as soon as possible and no later than September 1st. Vaccination dashboard should include both the known vaccination rate and declared rate. Numerator and denominator for each rate should be provided. 8/23/21 The team discussed more about the vaccine dashboard, looked at a draft of the dashboard, which looked good. They confirmed that the faculty will have support with students mandatory wearing mask in the classroom. There was a discussion on which types of masks should be worn (gators/bandanas may not be appropriate). This team may need to revisit this issue as we may not be able to reinforce type of mask at this time. Also began the discussion about potential disruption in teaching class due to students being quarantined. Much fewer students are anticipated to be quarantined, due to the number of vaccinated students. We acknowledged that the Provost will provide support to help faculty if this situation occurs. Prof. Bardos: How can faculty enforce the mandate mask wearing in the classroom if the student refuses to wear a mask? Prof. Doughty: You can ask the student to obtain a mask from the Dean’s office. If the student refuses you may refer the student to Dean of Students’ office. If there is a level of resistance, disrespect, faculty should call the Department of Public Safety. Provost Seigel: I agree, first ask the student to leave the classroom and get one from the Dean’s Office. If the student becomes disruptive, please call Public Safety, as they are ready to support the faculty. We only had one incident last semester and the student was referred to the Dean of Students. All faculty should put language on their syllabi and refer students to their Student Handbook. We are working with CAE to help the faculty with language about delivering this type of message. Faculty are responsible to set parameters in their classroom.



May need to use Blackboard announcement to set the expectations. Put these classroom expectations in your syllabus and on the Blackboard announcement to help the Dean of Students support faculty if a student does not comply with this mandatory mask wearing. Prof. Crawford: Thanks to PHAT for supporting the need for the President to respond to all their recommendations. Also, thanks to the Provost for all her support with these recommendations. Prof. Rafalski: I would like to refer to the PHAT August 18th minutes, the Figure that displays DPS percentages of vaccinations. It appears that 75% of DPS are vaccinated, of that 25% are not. I am concerned about the 10 DPS employees who will not be vaccinated working on the frontlines. Will there be a mandatory mask wearing for them while they are in their vehicles riding around campus? Prof. Doughty: We have no recommendation about mandating vaccinations for them currently. Provost Seigel: Since 8/18 some of these DPS employees have been vaccinated. We will circle back and provide you with a more current number of DPS employees who are vaccinated. We did not mandate vaccines for these employees because some are not able due to medical or religious reasons. We will find out about the mandate to wear a mask while driving on campus if unvaccinated. We do have a plan if a large percentage of DPS employees get COVID and not able to work. We will make sure that we have the personnel to cover the public safety of the University. Prof. Rafalski: Back in the Spring term, on one of my weekly covid test trips, I saw a DPS employee standing, perhaps working traffic, at the corner between Fairfield Prep and the RecPlex who was wearing a "thin blue line American flag" mask. I don’t want to be inflammatory, but that symbol itself is considered by many, and certainly likely by our students of color, as an inflammatory symbol. Are there any guidelines for DPS about imagery on their masks?" Provost Seigel: There is nothing so far to address the images seen on masks. Prof. Gerry: If you have seen a draft of the dashboard, what is the current % of community vaccinated? Provost Seigel: The current dashboard states the overall vaccination rate is 84.4%. Stag cards have been turned off with no access to campus for those who have not declared their vaccination status. We do see fluctuation in the following percentages: I intend to be vaccinated, graduate students, and adjunct faculty. We have not seen any change in the percentage of people in the community that will not be vaccinated (7%). The dashboard will be opened on 9/1/21 including COVID testing and vaccine data. Faculty will be informed on what % are vaccinated in their classes no later than 9/1 and be updated on a weekly basis. Prof. Crawford: I appreciate the explanation on providing concrete information first when delivering a message. I also heard from student accommodations that faculty should be wearing a clear mask. They sent me to a website to obtain this clear mask, but I found out that this type of mask is not CDC approved. Provost Seigel: Thanks for bringing this to my attention and we will connect with them about the use of this clear mask. Prof. Nantz: Since we do not have a vaccine requirement, should we be concerned about the disenrollment of students who are not vaccinated?



Provost Seigel: Those universities with mandates are in the midst of figuring out what to do. They have shared that all members who have not been vaccinated are being served termination notices or suspended without pay. These are not large numbers of employees. There is some havoc in those universities that are disenrolling students. We are asking our employees who are not vaccinated to be COVID tested 2 x/week. Students who have not declared their vaccination status have had their Stag Cards turned off. We are anticipating that these undeclared folks will update us with information on their vaccination status. Prof. Nantz: When a car arrives on campus with several passengers, do all of them have to swipe their Stag Cards? Provost Seigel: Yes, that is correct, and we will send another announcement tomorrow with this information. Prof. Johnson: You mentioned undeclared employees as being treated as unvaccinated. Weren’t undeclared employees supposed to be denied access to campus, but now it sounds as if they are being treated as unvaccinated. Provost Seigel: Yes, that’s correct. If we did not hear from employees about their vaccination status, they are being treated as a no. Prof. Van Dyke: I see the PHAT has not talked about vaccine boosters that have been authorized to be given 8 months after receiving COVID vaccine. Is the university tracking the type of vaccine and when the vaccine was given to employees? What is PHAT’s recommendation on vaccine boosters? Prof. Doughty: We have not discussed this issue about vaccine boosters. When the recommendation is made, we will support and track this information. Prof. Rugg: Can you clarify whether the university’s indoor mandatory mask wearing is for 2 weeks or 4 weeks? Provost Seigel: We have not decided at this time. Prof. Doughty: The minimum of 4 weeks was recommended at the PHAT 8/16/21meeting. Prof. Rugg: When will the communication about mandatory mask wearing go out to the students? Provost Seigel: Today or tomorrow we will make an announcement. Prof. Rugg: With the Town of Fairfield indoor mandating mask wearing, how long will the University continue the indoor mandatory mask wearing? Provost Seigel: We will continue until the Town of Fairfield discontinues this mandate. The Town of Fairfield usually gives us 24 hour notice (7b) Fall 2021 COVID Policies Chair Johnson: Are there any concerns about anything that we need to discuss regarding our COVID Policies? Prof. Bardos: Is the mandate for masks indoors only?



Provost Seigel: Yes, it is. Prof. Nantz: Is there a concern with adjunct faculty being able to teach classes if we do not provide remote learning opportunities this semester? Provost Seigel: We have been dealing with this on a case-by-case basis. Dean Grupp: We did have one adjunct faculty member ask for an accommodation, so we decided that for this semester they would not be teaching the course. Prof. Crawford: Can you please clarify on what the accommodation would be if there is no virtual ability. Is it your own ability to do the job, is it that you live with an immunocompromised family? Provost Seigel: We have decided to teach in-person only this Fall semester. We need to think about how we would deliver content if the faculty became ill. We want to avoid doing ZOOM for everything, how can we deliver instruction to our students? We can refer faculty to Human Resources to help work through these disabilities. As far as the adjunct faculty teaching this semester, they may not be able to work this semester, but maybe could next semester. There are very few adjunct faculty that are affected, but there are a few. This can all change if the virus rate changes. We need to do everything we can to deliver undergraduate student content in-person this Fall semester. Chair Johnson: The messaging on the Dashboard needs to be exact. Will the data be exact numbers or just percentages? Provost Seigel: The Dashboard will have a breakdown of numbers, percent, and total population. Prof. Downie: Prior to the pandemic several programs were asked to add online courses. We may need to inform these faculty members that it is OK to keep online classes currently. Provost Seigel: We were looking to have more online classes, so we do want them to continue doing that. Chair Johnson: How will faculty be told about the percentage of vaccinated students in their classroom? Provost Seigel: Faculty will be getting an email from Vice Provost Mark Ligas. We are still working on the language for the email notification on percentage of vaccinated students in the class. Prof. Nantz: I am curious to know what Vincent Gadioma has to say about where students are at with these conditions and what concerns do they have? Student Representative Vincent: The students are looking forward to being in-person and learning in-person. They do want to do the best they can at being safe. They are looking to engage with other students. I am very confident that the students are feeling pretty normal about wearing a mask at this time. Chair Johnson: So I am not hearing any new concerns about our Fall ’21 COVID policies. We will be receiving word from CAE to help with language and how to enforce the indoor mask mandate. I imagine the faculty will appreciate this support. Are there any other concerns?



Prof. Crawford: I am concerned about the nonvaccinated employees of the Department of Public Safety, as they are working on the frontlines of our campus. While I feel they need to be vaccinated, I am concerned with the discussion by the PHAT team that suggested we should not mandate vaccines for the DPS employees as we may end up losing some of them. Would we be unsafe with the loss of these frontline employees? Provost Seigel: I appreciate what you said. The minutes of the 8/18 PHAT meeting reflect a discussion that involved the PHAT team talking through the issue and is not meant to be taken as an official position of the PHAT team. The Department of Public Safety has said they are strongly looking into what will be the best way to keep everyone safe while following these recommendations. Chair Johnson: Please take all this information from today’s meeting back to your colleagues. We will see you at our next meeting on September 13th. Good luck with this Fall semester. Meeting adjourned at 4:45pm Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Bautista



Date: September 13, 2021 To: Academic Council From: Steven M. Bayne, Secretary of the General Faculty Re: Academic Council Meetings and Roster According to the Faculty Handbook,

The first meeting of the Academic Council shall be on the Monday of the first full week of the academic year, and subsequently the first Monday of every month. Otherwise the Council shall determine the frequency of additional meetings and the duration of its meetings, as dictated by the nature and volume of its work, consistent with speedy action on all outstanding issues.

Council meeting dates for 2021-2022 are listed below. Note that the Council always has the right to add meeting dates if necessary, and in recent years has added 3 or 4 meetings (most often by recessing and reconvening) per year. Given that recent history, it would be very helpful if members try to avoid filling up Monday afternoons later in the month, at least until we've had that month's regularly scheduled meeting. All meetings are 3:30-5 p.m. and will be in NHS 404.

September 13, 2021 February 7, 2022 October 4, 2021 March 7, 2022 November 1, 2021 April 4, 2022 December 6, 2021 May 2, 2022

Alphonso, Gwen Arts and Sciences at large 2023 Crawford, David Arts and Sciences at large 2023 Fernandez, Anita Arts and Sciences at large 2023 Striuli, Janet Arts and Sciences at large 2023 McDermott, John Dolan School of Business 2023 Planas, Jessica Egan School of Nursing & Health Studies 2023 Svoboda, Toby Humanities 2023 Slotemaker, John Humanities 2023 Rafalski, Shawn Natural Science/Mathematics 2023 Downie, David Behavioral and Social Sciences 2022 McFadden, David Humanities 2022 Van Dyke, Aaron Natural Science/Mathematics 2022 Micu, Camelia Dolan School of Business 2022 Nantz, Kathy Dolan School of Business 2022 Scheraga, Carl Dolan School of Business 2022 Bautista, Cynthia Egan School of Nursing & Health Studies 2022 Hartwell, Erica School of Education and Human Development 2022 Lolis, Evelyn School of Education and Human Development 2022 Balaji, Uma School of Engineering 2022 Siegel, Christine Provost ex officio vote Greenwald, Richard Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ex officio no vote Kazer, Meredith Dean, Egan School of Nursing & Health Studies ex officio no vote Li, Zhan Dean, Dolan School of Business ex officio no vote Carrano, Andres Dean, School of Engineering ex officio no vote Grupp, Laurie Dean, School of Education and Human Development ex officio no vote Bayne, Steven Secretary of the General Faculty ex officio vote CHAIR: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:



Taking Minutes of Academic Council Meetings Below are guidelines for taking minutes of Academic Council meetings, drawn from requirements in the Faculty Handbook and Journal of Record, and from what has worked well in the past.

1. The Faculty Handbook specifies that the Council minutes “shall indicate the votes of members (i.e., tally

or roll call) as well as major proposals and their proponents and opponents.” Most votes on the Council are taken by tally, in which case the total number of votes for and against needs to be recorded in the minutes. If a roll call vote is taken, the name of each Council member voting in favor and against needs to be recorded in the minutes.

2. As stated in the Handbook, “the Academic Council shall be the executive arm of the General Faculty. As

such, it is empowered to consider, make decisions and make recommendations on any matter of academic concern that falls within the purview of the faculty, except for matters specifically reserved to the General Faculty. It shall also provide the opportunity for exchange of opinion between faculty and administration in the ordinary working of the University.” It is important that accurate minutes be recorded, as the Academic Council minutes are generally the only way that faculty will know what the Council has done on their behalf, and why it was done.

3. The Handbook also specifies that records of Handbook committees contain minority as well as majority

opinion. This has been a good practice for Council minutes as well, and Council minutes should continue to follow this practice.

4. The Journal of Record (1/22/68) requires that “the gist of all communications to the Academic Council be

published in the Council minutes.” The communications themselves, including committee reports, documentation, etc. are included in the agenda and packet distributed before every meeting, copies of which are maintained by the General Faculty Secretary.

5. The Council acts by voting on motions. To avoid misunderstandings at a later date, it is essential that the

exact wording of a motion be known before the Council votes and that the exact wording be recorded in the minutes.

6. To facilitate consultation of the minutes:

a. In the minutes, number the agenda items exactly as the items are numbered on the agenda for that meeting.

b. Provide a separate boldface caption for each agenda item. c. Place each motion in an indented and boldface paragraph, and indicate in boldface the result of any vote

on the motion. 7. Minutes may be consulted years in the future when the names are no longer familiar. That's why titles

indicating the speaker's role (Prof., Provost, Dean, etc.) provide valuable context. 8. The Faculty Handbook specifies that “the Recording Secretary shall be responsible for the preparation of

the minutes in consultation with the Executive Secretary.” Minutes should be prepared as soon as possible after the meeting, ideally within one week. The minutes should be clearly labeled as draft minutes, and forwarded to the Council’s Executive Secretary. The Recording Secretary is not responsible for distributing the minutes.



Memo

Dear Professors Johnson and Rugg, and the entire Academic Council,

The faculty of International Studies and International Business read with interest the minutes of the March 15th meeting we attended. They are voluminous and detailed, and we thank you for your hard work. We do feel obliged to comment on some of the points raised in the minutes.

First, on process:

We came to the AC because we disagreed with actions of the provost’s office. While she is ex-officio, and entitled to a vote on the AC, we believe it was ill-advised to dismiss the complainant faculty from the meeting (without a single question), and then allow the Provost to stay and ask questions and make remarks. Relevant faculty were not allowed to challenge or correct the Administration’s version of events, which means that we can only respond here, in writing. This needlessly prolongs what should have been a straightforward vote aimed at preventing unilateral administrative action in the future.

On substance:

1. The Provost claimed that “she cannot comment on specific personnel decisions.” This is not a “specific personnel decision.” What happened was a restructuring of our program. The only full-time position assigned to International Studies / International Business was removed from the budget months before the actual termination of the person. This was an MA-level position, somebody who advised students and was the instructor of record for our internship courses, amongst other duties. In fall of 2020 she had been scheduled to teach another course. Crucially, the administrative actions happened with no faculty input at all. As further evidence that it was a program restructuring, our office suite (with space for both the Director and the Associate Director, as well as our graduate assistant) was transferred from our program to the Provost’s office staff. We no longer have space or our lone employee. This was a unilateral, administrative restructuring of an academic program done entirely without faculty input.

2. We were puzzled that the Provost “objected to the language [of] ‘unilateral disregard” and that Professor Hartwell believed “that it was beyond the ability of the Council to make the call that this was a unilateral decision.” We disagree. Vice Provost of Undergraduate Excellence, Mark Ligas, was the only one from the Provost’s office to meet with the faculty who are contractually obligated to International Studies (once each, and always individually) and he has stated unequivocally that he never raised the topic of eliminating the Associate Director position with anyone in our program. We believe the Provost would have honestly conceded the point if asked, but she was not. “Unilateral” means “undertaken by one party only” (Oxford English Dictionary), and that is exactly and entirely what happened. Faculty had no knowledge of the plan to restructure the program, the plan to terminate the Associate Director, or the decision to take away our only offices on campus. We were not involved in any of these decisions in any way. This is the very definition of “unilateral.” We believe these actions are an obvious abrogation of “shared governance” and deserve to be taken up by NECHE as part of our next accreditation cycle.

Our first motion read:

The Academic Council strongly objects to the administration’s unilateral action and disregard for the governance procedures of the International Studies and International Business Program in the elimination of this position.

We stand by this. The discussion in the minutes suggests that the Academic Council’s only serious issue with the motion concerned the term “unilateral,” the Provost’s “objection” to the term, and the difficulty of determining the fact of it.



Our view is that this decision was entirely and inarguably “unilateral,” the Provost’s office admits it, and that this was relatively easy to determine. The issue is not simply that the termination decision failed to account for our agreed-upon governance procedures (though that is true), but more generally that any decision that obviously and deeply impacts an academic program should be discussed with the faculty who staff the program. That is all our motion aimed to achieve; it was meant as a caution to the Provost, and a request for her office to work with us on whatever restructuring plans she has but has yet to share. The Academic Council has, in effect, voting against shared governance. We find this baffling.

It is now nearly a year after the termination, and more than that since the Associate Director position was eliminated from the budget. To date, the major duties of the position have not been reassigned, and we have seen no movement to revisit the governance documents. We had hoped the Academic Council would motivate the Provost to work with us to rectify this.

Should the Academic Council decide to revisit our motions, we would be happy to answer any further questions. Should you decide to let the matter stand, that is of course your prerogative. We thank you for your service in this difficult time, and we apologize for adding to your workload.

Respectfully,

Dave Crawford, Director, International Studies and International Business Dina Franceschi Janie Leatherman



Academic Council Subcommittee: Non-Tenure Track Full-Time Faculty Issues Preliminary Report – Executive Summary

Submitted by: Kathryn Nantz, Chair Committee Members: Evelyn Bilias, Bob Epstein, Sally Gerard, Nick Kapoor, Kathy Nantz (chair), Harsha Srinivas-Sundarram, Jocelyn Boryczka (Provost’s Office) Date: August 30, 2021 Subcommittee charge: The Executive Committee of the Academic Council should form a new NTT Faculty subcommittee that includes representation from across the schools. This committee will work with the Committee on Non-Tenure Track faculty to develop university-wide guidelines clarifying

1) practices surrounding recruitment and hiring of full-time NTT faculty; 2) performance evaluation of full-time NTT faculty, 3) the role of NTT faculty in leadership positions, and 4) research, service, and teaching expectations as well as a potential path to advancement for full-time NTT faculty in relation to tenure track.

Once the guidelines have been approved by the Academic Council, they will be sent to the schools to develop specific policies consistent with the guidelines. The committee met March 8, March 22, April 19, May 6 (with NTT Handbook Committee leadership), June 1, July 13, and August 2 (7 times.) A subcommittee of Profs. Kapoor and Nantz met two additional times.

• Our process was to report to one another on current practice in each of the schools of the university regarding the four elements of our charge. We also reviewed information and documents from the JOR, Faculty Handbook, and previous committees that worked on these issues.

• Given all of this information, we determined that the job category “Professor of the Practice” is playing two distinct roles at the University: One as a full-time instructor who brings practical professional experience to work with students, and two as a full-time instructor for whom disciplinary teaching is the primary role.

• We incorporated this determination into our Full-Time Faculty model of job categories by dividing the NTT POP into two different streams: One for faculty who bring professional experiences to the classroom and one for faculty whose role is primarily teaching.

• Given this new model, we considered what processes and procedures related to our charge above would look like for each of these job categories. Cells in the grid, titled “A Model for Full-time Faculty Job Categories at Fairfield University,” addresses the four elements of our subcommittee’s charge. See attached.

• Note that the “Tenure Track Faculty” column proposes no changes from current practice. This information is included in the document to lay out the complete listing of full-time faculty job categories.



If this model is approved, the subcommittee recommends that appropriate Faculty Handbook committees weigh in on the details of elements of this grid. For example, we recommend a clear method of performance evaluation for all full-time NTT faculty. Designing criteria for this process is a task that is within the purview of the NTT Handbook Committee. We recommend a system of advancement through levels for full-time NTT faculty. Designing criteria for this process might be assigned to the NTT Handbook Committee in consultation with the Rank & Tenure Committee and the Faculty Salary Committee.

Academic Council September 13, 2021 Packet for Meeting page 48

A New Model for Faculty Roles and Responsibilities at Fairfield University - Draft 8.30.21

Time Long-term Faculty Short-term Faculty

Full-Time/Part-

Time Full-time Faculty Part-time

Faculty

Tenure Track Status

Tenure Track Faculty Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Row No.

Position Title Professor Teaching Professor

Professor of the Practice

Visiting Professor Adjunct Professor

1 Purpose Scholar-Teachers Teacher-Scholars Teacher-Experts Filling a temporary full-

time need

Supplementing the teaching

need

2 Ranks Full Associate Assistant

IV III II I

IV III II I

Full Associate Assistant Instructor

Full Associate Assistant Instructor

3 Research/Creative Professional

Activity?

Mandatory research or creative professional activity, subjected to

peer review

Creative/ Professional Activity is

Mandatory for Promotion

Creative/ Professional Activity is

Mandatory for Promotion

Not Mandatory Not Mandatory

4 Promotable? Yes Yes Yes No No

5 Potential Evidence for

Evidence of peer-reviewed professional

Appropriate instructional

Evidence of professional

None None


Promotion in Rank

and/or creative activity

professional activity

activities that are appropriate in the

discipline

6 Professional credentials?

Terminal Degree Required

Terminal Degree Preferred in

Consultation with Dean/Department





Master’s Degree

Required or Appropriate

Experience as determined by the Dean and Department

7 Service? Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Not Mandatory Not Mandatory

8 Teaching? Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory Mandatory

9 Teaching Load 3/3 (18 Cr.) 4/4 (24 Cr.) 4/4 (24 Cr.) 3/3 (18 Cr.) Varies but no more than 20 Cr. in a single

AY

10 Length of Time Career Career Career Temporary Position

Strictly not more

than 3 years

As needed to meet

departmental and

programmatic needs

11 Eligible for institutional professional

Yes Yes Yes At the appropriate dean’s discretion

No


development funds?

12 Contract Term Tenure clock and application for tenure

and promotion

Initial 3 Year Commitment, second 3 Year Commitment,

beyond that 5 Year Commitments

Initial 3 Year Commitment, second 3 Year Commitment,

beyond that 5 Year Commitments

Renewable annual or semester contracts

Renewable semester contracts

13 Search process? National search, search committee

required for all appointments

Local, regional, or national search,

search committee required

Local, regional, or national search,

search committee required

Local, regional, or national search at discretion of dean and department

Local search

14 Specific % Requirement

Goal of 70% of any department must be

tenure track. If not possible, the

relevant dean should provide a rationale.

Teaching Professor + Visiting Professor 30% of all full-time faculty in each department

15 Performance Evaluation

Annual pre-tenure review process and tenure/promotion

system. Annual merit reviews. Departmental

and dean’s office mentoring.

Annual formative review process

within contract + summative review

process at the close of each

contract period. Evaluation

Annual formative review process

within contract + summative review

process at the close of each

contract period. Evaluation

Annual formative review and

mentoring process conducted by the department chair

or program director.

Semester review of teaching

effectiveness by the

department chair or


by departmental peers based on job

requirements as outlined in the

contract. Dean letter for

contract extension. Departmental and

Dean’s office mentoring.

by departmental peers based on job

requirements as outlined in the contract. Dean

letter for contract extension.

Departmental and Dean’s office mentoring.

program director.

16 Eligibility for Leadership

Positions

Eligible for any faculty governance leadership

positions or administrative

positions

Eligible for any faculty governance

leadership positions or

administrative positions

Eligible for any faculty governance

leadership positions or

administrative positions

Not eligible for leadership

positions in faculty

governance, but can perform

leadership duties within

departments or programs

After teaching 6 semesters

within 5 academic

years, then adjunct faculty

should be eligible for leadership positions

17 Path to Tenure Track?

N/A Yes, if meets candidacy

requirements as articulated for this

job category.

Yes, if meets candidacy

requirements as articulated for this

job category.

No No


SOURCES AND INTERESTING READS Worcester Polytechnic Institute Path to Tenure: https://www.wpi.edu/news/worcester-polytechnic-institute-creates-tenure-and-extended-contract-opportunities-teaching Northeastern NTT Full Time Promotion Guidelines: https://faculty.northeastern.edu/handbook/appointments-promotion-and-tenure/appointments-terms-and-reappointments/ https://www.dropbox.com/s/c96spar2e5nu3a5/Northeastern%202021-Preparing-for-FT-NTT-Promotion-.pdf?dl=0 Georgetown: https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/jfpwr56j31g0epd8ghno7c7o7kdbj237 Bowen, William, and Eugene Tobin. Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. Princeton University Press, 2015.

“In light of the forces driving the huge increase in NTT faculty - forces that are highly unlikely to go away - universities would be well advised to acknowledge (as some already are) that full-time NTT faculty have been filling essential teaching roles for many years, and to move expeditiously to consider creating analogous ‘professional teaching staff’ structures” (Bowen & Tobin, 161).

Flaherty, Colleen. “More than Adjuncts.” Inside Higher Ed. February 17, 2015. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/17/new-faculty-model-u-denver-could-be-prototype-reform

https://www.wpi.edu/news/worcester-polytechnic-institute-creates-tenure-and-extended-contract-opportunities-teaching

https://www.wpi.edu/news/worcester-polytechnic-institute-creates-tenure-and-extended-contract-opportunities-teaching

https://faculty.northeastern.edu/handbook/appointments-promotion-and-tenure/appointments-terms-and-reappointments/

https://faculty.northeastern.edu/handbook/appointments-promotion-and-tenure/appointments-terms-and-reappointments/

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c96spar2e5nu3a5/Northeastern%202021-Preparing-for-FT-NTT-Promotion-.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c96spar2e5nu3a5/Northeastern%202021-Preparing-for-FT-NTT-Promotion-.pdf?dl=0

https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/jfpwr56j31g0epd8ghno7c7o7kdbj237

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/17/new-faculty-model-u-denver-could-be-prototype-reform__;!!KIFmrYtlezdzESbnm_I!UFAgKwwgjO2myj7X7k5V4bI-G3aGkWsUFHRI2fAt8cSZjCa1gd26M8B91_tLPvtlag$

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/17/new-faculty-model-u-denver-could-be-prototype-reform__;!!KIFmrYtlezdzESbnm_I!UFAgKwwgjO2myj7X7k5V4bI-G3aGkWsUFHRI2fAt8cSZjCa1gd26M8B91_tLPvtlag$


Fairfield University Policy on Dual Master’s Degree Programs

Draft

Rationale: Fairfield graduate programs are well-known in the nation. Dual degree programs could enhance graduate enrollment and attract students to Fairfield University, who otherwise may not come. They would increase the efficiency of obtaining two degrees for students by leveraging the synergy between the two unique degree programs. These programs would position Fairfield University favorably in the highly competitive regional graduate program offerings. Dual degree programs would help prepare students for a multi-facet world and stand out in the highly competitive hiring process. Related State of CT Guidelines

• NECHE states “At the graduate level, enrollment in a dual or concurrent degree program typically results in a reduction in time, for example, a reduction in total time of a semester for two degrees which if taken separately would require four years of full-time study.”

• The CT Office of Higher Education regulations (section 10a-34-17, section e) states that a master’s degree has 30 credits or one year of full-time graduate-level study.

Details: 1. Dual degrees can be from the same school or two different schools. 2. Proposals should clearly indicate how the two degrees can be earned in ways that preserve the integrity of each of the component degree programs, while at the same time affording students a reasonably efficient program that does not simply replicate the independent programs of the two component degrees. 3. Students must apply to and be accepted by each department in order to be eligible for a dual degree. Students should apply to both academic programs at the same time or apply to the second program prior to the beginning of the last semester of study for the first program. 4. Pre-requisites and required courses must be completed for each degree. 5. Each master’s degree must be comprised of a minimum of 30 credits. 6. Double-counting (courses allowed to be transferred from one master’s degree to the other, cross counting) Typically, no more than 25% of the total credits of the two master degrees may be double-counted. Transfer and/or substitution credits may be applied in consultation with the Directors/Dean. Double-counted courses must contain courses from both programs. 7. The Director of one Graduate program would act as the academic advisor for the student in partnership with the Director of the other Graduate program. Both Program Directors would collaborate closely to help the dual degree student through advisement to navigate courses.


From: Steven M. Bayne, GFS and Susan Rakowitz, immediate past GFS To: Members of the Academic Council Re: Faculty Liaisons to the Board of Trustees In September of 2019, Provost Siegel explained to the Academic Council that the Board was restructuring its committees, necessitating reconsideration of the relationship between Faculty Handbook committees and Board Committees. At the September 9, 2019 AC meeting, the following motions were passed:

1. For this academic year, the Academic Council will agree to make an exception to the language of the Handbook regarding faculty liaisons to the Committees of the Board of Trustees. This is with the knowledge that we will have to amend handbook over the year.

2. For this academic year, there will be no change in faculty participation to the following committees:

Academic Affairs, Finance and Audit, Student Life and University Advancement. Liaison to Enrollment and Marketing will come from the Committee on Admissions and Scholarship. Liaison to Infrastructure should be from Educational Technology and Educational Planning Committee.

3. For this academic year, faculty liaisons to the new BoT committee, Mission and Identity, should include

one member from Academic Council and one member from the Committee on the Conference with the Board of Trustees.

4. Regarding the revision of the Faculty Handbook, it is recommended that the Executive Committee of

the Academic Council review the Faculty Handbook for language related to the assignment of faculty liaisons to Board of Trustee Committees, and propose appropriate revisions to that language sometime during the 2019-2020 academic year.

Not surprisingly, the Executive Committee did not get to reviewing the Handbook and proposing revisions in 2019-2020. Furthermore, the AC passed a motion on 5/10/2021 authorizing the ACEC to form a subcommittee for a new edition of the Faculty Handbook. As that work proceeds we expect it to subsume realignment of the faculty liaisons to the BOT. We therefore suggest that motions 1-3 be extended once again through the 2021-2022 academic year while work on a new edition of the Handbook gets underway. Specifically:

1. The Committee on Conference and a representative from the Educational Planning Committee will meeting with Academic Affairs

2. A faculty representative from the Budget Committee will meet with Finance & Audit 3. A representative from the Student Life Committee will meet with Student Life 4. A representative from the University Advancement Committee will meet with University Advancement 5. A representative from Admission and Scholarships (rather than Public Lectures and Events) will meet

with Enrollment and Marketing. 6. Representatives from Educational Technologies and Educational Planning Committees will meet with

Infrastructure 7. Representatives from Academic Council and Committee on Conference will meet with Mission and

Identity

Note that only the exclusion of Public Lectures and Events directly contradicts the Handbook. Items 1, 3, 4, and to some extent, 6, are consistent with the Handbook. The Handbook is silent regarding the other items.


Memo To: Academic Council From: Steven M. Bayne, Secretary of the General Faculty, and Elizabeth Petrino, Director of the

Magis Core. Date: 9/1/2021 Re: Journal of Record language regarding coordinators of the signature elements of the Magis

Core - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - At its 2/23/2018 meeting (packet here, minutes here), the General Faculty approved the Magis core curriculum proposal. The text of the proposal approved by the GF clearly states that the coordinators of the three signature elements “will be tenured or tenure track faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, appointed by the Dean of the College, in consultation with the Director of the Magis Core Curriculum.” What ended up in the Journal of Record, however, is the statement that the coordinators of the three signature elements “will be full-time faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, appointed by the Dean of the College, in consultation with the Director of the Magis Core Curriculum” (JoR, June 2021, p. 13-14). The discrepancy seems to have arisen because the JoR language, approved by the AC on 5/03/2019 (AC packet here; minutes here), was inadvertently based on a slightly earlier version of the core proposal than the one that passed the GF on 2/23/2018. To accurately reflect the proposal passed by the General Faculty, we are asking AC to approve replacing, in the Journal of Record, the sentence

These three Directors will be full-time faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, appointed by the Dean of the College, in consultation with the Director of the Magis Core Curriculum. (JoR, June 2021, p. 13-14)

with the sentence

These three Coordinators will be tenured or tenure track faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, appointed by the Dean of the College, in consultation with the Director of the Magis Core Curriculum.

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/GFM/GFM2017-2018/gfmagendapacket2_23_18.pdf

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/GFM/GFM2017-2018/gfmins2_23_18.pdf

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/AC/2018-2019/acagendapacket4_29_2019.pdf

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/AC/2018-2019/acmins5_3_19.pdf

ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, September 13, 2021

Documents

Transcript of ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, September 13, 2021