1

UNIVERSITY of MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON 100 Morrissey Blvd. Boston, MA 02125-3393

University Governance Faculty Council

https://www.umb.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_council Monday, December 3, 2018

1:30 – 3:30 p.m. Chancellor's Conference Room

Minutes Members present: Steve Ackerman (HONORS); Teri Aronowitz (CNHS); Kathrin Boerner (MGS); Robert Bowen (SFE); Reyes Coll-Tellechea (CLA); Phil Gona (CNHS); Lisa Gonsalves (CEHD); Eduardo Gonzalez (CSM); Jennifer Gregg (CLA); Luis Jiménez (CLA); Valerie Karr (SGISD); Sharon Lamb (CEHD); Jay Lee (CM); Robert Lublin (Representative to the BoT); Sarah Mayorga-Gallo (CLA); David Pantalone (CLA); Daniel Remein (CLA); Hannah Sevian (CSM); Ling Shi (CNHS); Eve Sorum (CLA); Romilla Syed (CM); Duc Tran (CSM); Kiran Verma (CM); Roberta Wollons (CLA); Kevin Wozinak (CLA) Members absent: Julie Nelson (CLA); Dan Simovici (CSM) Representatives present: Marlene Kim (FSU); Michael Mahan (PSU); Marquies Perez (USG); Yuechan Lu (GSA) Representatives absent: None Ex Officio members present: Katherine Newman (Interim Chancellor); Emily McDermott (Interim Provost); Kathleen Kirleis (Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance) Ex Officio members absent: None

I. Approval of the agenda Approved unanimously. II. Chair’s comments The Faculty Council Open Meeting will be held Monday, December 10, 2018 in the Chancellor’s Conference Room, Quinn, from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. III. Motion to approve the minutes of Monday, November 5, 2018 Approved unanimously.

2

IV. Motions from the Graduate Studies Committee Motion #1: Allow CEHD to change one course within the School Counseling Program CEHD is requesting to replace the Family Therapy Theories course (COUNSL 622) with the Trauma and Crisis Counseling course (COUNSL 665) that is already offered in the mental health counseling program. Rationale: Requiring the Trauma and Crisis Counseling course better aligns with the training needs of school counseling students who regularly need to provide responsive services related to crisis evaluation and trauma counseling for issues related to abuse, neglect, violence, disaster response, and suicidal/homicidal ideation. Although these topic areas are addressed in other courses within the program, greater depth of training is needed to these issues, which the Trauma and Crisis Counseling course can more effectively address. Discussion: A member asked whether there was additional theory included elsewhere in the program. Sharon Lamb, professor of counseling and school psychology and Executive Committee member, said all students have to take a beginning theory class. Motion approved unanimously. Motion #2: Allow CSM to revise requirements for the Integrative Biosciences PhD Program

• For all tracks: Add PHYSIC 607 Experiments in Squishy Physics and CS 671 Machine Learning to the common pool of electives for the program.

• For the Biophysics track: replacement of core required course PHYSIC 637 Introduction to Stochastic Processes with BIOL/CHEM 680L Physical Biochemistry. The PHYSIC 637 course was recently inactivated.

These requests are based on student interest and have been approved by the IB committee. The committee has agreed that these courses fit well with the current program focus and will enrich the available elective options for students. Some of our students have sufficient background in mathematics and physics to do well in these courses. There was no discussion about this motion. Motion approved unanimously. Motion #3: Allow SGISD (Vision Studies Program) to add an online track with curriculum in Assistive Technology The University of Massachusetts Boston Vision Studies program proposes an online track with curriculum in Assistive Technology for individuals with visual impairments. The M.Ed. in Vision Studies-Assistive Technology and graduate certificate in Assistive Technology support professionals wishing to prepare for the Academy for Certification of Vision Rehabilitation and Education Professionals (ACVREP) examination to become a Certified Assistive Technology Instructional Specialist for people with visual impairments (CATIS). A "CATIS" engages in a comprehensive approach to vision (re)habilitation addressing visual, physical, cognitive, and psychosocial aspects related to the training and integration of new and existing technologies for the individual with visual impairment. This proposal is the epitome of the UMB mission. For individuals with vision loss, access is a key component to all aspects of life. This proposal seeks to uniquely prepare professionals to support this access and contribute to the quality of life for children and adults with visual impairment. The CEO of the certifying body, ACVREP, approached the UMass Boston Vision Studies director and asked if we would develop the curriculum in assistive technology to prepare graduates for CATIS certification. If approved, the UMass Boston Assistive Technology for Visual Impairments track will be the second such program in the United States. Proposed Core Courses: Professionals with Vision Impairment licensure/certification only need these 5 courses to apply for ACVREP certification and to sit the international exam for CATIS.

• VISN 660 Introduction to Assistive Technology for People with Visual Impairments

3

• VISN 661 AT Assessment and Instruction for People with Visual Impairments

• VISN 662 Configuration and Exploration of Assistive Technology Solutions

• VISN 663 Technological Methods of Accessibility and Accommodations for People with Visual Impairments

• VISN 669 Practicum in Assistive Technology Discussion: Laura Bozeman, director and associate professor of vision studies, answered questions. Roberta Wollons asked whether the technology will support visually-impaired people who want to take part in the online program. Laura Bozeman said it did. Students can use screen readers and Blackboard. Everything we put in Blackboard using the Universal Design for Learning is accessible. A member asked whether this was a new online track or new graduate certificate. Laura Bozeman said that the entire track is new under Vision Studies, with three options: 1) students who have licensure or certification in visual impairment will take the five new courses; 2) students who does not have a foundation in anatomy will take a nine-course certificate; and 3) if those students take an additional two courses, they can get a Master’s in Vision Studies. Motion approved unanimously. Motion #4: New Courses CLA ECON 617 Public Finance ECON 680 Health Economics ANTH 660 Critical Race Theory MGS PPOL 711 Multi-Disciplinary Topics in Public Policy CM MBA ACM 683 Business Communication for Managers SGISD VISN 660 Introduction to Assistive Technology for People with Visual Impairments VISN 661 AT Assessment and Instruction for People with Visual Impairments VISN 662 Configuration and Exploration of Assistive Technology Solutions VISN 663 Technological Methods of Accessibility and Accommodations for People with Visual Impairments VISN 669 Practicum in Assistive Technology There was no discussion about this motion. Motion approved unanimously. Motion #5: En Route MS Degree in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences The department used the template from UMass Amherst to make available an en route Master's degree in nursing to their BS-PhD students while taking PhD courses (see Table below). They carefully selected courses (30 credits) at the beginning of the curriculum where some of the PhD courses in the curriculum matched the "Essentials" while the significant and important "3 Ps" are added i.e., physical (health) assessment, pharmacology, and pathophysiology. In reviewing #3 you will see that the "Essentials" line up with courses they chose. Three Key Points:

1. The courses chosen match the Essentials of Master's Education promulgated by the AACN (Nursing Accrediting body)

2. The plan integrates both PhD courses and Master's Essential requirements

4

3. It offers the opportunity to international and domestic students to serve in the future in an advanced practice role IF they do not practice as a scientist OR gives them credentials as a scientist to demonstrate clinical excellence. NOTE: these students can continue at the end of their PhD to become Nurse Practitioners and undertake clinical experiences. This would allow them to extend the beginning Master's to another level of clinical expertise.

The proposal will make available en route master’s degree in nursing, not an en route master’s degree in health policy or population heath.

Semester Course Credit

Fall Year I NU702 Doctoral Seminar NU700 Philosophy of Nursing Science: Ways of Knowing NU760 Introduction to Biostatistics: Biostatistics I NU750 Contemporary Disciplinary Knowledge

12

Spring Year I NU770 Biostatistics II: Advanced Statistical Methods in Healthcare Research NU705 Health Disparities NU780 Epidemiological Methods

9

Summer Year I NU614 Advanced Pathophysiology (online) NU634 Advanced Pharmacology (online) (Both can be taken concurrently)

6

Fall Year II NU615 Advanced Health Assessment Practicum (in class) Followed by the rest of courses on plan for study (BS-PhD/PH or Policy Track)

3

Discussion: Greg Beck, associate professor of biology and chair of the Graduate Studies Committee, said adding the option of a master’s degree is a minor change to the program that doesn’t require new courses or resources. The change would award a generic master’s degree in Health Policy or Population Health, programs which are already in place, for those students who are interested in receiving this degree en route to their doctorate. This change is important for non-US students because institutions in some countries require a master’s degree in order to teach. A member asked whether it was clear that students do not have practice for their master’s degree if they do not finish their PhD. Rosanna DeMarco, chair and professor of nursing, said it was very clear that students can take clinical courses after earning a PhD to acquire a nurse practitioner’s certificate. The en route master’s degree has nothing to do with clinical work, instead focusing on leadership and policy components. UMass Amherst and other schools offer this. The degree will allow people to have the credentials to teach while working toward a PhD. Emily McDermott, interim provost, said that this is an MS in nursing, not health policy or population health. Rosanna DeMarco confirmed that the master’s degree is in nursing. Health policy and population health are tracks in the PhD program. She asked for a friendly amendment to the motion to reflect this. Motion to amend the motion. Approved unanimously Motion to approve the en route master’s degree in nursing. Approved unanimously.

5

Course Change – For FC Information Only, Provost Action required CEHD COUNSL 631 Principals and Practices of School Adjustment Counseling Reactivation and Title Change This track allows mental health and school counselors better job prospects by training them to become school adjustment counselors. V. Motions from the General Education Committee From the Diversity Subcommittee: 1. Moved: That Anthropology/Cinema Studies 361L, Indigenous Film and Critical Visual Analysis be approved as satisfying the International Diversity requirement. WISER course description: This course explores the ways in which filmmakers have engaged with the notion of ingenuousness primarily through feature film and documentary forms over the last 40 years. The course will look at films directed, produced and written by indigenous and non-indigenous film-makers. We will examine films from a number of different geographical areas, concentrating on North America (the United States and Canada), Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australia, and Southern Africa. We will also be looking at a select number of films from other areas in relationship to specific issues, these include Tuvalu, Kazakhstan and Guatemala. As part of the course structure, we will also be engaging with a number of specific issues. These include colonialism, identity, the importance of land, environmental destruction, gender, coming of age, new media platforms, the impact of commercial media, and commodification and appropriation of indigenous peoples. A select number of film-makers will also be joining the course as guest lecturers.] From the Distribution Subcommittee: 2. Moved: That Environmental Studies 361 (formerly Environmental, Earth and Ocean Sciences 361) be approved as satisfying the Natural Sciences distribution requirement. The course provides intensive training in critical analysis and careful writing. WISER course description: This course considers dinosaurs, their evolution, and our understanding of their fossil record. Students will examine the geologic record and the tools used by paleontologists to determine: geologic ages and ancient environments; evolutionary history and extinctions; dinosaurian biology and behavior; and their survival as birds. Mechanisms of global change ranging from plate tectonics to asteroid impact will be discussed. Both motions approved unanimously. VI. Report on Curriculog – Karen Delaney Curriculog flowcharts are included in Appendix 1. Curriculog is a curriculum management software program which the campus recently licensed. This is an automated system that will eventually replace the One Form and the program proposal and change processes. Karen Delaney, degree audit director in the registrar’s office, said that the Curriculog software will automate the process. A committee, with members assigned by deans from each college, is evaluating the campus’ needs, reviewing the software, and designing the workflow for programs and courses. DigArc Curriculog demo link: https://digarc.wistia.com/medias/g65dwtwny Password: clogdemo2018 Forms will be online with workflow and visibility. People will be able to see the progress of an item, where workflow stopped, or whether there were edits. The committee has completed the workflow options and will next work on forms to determine what information is currently missing that people want on the forms or what

6

information may not necessary. The software will interface with Peoplesoft and be able to import info from the catalog. The university also licenses Acalog, catalog management software. The UMass Boston and Dartmouth campuses are involved in an agreement with the software manufacturer. Dartmouth is ahead of the Boston campus and love it and its flexibility. The software can do online meetings and build agendas. Discussion: Multiple members expressed great joy about this software. A member asked about the timeline for the project. Karen Delaney said that installation will begin in February and rollout is expected in summer or fall 2019. A transition phase will be needed. It is expected to be ready spring 2020. A member asked if the software will fill out forms and send them to the Academic Affairs Committee. Karen Delaney said it can and that everyone involved will be able to see the progress of individual items. Sharon Lamb, member of the Budget and Long-Range Planning Committee, said that the budget committee will need to be one of the checked boxes for full program proposals. She requested that Karen Delaney speak with Alice Carter, chair of the committee. A member asked if anything could stop a faculty member from entering a course that had not been seen by the department. Karen Delaney said nothing would stop a faculty member from selecting a form, entering info, and entering their name as the requestor or initiator. Once submitted, the first stop will be whatever has been defined as the first stop. For most departments, this will be at the department level. A member asked if a timeline would be built in so that the form will not stop somewhere in the workflow. Karen Delaney said the committee was speaking to the vendor about this issue. There will have to be a discussion about whether the university wants to adopt a timeline. Most universities that have Curriculog and Acalog have cutoff times for new courses and programs to be included in the catalog. A member expressed concern that a form would be stopped somewhere along the pipeline and the faculty or department would not know. Karen Delaney was hopeful that would not happen because the process is visible. A member asked whether the software will notify people whom to call if a form is stopped. Karen Delaney said there will be notifications within the Curriculog system, but she will ask the vendor about email notifications. VI. Motion regarding the merger of SGISD and CEHD “Whereas it is in the FC Constitution (4E) that the FC has the power to review and make recommendations regarding the planning and development of the Campus, especially in the creation of new units and colleges and in substantial changes to existing units, and whereas there are implications for academic affairs and budget, and faculty review for promotion and tenure, we move that a proposal be provided to the FC regarding the movement of SGISD so that faculty can provide counsel to administration with regard to changes to existing units, consistent with our constitution.” Valerie Karr, assistant professor in the School of Global Inclusion and Social Development, said faculty and staff met with the provost two weeks ago. They want a proposal to drive the process and give faculty and staff time to decide on best options. Dimity Peter, assistant professor in the School of Global Inclusion and Social Development, presented the following facts:

• The school was established five years ago.

• Enrollments, particularly graduate enrollments, are up.

7

• All student targets have been met.

• Seven percent of classes are online.

• There is a low attrition rate.

• The school has 11 faculty members who have secured nearly $8 million in grants over the past five years, which is used to support all of its graduate assistants.

• Students represent more than 15 countries. She said that the Institute for Community Inclusion (ICI) employs 120 research staff members. Its $16 million annual budget represents 30 percent of UMass Boston’s external funding and contributes to the campus’ 2018-2019 goals. The faculty want to be their own school. If this is not possible, they want to be part of the conversation about the merger and work with the administration. They are demoralized and feel like pawns in a giant chess game. Discussion: A member asked about the proposed timeline. Valerie Karr said the administration indicated the move would be completed by June 2019. A member asked about the reasons for the move. Valerie Karr said that the dean is retiring. There was also an issue with faculty personnel reviews due to the small size of the faculty. The school has a number of faculty up for tenure, fourth year, or promotion this year. The school is small, but growing, and it contributes to the university. The administration did not give much information about the move’s financial impact, but the school self-funds most of its graduate assistants, most of the work brings in grants, and the dean’s salary is partially funded by the school. A member asked how many senior and junior faculty have been hired over the past two years and whether the unit brought in $8 million over five years or $8 million per year. Valerie Karr said faculty were hired six years ago and the school has grown since then. She believed one faculty member had been hired over the past year. The school has brought in $8 million over five years. A member said said she had never heard of a college being moved to or merged with another college without prior discussion with Faculty Council. The establishment of the school was approved by Faculty Council. A member asked about indirect cost that comes back to the university. Dimity Peter said it varied from eight to 50 percent, depending upon the grant. ICI pays its own rent. A member said that overhead is then coming back to the university. Dimity Peter agreed and said that faculty have brought in $8 million, plus $16 million in one year. Multiply that figure by five years to see what ICI has brought in. A member asked if the savings would only be from the dean’s salary. Valerie Karr said they have had only two weeks to collect figures. The argument from the administration was not about financial savings. A member asked whether there was an academic argument for merging SGISD and CEHD. Valerie Karr said the school is transdisciplinary and does not neatly fit under another college. A member said that an organization needs to be nurtured. Stopping or changing too soon could kill whatever is special or important about that organization. Faculty need to be part of the discussion. A member said that during a meeting earlier in the semester, an executive summary of centers and institutes was presented to Faculty Council. ICI was at the top of the list for institutes that do well financially. The larger context of the college is a very important aspect when applying for a grant. The proposal, the faculty member’s personal success profile, and the context in which the faculty member operates are being reviewed. She would be concerned about being moved to a college that has very little overlap with her research.

8

Sharon Lamb, member of the Budget and Long-Range Planning Committee, said the committee was very clear last year that the university has too many colleges, but it is concerned about the process by which CEHD was chosen for the move. Faculty Council should not discuss the merits of SGISD going to a particular college or staying independent because it has not been given a report about this yet. Faculty Council’s constitution has the following mandate: “To review and make recommendations regarding the planning and development of the Campus, especially in the creation of new units and colleges and in substantial changes to existing units.” She said that the Executive Committee believes the merger of SGISD and CEHD is a substantial change, but the interim provost disagrees. Faculty Council should have been consulted. A member said that SGISD started as a seed in CEHD and was moved out because it was not a good fit. Valerie Karr asked for a friendly amendment to the motion, requesting a six-month period to work through the process. Roberta Wollons asked for the wording of the friendly amendment. Valerie Karr said, “We move that a proposal be provided to Faculty Council within six months regarding the move.” Roberta Wollons asked her whether she wanted the proposal to come from the Provost’s Office or from SGISD faculty. Valerie Karr said the faculty want consultations with the Provost’s Office. There have been informal conversations so far. A member asked for clarification that the school wants a consultation period of six months and then report back to Faculty Council before a decision is made. Valerie Karr said that is what the faculty want. Emily McDermott handed out a document to explain the administrative move. The document is available in Appendix 1. The interim provost said that the move was not a substantial move, although Faculty Council may feel otherwise. A substantial change involves some change to academic programs, personnel action processes, and academic nature and mission of the unit. She argues that the university is picking up a unit, keeping it intact, and putting it into administration within a college. The precipitating events for this include the upcoming retirements of the dean and the associate dean. With a major leadership change, the administration decided that this would be the time to think about administrative changes. Factors that favor an administrative change include:

• SGISD has 10.5 FTE faculty, making it the size of some of the university’s smaller departments, yet it occupies a position on the university’s organizational chart parallel to CLA with 381 faculty FTE and CSM with 149 faculty FTE. This creates internal challenges.

• We had to negotiate with the union as to how the school would handle personnel actions this year. They didn’t have enough faculty to man a Department Personnel Committee (DPC) and a College Personnel Committee (CPC), yet they were adamant that they should have both levels of review. It led to a lot of controversy that was eventually resolved by the administration, the school, and the union working together to develop an ad hoc way to deal with it for this year. The people who are up for tenure, promotion, or fourth-year review, using ad hoc procedures, will be given the exact process that was negotiated with the union. The existing dean will finish all reviews and send forth the dean’s-level recommendations before he retires.

• There are also internal perceptions that the university is administration-heavy. Faculty and the union have brought to our attention that there are too many administrators on campus. This is a small piece of trying to regress some of the heaviness.

She said it was not fair to say there are no academic and mission connections between SGISD and CEHD. The document in Appendix 1 specifies the links between the two. She emphasized that the only decision made was how to organize the university and that the collective bargaining agreement grants the administration the right to administer and organize the university. The only decision made, after consulting heavily with the deans involved, was to move SGISD into CEHD. Every other decision is up for grabs. We instituted a six-month period for consultations with faculty, CEHD, and the provost, to decide on the various issues, such as leadership, governance, and whether ICI should move to CEHD. ICI is not part of SGISD. It is an independent institute that reports directly to

9

the provost. If ICI moves with SGISD, that is a change, which was recommended by the dean and seems to be what the faculty want. We anticipate a six-month process for consultation. There may be a difference of semantics about what counts as consultation. It will take a lot of stakeholder input before it is implemented. Joe Berger, dean of CEHD, said he looked at the missions of the college and the school and sees a fit. Education is a very important vehicle for human development. A lot of the work that we do has to do with policy, providing technical assistance, and capacity building around creating opportunities for social justice and inclusion around the world. A lot of large-scale grants are education-focused and have multiplier effects in workforce development, public health, and a range of other sectors besides education. Some of the work we’re doing in Afghanistan and will be doing in Lebanon transcends education. He has viewed education and human development as a multi-disciplinary field. Implementing the move is a very consultative process and it is important that the formal merging not happen until the next fiscal year. The mission, identity and vision of SGISD are very important. There is a great opportunity to work together. Roberta Wollons returned to the friendly amendment to the motion. Valerie Karr said the faculty want consultation about the decision of whether SGISD moves and where it moves. A member asked for clarification about the move being which dean takes over the school, not a physical move. Valerie Karr said there is a lack of clarity over move versus merger. A member asked what percentage of CEHD’s finances would be constituted by SGISD’s funding. Joe Berger said he had not looked at it from that perspective, but felt that the move would be a win-win as related to grant activity. A member asked if SGISD added a substantial amount to CEHD’s grant pool. Joe Berger said it was substantial. Roberta Wollons requested wording for the friendly amendment. Valerie Karr provided the following: “…we move that a proposal be provided to Faculty Council by May 2019 regarding the movement of SGISD so that faculty can provide counsel to the administration with regards to changes to existing units, consistent with our constitution.” The friendly amendment was accepted. Roberta Wollons called for a paper ballot. Approved: 20 Against: 3 Abstentions: 2 Motion is approved. VII. Discussion of admissions software, the Salesforce platform – Jeff Melnick Jeff Melnick, graduate program director and professor of American studies, spoke to Faculty Council about Salesforce, a customer relationship management (CRM) software company (for the university, customers are its students). The College of Liberal Arts adopted Salesforce as a CRM platform. Salesforce has received news coverage due to a robust activist movement against it because it has contracts with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). More information about the company can be found at https://investor.salesforce.com/. Some of CLA’s graduate program directors raised concerns about doing business with Salesforce. The administration said it was using Salesforce.org, not Salesforce.com. However, the two entities use the same name, marketing, and proprietary software. There was a conversation with people at Salesforce.org who said the organizations are legally distinct entities. By their own accounting, Salesforce.org does not pay rent to Salesforce.com and Salesforce.org is the non-profit face of Salesforce.com. The graduate program directors who

10

were involved in this conversation were not convinced that the two entities are distinct because the people they spoke to at Salesforce.org had Salesforce.com email addresses and the two entities share four people on their separate board of directors. As a university that publicly champions its commitment to undocumented students, the fact that it is doing business with a corporation that is also doing business with CBP is an issue. There are questions about cybersecurity, particularly the material that is uploaded to Salesforce.org and whether it can be shared with Salesforce.com. The people at Salesforce.org said that only the university has the key to its storage space in the cloud, but they admitted that they have a master key. They said they could be subpoenaed if CPB was interested in someone in our system. They promised to give technical specs as related to cybersecurity. The university can either do nothing or use the leverage it has as a customer of Salesforce.org. We could tell them that we will not renew the contract unless we see movement on this. The university’s administration could also reach out to colleagues at other universities to see what they’re doing about this and possibly create a power of numbers situation. As a faculty, we need to think about our commitment to undocumented students and to the moral claims we make as a majority-minority campus. Discussion: Roberta Wollons asked Jeff Melnick about the action he wanted Faculty Council to undertake. He said the council should ask him for all of the information he has gathered to determine if action is required. Roberta Wollons asked for a report that could be shared with Faculty Council. This will be sent to the Technology Committee. Katherine Newman, interim chancellor, said we should also look at the vulnerabilities the university could face, as it could be subpoenaed for the data stored on campus. She thought we were not protected any better or worse than Salesforce.org. UMass Amherst does not maintain records on DACA students and recommended that UMass Boston consider this option. She said that everything Professor Melnick said applies to our own data systems. If we are subpoenaed, we will have to decide how to respond. The system office could also be subpoenaed. All of the campuses in the system use Salesforce because it is the main management tool for data. Jeff Melnick brought up the issue of compliance with European Union (EU) requirements. The interim chancellor said that no one in this country is up-to-speed on EU regulations. This is a universe of data security that envelopes the entire campus. A member said that there is a question about the companies to whom the university gives its money. The interim chancellor said that we would have to be more universal about this, because the list of companies is long. This is a serious point. VIII. Discussion of revival of Quality of Life Committee in lieu of Dorm Problems, etc. FROM BYLAWS 24. Quality of Life Committee.

A. This committee shall: 1. Study the quality of the physical facilities and of the social environment and make recommendations to

the Faculty Council and to the Administration. B. Composition:

1. Voting members: Refer to 10 A.5. Membership; one member of the Professional Staff Association; one student member selected by the Student Senate

2. Non-voting members: The Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance ex officio 3. This committee must comprise one member from each of the University’s buildings.

Sharon Lamb said this committee has been inactive for a long period of time. The Executive Committee would like to discuss whether the Quality of Life Committee should be reinvigorated due to recent issues at the residence halls.

11

Discussion: Katherine Newman said that when it comes to these issues, the chancellor has to move forward with decisions regarding the safety of students and responsiveness to complaints without waiting for a faculty committee. She would be happy to consult with faculty and keep them up-to-date. These matters are time-sensitive and require immediate attention and action. Roberta Wollons said that the committee will not be populated right now, but for members to keep it in mind as it could serve in place of some ad-hoc committees. IX. Report by Associate Vice Provost Karen Ricciardi on the Davis Grant Writing Proficiency Electronic Portfolio pilot. The Faculty Council gave us permission in the spring of 2016 to engage general education pilots when it approved the planning of a comprehensive review of the General Education program – the use of the electronic portfolio for the Writing Proficiency Requirement is one such pilot. This pilot has received the support of the General Education Committee and the Writing Proficiency Requirement Subcommittee. With financial support from the Davis Foundation for the assessment of the alignment of writing within the General Education curriculum and Undergraduate Major Programs, a pilot developed by the Davis Steering Committee (Neal Bruss, Cheryl Nixon, Rajini Srikanth, Lauren Bowen, Lauren Sullivan, Karen Ricciardi, and Joan Becker) was successfully executed in the spring 2018 semester and we are currently running a second pilot in the fall 2018 semester. The Electronic Portfolio Pilot has been developed as a potential mechanism for writing proficiency assessment. Electronic portfolios are created by students and submitted for review within Blackboard system, alleviating the burden of collection and certification of student papers. Evaluation of the portfolios is also implemented within Blackboard, which allows for secure distribution of the student work and reliable collection of evaluation results. Requiring student to submit work from their classes, this model is one that has the potential to directly inform the General Education curriculum. This work meets the call from NEASC to engage in consistent review and assessment of General Education. (Since our most recent accreditation in 2015, NEASC has modified their standards to include higher accountability for the assessment of learning outcomes.) Following the fall 2018 pilot, the Davis Steering Committee will draft a report for the Faculty Council that we hope to present in the spring of 2019. The General Education Faculty have been consulted throughout the process and will continue to be included in the development of the pilot and the submission of recommendations on the use of electronic portfolios for assessment of writing proficiency. Such recommendations are expected to also be presented in the spring of 2019. Discussion: There was no discussion on this item. X. Motion to Condemn the DHHS effort to redefine sex in federal law The Faculty Council of the University of Massachusetts Boston condemns in the strongest terms the leaked Department of Health and Human Services memo that seeks to redefine sex in federal law as “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” This definition would deny transgender people protection under federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination the basis of sex. The proposal would limit equal access to health care, housing, education, and fair treatment under the law. It would functionally deny many trans people documentation of their identity, citizenship and immigration status, and the ability to travel freely. For others, it would force them to choose between the life-threatening dangers of life in the closet and living in a state of constant exposure and vulnerability. It sends a chilling message that the existence and identity of transgender people is not recognized by the government. The Council affirms and reiterates the statement of Interim Chancellor Newman that "the University of Massachusetts Boston stands by all members of our community, supports the rights of transgender or gender non-

12

conforming persons to live free of any form of discrimination, and celebrates the contributions that people of all identities make to the richness of our university culture." Kevin Wozniak, assistant professor of sociology, requested a statement from Faculty Council regarding the Department of Health and Human Service’s effort to redefine sex in federal law. Discussion: A member said that sex is a matter of XX and XY chromosomes, but gender is a social perception. We should promote the use of the word “gender” instead of “sex.” A member said that within the language of the proposed law, defining sex has social consequences. A member said that during fetal development, the expression of hormones affects genes. A member commented on protecting intra-sex individuals. A member requested a friendly amendment from, “For others, it would force them to choose between the life-threatening dangers of the closet and living in a state of constant exposure and vulnerability,” to “For others, it would force them to choose between the life-threatening dangers of life in the closet and living in a state of constant exposure and vulnerability.” Kevin Wozniak accepted the amendment. Vote Approved: 24 Against: 0 Abstention: 1 Motion approved. XI. Motion regarding Parking Fees “Be it resolved that the Faculty Council of the University of Massachusetts Boston moves that the parking rate increases the university plans to implement ARE an undue financial burden on many faculty as well as staff and students; it encourages faculty not to be on campus unless necessary AND, FOR SOME, the entire proposed faculty salary increase will be consumed BY parking. The proposed parking rate increases are reflective of rates at private institutions which is discordant with a public institution for education. WE CONTINUE TO ASSEERT THAT faculty, staff, and students SHOULD NOT BE MADE responsible for the necessity of a new garage nor do we accept an obligation and burden for the garage costs and the debt service.” Discussion: Emily McDermott said that the language of the motion predates the negotiated agreement between the Faculty Staff Union (FSU) and the administration. She thought that the statement encourages faculty to come to campus only when necessary and implies that the university is imposing something on the faculty to which the faculty have not agreed. There is an agreement between the bargaining teams of the university and the FSU, with ratification to begin Friday, December 7. She said that the motion seemed to be protesting the agreement that may or may not be ratified by the faculty. Roberta Wollons recommended that Faculty Council withdraw the motion while faculty are voting. She said the statement does not represent the current situation and we do not know the end result of the ratification process. A member of the FSU Executive Committee said that this was not an agreement between the administration and FSU. It is an agreement between the two bargaining committees. The bargaining committee gives its report to the Executive Committee and the Executive Committee will circulate its own statement. It is crucial for Faculty Council to be involved in this conversation to represent the whole faculty, since the FSU does not represent the whole faculty.

13

A member said that the agreement assumes faculty come to campus for three times per week over a period of five months. Another member said the time period is 4.5 months, or 90 days. If a faculty member comes to campus five days per week, the cost is $4.45 per day on campus and $4.07 per day at Bayside, pre-tax. The first member asked whether that was representative of the number of days per week that faculty come to campus. Emily McDermott said there are 15 weeks in a semester, including finals. The assumption for the proposal was that faculty park on campus three times per week, that amounts to being on campus 45 times on average. The second member said that number of days on campus per semester would be 54, with a cost of $7.42 per day in the garage and $6.81 per day at Bayside. A member supported the motion because parking will have an enormous impact on how faculty do their work, with faculty and students coming to campus as little as possible. This will affect schedules and administrative personnel. Professor will fight to teach only Tuesdays and Thursdays. A member disagreed with pulling the motion. She said that voting on it will have an affect on the ratification vote. Roberta Wollons called for a paper ballot. Approved: 12 Against: 8 Abstentions: 5 Motion approved. XII. Discussion about how we might strengthen the representational role of the Council Discussion was tabled due to time constraints. XIII. Reports

a. Interim Chancellor – Katherine Newman There is a town hall meeting on December 4, 2018 where many of the issues discussed at this meeting will be explored in some detail. She appreciated the collaboration and cooperation of faculty to look at serious issues from a budgetary perspective. This involves everyone and is critical to the ability to manage the institution – the quality of the programs, the students, and the salary increases that were negotiated, but not yet funded by the legislature. We need to resolve the parking issues and determine how we can afford the services that we have on campus. She is continuing her efforts to wrest commitments from the legislature. She is concerned about the financial status of the university and the hard decisions that lay ahead. We need to work together as a community. All avenues will be pursued to address the financial gaps and balance the budget. She hope that this can be achieved in a way that is most respectful of faculty, student, and staff needs.

b. Interim Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs – Emily McDermott

No report provided.

c. Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance – Kathleen Kirleis There was a request for clarification on the $7M projected deficit for FY20. Some initial information was provided about this topic at the October 15 Town Hall. The presentation for that Town Hall is available: https://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/news/Town_Hall_Forum_Presentation_October_15_2018.pdf?cachebuster:84 As we took an initial look at FY20, there are major expense increases: Salaries and benefits $10.1M Depreciation and interest $9.3M Total $19.4M

14

On the revenue side, we expect two major increases in revenue: State appropriation $7.9M Tuition and fees $3.7M Total $11.6M There are some other minor areas of increases and decreases, that when added with the largest 2 categories, result in an initial planning deficit of $7.7M There are many things that we are doing this year to help improve our financial results and to give us additional information to plan for FY20. Many of these efforts will be discussed at the Town Hall tomorrow. We will be refining the FY20 outlook, including any anticipated projected deficit, as part of the FY20 budget development process. We will have updated guidance from the UMass President’s Office and actual FY19 results for FY20 that will be taken into consideration. Lobbying is underway to try to obtain relief from the increase in the university’s debt service, too. There will be more information to the campus community as these items progress and there will be another Town Hall at the end of January once the spring semester starts to further update the campus community on next year’s budget planning process. Discussion: A member said that researchers are allowed to spend up to $10,000 from carry-forward on RTF. However, many faculty members have been told that there is no mechanism for charging the funds. Tom Miller, assistant vice chancellor for academic affairs and financial services, said that assistant deans should contact him. A member asked about the budget surplus that was mentioned during the May 2018 meeting. Kathleen Kirleis said that the completion of the UCRR and the parking garage affected the surplus. Campus had to build in $10 million in increased costs this year and $10 million next year for those two projects. The biggest costs next year will be the debt service and negotiated raises. The member said she is concerned about the chronic issue of the administration stating that everything is fine and we have a plan, and then hit with another deficit. Emily McDermott said that we ended FY18 with a small surplus. The administration is working on getting to zero in FY19. She said that issue Kathleen Kirleis just discussed was for FY20, a year we will budget for this year and that will begin almost a year from now. The statements before proved accurate. The question now is what the campus does about FY20 with the new costs and depreciation from UCRR and the garage. Kathleen Kirleis said she would be happy to present to any faculty committees to provide a financial picture of the university. Katherine Newman said that chronic structure leaves these costs on the campus. As the costs add up, it puts the costs on the campus and the backs of the users instead of recognizing that a university is a public good. The cost of running state universities must be spread across the citizenry, as it was for previous generations. We must cope with the situation by managing our finances as best we can and by advocating for the university as a public good. A member said it is chronic the way that faculty are addressed, lifting hope then dropping it. Katherine Newman said that the previous interim chancellor, Barry Mills, could have said how things would look in FY 19 and FY20. But, every leader tries to titrate between keeping spirits up, keeping a sense of momentum going, continuing to make investments in the things faculty care about, all while managing ongoing problems. We have a capable and dedicated team that is trying to manage costs. For example, if we are successful at staunching retention problems, many of these issues begin to moderate. Revenue comes in as student tuition, but falls out as students drop out. The construction of the dorms affected retention numbers.

15

The remaining presentations were tabled due to time constraints.

d. Faculty Representative to the Board of Trustees – Robert Lublin No written report provided.

e. Representative from the Faculty Staff Union – Marlene Kim

No written report provided.

f. Representative from the Professional Staff Union – Michael Mahan

Centers and Institutes Taskforce The Professional Staff Union (PSU) were pleased to see that a taskforce has been established to look at the Centers and Institutes. The PSU would like confirmation from the administration that:

1. There will be an open meeting to hear the taskforce's findings and recommendations, and 2. No cuts will be made to University funding for personnel until the taskforce has been able to do

its work. Parking Fee Increase The PSU finds it unacceptable that the UMB Administration continues to demand significantly higher parking fees from students and staff in order to pay for the parking garage debt despite the plans to sell or lease Bayside, despite President Meehan's statements that all Bayside proceeds will come to this campus and can be used to address the debt, despite the growing public recognition that the legislature has the responsibility to address the legacy debt at UMB, and despite the fact that these fees will harm many of our students and our low wage employees. We hope that faculty will join with staff and students at tomorrow's Town Hall to raise these concerns directly with Interim Chancellor Newman.

g. Representative from the Undergraduate Student Government – Marquies Perez

No written report provided.

h. Representative from the Graduate Student Assembly – Yuechan Lu No written report provided.

XIV. New Business No new business. XV. Motion to adjourn Meeting was adjourned.

16

Appendix 1: Curriculog Flowcharts

A. Program Governance

17

B. Course Governance

18

C. Faculty Council (with General Education Committee Parallel Process)