FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Minutes of November 30, 2011

Present:

Interim Provost Stenger:  FSEC congratulated Harvey Stenger on his appointment as President of Binghamton University.

Memorial:  Professor Susan Shapiro, founder and former Director of the now defunct Methods of Inquiry program.

Chair’s Report: (Ezra Zubrow)

• Zubrow participated in an interview for Vice-President of Finance, and scheduled meetings with several Deans.
• The next FSEC meeting will:

• Discuss the transition of Interim Provosts.  Outgoing Provost Stenger and incoming Provost McComb will both attend. 
• Examine technical corrections to grading policy as they pertain to the Dean’s list.

 

• Zubrow will ask the University Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, a standing committee within the Office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education, to discuss course compression that shortens end of semester time for reporting grades.

Interim Provost’s Report: (Harvey Stenger)

• Incoming Interim Provost McComb and Stenger discussed the 3-year plans for resources, hiring, and facilities.
• Initial reviews of 3E proposals are nearly completed.  The review committees are collating scores and comments for discussion with the President and Stenger.   They expect to make final decisions by mid-December so that proposals are implemented in early 2012.  Responding to Zubrow’s question asking if the University will support a new round of 3E proposals in 2012, Stenger said the process will be accelerated next year.  Proposals will be due in April for implementation in the fall semester.
• Zubrow asked about the time line for the Provost search.  Stenger said the President wants the position filled by July 1.

 

Digital Measures Replacement (Craig Abbey, Senior Assistant Vice President, Institutional Analysis, assisted by Carol Vanzile-Tamsen, Research Analyst, Institutional Analysis)

• UB must replace its faculty annual report systems.  The eCV system used by the Medical and Dental Schools is written in Visual Fox Pro, a language that Microsoft will no longer support effective 2015, and the Activity Insight (Digital Measures) system used by all other units is designed poorly. 
• Two alternative are:

• Faculty Annual Reports (FAR), a free open source system developed by Indiana University.  The interface is easy to use. Institutional Analysis staff can write Java code that customizes the program, tying it to existing course and grant sources.  Adding publication citations automatically is a possibility.
• Research in Review, a proprietary system developed by Thompson Reuters, is a new product still in beta mode.  Features include the ability to pull grant data from public sources, such as NIH and NSF databases, and publications data from the Web of Science, another Thompson Reuters product.  Besides maintaining faculty annual report data, it is also an analysis tool that reports and compares data among departments and schools.

 

• FSEC comments—both systems

• D. Grinde questioned how well either package can accommodate Japanese and Chinese language publications.
• Michael Lavin noted that jumping to a beta product might not be prudent.  He thought the University should consider FAR and, afterwards, reconsider Research in Review once it is more established.  Abbey thought that using Research in Review in beta mode gives the University the ability to mold its development to our needs.

 

• FSEC comments--Research in Review

• Research in Review does not cover all disciplines equitably.  Thompson Reuters products emphasize sciences and engineering over social sciences, humanities, and the arts.  S. Miller suggested that the University ask Thompson Reuters to include additional disciplines before paying $75,000 to access the system.
• Zubrow asked if it is difficult to input data manually.  Neither Abbey, nor Vanzile-Tamsen knew.
• Zubrow commented that the system will not automatically include grants from agencies other than leading U.S. sources.  He noted Israeli sources as an example.
• Responding to E. Herman’s question about including qualitative data, Abbey said the system can be customized to do so.
• Zubrow asked who owns data entered into the system and can the data be used for other purposes?  C. Dunn responded that the data is public information.  The contract should define how the data can be used and should also define if the information can be uploaded to a different system when the agreement terminates.

 

• FSEC comments—FAR

• L. Sanders thought that modifying FAR’s Java code to better meet our needs would not be a simple task.  Abbey agreed, but it would become a priority among his existing staff.

 

• Click here to view the PowerPoint presentation.

IT Privacy Policy (Chuck Dunn, Information Security Officer)

• Dunn suggested that a privacy policy cover both paper and electronic formats.
• Privacy policy covers student records adequately, but faculty lacks these protections.
• UB maintains a minimalist policy towards privacy.  The University collects and maintains as little information as possible.  Zubrow thought UB’s policy should follow the same approach, but J. Milles thought a minimalist approach may not always be the best one.
• Information concerning health and safety is more open than other records.
• Responding to D. Grinde’s question about the length of time CIT maintains deleted mail, Dunn said 7 days.  Note, this applies only to information people expunged from their trash, spam, and deleted folders, or any other folder where people choose to keep their email.
• Answering S. Dyson’s question about the availability of model policies, Dunn said he could not find many statements, only organizations that support privacy policies.   Cornell University’s Law and Policy Group is a good starting point.
• A key part of a privacy policy is the right of an individual to be notified when his/her records are sought, except when the law prohibits such notification.  
• FSEC passed a motion without objection or abstention directing the Computer Services Committee to prepare a draft privacy policy by March 1, 2012.

 

Employee Assistance Program (EAP) (Deborah Hard, EAP Administrator, assisted by Neil Mcgillicuddy, Employee Assistance Program Coordinator at the Research Institute on Addictions, and Chris Siuta, a counselor)

• The state model calls for EAP to act as a referral service, but Hard hopes to offer counseling sessions in the future.  Doing so is dependent upon staff availability.
• A joint Labor-Management Committee oversees EAP activities.  Zubrow asked about adding a Faculty Senate representative.
• Most problems deal with workplace issues, such as managing change, stress, and dealing with supervisors.  Relationship problems, domestic violence, child/elder care, legal, and life-changing issues are also common.  A complete list of EAP services is at http://eap.buffalo.edu/services.html. 
• EAP maintains confidentiality, except in cases involving homicide, suicide, and crimes.
• EAP works with service providers to accommodate clients who lack insurance.
• K. Kost said that awareness of bullying and how to handle such situations is problematic.  Hard responded that EAP hopes to sponsor a workshop on this issue in March 2012.  D. Grinde stated that reporting bullying incidents polarize staff.
• EAP is at 156 Parker (South Campus) (645-4461) (http://eap.buffalo.edu)
• Click here to view Hard’s PowerPoint presentation.

Next FSEC meeting:  Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM.  (Jeannette Martin Room (567 Capen Hall)

Prepared by
Edward Herman, Secretary
Faculty Senate

FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 

© Copyright University at Buffalo Faculty Senate | UB Home | Accessibility | Legal Notices | Website Acknowledgements