Navigation
Search

JPBC Minutes: January 28, 2021

Thursday, January 28, 2021
8:30 – 10:30 a.m.
Virtual Meeting via Teams

Attendees:

Voting Members: Sondra Aman, Mike Andriatch, Hannah Arp, Justine Briggs, James Cordeiro, Frances Dearing, Kandie Gay, Daniel Goebel, Tom Hernandez, Katy Heyning, Cathy Houston-Wilson, Sharon Jaramillo, Margaret Lane, Jose Maliekal, Dave Mihalyov, Kathy Peterson, Janet Roy, Mark Stacy, Elliot Weininger, Katy Wilson

Non-Voting Members: Denise Copelton: Co-Chair, Crystal Hallenbeck, Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair Elect, Karen Riotto, James Spiller, Jim Wall: Co-Chair, Melissa Wight

Guests: Steve Cook, Bob Cushman, Richard Dirmyer, Mike Harrison

Regrets:

Voting Members: Hannah Arp, Kalista Cherry, Craig Ross

Non-Voting Members: President Macpherson

 

The meeting was called to order at 8:31 a.m.


Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Copelton asked the committee to review the minutes from the December 3, 2020 meeting. Dr. Peterson motioned the minutes to be approved, Ms. Aman seconded the motion and 17 voting members were in favor. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Announcements

Dr. Copelton made the following announcements:

  • The meeting evites have gone out for the spring semester. Currently, there is a meeting scheduled on May 20 for both the JPBC and the Task Force. We are asking for members to hold the day and time. If you are on both the JPBC and the Task Force it will appear that you are double booked. That will not be the case because as we get closer to the date, one of the meetings will be cancelled.
  • Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ross will be cycling off of the committee at the end of the semester as their terms will be ending. Dr. Peterson and Dr. Ross were thanked for their service to the committee. We will be completing the open nominations process as we have conducted it in the past. A Daily Eagle article will run around the beginning of the semester and individuals can self-nominate or nominate someone else for the position by completing the MachForm. There will be two three-year positions available. They are the faculty at large position and a professional staff position.

Review JPBC Task Force Progress Report

Members reviewed the progress report from the Task Force. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred during the presentation:

  • It stated that the ten million dollar budget gap consists of seven million dollars that is driven by enrollment decline and the three million is the assumed reduction of the State funding. The College is hoping to receive some stimulus funding that will assist with the PPE and other COVID related expenses. Updates will be provided once official guidance is received from the State.
  • It was stated that the Athletics and Recreation Work Group will need more time to complete their review and the report will be provided at the end of February. It was agreed to give the work group more time to complete their further analysis.
  • The question was raised regarding the recently approved stimulus funding and if it would help close up the ten million dollar budget gap. Therefore, impacting planning and the proposals within the Task Force. It was stated that based on documents that have been reviewed, but nothing has been confirmed yet, the recent round of stimulus funding could be as high as 12 million dollars with approximately four million of it being for students to apply for. The eight million we are hoping can be used for PPE, current refunds and credits and to maybe cover the refunds and credits that could not be covered in the last round which resulted in the College having to use funding from reserves. It is the understanding that the stimulus funding cannot be used for going forward operational costs. It can only be used to cover expenses and lost revenue that occurred due to the COVID pandemic. We are still waiting on guidance from the State. We are hoping to have guidance by March.
  • The question was raised regarding the pending stimulus funding and if it is anticipated that the funding will help reduce the potential three million dollar loss in State funding. It was stated that it is hoped that it will be reduced. There have been ranges discussed. The worst case scenario is a loss of three million in funding the best case scenario is a loss of between one to two million.
  • The statement was made that the original construction of the FSA funds did not include instructors/lecturers. These individuals were added to the eligibility as years went by. It was thought that reviewing the original structure could be useful as a cost containment. It was stated that including lecturers was discussed during the review of the FSA. Some of the arguments for including lecturers included that going to conferences helps keep them current in their field. It was also stated that some lecturers are involved in associations, take students with them to conferences and publish with faculty. The amount of total funding for lecturers was not significant especially considering some FSA eligible individuals do not use their allotted funds. It was also stated that it is believed that it is important for lecturers to receive the funding for professional development but being that it is not a significant amount of funding, it might be able to be its own program. Lastly, it was stated that instructors in the Nursing Department have scholarship requirements and it is very important for them to attend conferences to learn what that latest developments are in the field.
  • Dr. Peterson put forward the motion to endorse the progress report from the Task Force with the two edits discussed regarding adjusting the one statement mentioning three years to two years to match the rest of the FSA proposal and to change the Athletics and Recreation Review Work Group final report from January to February. Dr. Houston-Wilson seconded the motion. Members agreed to vote to endorse the progress report. The voting results of the present voting members were are follows:
    • Endorse: 14
    • Not Endorse: 0
    • Abstain: 0

Other Items from the Committee

  • It was stated that it is a good feeling to see cost savings finally coming to life. There is a lot of work that goes into this committee and more specifically the proposals. The substantial outcomes validates the work that has been completed. It was stated that over the course of the next several meetings, figures can be shared regarding some of the cost saving projects.
  • It was requested that the committee be kept up to date on guidance and information received from SUNY and the State to the greatest degree possible.
  • It was stated that the date for the 5-Year Financial Model update may be changing as the date was originally based on the semester dates before they were shifted. This change is to ensure we have the most accurate enrollment data.
  • The question was raised regarding what role JPBC will have regarding the difficult conversations the Provost eluded to in the Academic Affairs Welcome Back address in terms of the increase in faculty and programs over the last 15 years and the present enrollment decline that the College faces. It was stated that these conversations need to be held college-wide. We need to have a wide variety of opportunities for people to express how they would like to think about these concerns. There was a lot that was shared in the Welcome Back address. There is a Chairs’ Council meeting this coming Thursday. This will be an opportunity for individuals to express their thoughts, particularly on the issues of workload. Issues about how we make decisions, it is believed that JPBC definitely needs to be involved. Right now, all we have is data and there is more information that we need to gather. The thought process from the Provost is for JPBC to be presented with a specific challenge and possible solutions. JPBC would then discuss the merit of the solutions and provide guidance and feedback on the solutions. Right now there are no solutions to discuss as they need to be developed, the Provost has only identified problems and concerns.
  • The question was raised regarding the data used to determine the average teaching credit load that was presented in the Academic Affairs Welcome Back address. The concern is the data is not accurately displaying the work being done and inquiring what data is used to determine the average. If everyone is bundled together, people are given release time for certain reasons and there are lecturers that teach 12 credits. When the seven credit hour teaching average is released it appears like individuals are not doing their jobs. It has a negative impact because it makes individuals think others are not pulling their weight and others that are receiving release time feel guilty because they are pulling the average down. If the individuals did not do the work that they are given release time for, then who would do it. Some release time work is extensive and nowhere comparable to teaching a three credit class. There are other ways to present the data. You could reflect the data in percentages by the amount of individuals who do have release time, the amount of individuals that do a 9:9 and the amount of faculty that are lecturers and teach 12 credits. It was stated that there was limited time on Tuesday to cover everything in the address and the Provost wanted people to be aware of the workload concerns. The data was determined by looking at what individuals work load was in the spring. The individuals that are faculty are benchmarked at nine credits. Individuals whose workload was 12 credits were removed from the equation because they are not faculty who are getting tenure and are not typically tasked with research and service responsibility. Faculty who were teaching more than nine credits were removed because they were receiving extra compensation. In addition, the individuals who were tasked with teaching nine credits but had their teaching reassigned were removed as well. In regards to the service time, it was mentioned during the address, it is valuable and important work that needs to be done in order to run the College. It supports our students, supports the programs and it is supports the work that we do here. It is important to look at the amount of work that we devote to this on our campus and are we doing it in the most efficient way. If you think about it, it is a mathematical equation that students pay by the credit hour and programs that have a lot of release time are more expense to run.
  • The question was raised regarding the report that included workload that was conducted years ago within a work group off of the College Senate and if the report played a role in the data that the Provost provided. It was stated that the Provost and College Senate try to look at the report twice a year to follow-up on the recommendations on the report. Some areas in the report have been progress made while others require more data. In addition, this report is dated and may need to be updated because some items may not be able to be reality. There isn’t anything of urgency on the report but the completed items may need to be reported to the College so individuals know that the report is being reviewed and there has been progress on items.
  • The question was raised requesting clarification around how shared governance would be involved in the conversations around the concerns that the Provost shared in the Welcome Back address. It was stated that the process is still being determined. Currently, the work of the Academic Master Planning Committee is around some of the concerns and there is representatives from shared governance on the committee. Other concerns need to the addressed in other venues. When it comes to workload discussions, the Union and College Senate need to be involved. For concerns that involve budgetary implications, then JPBC needs to be involved in the discussions. It is hopeful that there will be more discussions this spring. In addition, Dr. Sia and Dr. Cochran have by asked to start setting up meetings to discuss what workloads and work in general looks like in a post COVID world.
  • The question was raised if the PowerPoint presentation from the address will be available. It was stated that the PowerPoint and presentation will be available on the Provost’s website. The YouTube link was provided in the chat.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 a.m

DC/JW/mw