ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April 27, 2020 3:30 to 5 ... · Shannon Gerry, Shannon Kelley,...

Academic Council April 27, 2020

Packet for Meeting page 1

ACADEMIC COUNCIL

AGENDA

Monday, April 27, 2020

3:30 to 5:00 PM

Zoom 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 April 6, 2020 (attachment)

ii. Special Meeting on April 16, 2020 (attachment)

b. Correspondence

c. Oral Reports 4. Council Subcommittee Reports

a. Standing Calendar Review Subcommittee

b. Subcommittee on Implementing Guidelines for Free Expression (AC 4/8/19) (attachment)

c. Working Group on the Academic Commons (AC 5/31/19)

d. Subcommittee on Distribution of Tenure Track and Non-Tenure Track Faculty (AC 2/5/18) (attachment)

e. Subcommittee on Reconciling Sexual Misconduct Policies (AC 4/1/19)

5. Petitions for immediate hearing 6. Old Business

7. New business

a. Proposal for Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing Program (MEPN) (attachment) b. Proposal to rename MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science (attachment) c. Faculty involvement in academic decision-making (attachment)

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 April 6, 2020 (pages 3-7)

For item 3.a.ii: Draft minutes of special meeting on April 16, 2020 (pages 8-10)

For item 4.b: Final Report regarding the establishment or revision of policies that would align with the

Principles that Guide Free Expression (pages 11-14)

For item 4.d: Memorandum Distribution of Full Time TT and NTT Faculty and supporting materials (pages

15-19)

For item 7.a.: Proposal for Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing Program (MEPN) (pages 20-35); syllabi

posted online with additional materials for 4/27/20 AC meeting

For item 7.b.: Proposal to rename MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science (pages 36-37)

For item 7.c.: Memo from GFS regarding faculty involvement in academic decision-making (page 38)

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. Review and evaluate the Pass/Fail option in fall 2020 (AC 12/1/2014)

H. Five-Year Review of MA and SYC in Remedial Reading and Remedial Language Arts in

2022 (AC 2/6/17)

I. Every five-year review of AC and UCC seat allocation (done AC 5/1/17; GF 10/17), next

due Spring 2022 (AC 2/7/200; GF 3/4/2000)

J. Consider revising charge to Library Committee (AC 5/31/19)

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/2019-2020/ac19-20.html



ACADEMIC COUNCIL MINUTES

Monday April 6, 2020, held online

Draft Minutes

Faculty in attendance: Professors Gwen Alphonso, Katya Bardos (Chair), Gigi Belfadel, Mousumi Bhattacharya, Mousumi Bose Godbole, Bryan Ripley Crandall, Bob Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Shannon Kelley, Jerelyn Johnson (Executive Secretary), Anna Lawrence, Evelyn Lolis, Shawn Rafalski, Susan Rakowitz (General Faculty Secretary), Linda Roney, Adam Rugg, Chris Staecker, Jenna LoGiudice, Carl Scheraga Administrators in attendance: Deans Richard Greenwald, Bob Hannafin, Richard Heist, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li, Provost Christine Siegel.

Student Observer: Ms. Noelle Guerrera

Guests: Professor Lucrecia Garcia Iommi (7a) The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. 1. Presidential Courtesy Provost Christine Siegel said that President Mark Nemec and Executive Vice President Kevin Lawlor thanked all faculty for their hard work. The Board of Trustees is impressed with how the faculty have kept up. They are also impressed with how students are participating fully. She conveyed wishes for all to be healthy and well.

Provost Siegel shared information on the current situation on campus, thoughts of moving forward, and some thoughts on financials. On campus - 68 students are living on campus, primarily international students; attending to them is a small residential life staff on campus, Sodexo is providing boxed meals. Under 50 students living in their beach residences, Res Life and town are monitoring them. On campus regular cleaning continues, campus has never been cleaner. Building projects that have started are ongoing – renovation of Gonzaga, Media relocation and others. Under State orders, existing construction projects can go on, new projects cannot start. Hoping to resume construction a year from now. Public safety officers are on campus, health center is open. Chapel is offering virtual mass. We are allowing town residents to walk on campus, but discouraging gatherings. Volleyball nets and tennis nets are being taken down. Working with local agencies on facilities, Alumni Hall is designated as a shelter. Old Dolan rooms have been converted back into hotel rooms with beds and renovations – 30 rooms have been prepared for Police, essential hospital workers who need to self-quarantine.

On Academics, Provost Siegel noted that online teaching and learning will continue throughout the Spring semester. All office staff are working from home until at least April 30. We are expecting to continue in May. Potential Commencement date is mid-August. If we are unable to do that it would be Columbus Day weekend. On May 17, the original Commencement day, we would be holding an online acknowledgement.

Summer session I runs May 26-June 26. At this time we are holding online.

Summer session 2 runs July 6 – August 6 – we are planning on holding on campus. Many of summer 2 sessions happens to be online.

Professor Bhattacharya asked about COVID-19 cases. Provost Siegel said one student who has gone back home and tested positive. We have some staff members who have shown symptoms. Many have tested negative. We have one staff member in public safety tested positive, was hospitalized, now home recovering. We are hearing reports of a few faculty members (5-6) who have tested positive and are unable to teach.

Professor Alphonso asked what is the policy for faculty who have tested positive? What are the expectations of teaching and research?



Provost Siegel said we have no separate policy. She has regular meetings with Deans and it will be handled the same way as regular faculty sickness is handled.

Provost Siegel then talked about financials. The current situation has significant financial impact for the University. Some are immediate, some are long term. Immediate impact is refunding room and board for students after spring break. Total cost is estimated between 10-11 million. We have some cost savings for food etc. However, each of our salary comes partially from room & board. Graduate tuition hit is expected to be about 1 million. All activities and bookstore, summer events, rentals are cancelled, so revenue is not there. All told, there is a 12-13 million shortfall. There are some offsets, reduced activity and federal higher education relief. That will cover some deficit but we are still under by about 10 million. Fortunately, Fairfield University came into this with a healthy financial background, so we will be able to absorb this loss. Sodexo has furloughed workers earlier than the usual summer furloughs. They can return in the Fall, and they can collect unemployment. Their insurance will be continued. We will be able to get through our operational budget June 30.

In terms of the long-term budget, next year enrollment is projected as 1200, this year was 1175. We are doing scenario planning, worst is 950 students. This month we have a virtual admissions event. Last virtual event was attended by 600 students. To date we are getting numbers similar to other years. We are keeping our fingers crossed. In addition, our existing students may not return due to various reasons. So, we are also watching the retention rate closely. Finally, we do not know how the pandemic may play out. In the best case the virus may be contained through social distancing, or the pandemic may hit again, fully or partially. If any combination of these happens, there would be a greater financial impact.

Professor Rafalski asked two questions – 1) For Fall is there some kind of plan to refund prorated room and board, say there is three weeks of social distancing? Provost Siegal replied that it would be a decision taken as it happens. 2) Is there any jeopardy to the faculty searches that are completed? Provost Siegel replied in the negative. No offers are being rescinded, letters are going out. 2. Report from the Secretary of the General Faculty Professor Rakowitz noted that we will be going ahead with the General Faculty meeting on April 17 and the election meeting April 28. The Committee on Committees will have a ballot and take nominations from the floor. The election itself will happen electronically after the meeting with faculty receiving a unique, one-time use link for voting. 3. Report from Academic Council secretary

a. Motion to approve the minutes of 2/3/20 (Scheraga/Roney). Voting took place through Zoom. Motion passed 17-0-1

b. No correspondence c. No oral reports

Motion to reorder agenda (Rakowitz/Bhattacharya) passed 19-0-0 7. New Business a. Recommendation on evaluations from the FDEC (attachment) Professor Garcia Iommi reported from FDEC – Committee met on how to proceed with IDEA for online teaching. It was felt that students should get an opportunity to express themselves. There were concerns with what the evaluations mean and how many will be filled. They decided not to revise the windows for filling out or not. They recommend having the narrative (yellow sheet) questions added to the forms automatically.

Professor Bardos noted that the Academic Council need to endorse the yellow sheets being added to IDEA evaluations.



Professor Bhattacharya asked whether the committee discussed how online teaching would affect the questions. Professor Garcia Iommi replied that the committee did not discuss any particular question. They discussed how the evaluations may be lower because students may not like online teaching, they may be upset etc.

Professor Johnson – What are you doing about the three open questions you’ve suggested? Professor Garcia Iommi – faculty can add them. We suggest three questions based on online teaching. Professor Rakowitz said that the Registrar is working on giving the faculty an edit option to add these questions.

Professor Alphonso – Is the yellow form ordinarily mandatory?

Professor Garcia Iommi – There was discussion about faculty choice to have the yellow form. However, the committee felt that the students need to have access to the yellow forms.

Professor Alphonso – My understanding is that yellow forms are always optional for faculty. Then why are we making it mandatory for this semester?

Professor Garcia Iommi – There is no obligation for faculty to share these forms. However, we felt that we have an obligation that students need to have access to this form. I personally do not feel that they are, the committee was divided on it. The majority felt that they should be available.

Professor Alphonso – is this only for this semester? Professor Garcia Iommi - yes.

Professor Rakowitz noted that the yellow forms have always been part of the evaluation. Periodically the FDEC discusses whether they should continue to be part of the evaluation. To date the decision is that they are part of the evaluation, therefore they are mandatory.

Provost Siegel said there are two issues here. It is a student’s right to express, and the yellow forms are part of it. How faculty use the forms is up to the faculty. Therefore, this semester we are adding the yellow form questions to the online form.

Professor Lolis said that she is on FDEC. She spoke with Assoc. Vice Provost Jay Rozgonyi. In online courses, typically those questions are added to the online questions.

Professor Garcia Iommi left.

Professor Bardos asked if there is any discussion?

Motion: Move that Register add the yellow questions to the online IDEA evaluation (Rakowitz/Lolis) passed 20-2-0

7b. Spring 2020 revisions to academic policies/practice (attachment) Provost Siegel

We needed to move fast to make temporary changes to some policies and practices related to faculty and students. I have been talking regularly with Professors Mulvey and Rakowitz. I am meeting all the AJCU (Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities) schools regularly. Deans are meeting with accreditation agencies to see if the changes will have any effect on licensing issues. In terms of shared governance AAUP (American Association of University Professors), seems to be saying the same thing. I quote – “Administration need to make changes to protect the health and safety of students. Faculty has the responsibility of curriculum”

In terms of students, several issues have come up. Learning in the online environment is not conducive towards exams with multiple choice that would need proctoring. AAUP says that faculty need to be given training and resources for alternative evaluation methods. I am working with AVP Jay Rozgonyi for that and recommending that alternative testing be done instead of using proctoring software. Second, this may take more time, so we have extended grade submission date to May 18, even for those who would be graduating.

Another issue is the pass/fail option. I discussed this with the AC Executive Committee. A course pass-fail policy already exists. Previously the policy was that it needs to be approved by the department chair and then curriculum committee of the school. We agreed that for this



semester to ask the school curriculum committees to grant the chairs the authority to make these decisions and each of the curriculum committees agreed. Today April 6 is the date is for faculty to declare the option for a course, and inform students.

It is different from what some other Universities are doing because the existing policies are different. In many universities, students can request pass/fail. I understand many students ask for that but our policy is based on existing policy, same as other universities. Students wanted to be able to drop courses, so we have extended it to April 8. Also for academic progress, we have decided that all students will progress irrespective of academic performance. Students in jeopardy will have a mention. Students with 3 F’s or more will be put on probation, not dismissed. I am working with the registrar to put a note on the transcript that COVID-19 may have affected the performance of students. Many of our students come back after four or more years to get transcripts, so this note is needed.

On IDEA evaluations - you have already heard.

Rank and Tenure – I am hearing from many universities that an automatic extension of one-year clock has been granted. I am not recommending that because many faculty who are ready to apply need to be given that chance to get the salary raise. The R&T committee discussed this and endorsed it with some specificity.

Professor Bardos – What about incompletes? Will they be given extension? Provost Siegel - Yes

Dean Hannafin – Can the R&T application due date be pushed back two weeks to Oct 1?

Professor Rakowitz thanked Provost Siegel for all of this. She noted that on the one-year extension, the Provost letter wording is different from R&T wording. For FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) leave, extension is automatic, there is no application.

Ms. Noelle Guerrera (student observer) – There is lot of confusion among students why is Fairfield doing things differently than other Universities. We did a student survey and found a request for opt-in pass/fail. We have over a 1000-1200 students signed a petition for an opt-in pass/fail for individual students. Many students are worried about their GPA – they may not produce their best work. Their GPA may go down. Many Graduate school and employers look at that one number. Many students raise the issue of their worries, siblings, sick parents. We created a document that reflects student sentiment and feedback. We know this is urgent and a policy would need to be created.

Professor Bardos asked if Provost Siegel would like to respond.

Provost Siegel said that she had the opportunity to speak with student representatives. She is curious to hear from the Academic Council. This is new policy and she needs to hear from the Academic Council.

Professor Lolis – I can speak to why the petition has been presented. I think there is a valid anxiety and causes are real. This is a legitimate concern. It is a tough situation for students.

Professor Bardos – The feedback I got from my students that they are panicked. They are concerned that the class will go into pass/fail. Many of them do not want the class to go into pass/fail.

Professor Alphonso – Are we still about pass/fail or the R&T?

Professor Rakowitz – If we consider pass/fail, then we need to think about many new things, How many courses a student can take pass/fail? By when they can declare? Would this include courses in the major?

Professor Rafalski – I also polled my students, more of them wanted to take the class for GPA.

Professor Epstein – This is a complex decision we will need more input. If you want to broaden it out, you can potentially add the option to change it to P/F later. Kind of like drop the lowest grade.

Professor Lolis – The hardest part is that there is a trauma going on. It is hard to determine how that is played out in students’ homes. Just the newness of it. These students are all adolescents. Processing it emotionally is hard.



Professor Bardos asked Provost Siegel what kind of input she wants from the Academic Council.

Provost Siegel asked Ms. Guerrera whether she and others would like to meet with the Executive committee of the Academic Council to read the memo they have.

Ms. Guerrera– Yes we would definitely like to have that opportunity. Thank you.

Professor Bardos – Anybody has comments on R&T dossier submission date extension?

Professor Alphonso – I direct you all to page 18 of our packet. R&T endorses Provost policy, but also recommend that the extension is automatically applied to all applicants. Longer extension can be granted but not automatic.

Provost Siegel – The R&T put more specificity and I support that. However, I do not want to remove the Dean from the mentoring process.

Professor Rakowitz – I had drafted language for a policy statement, but I am happy to have the Provost say that it will be automatic. Do we want to have any more details for the application, including a deadline?

Professor Bardos – It might be helpful to have the language with more details in the application process.

Professor Epsten – I may sound optimistic, but we may have more details in the Fall for long-term extension.

Professor Rugg – As a pre-tenure faculty who is going up, I personally do not want the extension. Is there clarity about what the rank and tenure would decide about this semester?

Professor Bhattacharya said she is in the committee. She explained the R&T process and emphasized how the committee looks at the full trajectory and how the process gives full opportunity for the candidate to elaborate on how teaching, research and service had rolled out over the years. She said it is expected that candidates would put in a detailed description of this Spring semester, maybe giving more details than normal.

Professor Epstein – Again for this reason, we may have more clarity in the Fall.

Dean Hannafin - can we push back the dossier due date for candidates applying to R&T in Fall 2020 from Sep 15 to Oct 1? This may make the difference in allowing faculty to submit this year versus waiting another full year. Many are pretty far along with dossier preparation; but would benefit from recouping just a bit of the time lost. The due date for faculty review is Nov 8, so this would shorten the review time for faculty from about 54 days to about 40 days.

Professor Johnson suggested that we are over our meeting time and should probably postpone the rest of the agenda to the next meeting or reconvene.

Professor Rakowitz said that normally she would recommend reconvene but next Monday April 16 is Easter break, and then our May meeting is April. Therefore, she recommends pushing the rest of the agenda to April 27 meeting, but asked if we could very quickly take up 7f. 7.f. Approval of the ballot for the Committee on Committees Professor Rakowitz then presented nominations received for the two openings on Committee on Committees: for Natural Science/Math/Engineering, Profs. Lyon and Striuli; for EGAN/GSEAP, Profs. Campbell and Martin.

Motion: To approve the ballot for Committee on Committees (Epstein/Lolis) – passed unanimously

Motion to Adjourn passed unanimously at 5:09 pm Next meeting April 27, 2020 online Respectfully submitted Mousumi Bhattacharya



Academic Council Special Meeting

Date: April 16, 2020, 3.30 to 5 pm, Zoom

Draft Minutes

Faculty in attendance: Profs. Gwendolyn Alphonso, Katya Bardos (Chair), Gigi Belfadel, Mousumi Bhattacharya, Mousumi Bose Godbole, Bryan Ripley Crandall, Robert Epstein, Johanna Garvey, Shannon Gerry, Jerelyn Johnson (Executive Secretary), Shannon Kelley, Anna Lawrence, Evelyn Bilias Lolis, Shawn Rafalski, Susan Rakowitz (General Faculty Secretary), Linda Roney, Carl Scheraga

FUSA observer: Ms. Noelle Guerrera

Administrators in attendance: Deans Robert Hannafin, Richard Heist, Meredith Kazer, Zhan Li, Provost Christine Siegel

Guest: Ms. Claire Monahan (FUSA President)

Regrets: Profs. Jenna LoGiudice

The meeting was called to order at 3.30 pm.

Consideration of Pass/Fail option for Spring 2020:

Prof. Rakowitz mentioned that in response to concerns raised by FUSA VP Noelle Guerrera at the April 6, 2020 Academic Council meeting, the Council directed the Executive Committee to meet with student representatives to discuss their request for students to be able to opt in to pass/fail rather than letter grades for the Spring 2020 semester. ACEC met the student representatives who made a compelling case, especially in framing their arguments around cura personalis. After that meeting and in the context of what the other AJCU and private schools in Connecticut were doing, the ACEC drafted the following policy statement to recommend to the Council:

For the Spring of 2020, students in any class which is designated to be graded by letter grades will have the option to be graded with Pass or Fail rather than a letter grade. Before making this choice for any or all of their courses, students are strongly urged to consult with their advisor and/or instructor(s). Students have until the last day of classes to opt-in to Pass/Fail. Students who opt in will be given a grade of Pass for any grade of D or better assigned in the chosen class(es). Grades of F will remain F.

Discussion of the policy:

Prof. Bhattacharya mentioned that in her IDEA evaluation this semester, a third of the students reported that they were struggling with lack of quietness in their homes that hindered their studies. So, she supports the policy.

Prof. Rafalski supported the policy suggesting that it is important to acknowledge the rationale of the motion.

Provost Siegel clarified that this policy would be in place for Spring 2020 only. If the situation was similar in subsequent semesters, then Academic Council can discuss and apply similar policy again.

FUSA President Monahan suggested that the deadline for opting for Pass/Fail should be two days after final grades are posted as students need more time to proceed into making a decision. She suggested that University of San Francisco and Marquette University are allowing students to see the final grade before making a decision regarding opting into P/F to help students manage their lives and make such decisions.

Prof. Lolis appreciated that the proposal put forward by ACEC was a balanced, thoughtful and sensitive proposal given the unprecedented situation everyone is in.

Prof. Epstein asked whether there would be any problem calculating the GPA if students took P/F option. Provost Siegel responded that if the student received a pass, then there would be no effect on their GPA. It would appear as last semester’s GPA. A fail would affect student’s GPA.



Prof. Alphonso agreed that the proposal was compassionate, balanced and measured. She acknowledged that this policy can be a framework for future situations. She discussed that she had moved one of her classes to P/F that made a set of students unhappy. It would have been great if she had known that students could decide whether to stay with grade or opt for P/F policy.

Prof. Lawrence strongly supported the policy as it was a response to deal with inequality owing to different circumstances at home for students. The University has to be flexible and ask questions like are the students healthy? Are they in a mode of depression and anxiety?

Provost Siegel continued the conversation and suggested that students email the professor and registrar that they would like to opt for P/F.

Prof. Rakowitz suggested that the decision should be made by the last day of classes and ahead of the final grade. Students should be aware of their academic standing during the semester.

A discussion on what the policy would be for courses that have already opted for P/F ensued. Profs. Johnson and Rafalski asked what would happen for courses that have already opted for P/F. Provost Siegel suggested that students are entitled to information from professors regarding their academic standing. However, from P/F, if they wanted to go back to a letter grade, that would be difficult.

Prof. Alphonso suggested that classes that have opted for P/F should be able to go back to letter grades if the faculty have been able to appropriately manage student assessment.

Prof. Roney commended FUSA for advocating for the students. She discussed the problems faced by student nurses as they go for higher studies and asked whether the P/F would apply to study abroad students. Provost Siegel answered that the policy would not apply for study abroad students. She requested the Egan School faculty to discuss advisement to their students about study progression to help students understand the long-term implications of P/F.

Prof. Rakowitz moved the following, seconded by Prof. Johnson.

For the Spring of 2020, students in any class which is designated to be graded by letter grades will have the option to be graded with Pass or Fail rather than a letter grade. Before making this choice for any or all of their courses, students are strongly urged to consult with their advisor and/or instructor(s). Students have until the last day of classes to opt-in to Pass/Fail. Students who opt in will be given a grade of Pass for any grade of D or better assigned in the chosen class(es). Grades of F will remain F.

Discussion: Prof. Bhattacharya spoke in favor of the proposal with the last day of classes for students to opt for P/F. Prof. Bose Godbole said that the proposal is fair in giving the students the chance to opt in and not wait to see their grade, which might compromise academic integrity. Prof. Epstein asked what would be the threat to academic integrity? Provost Siegel said that the intention was to be compassionate to students who are in particularly stressful situations. She noted that some students have not had terribly difficult transitions and they might take advantage of the system, for example by opting for P/F for all non A grades, thereby potentially earning a semester GPA of 4.0 for a single course.

FUSA VP Guerrera mentioned that many students have reached out with nothing but good faith. They are just using the policy to help with extending the deadline, especially for freshman students trying to manage everything. Seeing the grade and then making the decision about P/F would help the students.

Prof. Rakowitz moved to amend from “Students have until the last day of classes” to “Students have until 5 pm of April 29, 2020” to opt for P/F, seconded by Prof. Johnson.

Voting for amendment to the original motion – 16, 0, 0; motion passed.

Amended Motion: For the Spring of 2020, students in any class which is designated to be graded by letter grades will have the option to be graded with Pass or Fail rather than a letter grade. Before making this choice for any or all of their courses, students



are strongly urged to consult with their advisor and/or instructor(s). Students have until 5 pm of April 29, 2020 to opt-in to Pass/Fail. Students who opt in will be given a grade of Pass for any grade of D or better assigned in the chosen class (es). Grades of F will remain F.

Motion passed: 16, 0, 0

Prof. Alphonso brought back the discussion of reverting from P/F to grades.

Discussion: Prof. Johnson suggested that students should opt in as well rather than instructors changing grading for the entire class. Prof. Bhattacharya suggested that the instructors should revert earlier than April 29 to give a chance for students to opt for P/F. Prof. Rakowitz suggested April 22 as the date to revert for those instructors who have maintained an assessment system.

Motion 2 (Alphonso/Bhattacharya): Instructors who have previously opted for P/F, but have maintained an assessment system that have allowed for grades, have the option to revert back to grades by April 22nd by 5pm.

voting 16, 0, 0; motion passed.

Proposal for MS in Cybersecurity:

Provot Siegel asked whether Council members were willing to stay for a few minutes after 5 pm to take up this time sensitive issue from the April 6 agenda. There were no objections though a few members had to leave.

Dean Heist gave a description of the proposal along with its rationale. He suggested that the proposal is consistent with the university’s graduate strategic priority. It is a combination of management and technology and has opportunities for expansion.

Prof. Rakowitz asked why the proposal made a case for this field being in high demand but offered no market research indicating that students would want to study it here. Provost Siegel suggested that the University recognizes that this is an area in which the University would attract students. Prof. Johnson asked whether there would be full-time faculty hired for this program. Provost Siegel mentioned that this was a certificate program that is converted into an MS program. As the program grows, full time faculty will be hired. Prof. Rafalski asked whether the program would in any way affect the Mathematics department. Dean Heist said that he does not expect increased demand on Mathematics department. Prof. Bhattacharya asked why there were two capstone courses in the program, to which Dean Heist said that two semesters of exposure to real time problems would help smoothly integrate students into real time jobs.

Provost moved to approve the proposal for MS in Cybersecurity; Prof. Belfadel seconded; voting – 14, 0, 0.

Prof. Rakowitz moved to adjourn the session, Prof. Crandall seconded, all approved.

Respectfully submitted,

Mousumi Bose Godbole



MEMORANDUM

Principles that Guide Free Expression

Subcommittee of Academic Council

To: Academic Council Executive Committee

From: Gayle Alberda, Jocelyn Boryczka, Dennis Keenan (Chair), Silvia Marsans-Sakly, Rajasree

Rajamma, and Adam Rugg

Date: April 6, 2020

Re.: Final Report regarding the establishment or revision of policies that would align with the

Principles that Guide Free Expression

Charge: That the Academic Council (AC) Executive Committee create a subcommittee to oversee

the work of establishing or revising policies that would align with Principles that Guide Free

Expression. The subcommittee will provide a report to the AC at each meeting. (Academic Council,

April 8, 2019)

Working Guidelines (Approved by Academic Council: February 3, 2020)

Four constituencies on Fairfield University’s campus have been identified as particularly relevant to

identifying the alignment of the “Principles that Guide Free Expression” with existing policies or

the absence thereof: faculty, students, employees/staff (exempt and non-exempt), and

guests (including, but not limited to, invited speakers).

The committee has the following goals:

To identify policies (or the absence thereof) in each constituency as they relate to the “Principles

that Guide Free Expression.”

To identify the best way to make each constituency aware of the “Principles,” which may include

appending the “Principles” to relevant handbooks and other relevant policy documents.

To identify how fine-grained each constituency thinks it is necessary to get to adapt the course-

grained “Principles” for use by each constituency (e.g., are the current policies relevant to each

constituency sufficient as they stand or do they need to be made more specific to align with the

“Principles.”

To identify what procedures (including grievance procedures) are in place (or need to be put in

place) for adjudicating the “Principles” in each constituency.

To identify recommendations and/or points of inquiry for each constituency.

Work of the Subcommittee



The subcommittee committee met 7 times (10/29/19, 10/26/19, 12/11/19, 1/28/20, 2/4/20, 2/25/20,

and 3/24/20). We identified “Working Guidelines,” which were approved by the Academic Council

on 2/3/20. After identifying relevant constituencies on campus, subcommittee members met with

representatives of each of the constituencies to discuss the subcommittee’s charge and goals.

Gayle and Dennis met with Jennifer Anderson, Vice President Marketing and Communications

Jenn suggested that with regard to principles, “the broader the better.” She was hesitant to

make the guidelines more specific. She informed us that the Social Media Handbook

applies to anyone with a specific Fairfield University account, e.g., FUSA, the College of

Arts and Sciences, etc. Jenn stated that she has never prevented an event from occurring. In

some controversial cases, she has tried to mitigate the fall out, e.g., when several students

approached her expressing their outrage that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was allowed to speak at the

University, Jenn arranged an opportunity for the students to meet with the speaker (in that

particular case, the students chose not to meet with the speaker).

Gayle and Dennis met with Peter Van Heerden, Executive Director, Quick Center

Referring to the Principles that Guide Free Expression, Peter said that he will “make use of

them.” He reiterated for us, the mission of the Quick Center:

The mission of the Regina A. Quick Center for the Arts is to create a dynamic and inclusive visual and

performing arts center for the whole community that inspires intellectual curiosity, broadens perspectives and

transforms the way we see the world and how we interact with one another.

Through high caliber artistic programs that each invite inquiry, experimentation and reflection, the Quick

Center for the Arts aims to collaborate with dynamic performers, artists and experts to inspire, engage and

involve audience members to enter into conversations with, journey with and even co-create the artistic

experience.

As part of a Jesuit institution, Quick Center Programming aims to serve the intellectually hungry and

perpetually curious, providing a space for the exploration of remarkable and inspiring performing arts

opportunities for the Fairfield University community at large.

Jocelyn and Rajasree met with Sharron Bowler, Director, Employee & Labor Relations

There aren’t any laws that state that “freedom of expression intentions stated by the

university should apply to employees also. Different constituents can have different rules.”

Human Resources prefers to keep the language vague (vs. explicit) to protect the university

legally. The State of Connecticut has a statute (3151Q), which protects employees about

voicing their concerns that affects the general public. Employees are allowed to complain

about their working relationships.

Silvia met with Will Johnson, Dean of Students, Jeremy Kaler, Associate Director, Student

Engagement, and the Student Policies and Free Expression Committee

The Free Expression Committee is involved in a fine-grained review of the Student

Handbook, beginning with policies regarding assemblies, which include protest and

demonstrations of all kinds. Current policies are governed by the principle that private

institutions have the right to regulate speech. Up for debate will be the spaces in the



University that serve or can serve as public assembly points for all of its

constituencies, including faculty and staff. The Committee insists that once agreed upon, all

assembly policies be consistent across constituencies. As well as determining appropriate

public fora, the Committee also want to clearly designate spaces that are off limits, for

example residence halls, classrooms when they are in session (or always?), administrative

offices, President’s offices. Up for debate is setting up a notification or approval process

that a public assembly (even a spontaneous protest) is taking place. They are debating the

need for a chain of command of administrators (a team of informed respondents) who

should be in the know in the event such a meeting takes place.

Jocelyn contacted Rachel Schwartzman, Director of Legal Affairs and Executive Assistant.

Rajasree contacted Irene Mulvey, Professor, Department of Mathematics, to gather information on

AAUP guidelines regarding academic freedom.

Adam met with Matt Dinnan, Assistant Vice President, Conference and Event Management

They discussed the process by which his office vets those who reserves rooms and spaces

through his office and how his office handles controversial speakers, events, and

promotional materials. They also discussed the broader policies (or lack thereof) regarding

student demonstration and protests.

Jocelyn met with the Student Policies and Free Expression Committee.

Recommendations of the Subcommittee

(1) MOTION: That the Principles that Guide Free Expression should be included in (and figure

prominently in) all relevant handbooks and policy statements, including (but not limited to):

The University Website

Faculty Handbook

Journal of Record

Exempt Employee Handbook

Non-Exempt Employee Handbook

Student Handbook

Social Media Handbook

The Quick Center Website

Event and Conference Management Website

Rationale

The AC Subcommittee reviewed relevant policies, handbooks, and documents relevant to

students, staff, faculty, and outside guests, and met with representatives in each of these areas.

It is evident that the “Principles” currently are not available in the documentation listed above.

Public knowledge, or promulgation, of these “Principles” is necessary to ensure that these

parties gain the information to develop and revise policies, and to guide their practices.



(2) MOTION: That the following sentences be appended to the “Principles that Guide Free

Expression”:

In the event that students, staff, faculty, or administrators think that the “Principles that

Guide Free Expression” have been violated, they should contact the chair of the Academic

Council (the executive arm of the General Faculty). The name of the current chair can be

found at: http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/academiccouncil.htm.

Rationale

The “Principles” currently lack a clear process for addressing violations of the kind that fall

within free expression. The Academic Council, as representative of the faculty, is understood to

guide the University on matters of free expression and academic free speech. The Chair of the

Academic Council, unlike the Secretary of the General Faculty, rotates in that position with

greater frequency while remaining informed of major issues, policies, and procedures.

(3) MOTION: That a committee be formed to adjudicate issues regarding freedom of expression.

The committee will consist of:

a. the chair of the Academic Council

b. the Provost (or a designee)

c. the Vice President of Student Affairs (or a designee)

d. the Vice President of Marketing and Communications (or a designee)

e. the Vice President of Human Resources (or a designee)

The Chair of Academic Council will confer with the committee to determine whether or not to

convene and will communicate its decision in writing to all relevant parties in a timely manner.

Rationale

A committee representative of the primary areas of campus life engaging regularly with free

expression matters ensure a process for addressing circumstances when parties understand

violations of the “Principles” have occurred. This committee makes the decision-making

process transparent and accessible to all parties.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/academiccouncil.htm



MEMORANDUM

Distribution of Full Time TT and NTT Faculty

Subcommittee of Academic Council To: Academic Council Executive Committee

From: Sally Gerard (Chair), Adrian Rusu, Shannon Kelley, Tracey Robert, Mousumi Bhattacharya,

Scott Esposito, Christine Siegel

Date: April 21, 2020 Re: Motion

Charge: The Academic Council Executive Committee form a subcommittee consisting of five full-time

faculty (one from each school) and up to two relevant administrators, to consider and make

recommendations regarding appropriate distribution of full time tenure-track, full-time non-tenure track,

and part-time faculty at Fairfield University and to provide an update to the AC by its April 9, 2018

meeting.

Meetings:

The AC Subcommittee on the Distribution of NT/TT Faculty met

• 4/17/18

• 4/25/18

• 5/14/18

• 9/21/18

• 10/12/18

• 11/7/18

• Request for information sent to Deans on January 2, 2019

• Deans’ co-authored reply received on November 14, 2019

• 11/15/19

• 12/4/19

• 2/22/20

Summary:

The subcommittee was formed in March 2018 in response to Dean Meredith Kazer’s request that the

Academic Council change language on page 42 of the Journal of Record that states that Professors of

the Practice “would normally constitute no more than 10% of the full-time faculty.” Egan currently has

16% POP’s; GSEAP has 25%; and Fairfield University has 17.6%. These bodies are out of compliance

with the JoR, although its recommendation is for “normal” circumstances. Academic Council felt that

the new percentile number for POP’s should not be chosen arbitrarily, and that shared governance

should be followed. Council also requested that the subcommittee recommend distribution numbers for

Visiting Professors and part-time faculty, although the Journal of Record does not speak to these two

non-tenure track labor categories as it pertains to recommended percentages of total faculty.

The subcommittee recognizes that the landscape of higher education is changing. National IPEDS data

from peer and aspirational-peer institutions indicates that both full time and part time non-tenure track

faculty lines are increasing. Currently, the distribution of Fairfield University full-time non-tenure track



faculty is on par with national trends in higher education. We have a higher percentage of tenured or

tenure track faculty than other institutions. As the distribution changes, the subcommittee recognizes

the historic and current importance of tenure, which supports academic freedom, shared governance, and

Mission and Identity.

Furthermore, we found wide variety in how departments, programs, and curricular areas interpret

Faculty Duties (II.C.I) as they pertain to NTT faculty as listed in the Faculty Handbook. There are

currently full-time non-tenure track faculty who do not know how they are evaluated; why their

contracts are or are not renewed; if they have a path toward advancement; and what, if any, expectations

of research, teaching, and service exist. We found that hiring practices of NTT faculty vary greatly.

The JOR includes Guidelines for Faculty Recruitment, but does not specify the type of faculty. The

JOR guidelines are routinely followed for TT faculty searches. They describe a structured search

process often led by faculty and evaluated by faculty and administrators.i In NTT positions, established

faculty have less input on hiring. NTT faculty may be employed for an unlimited number of renewable

terms (based on 2017 changes to JOR) and have full voting rights. Overall, the hiring practices seem

incongruent in light of the significance of NTT positions,

Motion:

1. The Executive Committee of the Academic Council should form a new NTT Faculty

subcommittee that includes representation from across the schools. This committee will clarify

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 of full-time NTT faculty in relation to tenure track.

These results should be presented to the faculty of each school and incorporated in the

governance documents of each school.

2. Replace lines on page 42 of the Journal of Record that pertain to the distribution of POP’s with

new language: “University-wide and within schools the overall proportion of tenure track and

non-tenure track faculty should not go below 75% tenure and 25% non-tenure track faculty.”

3. The faculty secretary will report updated distribution numbers for each school and the university

to the Academic Council every fall.

SUPPORTING MATERIALS:

Academic Council Packet for Meeting

December 4 2017page 10

To: Members of the Academic Council

From: Professional School Deans Bruce Berdanier, Bob Hannafin, Mark Ligas, Meredith Kazer

(Corresponding Dean)



Re: Motion to add proposed language (underlined below) to the Journal of Record Professor of the

Practice

CC: Christine Siegel, Interim Provost Richard Greenwald, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences

Date: Sept. 5,2017 The Academic Affairs committee met on May 24, 2017 and wishes to propose

the following motion to the Journal of Record in relation to Professors of the Practice

Motion to add proposed language (underlined below) to the Journal of Record

Professor of the Practice:...In any school, professors of the practice would normally constitute no

more than 10% of the full-time faculty, unless agreed upon by a majority vote within that School.

The appointment of any professor of the practice will never diminish the number or the growth of

tenured faculty lines in departments, curriculum areas, programs, schools, or in the University as a

whole.

Existing Professor of the Practice Language from the Journal of Record, p. 41Professor of the

Practice:...In any school, professors of the practice would normally constitute no more than 10% of

the full-time faculty. The appointment of any professor of the practice will never diminish the

number or the growth of tenured faculty lines in departments, curriculum areas, programs, schools,

or in the University as a whole.AC: 03/09/2009

Rationale While Fairfield University has consistently maintained several categories of faculty, an

emphasis has rightly been placed on maintaining a majority of faculty positions within the tenure-

track. The 10% constitution of Professors of the Practice (POP) meets this criteria, but is somewhat

arbitrary and limiting, especially for the professional schools who seek to complement tenure-track

faculty with expert professionals from the field. These professionals have the clinical, engineering,

education and business expertise required by our students and curriculum, but may lack interest and

ability to pursue tenure-track positions.

With the current 10% CAP on POPs, the only option for adding these exceptional professionals to

our faculty is 1) non-compliance with the recommendation or 2) offering visiting professorships.

Visiting professors are often renewed year, after year in contrast to the title “visiting.” This title also

provides highly committed faculty members with a sense of temporary employment.

The intention of this motion is to maintain a majority of tenure-track positions, but allow flexibility

among the professional schools to decide the percentage of POPs that best meets student and

curricular needs of individual schools. We asked the Non-Tenure track (NTT) committee to address

this issue first and their discussion is below. They believe the issue is beyond their scope, but issued

a statement of support.



NUMBER OF NTT AND TT FACULTY BY SCHOOL

CAS DSB EGAN GSEAP SOE TOTALS Notes

POP 19.75 8 5 6 1.5 40.25

Part-time faculty teaching in CAS (.75) and SOE (.5)

VIS 21 3 9 1 1 35

TOTAL NTT 40.75 11 14 7 2.5 75.25

TT 130 54 17 17 11 229

TOTAL TT+NTT 170.75 65 31 24 13.5 304.25

% NTT OVER TOTAL TT+NTT 24% 17% 45% 29% 19% 25%

% POP OVER TOTAL TT+NTT 12% 12% 16% 25% 11% 13%

% VIS OVER TOTAL TT+NTT 12% 5% 29% 4% 7% 12%

% TT OVER TOTAL TT+NTT 76% 83% 55% 71% 81% 75%

report as of 12/9/19



MASTER’S ENTRY TO PRACTICE NURSING PROGRAM

(MEPN)

Prepared by Erica Wuchiski, MSN, RN

Spring, 2020



Table of Contents

1. Description, Overview & Summary

2. Need & Market Demand

3. Rationale for a MEPN Program at Fairfield

4. Program Objectives

5. Program Detail

6. Administrative Structure & Governance

7. Necessary Resources & Budget

8. Program Evaluation

9. Summary & Projections for the Future

10. References

11. Graduate Program Meeting Minutes approving MEPN

Appendices

MEPN Program Budget

Course Syllabi [available online with additional materials for the April 27, 2020 AC meeting]

Description, Overview, and Summary

This proposal is for an accelerated Master’s Entry to Practice in Nursing program (MEPN)

which aims to address the needs of the healthcare system both nationally and locally by establishing

an alternative, innovative educational nursing pathway at Fairfield University. This program will

increase student capacity at Fairfield and will move more highly educated graduates into the nursing

workforce quicker. This program is intended to attract notably qualified candidates that already

have a baccalaureate degree in another discipline and wish to advance their education without

having to complete an additional bachelor’s degree. At the completion of this program, students

will be eligible to sit for the National Council Licensure Exam (NCLEX) to become a registered

nurse. MEPN programs are fairly new but are growing in number as they increase in popularity and

success. This program represents a modification of our current Accelerated Second Bachelor’s

Degree in Nursing Program. It would be the first such program in the state of Connecticut to

prepare advanced generalists for registered nursing practice.

This country is facing an imminent nursing shortage that is projected to reach critical levels

over the next decade. We now find ourselves at the convergence of a perfect storm in healthcare.

Nursing industry studies have estimated that by 2022, the U.S. will need an additional 1.05 million

nurses to meet the unprecedented needs of the aging population (Health Resources & Services

Administration [HRSA], 2013). With Baby Boomers reaching retirement age and with more people

seeking medical treatment through the Affordable Care Act, a substantial imbalance between supply

and demand of nurses has intensified. Compounding the problem is the fact that nursing schools

across the country are struggling to expand capacity to meet the rising need for additional

http://faculty.fairfield.edu/gfs/AC/2019-2020/ac19-20.html



nurses. In 2018, more than 76,000 qualified applicants for undergraduate and graduate nursing

programs were rejected due to a lack of capacity (American Association of Colleges of Nursing

[AACN], 2019).

This dilemma is reflected here in CT as well. There are 18 schools of nursing throughout

this state. According to a Connecticut League of Nursing report, in 2017, a total of 9,725 qualified

applicants in CT were turned away due to full capacity at the various nursing schools within the

state. This same report states that many of the hospitals in Connecticut are trying to fill climbing

nursing vacancies within their respective organizations. Much of this is attributed to the aging

population of nurses within the state. According to the report, nurses over the age of 50, comprise

57% of the nursing workforce in CT and the number of nurses under 50 will not be able to meet

employer demand in the upcoming years.

The Egan School is not immune to the bottlenecking of nursing applicants. Last year, 153

students applied to our second degree nursing program and only 89 students were admitted. Again,

leaving many without a seat. It is critical that the state produces a sustainable pool of nursing

graduates on an annual basis at all levels. A robust pipeline is needed, not only to fill vacancies

created by retirements, but to fill new positions that are being created within CT communities to

meet the needs of the residents.

Not only is the education of more professional nurses essential, but the level of education

and the preparation must be in response to the needs of the evolving 21st century healthcare arena.

Nurses must be highly educated to serve in clinical leadership roles, to implement outcome-based

practice, to guide quality improvement strategies, and to manage microsystems of care. Masters

education in nursing is critical to address gaps resulting from growing healthcare needs. The

Institute of Medicine: Future of Nursing report calls for more, higher educated nurses in the

workforce in order to meet the demands of the emerging healthcare system. To advance

achievement of this recommendation, innovative models of academic progression need to be

expanded upon and implemented more widely.

Nursing is unique among the health care professions in the United States in that it has

multiple educational pathways to enter the field and to become a registered nurse (RN): the

bachelors of Science in nursing (BSN), the associate’s degree in nursing (ADN), and the diploma in

nursing. More recently, an accelerated, second-degree bachelor’s program for students who possess

a baccalaureate degree in another field also has become a popular option. An even newer, emerging

pathway that is gaining momentum is a Master’s entry to practice degree. Nurse educators must

continue to work together to ensure that nursing remains an attractive career choice, that graduates

from all types of nursing education programs are well prepared to enter the workforce, and

that these graduates have access to multiple pathways for academic progression, in order to meet the

challenges of contemporary nursing practice.

Need & Market Demand

Nationally, student interest in both BSN accelerated programs and MSN accelerated

programs is growing steadily. AACN's 2018 survey found that 23,354 students were enrolled in

accelerated baccalaureate programs, which represents an increase from 2017 when 19,541 students

were enrolled. The number of program graduates has increased from 12,293 in 2017 to 13,442 in

2018. In entry- level master's nursing programs, 7,493 students were enrolled and 3,053 students



graduated in 2018. By comparison, in 2017, there were 7,303 students enrolled and 2,559 graduates

from these programs.

In November 2018, a focus group of Fairfield’s Egan SDNU students was conducted to

discuss the idea of a MEPN program at Fairfield. The feedback from the group was extremely

positive and affirmed a deep interest in such a program. Of the 58 students in attendance, 54 stated

that they would have been very interested in applying for such a program. At the beginning of 2019

while the MEPN program was undergoing initial stages of development, interest in the program by

Chief Nursing Officers of area healthcare agencies was explored. A survey was developed,

distributed and analyzed using an online survey tool. The majority of respondents (n=8) expressed

a great interest in these types of students. They felt there was a great need for clinical leaders

educated in the topics of evidence based practice, team coordination, leadership and quality

improvement. Of the 8 respondents, 7 liked the idea of a MEPN program being offered in CT and

would be interested in interviewing these graduates for various roles within their organizations.

Following the initial survey in 2019, an additional survey was replicated in 2020, the results

indicated a great need for the proposed MEPN Program. The eight clinical facilities responding to

the program survey indicate annual attrition and position vacancy rates from 12.5% - 50%. These

statistics highlight the availability of positions for highly-qualified graduates of the MEPN program.

Importantly 62.5% of respondents (n = 5) indicate that they would be interested in hiring graduates

from the MEPN program to fill positions in their facilities, including: Charge Nurse, Nurse

Manager, Nurse Educator, Nurse Administrator, Quality Improvement/Risk Management,

Informatics and Care Coordinator/Manager. While there is an understanding that MEPN program

graduates would need required clinical experience to advance, it is expected that their advanced

education will fast-track them into these positions. From the data revealing prior employment and

health needs of the greater community, it is clear that the MEPN program would fulfill great needs

in the current healthcare systems of Connecticut.

The employment outlook for these students is strong. Currently the employment rate of our

graduates from the traditional and accelerated BSN programs is 100% within a year of graduation.

According to The American Nurses Association, there will be more registered nurse jobs available

through 2022 than any other profession in the United States. The US Bureau of Labor and Statistics

(2018) projects 1.1 million additional nurses are needed to avoid an unprecedented shortage.

Employment opportunities for nurses are projected to grow at a faster rate (15%) than all other

occupations from 2016-2026 (us bureau l & S). According to the American Association of Colleges

of Nursing (AACN), graduates of accelerated second degree programs are prized by nurse

employers who value the many layers of skill and education these graduates bring to the workplace.

These students are able to draw on prior experiences to enhance and support their development as

nurses. Employers report that these graduates are more mature, possess strong clinical skills, and are

quick studies on the job.

Given the national move towards healthcare reform, there will be tremendous growth in the

need for MSN prepared nurses who can fill leadership roles in community settings such as nursing

homes, residential care facilities, behavioral health centers, and primary care clinics. According to

the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics (2012), over the next decade, the demand for occupations

requiring a master’s degree for entry is expected to increase by 21.7%. A MEPN program at

Fairfield University will produce nursing experts prepared with a diverse skill set demanded by the

evolving healthcare needs of this millennium.



Rationale for a MEPN Program at the Egan School

As stated in Fairfield University’s mission statement, the primary objectives of Fairfield

University are to develop the creative intellectual potential of its students and to foster in them

ethical and religious values and a sense of social responsibility. A Master’s entry to practice

nursing program, by nature, aligns with the University’s mission. Students entering this program

are choosing a career path in public service to make a difference in society, whether at the local,

national or international level. At the same time, this program meets the ambition of the Egan

School’s mission to inspire students to become leaders in healthcare. The proposed accelerated

MEPN program is specifically designed to prepare their graduates with broad knowledge and

practice expertise that allows them to engage in higher level practice and leadership in a variety of

settings.

The education of these high level students will be guided by the Master’s Essentials

developed by the AACN. These essentials are core for all master’s programs in nursing and provide

the necessary curricular elements and framework, and delineate the outcomes expected of all

graduates of master’s nursing programs. Nurses who obtain the competencies outlined in these

Essentials will be prepared to:

• Lead change to improve quality outcomes

• Translate evidence into practice

• Build and lead collaborative inter-professional care teams

• Advance a culture of excellence through lifelong learning

• Navigate and integrate care services across the healthcare system

• Design innovative nursing practices

Synergy with Fairfield University’s mission, Egan’s mission and the Master’s Essentials,

highlights the value and transforming potential of the proposed accelerated MEPN program.

Providing an accelerated MEPN program would likely appeal to a new pool of highly desirable

applicants that would see a fast track master’s program as the natural next step in their higher

education. Such a program will leverage Fairfield University because currently there is no other

MEPN program like this being offered in the state of Connecticut and for this reason, it could elicit

greater reach than other Fairfield graduate programs.

Consistent with the goals of the Fairfield 2020 strategic plan to grow graduate programs and

build a diverse campus community, the accelerated MEPN program will increase enrollment of

graduate students and will be dedicated to recruiting a high level, diverse group of students.

Literature shows that accelerated nursing programs tend to attract a population more diverse in age,

gender and ethnicity which is reflected right here in our own accelerated second degree BSN

nursing program.

The published characteristics of accelerated students clearly indicate a mature, academically

accomplished population. Given their experience and level of educational achievement, many

graduates of master’s programs continue to pursue roles as nurse educators. This is important to

consider because it can help to stem the growing shortage of nurse faculty which contributes to the

lack of capacity in most schools of nursing. Literature shows that completion of a Master’s in

Nursing is more likely to lead to a nursing education trajectory towards a doctoral degree in nursing

(AACN, 2015). With many full-time nursing faculty reaching retirement age, it is important to

cultivate a new pool of potential candidates to replace them.



Program Objectives

1. Create a reputable model for an accelerated Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing

(MEPN) program based on the successful structures of the existing accelerated

second degree program and the Masters of Science in Nursing leadership program.

2. Develop a high quality program that is in line with the Jesuit values that encourage

social awareness and moral responsibility.

3. Increase enrollment options in pre-licensure nursing programs to meet the increasing

demand for nurses within the national and local healthcare sectors.

4. Produce knowledgeable, nursing graduates that are prepared to serve at the

community, national or international level, with enhanced potential for leadership.

5. Increase student enrollment and move more highly educated nurses into the

workforce quicker.

Program Detail

This proposal is for a MEPN program which aims to address the needs of the healthcare

system both nationally and locally by establishing an alternative, innovative educational nursing

pathway at Fairfield University. The proposal has undergone full vetting through the Egan School

approval processes. This program will increase student capacity at Fairfield and will move more

highly educated graduates into the nursing workforce quicker. This program is intended to attract

notably qualified candidates that already have a baccalaureate degree in another discipline and wish

to advance their education without having to complete an additional bachelor’s degree. Jackson and

Marchi (2020, p. 30) also report that “Graduate-entry students are typically older and more diverse

with regard to gender than traditional nursing students…These students are mature, accomplished

learners with previous life experiences that can augment and enrich their nursing practice.”

At the completion of this program, students will be eligible to sit for the National Council

Licensure Exam (NCLEX) to become a registered nurse. MEPN programs are fairly new but are

growing in number as they increase in popularity and success. This would be the first such program

in the state of Connecticut to prepare advanced generalists for registered nursing practice. The

proposed MEPN program is designed as a 76 credit/800 clinical hour program to be completed full-

time over 24 months. Eligibility for this program will be stringent and will require completion of a

bachelor’s degree in another discipline with a minimum GPA of 3.3. Preference will be given to

applicants with healthcare experience. In addition, the following admission requirements must be

met:

• Have completed the core courses required for a liberal arts degree at Fairfield University, as

well as basic science courses: – English (6 credits) 2 courses – Ethics (3 credits) 1 course –

Philosophy (3 credits) 1 course – Religion (3 credits) 1 course – General Electives (33

credits) 11 courses

• Have completed all prerequisite courses (not older than 10 years) with a grade of B+ or

better through an accredited institution. Any of the courses not completed during

undergraduate work may be taken at Fairfield University or any accredited college or

university, part-time, before beginning the MEPN Program. An advisor will meet with

students to review transcripts.



o Anatomy and Physiology I and II, plus labs (8 credits)

o Chemistry, plus lab (4 credits)

o Developmental Psychology (3 credits)

o Microbiology, plus lab (4 credits)

o Statistics (3 credits)

• Schedule an interview with the Program Director of the MEPN Program

• Complete an application with all required components at www.fairfield.edu/sdnuapp

For the first cohort, target enrollment is 10 students in the summer of 2021. The goal is to

establish and maintain a level of demand at approximately 15-20 students with subsequent

cohorts. Students will be encouraged not to work during the program; however, this will vary

based on the individual. The Pre-requisite courses for the program include 15 credits in

Humanities: Two English courses, Ethics, Philosophy and Religion and 22 credits in Sciences:

Anatomy & Physiology I and II, Chemistry, Psychology, Microbiology, and Statistics.

Once in the program, undergraduate didactic and clinical courses will be taken concurrently

with appropriately aligned graduate courses. An outline of the proposed curriculum for this

program is shown below. Course outlines (syllabi) are appended to this proposal.

MEPN Curriculum Plan

Program begins mid-May

SUMMER 1 SEMESTER (14 credits)

NS110 Introduction to Professional Nursing (3)

NS 307 Fundamentals of Nursing Care (4)

NS 604 Advanced Health Assessment (4)

NS 620 Advanced Physiology & Pathophysiology (3)

FALL 1 SEMESTER (15 credits)

NS 521 Nursing Leadership Roles for Systems Improvement (3)

NS 305 Mental Health Nursing (4)

NS 312 Medical Surgical Nursing I (5)

NS 641 Advanced Pharmacology (3)

SPRING 1 SEMESTER (16 credits)

NS 323 Pediatric Nursing (4)

NS 325 Medical Surgical Nursing II (5)

NS 608 Research Methods for Evidence Based Practice (3)

NS 272 Geriatric Nursing (4)

SUMMER 2 SEMESTER (11 credits)

NS 314 Maternal & Newborn Nursing (4)

NS 330 Population Health (4)

NS 601 Epidemiology and Biostatistics (3)



FALL 2 SEMESTER (9 credits)

NS XXX Palliative Care Across the Lifespan (3)

NS 605 Advanced Healthcare Policy (3)

NS 614 Information Technology for Healthcare Improvement (3)

SPRING 2 SEMESTER (11 credits)

NS 332 Transition to Professional Nursing Practice (4)

NS 525 Masters Leadership Practicum (4)

NS360 Critical Care (3)

Total Credits= 76

Total Grad Credits= 32

21 Courses

The format of the proposed MEPN program will be similar to the existing accelerated

second degree BSN program, which has proven to be very successful, generating high enrollments

annually. It is a very robust, rigorous, well-respected program with an excellent reputation among

graduates, faculty, and employers. This program has gained tremendous popularity over the years

and now consists of 60 students, compared to the first cohort of 20 students. The MEPN program is

not intended to replace the current second degree program but presents an opportunity for

collaboration and integration. The Program Director of the current accelerated second degree

program, Carole Pomarico is aware of this proposal and is in full support of the overlapping that

will take place between the two programs. Students from both programs will take all undergraduate

core classes together. Some of the required graduate level courses for the MEPN, however, will be

taken independently from other graduate nursing students.

Participation in national discussions at the AACN Master’s conference this past

February made it clear that combining traditional grad students and MEPN students in certain

graduate classes is not ideal to yield the best student outcomes. For example, the approach to

teaching advanced health assessment to experienced nurses should be much different when teaching

it to students that have never worked as a nurse and have no foundation from which to build upon.

While interviewing the program director of the MEPN offered at our sister Jesuit school,

Georgetown University, she indicated that the advanced science classes for MEPN students, should

be taught separately from other nursing programs and cohorts for optimal learning outcomes. This

will force additional sections, however, the entire program will consist of already existing

undergraduate and graduate courses, thus maximizing existing resources. This proposal

recommends the following three courses be taught independently from other nursing programs:

Advanced Health Assessment, Advanced Pathophysiology and Advanced Pharmacology.

The Egan School of Nursing closely follows guidelines set forth by accrediting

bodies, CCNE and AACN to meet the Master’s Essentials core competencies. The courses offered

for the proposed MEPN program will equip students with valuable knowledge and skills to lead

change, promote health, and elevate care in a variety of settings. In addition, the required clinical



participation will provide students with transformative experiences that emphasize compassion, and

enhance awareness of social injustices that lead to health disparities. Students will be armed with

the skills to challenge marginalizing social processes and to advocate for human rights. These

qualities stay true to the Jesuit philosophy, to have concern for the needs and wellbeing of others.

The MEPN program outcomes are stated below and follow The Essentials of Master’s Education in

Nursing (American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2011).

MEPN Program Outcomes

1. Provide advanced nursing assessment, diagnosis, management, and evaluation to

achieve individual and system-identified outcomes with respect for cultural diversity

and the unique characteristics of the individual, family, and community.

2. Develop cost-effective, holistic patient care including information systems for

healthcare delivery.

3. Use an ethical framework to guide the integration of nursing science and theory to

inform clinical judgments, facilitate sustainable healthcare solutions, and advocate for

patients, families and communities.

4. Negotiate a role within the healthcare delivery system that provides for

interprofessional collaboration, interdependence, and a professional identity as an

advanced nursing professional with specialized knowledge.

5. Lead interprofessional teams by initiating and maintaining effective working

relationships using mutually respectful communication and collaboration.

6. Provide advanced nursing care, management and evaluation of healthcare delivery

systems using research, evidence-based protocols, care models, and scholarly debate.

7. Consistently demonstrate critical reasoning at an advanced level of practice and in the

management and evaluation of healthcare systems, using the tenets of social

responsibility, truth, and justice.

8. Demonstrate continuous self-growth through reflection and active participation in

professional activities.

9. Influence the quality of healthcare delivery through local, regional, and national

policies.

Administrative Structure & Governance

As has been the case with other specialty programs in the Egan School, a program director

has been identified to oversee the MEPN program. Mrs. Erica Wuchiski, RN, MSN previously

served as the Egan School Clinical Placement Coordinator for five years prior to completing her

MSN degree in 2018. She has served as a visiting professor for the past year and serves as the

author of this program. Mentoring of Ms. Wuchiski will occur by Professor Carol Pomarico, who

has served as an Assistant Professor at the Egan School for the past forty years. Additional

mentoring, which will occur by our expert dynamic faculty, will be necessary initially. As all but



one course in the MEPN program currently exist, faculty are in place and experienced in offering all

required courses.

The program director will be responsible for assisting in the development of a strategic plan

to recruit and sustain student enrollment, oversee construction and maintenance of the program,

assist in marketing, supervise faculty as necessary, and serve as an advisor/mentor to students. The

program director will report to the Associate Dean of Graduate Programs, Dr. Joyce Shea, who is

responsible for oversight and coordination of all graduate programs.

The Egan School has a Graduate Curriculum Committee, which oversees curricular issues in

all graduate programs. The MEPN program director will be responsible for bringing any

curriculum changes or proposals to this committee to be vetted by its members and by the Associate

Dean, Dr. Joyce Shea. Approval for any curricular issues, must be granted by this committee first

before it can be brought before the Egan faculty for consideration. The MEPN program director

will have an administrative staff person supporting her and will work collaboratively with all

faculty teaching courses within the MEPN program.

Necessary Resources & Budget

The resources needed to implement the MEPN program are already in place. All of the

undergraduate courses and most of the graduate courses are already taught by full-time faculty. The

increase in enrollment for these courses, and the need to offer several of the graduate classes

separately from the other programs, will force the need for more sections in both the undergraduate

and graduate levels. Funding will be needed for additional adjunct faculty, as well as program

director stipend, administrative support, clinical placement assistance and marketing. Appended to

this proposal is the budget for full-time cohorts over the next 5 academic years of the MEPN

program. The various costs and revenues contained within these budgets are based on current

numbers.

Program Evaluation

Thorough evaluation of the MEPN program will be critical to properly plan for continued

quality improvement. A variety of assessment methods will be used to evaluate student learning

outcomes, and overall success of the program. Traditional exams, discussion forums, case studies,

writing assignments, individual and group projects, and clinical performance will be used for

assessing students’ performance and mastery of content. The Program Director will provide an

annual report of these assessments to the Associate Dean of Graduate Programs.

Initiatives will be made to collect pertinent data to determine achievement of program

outcomes. This data includes: program completion rates, employment rates, changes in application

and enrollment numbers from year to year, and faculty evaluation outcomes.

In addition, several surveys are recommended:

• Student Feedback- The Egan School will administer an electronic exit survey to

graduating MEPN students using Educational Benchmarking Incorporated (EBI). This

survey will obtain data regarding program outcomes, strengths and weaknesses, and

recommendations for the program.



• Alumni Feedback- The Egan School will administer an electronic survey to students that

graduated 1 and 5 years previously. This survey will obtain data regarding state of

residence, current employment, preparation for professional practice, and

recommendations for the program.

• Employer Feedback- The Egan School will administer an electronic survey to employers

throughout the region to obtain feedback on MEPN graduate employee performance.

Responses will be compiled by the Program Director and reported to the Egan nursing faculty for

use in making programmatic decisions.

Summary & Projections for the Future

The MEPN program will be marketed as a high-demand, Master’s degree that can be

completed in a relatively short period of time (2 years). The projection is to be at a cohort of 20

students by the third year, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students at any time. Based on the

research surrounding this proposal it is very likely that this will become a highly sought after

program, with substantial contributions to the profession of nursing and State of Connecticut

Workforce. In the words of Jackson and Marchi (2020, p. 31), “The Expansion of graduate-entry

options for college graduates with non-nursing degrees aligns with calls to transform nursing

education and practice to the full extent of such education…A better educated nursing workforce

can improve patient quality and safety, lead change, coordinate care and work efficiently with other

health care professionals.” As indicated through budget estimates, the MEPN program has the

potential to begin generating revenue in its first academic year. Based on the research surrounding

this proposal it is very likely that this will become a highly sought after program, with great

expansion potential.

REFERENCES American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2017. Nursing Faculty Shortage Fact Sheet. Retrieved from

http://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/News/Factsheets/Faculty-Shortage-Factsheet-2017.

American Association of Colleges of Nursing, 2018 Accelerated Baccalaureate and Master's Degrees in

Nursing. Retrieved from https://www.aacnnursing.org/News-Information/Fact-Sheets/Accelerated-

Programs

Connecticut Health Foundation (2018, 2020). A Healthier Connecticut. Retrieved from

https://www.cthealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/A-healthier-Connecticut-full-version.pdf 2020

Report - https://www.cthealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Health-disparities-in-Connecticut.pdf

Jackson, M., & Marchi, N. (2020). Graduate-Entry Education for Nonnurses: Preparation, Pathways and

Progress. Nursing Education Perspectives, 41, 30-32.

National League for Nursing (NLN). NLN Biennial Survey of Schools of Nursing 2017-2019. Retrieved

from http://www.nln.org/newsroom/nursing-education-statistics/biennial-survey-of-schools-of-

nursing-academic-year-2017-2018

The U.S. Nursing Workforce: Trends in Supply and Education for the Bureau of Health Professionals. (2018)

Retrieved from http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/supplydemand/nursing/nursingworkforce

http://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/News/Factsheets/Faculty-Shortage-Factsheet-2017

https://www.aacnnursing.org/News-Information/Fact-Sheets/Accelerated-Programs

https://www.aacnnursing.org/News-Information/Fact-Sheets/Accelerated-Programs

https://www.cthealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/A-healthier-Connecticut-full-version.pdf

https://www.cthealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Health-disparities-in-Connecticut.pdf

http://www.nln.org/newsroom/nursing-education-statistics/biennial-survey-of-schools-of-nursing-academic-year-2017-2018

http://www.nln.org/newsroom/nursing-education-statistics/biennial-survey-of-schools-of-nursing-academic-year-2017-2018



EGAN SCHOOL GRADUATE PROGRAM

Graduate Curriculum Committee Meeting: Thursday, January 23, 2020

Minutes

Members Present: J. Conelius, S. Gerard, J. Hiser, R. Iannino-Renz, J. LoGiudice, N. Moriber, K.

Phillips, J. Shea (Chair), K. Wheeler

Excused: S. Belmont, S. Reynolds

Guest: E. Wuchiski

Review of Revised MEPN Program Proposal – E. Wuchiski, S. Gerard This proposal is for an accelerated Master’s Entry to Practice in Nursing Program (MEPN) which aims to address the needs of candidates that already have a baccalaureate degree in another discipline and wish to advance their education toward a master level program in nursing without having to complete an additional bachelor’s degree. The GCC committee raised a few questions after the proposal presentation at the last meeting for Erica Wuchiski to address at this meeting prior to voting on the proposal. One of the questions raised last meeting was “What percent of the program has to be taught at a graduate level for the program to be considered a graduate level program”? The answer is that 30 credits have to be taught at the master’s level for the students to receive a Masters’ degree. We will be offering 32 credits at the graduate level. The second question that came up was asking how Georgetown University has students do their pre-reqs and how they do Advanced Health Assessment. Georgetown is going in to their fifth year offering this type of program. They had required a Pathophysiology primer before they started the program. They have recently changed it to a physiology primer instead and they have found it to be more successful. It is an online course that is taught by a Georgetown professor. They are going to implement a pass/fail grade and require it be passed to continue on in the program. Because our requirements are more stringent, we are going to require they take the pre-reqs and pass them with a B or better by February to start the program in May. Georgetown insists that their students in this program are not allowed to work. We currently encourage our second degree program students to not work and would also strongly suggest that they not work for this program as well. Georgetown’s cohorts have been running 35-42 students per cohort, keeping in mind they replaced their second degree program completely with this program. Hospitals are hiring these people quickly. The plan of study had a few changes which were reviewed, such as removing NS611 since it is a DNP course, taking undergraduate Health & Wellness out, putting undergraduate Public Health back in, and adding a Palliative Care course. The Palliative Care course can be used as an elective for our MSN Leadership students also. MEPN will only be offered as a full-time program. Erica will be re-presenting the revised proposal and plan of study to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee with our agreed upon changes. The graduate level courses will be in their own sections. Some of the undergraduate level courses may be in with the second degree cohort sections. The NURS 7620 Advanced Concepts in Pathophysiology may have a mix of these students with other MSN Leadership students. We are aiming to get 10 people to start the first cohort to start Summer 2021 after it goes through State approvals and then through our EPC and Academic Council approvals. Motion to approve the revised MEPN proposal and plan of study as presented: N. Moriber; Seconded: R. Iannino-Renz Approved: Unanimous. MEPN revised program proposal is attached.



Educational Planning Committee Meeting Minutes – Excerpt April 16, 2020: Zoom Meeting

Members Present: Robert Hannafin, Lucrecia Garcia Iommi, Erica Hartwell, Zhan Li, Diane Mager, Kathryn Phillips, Rose Rodrigues, Amalia Rusu (Chair), Tommy (Lei) Xie. Guests: Meredith Kazer, Walter Rankin, Erica Wuchiski. Regrets: Katsiaryna Bardos, Shannon Kelley, Christine Siegel. AGENDA ITEM #2: Proposal for Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing Program (MEPN) Erica Wuchiski and Meredith Kazer presented the proposal for Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing Program (MEPN). Erica Wuchiski provided the following details: • This program is for an accelerated Master’s Entry to Practice program and a direct entry into

the field of nursing with a Master’s. This program is for individuals who already have a Bachelor’s Degree in another discipline and want to pursue a second career in nursing. Erica found that, through research and surveys, many felt going back for another Bachelor’s Degree was a lateral move in Education rather than an advancement so this deterred many qualified people from pursuing a second career in nursing. This program will attract a whole new pool of really strong candidates.

• Nursing is unique since there are several educational pathways to enter the field of nursing and become a registered nurse. Recently, a newer type of pathway gaining momentum is this Master’s Entry to Practice program. It is important to come up with new innovative ways to attract more people into the field of nursing and this program should do just that.

• The level of education and preparation is crucial for nursing. Nursing leaders have a strong impact on our healthcare industry and there just aren’t enough of them.

• Erica wanted to make sure this was a quality program that could make a difference for the University and field of nursing. She held a focus group with one of our previous second degree nursing cohorts of 58 students and they were very enthusiastic and excited about the program.

• Erica spoke to program directors from other universities that have similar programs up and running. They have had great success and tremendous results.

• Erica sent out an online survey to chief nursing officers at hospitals in the area where we send our students for clinical rotations. Of those that responded, many expressed a strong interest in hiring these graduates. They liked the idea that these particular students will have previous life experiences that they can contribute, and a Master’s background to fast track them to leadership roles.

• The Egan School of Nursing and Health Studies Dean and faculty are very supportive. The program was approved by both our undergraduate curriculum committee and graduate committee so a great deal of support.

• This program is intended for very highly qualified, notable applicants since it will be a very rigorous program. The criteria will be very stringent.

• It is a 24 month full-time program with a total of 76 credits (32 are graduate level). At the completion of this program, students will be eligible to sit for the National Council Licensure Examination to become a registered nurse.

• This could be a continuation of our second degree nursing program which has been very successful. The program director of the second degree program, Carole Pomarico, will work together with Erica and identify applicants that might be good candidates and qualify for this program so there will be an existing pool of applicants to draw from. This could also open up seats in the second degree program. There will be good overlapping for these programs.



• This program aligns with Fairfield University’s mission and is consistent with Fairfield’s 2020 strategic plan to grow more graduate programs. This is also a strong source of revenue for Fairfield University.

Questions/Comments: • Amalia Rusu: Is there any discussion on the budget? Meredith Kazer: We worked closely with

Walter Rankin on the budget. We are not expecting a huge number for this program and want to hand pick students from our traditional pool. We have marketing funds in the budget to market both this program and the second degree nursing program together.

• Zhan Li: How many of the 76 credits are on the undergraduate level? What are some of the courses that they will be taking? Erica Wuchiski: 32 credits are graduate level and the rest are undergraduate level. They will be taking undergraduate nursing courses simultaneously while taking graduate courses that appropriately align with their undergraduate courses. Meredith Kazer: We have to offer students all of our nursing courses. To take the State Board Examination, they have to have competencies in all the general list requirements for nursing. There were 3 traditionally offered undergraduate courses that we substituted for higher level content in those same areas. Students have to take all 20 nursing courses or the Master’s equivalent plus all of the graduate core.

• Meredith Kazer: Simultaneously with going through the Fairfield University channels, we have just submitted this to the State Board of Nursing who had additional requirements. This will probably be heard by the Board in May.

Meredith Kazer and Erica Wuchiski left the meeting. Motion to approve the Master’s Entry to Practice Nursing Program (MEPN): Kathryn Phillips Second: Amalia Rusu Erica Hartwell spoke in favor of the motion. This is a strong proposal and the resources are in place. There is a strong case for the market need for the program. VOTE: In favor: 9 (unanimous) Opposed: 0 Abstain: 0



DATE: March 2, 2020 FROM: Adrian Rusu, Chair, Department of Computer Science & Engineering RE: Proposal to: - Name change from M.S. in Applied Data Science to M.S. in Data Science

We propose changing the name of one of our graduate programs from Applied Data Science to Data Science. This name change will better communicate the scope of this graduate program, and better reflect our current and future teaching and research at Fairfield. In addition, we are intent to keep the degree as a STEM degree, and Data Science implies to be more technical than Applied Data Science.

The new name and designation reflects current disciplinary shifts. Only a few programs designate theirs as Applied Data Science, whereas the vast majority of programs are called Data Science. Computer Science and Engineering Department March 3, 2020 Faculty Members Present: Adrian Rusu (Chair), Haishuai Wang, Murray Peterson, Jeff Kramer, Amalia Rusu. The meeting was called to order at 11:40am by the Chair. …

3. Degree name change from Applied Data Science to Data Science

Adrian explained the rationale of the proposal, most of the programs are called Data Science, and our program is strong but it almost looks like not a serious program by adding the applied word to it. Haishuai agrees and thinks that this is a good idea and recognizes the fact that most schools have Data Science as the name for the program. Motion to approve the degree name change to MS in Data Science: Haishuai, second Murray. Approved unanimously (Vote 4-0-0)

SOE Curriculum Committee Meeting Minutes, March 6th, 2020 Attendees: Dr. Adrian Rusu, Dr. Hoffman, Dr. Balaji, Dr. Lyon, Dr. Amalia Rusu, Dr. Sundarram (Scribe) … Item 9: Change of name from MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science (Dr. Adrian Rusu) Dr. Adrian Rusu informed that the original name was Applied Data Science to imply that the program is industry driven. Only one other university (Syracuse) offers Applied Data Science program. In order to highlight the technical nature of our program, change name to remove Applied. For example: University of San Francisco’s program is called MS in Data Science, even though less technical. So to get full recognition for our program and make industry make note, changing name to MS in Data Science. Motion by Dr. Adrian Rusu: Approve name change. Seconded by Dr. Lyon. Vote: All in Favor. …



Educational Planning Committee Meeting Minutes – Excerpt March 19, 2020

Members Present: Lucrecia Garcia Iommi, Erica Hartwell, Shannon Kelley, Zhan Li, Diana Mager, Kathryn Phillips, Amalia Rusu (Chair), Rose Rodrigues, Tommy (Lei) Xie. Guests: Adrian Rusu, Walter Rankin. Regrets: Katsiaryna Bardos, Robert Hannafin, Christine Siegel. … AGENDA ITEM #3: Proposal for name change from MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science Adrian Rusu presented the Proposal for the name change from MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science:

• This name will better communicate the scope of this graduate program, and better reflect our current and future teaching and research at Fairfield.

• The vast majority of programs are called Data Science. Keeping “Applied” in the name may imply that it’s not technical.

• There are no resources needed. We are only changing the name.

Comments/Question: • Amalia Rusu: By changing the name to Data Science, we will be more in line with

what other major institutions are doing.

Motion to approve the Proposal for name change from MS in Applied Data Science to MS in Data Science: Diana Mager Second: Lucrecia Garcia Iommi VOTE: In favor: 9 Opposed: 0 Abstain: 0 …



Date: February 21, 2020

From: Susan Rakowitz, Secretary of the General Faculty

To: Members of the Academic Council

Re: Faculty Involvement in Academic Decision Making

On 2/29/20, Faculty received the following announcement:

Degree Works will be unavailable from 8:00 a.m. Monday, March 2 –12:00 p.m.

Saturday, March 7 for important upgrades.

All students who have an advising session scheduled for that week should save/print a

copy of their degree evaluation prior to the system downtime.

We thank you for your patience and understanding.

Office of the University Registrar

According to the academic calendar, the shutdown coincides with the first week of undergraduate

advising for Fall registration. A number of faculty complained to the Registrar and ITS about the

problems of having this key advising tool inaccessible for a full week of academic advising. They

further noted that delaying the shutdown for a single week, to Spring Break, would eliminate the

problem. As of this writing, consideration of rescheduling is underway.

The larger issue is that if faculty had been brought into the initial discussion of scheduling,

academic conflicts would have been identified and headed off from the start. This is not the first

time that a lack of appropriate faculty involvement in decision making has led to problems. I

therefore recommend the following motion to the Academic Council:

Any non-emergency decision that would significantly impact teaching or advising or

research must have faculty input through the appropriate Faculty Handbook Committee. If

there is not a specifically relevant committee, the Academic Council Executive Committee

is to be consulted and will determine what, if any, further faculty input is needed.

i Journal of Record, Appendix 27.

ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April 27, 2020 3:30 to 5 ... · Shannon Gerry, Shannon Kelley,...

Documents

Transcript of ACADEMIC COUNCIL AGENDA Monday, April 27, 2020 3:30 to 5 ... · Shannon Gerry, Shannon Kelley,...