JPBC Minutes: November 18, 2021

8:30 – 10:30 a.m., Virtual Meeting via Teams


Voting Members
  • Sondra Aman
  • Mike Andriatch
  • Justine Briggs
  • James Cordeiro
  • Frances Dearing
  • Linda Delene
  • Hailey Gardner
  • Kandie Gay
  • Daniel Goebel
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Margaret Lane
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Janet Roy
  • James Spiller
  • Elliot Weininger
  • Katy Wilson
Non-Voting Members
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • President Macpherson
  • Jason Morris
  • Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair
  • Karen Riotto
  • Melissa Wight
  • Laurie Boyd
  • Monica Brasted
  • Steve Cook
  • Denise Copelton
  • Bob Cushman
  • Eileen Daniel
  • Jennifer Green
  • Scott Haines
  • Mike Harrison
  • Mehruz Kamal
  • Lisa Jones
  • Mehruz Kamal
  • Sara Kelly
  • Pamela Kenward
  • Rachael Killion
  • Dana Laird
  • Sandy Mosher
  • Heather Raczkowski
  • Craig Ross
  • Rey Sia
  • Taneika Thompson
  • Danielle Welch


Voting Members
  • Mark Stacy
Non-Voting Members
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

Review Meeting Minutes from October 7, 2021 & October 14, 2021

Dr. Rhodes asked the committee to review the minutes from the October 7, 2021 meeting. Dr. Spiller motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Aman seconded the motion. 10 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Dr. Rhodes asked the committee to review the minutes from the October 14, 2021 meeting. Ms. Aman motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Dearing seconded the motion. 12 members voted to approve the minutes. Therefore, the minutes were approved.

Campus Based Fee Review Committee Annual Update – presented by Karen Riotto,
Assistant Vice President for Finance and Management


Ms. Riotto presented the Campus Based Fee Review Committee annual update. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • Appreciation was extended to Ms. Riotto for her hard work with the committee and her integrity over the fees that students pay.
  • The question was raised regarding what the accrual of approximately $70,000 from the Teacher Certification fee will be used for. It was stated that Dean Hernandez and Provost Heyning developed a plan regarding specific needs that needed to be addressed. The plan has been executed and the balance is being spent. Part of the comprehensive list of needs included specific technology needs identified to support the student teaching aspect of the curriculum.
  • The question was raised regarding the reason for the large increase of certain course fees. It was stated that the Counselor Education course fee request was explained by Dr. Reiner at a meeting. The fee is for software that the students trialed during the onset of COVID, and the department received great feedback from the students regarding their experience. The software enables students to work in a virtual environment and receive feedback before they are working with human subjects. Regarding the Art fees, it was discovered during the shift to remote learning that it was difficult for the students to get the quality supplies needed. If they had the appropriate products, they would be able to complete their work from home, but there were limitations. What was learned was the students now have a tool kit of high-grade materials so that if they choose to continue with their art career, they have the tools they need to be successful. The students obtain the materials at a preferable cost with the fee, and they are not shopping around town trying to find the correct materials.

Academic Strategic Plan Update – presented by Linda Delene, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs

Provost Delene presented an update on the Academic Strategic Plan. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • It was stated the College Senate was invited to be a part of the process this semester to weigh in on the undergraduate recommendations. The report was presented to College Senate on November 15, 2021 and College Senate voted to approve the recommendations outlined in the report.
  • The concern was stated that the original process of the Academic Strategic Plan reflected in Goal 1 was for continuous improvement in co-curricular and academic operational areas. Many individuals on campus feel there has been a shift in the process and it is now appearing as a program portfolio redesign. It was stated that the Academic Strategic Plan process is a continuous improvement and cannot be a one-time occurrence. The PPR has not be utilized well. They are exercises of review that have few outcomes. What needs to happen is that process needs to be improved and should result in the kind of review that is in the Academic Strategic Plan process. The review needs to be more evaluative and based on assessment outcomes. It will be up to the President and Cabinet to determine how they incorporate the PPRs into this ongoing process of program review. Right now, the PPRs are separate approaches, and they should not be. Many campuses look at academic programs on a three-, four-, five- or seven-year cycle and every program gets looked at thoroughly.
  • The request was made that there be a more diverse faculty representation on the steering committee as it has a heavy representation from one school.
  • Clarification was requested regarding where in the four categories are the stable programs listed. It was stated that most of the stable programs are listed in the reconfiguration group. There is one department that has not changed course titles since 1984. The course titles bear no relationship to what is being taught. If faculty own that intellectual property, then there should be work going onward when the content or course becomes dramatically changed. The faculty should be going to the chair of the department to initiate the change. It shouldn’t be driven by the administration. The discontinuation group are the programs that don’t have any students in them or very few. If the students aren’t interested in the programs, we must face the fact that there won’t be enrollment in those programs. The augmentation is a more complicated approach because it means that the growth potential is there but there need to be so many additional resources (human, fiscal and technology) that is a high-cost program and higher resource program. The reconfiguration may be lower in terms of the resources needed.
  • Clarification was provided that at the beginning of the Academic Master Planning process, it was stated that the review involved resource allocation. In addition, there was a rubric used to score programs that just shifted to qualitative analysis of strengths, concerns and opportunities. There appears to be a disconnect and it may be because the individuals who wrote the reports knew what was involved in the process and may not have shared it with their faculty.
  • It was stated that there needs to be consideration and understanding that if a program is listed as stable that doesn’t mean the area does not want change. Every report that came in included requests for less adjuncts, more faculty or better spaces. So, programs were classified based on what they put in their report.
  • It was determined with the lack of time there will be time set aside at the beginning of the next meeting for any other questions.

Goal Group 1 Update and Budget Prioritization Requests – presented by Linda Delene, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs and Katy Wilson, Vice President of Enrollment Management and Student Affairs

Provost Delene and Dr. Wilson presented an update on Goal Group 1. The following questions and answers occurred:

  • The suggestion was made about all the federal funding currently available, that the College should develop a strategic institutional approach to identifying opportunities for institutional grants that are available and bringing the information to the appropriate faculty. It was stated the Justine Briggs does a great job of environmental scanning of grant opportunities. In addition, Cabinet members provide information on funding opportunities to Ms. Briggs as information is sent to them. Faculty and staff were encouraged to use their contacts to assist in identifying funding opportunities. For example, information is placed on listservs that may not pertain to the individual looking at it, but those opportunities can be passed on to Ms. Briggs for her to review and to send to the appropriate area. It was also added via the chat that the Grants Office does have a new GA who is working on identifying grants. It will be added to the GA’s tasks to search for institutional grants. The Grants Office will continue to identify grants and solicit individuals who may be interested in applying. The true need comes down to having individuals who want to be the PI and take on the time and effort required to submit a grant application.
  • The suggestion was made that administration along with the chairs should develop a process to quantify advisement in terms of rewarding faculty. Right now, if an individual is not doing a good job, the advisement gets passed off to other individuals and that individual is let off the hook for advising. There should be more substance involved in recognition of good advisors and repercussions for individuals who are not doing their job at advising. It was stated that President Macpherson and Provost Delene have talked about what framework needs to be looked at regarding advisement. Provost Delene has been tasked with beginning to develop the framework. It is known that advisement is an issue on all campuses, but it is closely related to retention. Cabinet will be having a retreat in January that involves looking at retention and advisement will be a part of that. It was added that the reporting structures at Brockport for advancement, promotion and tenure do not reflect advising as an important task of the faculty. Therefore, it has very little importance in advancement, promotion and tenure. It is certainly not major criteria, but it is an activity of merit that should be in the documentation and reflected in the annual reports better than it is now. The Provost will be providing the President with ideas on how to do this. We need to recognize that the structure that we put together must reflect the fact that some individuals make great advisors and others don’t have the empathy, compassion or the ability to sit with a student to work through the problems. It is important to develop a structure so that students have help when they need it.
  • It was requested that the itemized budget for the budget prioritization request for the Intercultural Center be shared with the committee.
  • It was determined with the lack of time there will be time set aside at the beginning of the next meeting for any other questions.

Other Items from the Committee

  • Committee members were encouraged to complete the Strategic Plan survey that has been provided to all faculty and staff. The student survey for the Strategic Plan will be sent out today.


The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 a.m.