JPBC Minutes: December 16, 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
  • Kandie Gay
  • Daniel Goebel
  • Tom Hernandez
  • Cathy Houston-Wilson
  • Jose Maliekal
  • Dave Mihalyov
  • Janet Roy
  • James Spiller
  • Mark Stacy
  • Katy Wilson
Non-Voting Members
  • Crystal Hallenbeck
  • Jason Morris
  • Karen Riotto
  • Jim Wall: Co-Chair
  • Melissa Wight
  • Bob Cushman
  • Jennifer Green
  • Mike Harrison
  • Sara Kelly
  • Pamela Kenward
  • Rachael Killion
  • Tammy Jo Manz
  • Sandy Mosher
  • Heather Raczkowski
  • Taneika Thompson


Voting Members
  • Kristin Hartway
  • Hailey Gardner
  • Margaret Lane
  • Elliot Weininger
Non-Voting Members
  • President Macpherson
  • Darson Rhodes: Co-Chair

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

Approval of the Minutes

Mr. Wall asked the committee to review the minutes from the November 18, 2021 meeting. Dr. Spiller motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Roy seconded the motion.


Mr. Wall asked the committee to review the minutes from the December 2, 2021 meeting. Dr. Spiller motioned to approve the minutes; Ms. Aman seconded the motion.


Mr. Wall made the following announcements:

  • Our next meeting isn’t until we are back in January and we are working on the meeting agenda.
  • We have a student to fill our Graduate Student Representative position. Her name is Sarah Boroski.

Retention Update Question & Answer Session

The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • The question was raised regarding the clear pattern of declining enrollment in every category and have the enrollment projections been adjusted to account for these declines. It was stated that the projections will be run again before the spring semester and during the spring semester. The model uses previous enrollment and recent trends.
  • The question was raised regarding if the students that have left the College are being tracked as we have in the past to see if they have gone to another SUNY or elsewhere. If this information is still being collected, what is it showing? It was stated that we are seeing a much bigger group going to the university centers and the other group is no college. Both are of great concern. There is information that Robert Wyant has compiled regarding the distribution of where students are going. This will be shared with the group at a later date.
  • The question was raised regarding if there is any analysis of whether or how academic performance is related to leaving Brockport and is it more detailed then good standing. It was stated that we are seeing our Emerging Scholars leaving at a greater rate and we are trying to evaluate this and understand the cause better. We are also trying to compare our number of Emerging Scholars to other schools and their retention rates.
  • The question was raised if it would be worthwhile to have a dropout risk index so that it is more predictive instead of reactive as far as measuring the risk of a student dropping out and targeting with services from the Academic Success Center. The index should be more refined then if their GPA has fallen into academic probation. It was stated that we were able to do that with Starfish Analytics which we had from a SUNY grant. It was a predictive model that we had for a year. It is too expensive for the College to have as it is around $80,000. Unfortunately, we did not have the grant renewed. None of the SUNY campuses did as SUNY discontinued that grant. We have tried to take what we learned and use it in EagleSuccess so there are flags that can be raised. What it comes down to is cohorting students and how do we look at incoming students and what are the risk factors of cohorting students and tracking them on a regular and detailed basis. This is something we are working on at the Academic Success Center. We do it with some groups and we are looking to expand. We are trying to take the framework and model that we had when we had Starfish and use those lessons and practices. It is looking at cohorts and what cohorts we are going to focus on moving into the next year.
  • The question was raised regarding if we are tracking the retention rates by geography and if the retention rates of downstate be lower due to COVID. It was stated that we were seeing patterns of losing more regional students than downstate students, but the Fall 2020 cohort needs to be evaluated again to ensure that evaluation is accurate.
  • The question was raised regarding if there are retention efforts that are designed for local students and students who live further away. It was stated that we are examining how we can establish a sense of belonging, connection and roots for students from downstate sooner. We are also trying to have more partnerships with the local schools. We are working on having students do bus trips earlier to get a sense of belonging with the region. In addition, we are developing a way to have the regional advisor do more connection activities and workshops with students after they are admitted and deposited. It was added that results from the student satisfaction survey indicated that local students struggled with childcare especially when they have a hybrid of course work.
  • The question was raised if Starfish Analytics is packaged with Brightspace which is replacing Blackboard. It was stated that SUNY wants campuses to use Brightspace but Brightspace and Starfish are not compatible with each other yet, but they are working on it. It was added that Starfish was bought by EAB, so we are concerned whether the cost will increase and if it is an expense we can afford. We are researching whether there are other tools we can use.
  • It was stated that a study is being conducted to better understand why students leave and don’t come back. The students that are being reviewed are students that left from this summer to this fall. We are hoping to have the study concluded by the end of May. The information will then be shared with the committee.

Instructional Technology and Classroom Renovation Committee (ITCRC)

  • Mr. Wall reviewed the membership with the committee:
    • Three faculty representatives:
      • Peter Kalenda – EH&HS
      • Keith Baker – SOBAM
      • TBD – SAS
    • One Associate Dean – Lerong He
    • Registrar Office Representative – Peter Dowe
    • Two representatives from Instructional Technology – Bob Cushman & Frank Mancini
    • Two representatives from Budget and Finance Administration – Mark Stacy & Stacie Treahy
    • Coordinator of Accessibility Services – Nikki Hall
    • Director of Facilities Maintenance and Operation – Kevin Rice
  • Members reviewed adding the CELT Director to the ITCRC membership. Dr. Houston-Wilson motioned the approval to add the CELT Director; Dr. Spiller seconded the motion.
  • Mr. Wall stated approximately nine classrooms were designated for upgrades and the software and equipment purchases have been approved.
  • An organization that is involved with leasing classroom technology to various institutions across the country has agreed to come in and do a presentation for the committee.

Enrollment and Staffing Update

Mr. Wall provided an update on enrollment and staffing. The following questions, answers and discussion points occurred:

  • It was requested to have the faculty information broken down into categories such as tenured faculty, full-time lecturer and instructors, etc., to see how the percentages and ratios have related over time. It was stated that the information is not available to discuss at this meeting, but the data will be researched to see if it is available and will be addressed at a later meeting.
  • The question was raised if the faculty offset number includes adjuncts. It was stated that adjuncts are excluded from the number.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the increase in the faculty number when it is the understanding that we are in a hiring freeze. It was stated that when the targets for the 2021-22 budgets were reviewed there was an approximate six percent reduction of staffing across campus. This was achieved for all divisions except Academic Affairs as when the numbers were reviewed some funding for positions had to be added back in for this academic year. Hopefully, moving forward there should be some attrition through retirements and other reasons that we can look at to capture some of those positions. It was added that EMSA was able to remain stable due to moving lines from one department to another to redeploy resources to the areas that are needed. Therefore, some departments have fewer positions while others have more. In addition, it was stated that various divisions are experiencing recruitment issues for open positions due to limited candidate pools. Also, it was added that there is serious consideration regarding positions so that the campus can balance services for student retention.
  • Clarification was requested regarding the 24 open positions in Academic Affairs as these positions were most likely not added and there is confusion with the growth with the staffing numbers in Academic Affairs. It was stated that the 24 open positions are included in the total as those were retirements or resignations that happened after July 1. In addition, it was stated that the numbers prior to 2020-21 are actual FTEs while the numbers for 2020-21 and 2021-22 are the budgeted FTEs that includes all lines from the beginning of the year and have not been adjusted for things that may have impacted the number during the year (i.e., leaves, load reductions, etc.). This includes vacancies. Vacant lines have not been removed from the FTEs because we want to make decisions regarding these positions moving forward.
  • The question was raised if there are data tables that detail annually the number of budgeted positions and the filled positions. It was stated the data is still be analyzed and needs to be reconciled before it can be publicly viewed. Once that has been completed, the data will be shared.
  • The question was raised regarding the total staffing in Academic Affairs for 2021-22 being 353.95 and how is it factored if the positions are all full-time positions. It was stated that it is based on the FTE assigned by Human Resources. FTEs can be impacted by leaves, including sabbaticals. If an individual is working part-time, their FTE would reflect that. An individual can be on a permanent line but not counted budget-wise as one full FTE because of their Human Resources appointment status.
  • The question was raised regarding if there have been any changes to our ability to offer a retirement incentive. It was stated that we still do not have approval from the State to offer a retirement incentive. We have calculated numbers regarding a retirement incentive, so we are prepared in case we receive approval to offer a retirement incentive.
  • The question was raised regarding the retirement projections and if there has been a decrease in the last couple of years due to the uncertainty of COVID and if we should be expecting an increase in retirements over the next couple of years. It was stated that the last time the numbers were reviewed, we had 33% of our population was retirement eligible across the campus. The feedback being received from Human Resources is that they are seeing more retirements lately than they have in the past. A request will be made to Human Resources to obtain data to do a year over year comparison.

Other Items from the Committee

  • The question was raised if we are seeing any operational savings in terms of personnel, activities, events or programs that could not be held due to COVID. It was stated we are seeing some savings on the 80 open positions and there are other savings occurring. The Budget Office has been preparing annual reports as to where we are against our budget. We can bring that to JPBC to share six months results. When we reviewed three months, the budget was looking good with the open positions. In addition, Ms. Riotto has been working on the COVID expenses and hopefully we will have enough from the stimulus money to cover the COVID expenses.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 a.m.