May 4, 2004


1.CALL TO ORDER: The 14th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2003-2004 was called to order at 1:15 PM on April 6, 2004 in the Hall of Fame Room, PER Center, by Chair Jeffrey Walkuski.


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Walkuski, P. Buckenmeyer, K. Coombs, B. Mattingly, P. Walsh, J. Hokanson, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, L. Anderson, M. Friga, J. Rayle, J. Peluso, K. Pristash, A. Johnson, P. Schroeder, A. Young, M. Barone, D. Walker, D. Stevens, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, W. Shaut, C. Plunkett, E. McCabe, T. Fay, C. Poole, M. Ali


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Beadle, M. Chandler, S. VanEtten, T. Phillips, E. Bitterbaum


GUESTS PRESENT: M. Prus, E. Caffarella, P. Koryzno, D. Berger, L. Krall, R. Chaturvedi, S. Broyles, B. Hodges, J. Alemzadeh, Y. Murname, R. Janke, R. Sipher, D. Margine, M. Richardson, J. Governali, S. Broyles



There was a vote to approve the recommendations from the Committee on Teaching Effectiveness on the CTE Manual. (Passed; 2 Abstained)


There was a vote to postpone the EPC proposal for discussion and vote until an emergency meeting on May 11 (Passed)



The Minutes from April 06, 2004 were approved.



The Chair opened by referring to an e-mail he had received from J. Alemzadeh about a proposal he desired to bring forth to the Senate for last minute consideration.Walkuski explained that, since this particular proposal didn�t go through the proper channels, according to the bylaws, he would not put on the agenda.Walsh protested stating that this was coming from the faculty, but the Chair pointed out that since the proposal had gone through the Faculty Senate list-serve without prior approval from the Senate Chair or Steering Committee, and from a non-member of the Senate, it was the Chair�s prerogative not to put it on the agenda.He also mentioned that, since the item was regarding summer salaries, it should have been dealt with when the contracts went out earlier in the spring.Although Chair Walkuski agreed on the importance of the issue, the agenda was already full with important business and he had to keep in accordance with the standing rules.Walsh asked whether a Senator could make a motion not on the agenda and Poole read the Standing Rules: Except for matters of urgent nature appointed committees shall publish committee recommendations to all members of Senate two weeks in advance of the meeting in which they shall be considered.L. Krall asked what happens if the Standing Rules are violated and the Parliamentarian explained that there is no allowance for violations which necessitates the rules to begin with.Krall asked if this was the last Senate meeting and Walkuski explained that there was a question as to whether or not this was truly an appropriate issue for the Faculty Senate.J. Alemzadeh spoke as to the urgency of the matter, pointing out his serving as Senate chair twice.Walkuski asked Alemzadeh to leave to which Alemzadeh refused.Walkuski offered to have him removed.There was general debate between the two about some mis-communications as to what had transpired within the prior 24 hours.Walkuski pointed out a clarification that he had asked Alemzadeh to present him with evidence in regards to any promises supposedly made by President Taylor.Walkuski pointed out that he had in his posssession the Senate Minutes where the alleged promise was supposed to have taken place, in Alemzadeh�s own words, that outline what Taylor did say.Walkuski further pointed out that he had asked Alemzadeh to wait so that Walkuski could talk to people on campus before misinformation was leaked out erroneously.He said, �I am exercising my right as the Chair. Do I deny that this is an important issue? No, I do not.I am simply questioning the timing and the grandstanding procedure at this time.


Bitterbaum was then recognized and spoke to the issue.He offered his surprise at the direction the meeting was taking and asked that the tone be lowered.He told Alemzadeh he was very disappointed at his discourteousness towards the office of the President and himself.He clarified that he had called Dr. Taylor and that Alemzadeh had not been truthful.Taylor never make a commitment that was in stone and said that he would never handicap a future president.President Taylor suggested clarification by referring to the minutes of that meeting.Bitterbaum announced that Dr. Taylor had visited the prior weekend and mentioned that it was both President Taylor and President Clark�s desire to get to $3000 one day and Taylor felt he had made great strides towards $2700. He further explained that when the tuition increase was made the campuses were not benefitted thus taking 2.8 million dollars away.�I said I have a fiduciary responsibility to the campus.We have to meet all of our obligations. When they took away 2.8 million dollars, that really changed the equation for us...We made a good commitment here, we can get to 3000.I can�t say it�s in stone. If additional things happened we would try to get there...(Jalal) you should have taken a different approach. There are procedures. Do we actually have the dollars to do this? We had to go into reserve. You have to appreciate, Jalal, we really wanted to do this.Circumstances are that we can�t do it at this time.�


Alemzadeh made a remark asking T. Fay to confirm President Taylor�s commitment from the prior October Steering Committee meeting. Fay replied that Taylor made a commitment based on various factors which was a step process based on tuition increase. He said, �My recollection was he (Taylor) made a move to get towards $3000 that was linked to tuition.


Provost Davis-Russell spoke and indicated that she said it was always President Taylor�s desire to increase summer session salaries, and salaries, in general. She further stated, �However, it was based on our ability to do that.He said he would like to get to 3000 but he increased it to 2700 because at that time they couldn�t go to 3.He said that he was a President who always said that he would not handicap an incoming President.She also reflected that there seems to be a misconception that there is funding and it is being withheld, which is untrue.


Walkuski recognized Yvonne Mandname who confirmed President Bitterbaum�s good faith measure to raise salaries to 2800 for the coming year which was sent in a memo with the contracts delaying the contracts going out.

Walkuski made a request for the meeting to move on with scheduled Senate business, however, Alemzadeh continued talking but the meeting continued regardless according to the agenda.


Bitterbaum then gave up time from his report to Alemzadeh.who said he appreciated Bitterbaum�s efforts towards salaries. He said Jeff Bauer confirmed exactly what Taylor presumably had said alleging that the President promised he would raise it to 3,000 in three steps. Alemzadeh mentioned some schools that pay up to $6,000.He mentioned the urgency of the issue and also said he heard summer school monies were going into the Education Department.


Bitterbaum responded to some misinformation, saying that no funds are going to the Education Department. He also reported on recent figures for other SUNY summer salaries: SUNY Brockport: $2,400; Buffalo State: 2800; Geneseo: $2,400; New Paltz: $2,300;

Old Westbury: $2,750; Oneonta: $2,500; Oswego: $2,400;Plattsburg: $2,900; Pottsdam: $2,400; Purchase: $2,400.I will state the fact that we do the best we can with the resource we have.


Chaturvedi asked a question requesting some data and Bitterbaum offered to provide that to him.



No report.



No report.



The Secretary passed around a roster reminding those whose elections are up to run an election.



President Bitterbaum yielded most of his time to Senator�s Alemzadeh and Chaturvedi regarding the summer school salary inequity issue {SEE Chair�s Report}


On an optimistic note, he said, his first news was reporting on the generation of the class of �2004 on May 15.He mentioned an individual named Macumbo who would be receiving an honorary degree, a professional athlete and humanitarian, recognized for all of the work he has done in Africa setting up hospitals, as well as George Jones, class of �56, former US Mission Director.


He mentioned Mission Review II being worked on by all campuses, having been granted an extension from December through August, and then Patty Francis and her group will edit and send it back to the faculty for review. His office anticipates sending those documents, hopefully, late September or early October. Bitterbaum also reported a recent SUNY discussion of a small tuition increase for graduate and out-of-state students: $200 for in-state, $600 for out-of-state, saying they won�t know the outcome until the budget is finalized. He also reported on the 40 million dollar budget, �which is terrific.�It also appears, he said, �We are almost official as to Woman�s Olympic Team Handball.He finished by saying, �We will keep fingers crossed...that will allow us to do good things if that is passed,� referring to the 50 million added to budget.



{SEE Chair�s Report}





Long Range Planning Committee - Open meeting following lunch 203 Corey Union


Educational Policy Committee - Anderson brought forth the 3 proposals for consideration that she gave background two weeks prior.The first one addressed the shared resources course policy at SUNY Cortland {SEE Appendix} Anderson mentioned an amendment and Walkuski told her she could directly address the amended version since it hasn�t been formally introduced as a motion only changed first paragraph editorial change changes in italics on the green copy passed around. Anderson then read the proposal(s).


Alwes asked a question with the cap on 400 and 500 students literally necessitating one large class. She brought up the concern of workload issues which would require more work in holding a large class as opposed to two smaller ones.Her concern was about the English Department, in particular, where they do so much writing.Her other concern was about the �integrity of the graduate student� and compromising them.


Steve Broyles was recognized and addressed the issue, talking about the Biology Department, where shared resources has been very successful, especially in his field biology course at Raquette Lake. He talked about the maturity of the students, cost effectiveness as well as the course being very challenging to both graduate and undergraduate students.


Mattingly brought up his concern that, although shared resources is optional, in times where budgets are tight, a dean or chair could impose it on a professor unfairly.He also worried that cross listing courses, as other SUNY colleges have done, might put our campus at risk with certain Board of Trustee members, such as Kate VanArnum.


The Provost expressed that she felt it was unfortunate that Kate VanArnum has been placed in the middle of this and not there to defend herself.She said when program proposals go through, one of the first questions the BOT have to ask, is whether or not the department or campus has the resources to support a graduate program. She urged everyone to separate the issue of resources from this proposal and argue the proposal on the basis of soundness.


John Cottone asked the question that if the course had a different description, different numbers and different titles, how could a student be prevented from taking the same course twice?


R. Sipher from the History Department offered to speak to the issue, his last 20 minutes before retirement, as to whether or not a dean or chair could come to a professor in hard times and ask him to teach a course, since there are always no guarantees.He also addressed Alwes� concern, which he felt was a legitimate one, about compromising the integrity of the graduate students. However, he felt that any chair or dean should have faith in the quality of their faculty to do what is right for the integrity of the college.


Walkuski interrupted and asked if the Senate would like to vote on having an emergency meeting on May 11 to continue the EPC motion, in the interest of time, since it was almost 2:30.There was a vote and it passed.


Student Affairs Committee - No report.


Faculty Affairs Committee - No report.





No report.




Committee on Committees - J. Walkuski asked for nominations from the floor for vacancies on campus.A. Johnson nominated D. Ritchie for LRPC; Karen Coombs for EPC; Kevin Pristash nominated A. Dahlman for Student Senate rep; Walkuski nominated D. Neal for the GE

Committee, Fine Arts and Humanities.



Walkuski introduced a proposal from the President and Provost�s office regarding drop-add, which was a compromise to the 7 day drop/add period proposed and vetoed at an earlier Faculty Senate meeting.


President Bitterbaum added that this was an amendment to the previous one and he had asked the Provost to go back and work with the deans, chairs and faculty, along with Donna Margine, to come up with a plan which would accommodate everything they wanted to accomplish equitably.He urged those who were not involved and had questions to call the Provost or himself. He also pointed out that in the years of 2008, 2012 and 2017, for example, the campus would have to go back to the old schedule, due to the calendar dates.



CTE Committee recommendations.M. Richardson read the proposed recommendations from the CTE Committee. She explained the committee�s efforts in obtaining feedback from the faculty.Walkuski said they could accept both proposals at the same time. M. Friga had a question about a recommendation, saying, �Part of my issue is the question of the validity of the items set behind specific peer review evaluation. Friga said he thinks it is a good suggestion that it be part of peer review and asked what sort of guidelines were used?


Richardson responded referring to 8purview items. She further stated, �Other than that each department may choose other CTE items and put them into their own lists, make up their own questions, or write up their own short answer question if they choose.� She said no change is suggested as to what CTE questions are used.


Hokanson mentioned that a member going up for promotion can assess how students responded to questions, especially if it was a difficult class and this information is especially pertinent to the outcome.


Friga asked another question about efforts at providing faculty with historical average CTE�s for specific courses. He went on by offering an example, comparing a Measurement and Evaluation class to a more fun, seminar-type class, pointing out that the evaluations would come out differently.He asked, �What is the historical average which mentions evaluation...if you identify average information?


Meg responded that although she felt it would be of great value, her committee was not allowed do to that.


B. Mattingly mentioned junior faculty who find turning in a CTE along with explanatory narrative makes them feel defensive and they don�t like it unless it is specifically called for.


L. Krall was recognized and asked a question about the survey the CTE Commitee sent out and the process which took them to where they were now.


Richardson offered a response involving departmental variations.


Krall talked about workload and how threatening the peer review process would be to a junior faculty member if they were observed unannounced, as opposed to an announced visit where they would be optimally prepared. She said it wasn�t clear to her what kind of objective evaluation was coming out of the peer review process.She also mentioned faculty being stressed at getting their folders together, as well as additional workload required of herself, already a very busy Chair.


Walkuski suspended the discussion in order to move onto other business.He reiterated that it is just a trial period and not set in stone, and although it might require be some extra workload, which he felt is understandable, it could always come back next year to the next Senate chair for review.


Richardson wanted to address Krall�s question but Walkuski stressed that, in the interest of time, since EPC had 3 important pieces to review, although he did not trivialize Richardson�s business, he wanted to call for a vote.Walkuski stressed that if the Senate would go along and adopt the recommendations that a dialogue could continue on campus. He also emphasized that it was a trialperiod. He said he appreciated Richardson�s work but urged her to move forward in the interest of other important Senate business.

Walsh asked for another meeting and Walkuski clarified that it would be the chair�s prerogative. Walkuski called for a vote and the motion carried, with two abstentions {SEE Senate Actions}


Krall inquired as to whether or not the Senate was the place to carry on a discussion of the CTE issues and Walkuski replied, �I don�t mean to be disrespectful.There�s a certain protocol on how meetings are run...�


Krall raised another question and Walkuski urged her to raise them some other time.




No reports.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:33 PM.


Respectfully submitted,


Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary


The following reports are appended to the Minutes in the order reported and submitted by Senators and other members.


(1) Administration�s Report to the Senate submitted by President Bitterbaum.


(2) EPC proposals submitted by L. Anderson.


(3) Drop/Add proposal submitted by President Bitterbaum.