FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO. 15
May 11, 2004
1.� CALL TO ORDER: The 15th
meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2003-2004 was called to order at 1:15 PM on
May 11, 2004 in the� by Chair Jeffrey
Walkuski.
SENATORS AND MEMBERS
PRESENT: J. Walkuski, P. Buckenmeyer,
B. Mattingly, P. Walsh, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, L. Anderson, M.
Friga, J. Rayle, M. Chandler, J. Peluso, K. Pristash, A. Young, T. Phillips, M.
Barone, D. Walker, D. Stevens, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, E. McCabe, L.
Anderson
SENATORS AND MEMBERS
ABSENT: K. Coombs, G. Beadle, A.
Johnson, S. VanEtten, P. Schroeder, R. Franco, W. Shaut, C. Plunkett, T. Fay,
C. Poole
GUESTS PRESENT: P. Koryzno, C. Malone, M. Prus. C. DeGouff, Y. Murnane,
B. Spitzer, D. Margine, G. Avery, G. Peterson, R. Sipher, S. Rayl
II. SENATE ACTIONS:
There was a vote to approve
the (3) recommendations from the EPC Committee: Shared Resources Policy (Passed);
Part-Time student recognition policy (Passed); changes and revisions
to Educational Policy Committee Guidelines (Passed).
There was a vote to approve
the changes to the drop/add period proposal policy as recommended from the
President and the Provost�s Office (Passed).
There was a vote to accept
the nominations for vacancies for committees from the Committee on Committees (Passed)
There was a vote to suspend
the Standing Rules of the Faculty Senate to discuss rescinding the vote of the
CTE Committee recommendations from the meeting of May 4. In favor: P.
Buckenmeyer, B. Mattingly, P. Walsh, A. Young, T. Phillips, M. Barone, D.
Walker.� Opposed:� None. Abstaining: M.
Chandler, J. Peluso. (Passed)
There was a vote to rescind
the vote of the CTE Committee from the meeting of May 4. Roll Call Vote: In
Favor: T. Phillips, M. Friga, J. Hokanson, K. Alwes, P. Walsh; Opposed:
D. Walker, M. Barone, J. Peluso, M. Chandler, L. Anderson, J. Cottone, B.
Mattingly; Abstained:� A.
Young, P. Buckenmeyer
III.� APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
The Minutes from April 20,
2004 were approved.
IV. CHAIR�S REPORT:
The chair explained the
special agenda due to the emergency status of the meeting to approve� the recommendations from the EPC Committee as
well as the President�s Office regarding the Revised Drop/Add Period.
VII.� VICE CHAIR�S REPORT:
No report.
VIII.� TREASURER� S REPORT:
No report.
IX.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:
No report.
X.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT: �
No report.
�
XI.� QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT:
No questions.
XII. STANDING COMMITTEE
REPORTS:
Long Range Planning
Committee - No report.
Educational Policy
Committee - The first recommendation
discussed was the shared resources proposal which was briefly outlined by Chair
L. Anderson at the meeting of 5/04/04.�
Alwes mentioned a fear of
supporting it due to a dear that during difficult budgetary times it might be
untenable.
A. Young explained that up
until 5-6 years ago the policy had been active but perhaps due to an
over-correction it was eliminated.� He
said that as a department chair who had served a long time he was never asked
by a dean to use or combine a shared resources course.� He also made a referral to a discussion he
had with R. Sipher about the issue of trust.
Walkuski asked a question
about previous students who have experienced shared resources courses, since quality
might be an issue, about enriching the kinds of things they might have to offer
with students.
L. Anderson shared her
personal experiences where she has taught undergraduate and graduate students
in 500 level courses, �...have been wonderfully enriching and I wouldn�t want
to change it.��
Walkuski asked her to if the
key issue is that departments have the option to which Anderson replied
in the affirmative.
D. Margine explained in more
detail some of the possibilities regarding content and what is being offered to
the students at the undergraduate versus graduate levels.
A. Young also offered that
using shared resources means that master�s students in Recreation and Leisure
Studies can learn more about GIS from D. Miller in the Geography Department
since he is so much more knowledgeable.�
The other alternative previously, he offered, was independent study,
which professors such as himself still do not have the familiarity in GIS that
individuals such as Miller do.
B. Mattingly asked a question
regarding NCATE certification and whether this shared resources decision might
affect it, since the requirements state that undergraduate and graduate
students must have different syllabi although they might have the same end
outcome.
L. Anderson answered from her
experience that in that situation she would have undergraduate students use the
textbook whereas graduate students would also be required, in addition to textbook
use, to define sources on chapters and take it to a higher level.
J. Cottone used the example
that the same situation currently exists in seminar courses or fieldwork, as
part of the teacher education program, for graduates and undergraduates, where the
difference would be in requirement expectations.
Margine added that if the
requirements are the same and undergraduates take the same course and earn an
undergraduate degree, where graduate students take it and earn a graduate
degree, then there is a problem, but it would be up to the departments to make
that determination.� But she pointed out
that they can�t take it as an undergraduate and then use it as a requirement as
a graduate.
Alwes pointed out that at the
last meeting she was concerned because most of the discussion revolved around
experiences at Raquette Lake outside of the classroom, which would not affect
the English Department.� Her concern was
that in English undergraduate and graduate students would be in a seminar type
experience, however, in discussion the undergraduates would not have read the
same chapters as the graduates, which would be a problem.
Anderson mentioned the
richness of experience she has been involved in, both as a student, and as a
teacher, pointing out that without shared resources there wouldn�t be enough
students for the classes and the resources it would allow.
E. McCabe spoke to her
experience as a student at SUNY Cortland where she earned her Master�s degree
and the only difference in undergraduate work was they were required to write a
shorter paper.� As a graduate student she
found it a very stimulating experience but found that the undergraduates were
totally lost and unable to keep up.
Anderson mentioned another
experience where a first generation college student in her family who told her
she wouldn�t have decided to get her graduate degree if she had not first been
exposed to such a situation which motivated her.
Buckenmeyer spoke for the
motion saying, �If the syllabi are put together appropriately, not done with
everything, make the decision within the department, it can be done well, and I
think, Karla, in terms of, we could talk about if it doesn�t work we can always
go back to the drawing board, if it doesn�t work out in time.�
The question was called and
passed.
The second motion, to
recognize the academic achievement of part-time students, was discussed.
B. Mattingly asked whose
workload might increase as a consequence of this action.
Anderson recognized Margine
who said that her office would be looking at the students who meet the criteria
of earning under 12 credit hours and that some students would be able to
achieve this by the second semester.
M. Prus asked who would be
signing the many letters required to be mailed out to students since this was
not specified in the proposal.
P. Koryzno answered that it
would be coming from his office since they are already doing the President�s
list. He asked Margine if she had any ideas of how many this would mean, in
numbers.
Margine indicated she was
waiting until it passed to do a trial run.
Provost Davis-Russell
emphasized that she wanted it to be looked at in terms of its merits as
recognizing many non-traditional students who also work and are raising
families who deserve such recognition.
President Bitterbaum
concurred with the Provost mentioning a reception his office hosted for the
recipients of the President�s list where the attendance was wonderful.� He said, �I think it�s a tremendous
encourager although I know it could be burdensome.�
There was some discussion as
to whether a different set of criteria were being developed and it was
clarified that the only difference is the part-time status.
Provost Davis-Russell spoke
to that issue saying, �It was not our intent to change the criteria to become a
Dean�s list student, we did not want to do that, but we did want to recognize
students who had done excellent work but could not be full-time students.�
The question was called and
passed.
The last was changes to the
EPC Policy Guidelines, which was an attempt to clean up the College Handbook,
explained Anderson.� She referred to the
strikeouts and italics on handouts determining what was to be deleted and
changed. There were 4 areas where they wanted changes which involved caps on
enrollment, policy for class involving group absences for college activities.
The grading system involving pass/non-credit option, and requirement of a
sandwich seminar once a year.��
B. Mattingly asked a question
about the proposal for EPC not to be required to publish a list of activities
allowable for group absences from classes.�
Anderson spoke that her
committee felt this was duplicating what is done anyway.
Walkuski proposed that since
this is a motion and is a formality it could be withdrawn and brought back with
section 3 not struck out.
Anderson offered to bring
forth a new proposal with the class attendance lists not struck out.
The revised EPC Policy
guidelines passed.
Student Affairs Committee - No report.
Faculty Affairs Committee - No report.
XIII. SUNY SENATOR�S
REPORT: No report.
�����������������������
XIV. STUDENT SENATORS:
M. Barone introduced D. Varga
as the new student senator for the Faculty Senate.
XV. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committee on Committees - There was a motion to approve the committee
vacancies: College Curriculum Review Committee, Fine Arts and Humanities, Kevin
Halpin; Educ./Speech Path., Virginia Grantham, Bill Buxton; Professional Staff,
Alison Dearie; College Curriculum Review Committee, Educ. Speech Path., Kim
Williams; Professional Staff, Laurie Klotz, Soc. Behavior Sci. Judith Oullette;
EPC at-large, Mary McGuire, Arts and Sciences, Karen Zimmerman; Library, Karen
Coombs, Professional Staff, Meg Nowalk, Prof. Stud., Joy Hendrick; Fac. And
Masterplan Oversight Committee, at-large, Joan Sitterly; Faculty Affairs
Committee, Educ. Speech Path, Virginia Grantham, Math Science, Isa Jubran,
Prof. Staff, Glenn Clarke, LRPC HPER, J. Cottone, Library, Dave Ritchie;
Student Affairs Committee, HPER, P. Buckenmeyer, Prof. Staff, Steven Meyer.
{SEE Senate Actions}
The Provost asked the chair
questioning the designations which no longer represent the current
reconfiguration of the committee structure of the college since its reorganization.
The chair spoke to that saying his first task was to undertake the Senate
reconstruction and he planned, if it passed, to charge the new chair with
reconfiguring the committees. However, since the Senate reconstruction failed,
the new chair will have to undertake that task in 2004-2005.
XVI. NEW BUSINESS:
Recommendations from the President and Provost�s Office regarding the revised
Drop/Add period.� President Bitterbaum
shared with the Senate the history since there was a lot of dissension on the 6
day drop/add policy which proposed in the fall. He had gone back to the Provost
and different departments were involved to come up with a compromise which
would address the concerns involved.�
Bitterbaum also mentioned that every several years the college will have
to go back to the old calendar, for example, in 208 and 213, which involves the
holiday on Martin Luther King�s Day.
M. Barone asked if it would
have any impact on the end of the year, and Mark Prus reiterated the same
concern.
Margine spoke to that saying
that it would all balance out, but a committee could address that.
Young spoke to the proposal
saying he liked what it is trying to do.
�
XVII. OLD BUSINESS: There was a motion by P. Walsh to suspend the
standing rules of the Senate to rescind the vote on recommendations by the CTE
committee from the meeting on May 4.�
Walsh spoke to the motion
indicating he was speaking as a representative who had served on the CTE
committee and also as a Faculty Senator.�
He undertook the initiative to rescind the vote after receiving numerous
e-mails and correspondences from people who indicated their dissatisfaction
from the lack of adequate discussion at the last meeting. He said, �I stand by
the tenor and content of legitimacy, these are important recommendations...take
seriously the fact that they have to have legitimacy.�
Walkuski made some commentary
that he had received an e-mail after the May 4 meeting expressing pleasure at
the recommendations being passed, but as to how it was handled.� His response to the committee is that it was
never his intent to stop the discussion but it was his understanding that the
proposal had already received feedback from chairs and other parties on campus
which had already occurred.� He was not
aware that was not the case, but when he received the ready document, he felt
if it was not ready it should not have been brought forth.
Friga commented on his
observation having served on the Senate how a better system of communication
needs to be developed as far as communication, people being more informed, and
people not coming in at the last minute expressing their opinions without being
more adequately involved.
Alwes explained that she had
attended the Sandwich Seminar but was not satisfied and intended on hearing the
discussion at the future meeting. However, as she was regretfully late at the
May 4 meeting she missed some of the discussion and voted to abstain since the
discussion was terminated due to the lack of time.�
L. Anderson spoke from her
experience serving as Chair of EPC that her committee spends a lot of time
trying to obtain feedback and disseminate information widely across campus, but
that a web page needs to be implemented with the discussions online so that
everyone can be informed.
B. Mattingly said he was
widely torn on the issue and expressed his observation serving as chair on
campus that it appeared that anytime there is a discussion regarding assessment
of teaching there seems to be resistance on the part of the faculty.
Walsh felt that the real
issue was the lack of proper debate and not the issue of course teacher
evaluation in particular.
Walsh recognized R. Spitzer
who spoke to the fact that from his understanding at the last meeting the
discussion was truncated and with an issue as important as this one he felt
there was not enough faculty involved in a legitimate debating forum for a
proper discussion to take place.
Friga felt that although he is
in support of the motion he also felt that if the Senate wants to have
legitimacy regarding its actions it needs binding.
R. Sipher was recognized that
he did not agree with B. Mattingly and having served on many committees he felt
evaluation was done very well regarding teaching on campus.
Anderson indicated that she
is torn, although not in favor rescinding the vote, she felt it was only a
pilot program to receive feedback and not binding.
Walsh again spoke to the
issue of process, which he felt was important.
Chandler felt that the
process was illogical to use a proposal to initiate a pilot program.
The motion was voted on and
passed. {SEE Senate Actions}
XVII.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:
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) Motion to suspend the
Standing Rules of the Senate to allow a motion to rescind the vote taken on May
11th to approve the recommendations of the CTE Committee.
http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/m15th.html
�
�