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 theby 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



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



The Minutes from April 20, 2004 were approved.



The chair explained the special agenda due to the emergency status of the meeting to approvethe recommendations from the EPC Committee as well as the President�s Office regarding the Revised Drop/Add Period.



No report.



No report.



No report.



No report.


No questions.




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.





M. Barone introduced D. Varga as the new student senator for the Faculty Senate.




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}



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.