����������������������������������������������������������� September 5, 2006


1. CALL TO ORDER:The first meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2006-2007 was called to order at 1:15 PM on September 5 in Jacobus Lounge, Brockway Hall by Chair Melvyn King.


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: M. King, K. Alwes, E. McCabe, D. Berger, D. West, L. Anderson, J. Governali, J. Hendrick, D. Sidebottom, J. Sitterly, V. Marty,

B. Tobin, S. VanEtten, P. Schroeder, C. Schacht, K. Boyes, M. Scala, E. Bitterbaum,

E. Davis-Russell, R. Peagler, J. Cottone, G. Clarke, D. Ritchie, D. Kreh


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Quaglio, G. Zarate, J. Casciani, M. Ware, (Fall class conflict � SEE SUNY Senator�s report), W, Shaut


GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, N. Aumann, R. Franco, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson,

E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane



There were no minutes to be approved.



There was a vote to approve the Standing rules (Passed)


There was a vote to approve Brian Rivest as the Math/Science representative on the GE Committee for the Fall 2006 semester (sabbatical replacement for David Barclay.) (Passed)


There was a vote to approve the charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee to examine the current procedures and upcoming review of procedures and attempt to resolve inconsistencies in the handbook. (Passed)



The Chair passed out the Standing Rules which were approved. He welcomed Jeffrey Walkuski, Graduate Senator, and Student Senators Chris Schacht, SGA Treasurer, Mike Scala, SGA Vice President and Katie Boyes, SGA President.



K. Alwes - No report.



E. McCabe � No report (absent)���



D. Berger announced that he had just been briefed by the previous Treasurer and would be looking into the status of the various bank accounts.He reported that there is $853.00 in the Faculty Senate account. He said he would be sending out an announcement for dues. He thanked the President in continuing to provide refreshments for the Faculty Senate meetings.



President Bitterbaum gave a brief report, first reporting on the �red zone� around the college. He explained that this means that as people retire from the college and move away certain homes become available.He said that the college does not have a policy to purchase some of these properties but his office is looking at a vision into the future. They have been working with Mike Collins, since the college is landlocked, so that the college can expand.He reported that this endeavor might include Faculty Senate input, cooperation from Cornell University and others.


The next item of business is that Joanne Barry has sent out an e-mail regarding the consultative search committee for the position of Vice President of Institutional Advancement formerly held by John Mosser.


The President reported that the Main Street project is still being worked on. His office is waiting for the Controller�s Office for news of a positive nature, hopefully this week, which will allow the campus to have a grand opening.


The college is going to host a downtown business partnership, constituting a 40 and under professional group, providing opportunity for people to become acquainted.He encouraged others to form such groups and stated, �We are delighted to host this one.�


SUNY Morrisville will be opening a biotech business, pending funding, in the production of bio diesel fuel.President Bitterbaum indicated that SUNY Cortland would be a presentation site.He said his office is hoping the state will support this venture since our area is a major producer of soy beans. He ended by saying, �You will hear more about that as part of the greening initiative.�


The legislature has granted $750,000 over two years for the SUNY System Coaching Institute.Our campus is advertising for an Assistant to the Director which would report to Dr. Roy Olsson, Dean of Professional Studies.He reported on the initiative which he referred to as a �wide open unregulated area.�The system, Bitterbaum stated, thinks we have expertise in this area.


The President reported on the College Council meeting that morning where all Vice Presidents shared how the college is structured and the administrative processes. He called it a great success.



K. Alwes asked what energy costs look like for the coming season. The President replied that the indicators would be the severity of this upcoming winter along with current heating costs.He responded, �Right now we are conservatively optimistic, but if there is a lot of demand, we are in trouble.� He also mentioned contributing factors such as monies which were provided from the System last year along with our recovery from hurricane Katrina and its affect on the oil refineries which were closed, driving up the cost of heating oil.


K. Alwes observed that heating prices have not gone down.


The President responded that the prices vary along the higher level but that he is optimistic.



Long Range Planning Committee � D. Ritchie, Chair � Ritchie reported that his committee needs members from the social/behavioral sciences area as well as 2 student members.He said the commission meeting will be on Friday, September 15 from 2-3 PM.


Educational Policy Committee � J. Cottone, Chair � Cottone announced that his committee had its first meeting that morning.His committee is also in need of 2 members from Arts and Sciences as well as 2 Student members.He said his committee has always had one student member although the rules actually call for two.


Student Affairs Committee � No report.


Faculty Affairs Committee � G. Clarke, Chair � No Report.


College Research Committee � No report.


General Education Committee � No report.


X.Committee on CommitteesJ. Barry, Chair � {SEE APPENDIX 2)

Brian Rivest was approved as the Math/Science representative on the GE Committee for the Fall 2006 semester (sabbatical replacement for David Barclay.)


There was a call for nominations for the Vice President for Institutional Advancement Search.There were no nominations from the floor.


There was a call for nominations to fill remaining vacancies and sabbatical replacements on various Faculty Senate Committees. There were no nominations from the floor.



There was no Old Business.



Formation of a committee to conduct the five year review of governance.King explained the need, according to the bylaws, to conduct a five year review of governance.He indicated that he would be sending out an e-mail to solicit interest from the faculty for participation. This could include considering possible changes, deletions and modifications as outlined in Section 150 of the handbook.He said, �It�s an important job but it�s a substantial job.�


Parliamentarian D. Kreh announced that the last review of governance took place in 2001-2002.He said there is no specification as to number and consistency and the Senate can allow for as much diversity as possible.He said this process can only start with interested people and encouraged anyone who knows about governance and how things could be changed or left the same, to encourage them to respond to the e-mail and become involved.


King finished by saying, �In a perfect world we would have a representative on this committee to include each major constituency involved�that would be my preference.But this year we will have to go with whatever committee is put together.Get the word around.There is a very serious need to have people involved.�


D. Ritchie asked which section of the handbook this is referring to.


Kreh indicated Section 150 of the handbook, which is the formal charge. He said if anybody has other issues that can also be dealt with.


��� ******************************************************************


Renewal of the charge to the Faculty Affairs from 2005-2006.King explained that last year the Faculty Affairs Committee was charged with soliciting more detailed descriptions of requirements for promotion and tenure to make them more explicit.


G. Clarke clarified that the charge King referred to above has already been discharged.He said what hasn�t been accomplished yet involves the language in the handbook as far as description of the processes because there are inconsistencies in various parts of the handbook which need to be corrected.


D. Berger asked if this process wasn�t restricted to scholarly activity?


Glarke said there is confusion due to two issues.The one Dr. Berger refers to has already been dealt with. Clarke indicated there is confusion in different departments as to procedures, because one section of the handbook says one thing, while another section says another.He said this issue came up in a meeting between the Provost and three deans. He said the Dean of Arts and Sciences brought this up last week. Since there is no carryover from year to year regarding Senate charges this charge would have to be renewed. Clarke is asking for confirmation of renewal.


D. Berger reiterated that the Senate is talking about two different things. He indicated he was chair of his departmental committee, and this comes down to scholarship versus service.


Clarke asserted that that issue was dealt with last year.


Alwes asked for clarification of what inconsistencies exist in the handbook. She also asked if this does not have anything to do with departmental policies.


Clarke said the issue has to do with the handbook where procedures are listed.


The Provost responded that the request came from her and the three deans. She indicated what she had requested was that each department examine their personnel policies to make sure their policies are consistent with the handbook.She said that task, as charged, would be for departmental personnel committees, which was conducted last year. The other charge would be for somebody to go through the handbook to resolve any inconsistencies because the language contradicts other languagen the handbook so that there is internal consistency.


King reaffirmed that the second charge needs to be renewed.


Ginny Levine pointed out that the publication of the new handbook is forthcoming. She indicated other areas were changed for consistencies.Levine asked anyone involved to conduct such a review of the latest version of the handbook.


D. Berger asked if Levine meant before publication of the handbook.


G. Levine responded that it will also be online.


Clarke asked if Levine was charged to address the inconsistencies in the handbook.


Levine reiterated that she was asked to review the handbook for inconsistencies before it was published.


Clarke asked if this would also include the review of faculty governance and if it would be conducted this year.


King made a motion regarding the Faculty Affairs charge.


Walkuski asked for clarification of the actual charge and if a written copy was on hand..


King reaffirmed that the charge to the Faculty Affairs Committee is to examine the current procedures and upcoming review of procedures and attempt to resolve inconsistencies in the handbook.


Walkuski asked if the Senate is not talking about procedures across departments but just procedures as outlined in the handbook.


King replied, �Just procedures as outlined in the handbook are what are being referred to.�


The motion was approved.


��� ***************************************************************


The Provost mentioned another important item of new business which was not included on the agenda.She requested Faculty Senate endorsement of a revision the campus has to make in the assessment plan. She indicated that she had taken the matter to the Steering Committee. The issue has to do with faculty being given the option of offering extra credit to students who participate in the assessment process.


King said the item the Provost is referring to is a request from system administration that extra credit is awarded to students who participate in the GE assessment process.She said, if a class is chosen to be evaluated, students who fill out the appropriate assessment materials would get some extra credit in the class.


The Provost indicated that this would be up to the discretion of the faculty.


S. VanEtten said the faculty could award no credit, extra credit or actual class credit.He said the campus has recently submitted our strengthened campus based proposal as part of the GEAR group out of SUNY.They provided feedback saying it didn�t seem acceptable. He said he was not sure about the clarification. He also said he thought they were more for encouraging credit rather than extra credit.He said we have to respond to that in order to gain their acceptance of the proposal and whether it meets their standards.


The Provost referred to our modified plan indicating that we have submitted that plan and received this feedback from the system and so we have to respond to the system.


King asked what the deadline is.


VanEtten said an actual deadline was not provided. He responded that the issue applies to assessment occurring this Fall.It was decided to delay this assessment to the Spring because of an inability to identify faculty selections until syllabi were available.He said there was no actual timeline approval was able to be gained, although he didn�t know how much funding would be received for these initiatives. Patty Francis is the representative for these initiatives and has encouraged us to submit them as soon as possible.


President Bitterbaum stressed that there were two important issues. One is that we don�t want to be out of compliance and the other is that the campus needs the money.


King asked if there was anyone there from the GE Committee.


N. Aumann and S. VanEtten indicated that they are ex-officio representatives.


Aumann said the GE Committee has not been formulated yet.


VanEtten said that D. Barclay is on Fall sabbatical and Mary Dwyer is trying to pull formulate a committee right now.


King asked, �Can we have GE deal with this issue in haste and get back to me as soon as possible?�


The Provost said, �I brought this to the Steering Committee because it has been a month now, a little over a month, and we haven�t responded.I brought it directly to the Steering Committee in the hopes that you could ask, since the GE committee hasn�t constituted itself yet.�


VanEtten said in subsequent GE committee meetings the members opted for old options for the sake of consistency. Several members had concerns that there were gross discrepancies for those who don�t assign credit, which pulls down the overall quality, and doesn�t represent the student�s analysis and skills.


J. Hendrick asked if the Senate could give GE a deadline by the next Faculty Senate meeting.


King asked the floor if it was satisfactory to put it on the agenda for the next Faculty Senate meeting in two weeks (September 19).


J. Hendrick added, �At least let us know if they are looking at and what they are going to do about it.�


Alwes said according to the President the campus needs to be in compliance.She indicated that she felt that an issue of this nature should come to the Faculty Senate. She added, �If GE doesn�t want to do it, shouldn�t the Senate deal with it, if the issue is in keeping in compliance?�


King said, �GE is a Faculty Senate committee so we can certainly do whatever we want to do.�


S. VanEtten said, �They are not going to accept our proposal if it doesn�t meet consistency and reliability. There are strengths and gross weaknesses.�


D. Berger asked if the Senate could make this an agenda item for the next Faculty Senate meeting.He said, �Whether or not it is a GE committee, we need to resolve this issue one way or another.�


King asked what the sense of the Senate was.


Clarke asked if there was a penalty for delaying the matter two additional weeks.


The Provost replied that a penalty is not designated. GE assessment would not be able to proceed, she indicated, so it puts us out of compliance. She said, �Compliance is our ultimate urgency.�


Someone from the floor asked if the Senate were to act today what be the Senators be acting on.


The Provost said, �You would be acting on faculty awarding credit for student�s participation in GE assessment.�


Alwes asked the Provost, �You mean credit or extra credit. Class credit?�


The Provost responded, �However you define that.�


D. Ritchie asked a point of information. �My understanding from Shawn was that we as a college said we can delay to spring so would two weeks not make any difference?�


VanEtten responded in the negative and offered clarification. He indicated that When the plan came back, GE was not meeting. He also reported that the committee said they were planning on doing it this Fall.VanEtten announced that have already decided it would be impossible to get compliance other than assessment already scheduled for the spring and that it is more of a haste issue. He also indicated that there is documentation that it may be closer to two months that we have been waiting to respond. He said they support most of the plan but there are a few areas, math for example, which doesn�t have standardized instruments and they have had to delay.VanEtten stated that for basic communication and writing, our assessments have been formed and we have been waiting to pay those faculty. Monies are supposed to be coming from this proposal, he said, which is already in the process. He said that although GE will be meeting it becomes more of a time issue.


The Provost said, �As Chief Academic Officer I am scheduled to give out a report to the system no later than June 1. This past year, because they were making some changes, each campus had to revise its plan to incorporate recommendations. They extended it to September. We went ahead and submitted the plan in June. Committees then responded that it was a good plan but there are some areas you need to address. As Shawn indicated, that plan was sent two months ago for response. Two months is a long time to respond to something that is addressing issues, so I would like to respond as soon as possible.�


J. Governali asked, �Are we talking about establishing policies or recommendations of the faculty? It makes a difference on how we can act on it.�


S. VanEtten responded that anyone selected for the assessment process will be required to assign some credit.


Walkuski stated that policy change constitutes a difference.


J. Hendrick indicated that she was a member of the GEAR Committee so she certainly knows what�s involved and why the Senate needs to act on this.She stated that the Senate just voted in the GE Committee as a standing committee. She announced that it is bad policy for the Senate to now state that GE is a standing committee but the Senate does not need you. She said, �If this is urgent we need to have a policy for us to vote on next week so we can act on it. If they can�t do it, let it come back to us. But for us to say to GE, sorry, we can�t work with you right now�.�


D. Berger said, �This business of policy is telling the instructor what do in the classroom. It is always controversialand up to the faculty now to decide how it is done, whether extra credit or forced credit, it is something we need to deliberate on next time rather than voting on right now. We need to have a general faculty response which is needed so that they can have time to have it sink in and indicate that�even though it�s a mandate there are a wide range of ways as to how to satisfy it, including extra credit.�


VanEtten said to clarify it there will need to be examination as to providing credit, not just extra credit, with credit providing a higher quality of response. He indicated that the Senate passed last semester a policy that all faculty would be required to submit 50 minutes of assessment in class. He reaffirmed that providing credit gives students an incentive.


D. Ritchie expressed his thoughts which are not to delay indicating he was in agreement with Hendrick.He said that since the GE committee was elected and possesses knowledge, they make recommendations and this issue should be charged to them as quickly as possible, by the next Senate meeting. He then added that if they can�t respond to it in time then at that meeting it needs to be determined as to how to advise the faculty as to how they might best deal with this.


King said, �My inclination is to ask the GE Committee to make a report in two weeks to this body as to how this is to be implemented and have this body take action with no report forthcoming.�


D. Ritchie also stated that he felt as much publicity need be emanated to the faculty so that they know this is an issue making it as clear as possible and that all understand what the issue is and that any feedback be encouraged so that the Senate and this committee can best deal with it.


Chairman King was in agreement.


VanEtten said the majority of faculty have participated in assessment, historically, and have provided credit or extra credit, with very few assigning no credit to the task. Secondly, he said, prior deliberations of the GE Committee consisted of faculty taking large participation of writing up initial proposals. He indicated that if it is going to be delayed he was sure they could obtain the initial suggestions for feedback.


King expressed his appreciation and asked if there was general agreement from the body that the Senate should go ahead and act on this.Chairman King also asked if there was no strong objection and there was none.


�� ********************************************************************

G. Levine want reminded the Senators that, as President said in his opening address, the periodic review is scheduled for June 21, 2007. The committee has very comprehensive knowledge, she indicated, and would be meeting this week.


D. Ritchie announced the UUP picnic this Friday at Yaman Park from 4-7 PM.


J. Hendrick reminded everyone to vote on branding Thursday from 11 AM � 1 PM�� in Old Main, 3rd floor and Studio West Room 39. She indicated this is a chance for faculty to have their input since the students have already had theirs.


There was a call for nominations from the floor for the Committee on Excellence in Teaching, Jean LeLoup, Chair.Donna West nominated herself.{It was later determined she was ineligible.}



There were no Area Senator�s reports.


XIV. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT � M. Ware � M. King read the SUNY Senator�s report since Dr. Ware is unable to attend Faculty Senate meetings in the fall due to a class conflict.She said in the report she would attend some meetings, when possible, but would be attending meetings regularly in the Spring.


She introduced herself as a Professor of Foundations and Social Advocacy, having been a professor at the college for 36 years. She was Vice President/Secretary of the University Faculty Senate for two terms in the 1990�s and has been the SUNY Senator for the Faculty Senate many times in the past.


She said the University Faculty Senate has a well maintained webpage which can be accessed at: www.suny.edu/facultysenate.


The Fall Planning Meeting will be held on September 14-16 in Albany which she will be attending. After that meeting she will submit a report to the Senate.She said one new development is that the Chairperson of the Senate is now a non-voting member of the SUNY Board of Trustees, after years of pushing for it.She said the UFS would prefer voting status but this does indicate progress, however.


The Senate has 3 plenary sessions a year held on different college campus where presentations on topics of interest SUNY-wide are disseminated, an opportunity is provided to hear from the Chancellor and other SUNY officers, and reception of resolutions from the body from campus and other standing committees.Resolutions which are passed are directed to the Chancellor or the Board of Trustees for action which often result in important changes, constituting shared governance.

Ware also pointed out that at time the leadership at SUNY System Administration have been at cross purposes with the Senate but the current era has seen some improvement.


Ware encouraged those interested to contact her by e-mail at:ware@cortland.edu with issues to be brought forth to future UFS meetings, as well as undergraduate issues, since she also serves on the undergraduate committee. {SEE SUNY Senator�s Report � Appendix 3}



K. Boyes reported that the students have a busy semester ahead of them and seem to be receptive. She also indicated that the student population is favorable of Hilltop.There are issues with the student web mail accounts which Student Government is working on along with Dan Sidebottom.She said there was low attendance at the Student Government meeting due to not being able to contact students via e-mail.President Bitterbaum asked a question of Boyes in regards to her address of the faculty last week if she shared her thoughts with student senators and what were their thoughts about coming here.


Boyes responded that the students are very excited.


M. Scala reported that SGA has been getting a lot of calls saying faculty and staff want to help out. He said, �We really do need the help of faculty and staff to reach out to the students.Students really look up to you guys as a whole.�


Bitterbaum remarked that the Student Senators are ambitious. He reported about a troubling aspect of SUNY Cortland campus life that there isn�t more student involvement culturally across campus. He mentioned �Fundamentally Speaking� where the campus has invested a lot of time and money to provide speakers. He said, �We�d like to see it sell out.�He suggested this could be part of the broader dialogue which would be very exciting and intellectually challenging.



Respectfully Submitted,


Barbara Kissel


Staff Assistant/

Recording Secretary


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


(1) Standing Rules of the Faculty Senate submitted by M. King, Chair.


(2)Committee on Committee�s report submitted by J. Barry, Chair


(3) SUNY Senator�s report submitted by M. Ware, SUNY Senator.