���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� October 31, 2006


I. CALL TO ORDER: The 5th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2006-2007 was called to order at 1:15 PM on October 31, 2006 in Jacobus Lounge, Brockway Hall by Chair Melvyn King.


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: M. King, K. Alwes, E. McCabe, D. Berger,

P. Quaglio, R. Spitzer, D. West, K. Lawrence, L. Anderson, J. Governali, J. Hendrick, J. Mosher, E. Jampole, V. Marty, B. Tobin, D. Ritchie, K. Boyes, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell,

R. Franco, R. Peagler, J. Cottone, G. Clarke, D. Kreh, D. Miller


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Zarate, J. Casciani, J. Rayle, D. Sidebottom,

J. Sitterly, J.Walkuski, M. Ware( class conflict Fall 2006), P. Schroeder, C. Schacht, M. Scala,

W. Shaut


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

E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane



The Minutes from October 17 were approved.



There was a motion to approve the recommendations from the General Education Committee regarding Strengthening Campus Based Assessment. (Passed)


There was a motion to approve the proposal from the EPC Committee regarding retirement of courses not being taught in excess of a five year period (Passed)


There was a motion to approve the Committee on Committee recommendations{SEE Committee on Committees Report} (Passed)



M. King opened the meeting by announcing there were new Senators in attendance, J. Mosher, K. Lawrence and Joy Mosher, and asking them to introduce themselves.


Chairman King then asking that the agenda be amended to accommodate the Fast Track Item from the GE Committee regarding Strengthening Campus Based Assessment.



No report.



No report.



D. Berger reported that he had just returned from a trip out of the country and would be giving


two reports. Treasurer Berger announced that he is in the process of sending out a call for dues which help fund the Faculty Senate Scholarship.He is also in working with former Treasurer C. DeGouff in signing over as signatory on the Senate accounts.The Treasurer reported that he was unable to furnish an exact amount since everything is still in transition, however, he reported that there is approximately $300 in the Senate account, with a prior check written for $800 to fund one scholarship. Senator Berger promised a full accounting at the next meeting.


Berger also reported on the election for Arts and Sciences, with the ballots having been counted for representatives from Math/Science, resulting in the election of Isa Jubran, and in the Social and Behavioral Sciences area with the nomination of David Miller.




President Bitterbaum opened his report with an item of good news which resulted from a Legislative Gazette article which had published a prediction that New York State is going to have the largest deficit in its history. However, Bitterbaum stated, this morning in the Wall Street Journal there was an announcement of a more positive nature, that an additional 1.1 billion dollars will be coming to the New York State Treasury, which he reported as good news in light of the 9 billion dollar deficit. President Bitterbaum indicated that this at least means we are headed in the right direction.


Our Sports Management Department is going to be managing editors of an Asian Based newsletter online which, the Bitterbaum reported, is a �feather in our cap.�


The Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies has been awarded a NYS grant of a half million dollars, 175 thousand dollars every year for three years, to work with out state parks.He commended Lynn Anderson and her colleagues for a very successful venture.


Dr. Bitterbaum ended by indicating that he would keep his report short considering the tight agenda, however, he did mention some exciting things taking place on campus including the American Gospel Choir constituting six choirs from six different universities taking place Sunday at 4:00.



M. McGuire opened the Fast Track item from the GE Committee announcing the distribution of the recommendations her committee made after their review of the GEAR response to the Strengthening Campus Based Assessment Plan.


McGuire reported that her subcommittee did extensive research and reviewed some communications with the GEAR Committee. They also conducted a faculty survey and with the help of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment and reviewed some statistics on our assessment. She explained that the first recommendation from the GEAR Committee involves issues GEAR has with our plans because we were not requiring that faculty give credit in their class for assessment activities. The report originally stated that giving credit was correlated with more effort put in by students, she said, and reported that the belief is true if you look at all the aggregated data, but when you break it down by different GE groups the data doesn�t support it. McGuire explained that the GE Committee�s basic recommendation involved what caused the GEAR Committee to be concerned, that we weren�t asking that faculty be required to give credit. She said, as a result, her committee has stricken from their proposal the claim that there is a correlation between a student�s performance and giving credit, making it clearer than the more ambiguous plan than they had originally submitted.She said the GE Committee suggests that the campus continues its current format, which is to encourage faculty to give credit, but not make any effort to require faculty to give credit. McGuire indicated her committee decided to leave the option to give credit, give extra credit or no credit up to individual faculty members. She asked the Chair his preference in discussing it recommendation by recommendation or as a whole.


M. King responded to discuss it as a whole.


M. McGuire said, �The second area that the Senate asked us to consider was whether or not it was sensible to assess Critical Thinking only in the GE 2 and 7 categories. We did a little research here, too. Initially last year when we wrote the Campus Based Assessment Proposal we had been under the impression that GE 2 and 7 tended to be taken late in student�s careers. Our plan is to infuse Critical Thinking across the GE curriculum. And so our argument was that GE 2 and GE 7 being taken late in a student�s career means that students would have gone through the whole GE program and that would be a good time to assess their critical thinking skills. We apparently didn�t make that very clear in the strengthening campus based assessment report because GEAR�S response is that one model that works is to assess Critical Thinking and other infused areas in a course taken late in the student�s career. And so we went back to make sure our reasoning was sound before making our recommendation, and what we found that we were mistaken about GE 2, many students are taking it early in their careers, but it did hold up for GE 7? Students tend to take GE 7 in their junior or senior years. So, our recommendation is that we strike GE 2 from the Critical Thinking assessment, do Critical Thinking in GE 7, and respond back to GEAR that we are following the model of testing in the infused skills in the end of the GE program by putting it in the GE 7.�McGuire then opened the floor for questions.


J. Governali said, �Your statement about breaking it down by GE group showed there was no difference. What does that mean? On the first recommendation when you said you looked at the data and broke it down by GE group you said there wasn�t any difference or it demonstrated the fact. What does that mean?�


M. McGuire replied, �When we gave the initial claim in the Strengthening Campus Based Assessment we have looked at aggregated data, so we looked at all the GE courses and you compare students who had given credit versus students who had not been given credit. Students who had been given credit scored somewhat higher scores in the GE data. This year we broke it down in GE categories. I can�t remember the exact breakdown but in one GE category students who did get credit actually did better, and in couple of categories there was a slight difference but it wasn�t significant, and in a few categories there were some significant differences.�


M. King said, �This is a committee report so it doesn�t need a motion.The committee is recommending endorsement of report and it also doesn�t need a second.�


Elizabeth Davis-Russell responded, �If the Faculty Senate is going to accept the committee�s report, the Faculty Senate in my estimation needs to pass or vote on another issue. Because when the original, not the revised plan was submitted, the Faculty Senate stated that its approach, the approach to assessment, GE assessment on campus, is that these skills are infused throughout all the courses that are offered to students, that is critical thinking skills. Following that logic, that statement then it would stand to reason then if that�s the case and this was the original question that, not in this communication but in prior communications, then if that were the case, why then were we making a case for examining those skills that are a culminating experience. So, I think the Faculty Senate needs to address that in some ways.�


M. King asked regarding the need for further discussion.


D. Berger said, �In the Steering Committee the issue came up with having assessment of being pre-imposed, in other words, first assessing critical thinking of students when they first take GE courses and then towards the end to see if they�ve shown any improvement. And I think there�s some merit in that particular approach. I am not sure what the GEAR Committee expects. David Miller might know. Do they expect us to show that our students have reached a certain level or do they want to see improvement over the course of the whole GE program?�


D. Miller said, �Our recommendation is based on what we understand an acceptable model over assessing critical thinking. And in the Steering Committee with the Provost we discussed this and we referred to the verbiage of the committee as follows: �Some campuses have limited the assessment of Critical Thinking that GE courses that students more likely to take at the end of their experience at the institution, (based on the assumption that critical thinking requires a higher order of ability after a student has had considerable exposure to the GE program.)� That�s what we are recommending�as an appropriate model. I don�t know what earlier communications there have been so I really can�t speak to that.�


Elizabeth Davis-Russell responded, �To respond to your question, the rubrics that have been basically are as follows: the percentage of students w ho have exceeded expectations, those who meet expectations, those who are approaching expectations, and those who have not met expectations. That�s the verbiage.�


D. West stated, �I just wanted to mention, with respect to what Dave Berger suggested with respect to creating pre as well as post tests, if a student�s performance was measured before taking the GE courses and then after, I�m not certain really that we�re measuring performance as a consequence of exposure to the GE courses, but the performance would really be the consequence of the aggregate of courses. So, I don�t whether creating post tests is even a value of measuring a before and after.�


E. Bitterbaum responded, �The other thing I could add, although statistically probably true, most of our colleagues would concede in regards to value added, you could argue that in Biology you have to take Calculus, Physics and Chemistry. What we learn enhances your learning across General Education. But I really would be curious to see the growth of our students, 17 and 18 years olds and transfer students, see what it is in total. I think there would be value to us, whether you tease out all the strands and complexity of thinking,it would have great value. It would be very disappointing if some came at A and lefty at A. I would like to see A to Z. I don�t know if it�s that expensive, there used to be an exam, was expensive, ACT did away with it, called Comp, College Outcomes Measures Program. I am sure there are others. It would be worthy of further discussion.�


M. McGuire said, �I was going to say that I don�t disagree that that�s valuable information, but I not sure if our goal here, that is, assessment in GEAR don�t want to go down that path right



E. Bitterbaum replied, �This is an aside.�


M. McGuire responded, �I would agree.�


M. King asked for additional questions, comments or discussion.


L. Anderson said, �I just want the minutes to thank this committee for their really careful study of the college and solid data they provided�I�m going to vote personally to endorse this.�


K. Alwes responded, �Well that�s what I was going to say, on behalf of the faculty that the committee and subcommittee took the time to ask the faculty their opinions about this, and I wanted it, too, in the minutes that we thank them for their efforts in this.�


D. Berger said, �If I am not mistaken the whole report is on the web now, isn�t it? What struck me is that on the first issue where we recommend credit or no credit, faculty have the option to do so. I think the faculty are overwhelmingly in favor of that, especially the young faculty were pretty in favor of having a choice, in favor of doing any way but having the choice was the outcome that was reported to steering.�


M. King called for a vote and it passed with a voice vote.



J. Cottone thanked D. Margine for giving the EPC report at the last meeting in his absence.He moved for the Faculty Senate�s endorsement of the proposal/policy to retire a course not being taught in excess of a five year period.


M. King said, �This is a committee report so it does not require a vote motion.


K. Alwes stated, �English is so long as it is not sent to Albany and we have to go through recreating the course once again, as long as that it part of the policy because I talked with my faculty and we like it very much.�


J. Cottone explained that the policy has been proposedfor maintaining on campus accuracy in the college catalog.


R. Spitzer asked, �Does a pre existing policy stipulate a five year timeline for courses?I am just curious what the current policy is.�


D. Margine explained that the policy has never been in writing but traditionally it had emanated from the Publications Office. However, Margine went on to say, since the evolution of Banner Web the procedure has not taken place causing perpetual renewal of courses without review.


M. King said, �They grow and grow and grow.�


J. Governali said, �I just wanted to make sure the Dean�s role in implementation. I think we talked about this last time, the submission to the College Curriculum Committee and Executive Committee would now be in review, is that correct, or are they involved in decision making?�


D. Margine responded, �As the proposal states right now, in the fall the Registrar�s Office will inform prospective departments which are approaching five years and in the spring the respective dean of each school will either verify courses being retired or if they wish to keep a course on the books, their indication, or at least a rationale, for which a course would be kept on books. Approval would come to the Dean�s Office and Registrar�s Office, and that would play itself out when it comes to the catalog.�


J. Governali asked, �I just have a question. The results of the rationale, does the dean make the decision?�


J. Cottone responded, �He just makes recommendations that these are courses being retired, these are courses being kept.�


M. King said, �Also note, as I remember it, reactivating a course is a minor/minor change. The real strength here is it makes it less onerous to restore.�


J. Cottone expressed his agreement.


E. Caffarella said, �My understanding of the previous policy was only those courses in a department on the books will go through this process. There will be no action taken on those courses, or just retired.�


J. Cottone responded in the affirmative.


E. Bitterbaum asked if the Registrar�s Office would be maintaining a database to keep track of the retired courses.


D. Margine replied in the affirmative.


E. Davis-Russell said, �I wanted to follow up with a few questions.If a course is thrown off the books, who throws it off the books?�She further went on to state, �You need to be very specific about this, because a department could say we did not vote to have that course retired and yet someone retired it.I think the policy needs to be more explicit than it is right now.�


D. Margine agreed with Provost Davis-Russell indicating there has to be clear approval stating which courses will remain on the books and which ones will be deleted for curricular purposes and those going into retirement, and those coming back for reactivation. She said, �those being deleted for deletion purposes as no longer a part of the curriculum, I would like to see that all 3 are acknowledged at the point where action is going to take place.�


L. Anderson asked, �Course deletions are already in process, we are not changing that?�


D. Miller said, �I was a little confused by terminology, use the word retired suggests to me taken off table, maybe we are talking about hibernation. I am serious, as having more clarity.�


D. Margine said, �Retirement wasn't initially used for purposes of taking off the books, as going further from conversation and discussion the question was posed, what happens at point in time resources come in has to be reactivated, that �s where discussion of on and off has taken place, come about in friendly manner deactivated or reactivated.�


D. Berger said, that a course being deactivated has connotations for SUNY, and pointed out the possibility that somebody could misread that.


E. Bitterbaum expressed that he felt hibernation was a wonderful word and there was resounding laughter.


K. Alwes said, �Maybe it�s living in a cave.�


R. Spitzer said, �The President just clarified the behavior of many of my students. Be it as it may, the procedures would function, either being stricken or submitted, seem to be pretty clear how we would function. When a course has not been offered�in the 5th year I guess, the it would come from Registrar�s Office a note asking, �do you want to keep it or dump it?�The department would then respond in some manner and that animates it seems to me that procedure is pretty clear.�


An unknown individual from the floor said, �I think the question is what happens if a department doesn�t respond.�


M. King responded, �Fire the chairman.�


R. Spitzer said, �That�s also stipulated here, if there is no response from the department, go head and hibernate it.�


M. King said, �It just means a little extra work for the Dean. That�s okay.�


Elizabeth Davis-Russell said, �I think in implementation of policy there are all kinds of situations that can arise you have to be quite careful. If a department doesn�t respond and the registrar decides that it needs a course that means the department can not ach that course without developing a new course.So, it is important to make those distinctions.�


J. Governali said, �The course can only be deleted by a formal deletion process, this is not about deletion of course about retirement.�


M. King responded, �In this case if a department doesn�t respond it goes into retirement, it doesn�t get axed. It�s a safety net. �


K. Lawrence said, �I am wondering how we can regulate the different departments on how it handles within the department, so that if a list just gets comes to the chair and the chair decides?�


J. Cottone responded, �Like any other course, it�s up to the department.�


K. Lawrence: I am presently sitting on the all college committee I can see there is a lot of because every department does it a different way and some departments might not. It is essentially, or could be, a problem.�


M. King responded, �It can�t happen to a course that�s been taught.�


K. Lawrence said, �There are normal departments where teachers teach 3 or 4 courses on a regular basis, but what if you have 15 courses��


E. Bitterbaum replied, �Let me make a recommendation�why don�t we leave this with the Provost or Department Chairs. One strategy might be at a departmental meeting the department can hear his colleagues or her colleagues, �these are the courses we are recommending for the deletion process,� let us have the discussion communicated with department to the appropriate person. That�s one strategy. This needs to be discussed because of the dynamics within the departments.�


K. Lawrence said, �With all due respects, departments tend to informed or not informed.�


M. King replied, Remember this is coming from the chair.�


K. Lawrence asked, �Wasn�t it part of it?�


M. Prus stated, �I think the question that Kathy raised in part is a lack of clear process at the department level. On one hand the college handbook specifies that every department in the fall semester will let the curriculum committee make curriculum matters recommending about curriculum matters coming out of that department. On the other hand the routing sheets have as a signature line the department chair, not the committee. So, there are times I think when department chairs take it upon themselves to approve or not approve curricular action without utilizing the resources available to them in the department curriculum committee. We could probably resolve this issue fairly quickly by adding another signature line to the form.�


J. Cottone said, �They are on the form.�


M. King commented, �They�re on the new forms.�


The Chair called for a vote and it passed.




Long Range Planning Committee � No report.


Educational Policy Committee {SEE Old Business}

J. Cottone reported that as of that morning the EPC put the final touches on the Curriculum Change Guide coming to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee at its next meeting. He thanked the sixty people who responded with comments and announced that hopefully his committee has imbedded much of that in the report which should be coming soon to the Faculty Senate. Cottone also announced that the EPC has been working on the proposal regarding the College Curriculum Review Committee with regards to their membership that will also be coming to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee at the next meeting.


Student Affairs Committee - No report.


Faculty Affairs Committee � No report.


College Research Committee - No report.


General Education Committee � No report {SEE Fast Track Items}



E. McCabe reported for M. Ware who was unable to attend due to a class conflict, saying �Just a short note. We received a report from Mary Ware, SUNY Senator, she just wanted me to announce that her report will be appended to the minutes of the meeting, so if you are interested in the details of her report you can read the minutes. {SEE Appendix 2}




Committee on Committees E. McCabe gave the report:The committee�s on Committees has put out a call for nominations for committees to conduct the review of governance structure. The Committee on Committees has not acted on the nominations because of questions raised regarding the composition of the committee. Nominations also received: One rep from Arts and Sciences, Laurie Ellis; Education, Joseph Rayle, Bill Buxton; No rep from Professional Studies yet.; One rep from Professional Staff, Glen Clarke; One representative from the Library, Mark Connell; No representative at large yet;Virginia Levine, Executive Assistant to the President; Dave Kreh; Parliamentarian.


Dean�s Search Committee: Andrea LaChance, School of Education, Sheila Cohen, School of Education,Joseph Rayle, School of Education and Michelle Gonzalez, School of Education. Peggy Anderson, Faculty Outside the School of Education, Linda Simmons, Professional Staff, Sheila Gregoire, Classified Staff, Brittany Stage, Student Representative, Joanne Barry, Affirmative Action.


K. Alwes asked, �Are the numbers going to be different in governance when you change the makeup?�


M. King replied, �Yes. What happened at the Steering Committee, there will be two members from each of the schools, one from Professional Staff, one Librarian, not one from the library but one Librarian.� He then asked about what was decided at the Steering Committee regarding the representative at large since he was unable to attend.


E. Bitterbaum replied, �Remember you said leave it to the Senate Chair to decide on that.�


D. Berger responded, �That was classified staff. I gave Mel my notes.�


M. King explained, �There may or may not be a representative at large. Ginny Levine will be Executive Assistant to the President, ex officio, and no parliamentarian. So, we�re basically increasing number of academic faculty and leaving much the same.�


E. McCabe said, �It was two reps from each of schools.�


K. Alwes asked, �So, how many in number?�


E. McCabe replied, �Ten. Two professionals, one librarian, two reps from each of the schools and one mc.�


King said, �We will put out an email and anybody who has stood for position will stay standing. We�ll look for additional help.�


D. Berger responded, �The Management Confidential is ex officio so that�s 9 voting members.�


M. King remarked, �Odd number. That�s good.Okay.�


G. Clarke said, �I have a Question. That position is ex officio without vote?Ss that what you�re saying.Ex officio, which official is it then?�


M. King said to Dave Berger, �Did you discuss that?�


G. Clarke added, �It just says mc is without vote.�


D. Berger responded, �Yes, on the committee.�


D. Kreh replied, There�s a lot of confusion. Ex officio means a person is on the committee by virtue of the office and have full rights of the other committee members including votes. If you want to restrict someone from voting because they are there by virtue of office, don�t call them ex officio. If you continue using ex officio, my recommendation is to say ex officio with or without vote. The other way to do it issay �representative without vote� instead of using �ex officio.� You could, in fact, be a representative without vote. The president is a representative without vote. Is you use ex officio with no qualifier then that means that individual would have full rights.�


K. Alwes said, �It is confusing because everybody is there because of what they are representing.�


D. Kreh stated, �No the term is specifically enumerated or designated as ex officio.�


K. Alwes asked, �Because of the definition of ex officio?�


D. Kreh replied, �It includes vote.�


K. Alwes said, �Representatives are all there by virtue of something.�


D. Kreh responded, �Not by virtue of office.�


M. King said, �In any event, the feeling is that it is conceivably far too much for a very small committee, so it�s a complicated handbook.�


D. Kreh said, �In terms of ex officio, the Provost could be a member of this committee. The provost would be an ex officio member by virtue of being Provost on this comm. Not ex officio could be any Management Confidential member. So, that�s the difference�.I don�t want to muddy the waters. List it just Provost. That�s clear. The Provost is a member of the committee. If you say the Provost is there by virtue by office, use the term ex officio and stay way from those things as much as possible buy using terminology.�


D. Berger said, To Use the Senate as an example, I need feedback so correct me if I�m wrong. We have various representative. I think there is a MC representative senator. That Management Confidential senator is a voting member of the senate. We talked about it in terms of it being a Faculty Senate and having a comm. To look at restructuring the faculty governance it would be 9 voting members.�


M. King responded, �It shall be done.�



There was no new business.



There were no area senators reports.�����



K. Boyes reported on Homecoming the prior weekend with a good turnout. She indicated the Dragon Olympics had 130 participants which was one of student government�s highest turnouts with student�s receiving 20 Cortaca tickets. Boyes reported additional that the night before tickets for Cortaca sold out in an hour and a half.


Referring to technology problems on campus the SGA President informed the faculty that if students arenot responding to their e-mails technology has been down on campus including all day the Sunday prior.


Boyes announced that Trick or Eat would be taking place, NYPRIG event involving the campus community where they will be collecting non-perishable food items. She indicated that last year they raised three tons of food. Boyes reported that it would take place at 6:00 that night on the Corey Union steps. Another program SGA is sponsoring will be held on 98 Port Watson for special needs children, providing them with hats and gloves for the winter.


SGA and NYPRIG will also be working on getting election information out to the students encouraging them to vote.


G. Clarke asked, �What was the name of the Red Dragon?�


K. Boyes responded, �Blaze.�


The meeting was adjourned at 2:01 PM

Respectively 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) GE Recommendations regarding Strengthening Campus Based Assessment submitted by M. McGuire, D. Miller.


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

����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� �����������

����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� APPENDIX 1

To:������ SUNY Cortland Faculty Senate Steering Committee


From:�� Mary McGuire, Chair GE Committee


Date:��� October 20, 2006



Re:������ Recommendations on the GEAR Group�s Response to the SUNY Cortland Strengthened Campus Based Assessment Proposal



Under the Senate�s September 24, 2006 charge, the GE committee has reviewed the GEAR response to SUNY Cortland�s Strengthened Campus Based Assessment Proposal (SCBA).We formed a subcommittee, chaired by David Miller.After conducting data analysis with the assistance of Shawn Van Etten and Merle Canfield, carefully reviewing correspondence from the GEAR Group, and conducting surveys of faculty and students, the subcommittee provided the GE committee with a comprehensive report on the two issues outlined in the Senate�s charge.Further, the subcommittee made two recommendations to the GE committee, which are outlined below.The GE Committee held a special meeting on Thursday, October 19, 2006.After lengthy discussion, the committee voted to accept the recommendations and to forward them to the Senate for consideration.


I have attached the full report of the subcommittee.�� I would like to thank the subcommittee for their timely and comprehensive research on this matter.Subcommittee members were David Miller, Brian Rivest, Seth Brown (SGA), Susanna Davidenko, Mary McGuire, and Mark Prus.I would also like to thank the OIRA office.


Recommendation 1:

We recommend no change be made in Cortland�s SCBA Plan with respect to Faculty having the option to give course credit, or extra credit, or no credit to their students for completing an assessment activity.��


The recommendation is based on the fact that closer, more extensive reanalysis of the link between credit and student performance on assessment activities does not support the SCBA statement that �results from previous three-year GE assessment cycle (2002-2003-2004-2005) showed that students rarely gave their best effort when no course credit was offered.�Given the reanalysis, we recommend that the statement be stricken from the SCBA.


Faculty surveys suggest that attempting to require faculty to give credit for assessment activities would meet with formidable resistance.



Recommendation 2:

We recommend that the Critical Thinking assessment be limited to assessment in the Science, Technology, Values and Society category (Cortland GE7/12), since courses in this category are typically taken by students in their junior or senior year.


This approach is one of two recommended by the GEAR Group.



Respectfully submitted,

Mary P. McGuire

GE Committee Chair





Senator�s Report � 144th Plenary Meeting � Buffalo State University Oct. 26-28, 2006


The Fall Plenary held at Buffalo State College had a number of unique opportunities � a reception at which the Chancellor addressed the group and answered questions, a dinner attended by the new Provost (Dr. Risa Palm) at which she made a few remarks, a presentation by a former Chancellor, Dr. Bruce Johnstone, who has recently retired as a faculty member, and an address by the Asst. Provost for P-12 Education, Dr. Pam Sandoval.Fortunately the bad weather which hit Buffalo several weeks ago did not make a return visit, however the results of that storm can still be seen in the massive damage to trees in the Buffalo area.


The meeting began with a reception attended by Chancellor Ryan on Thursday evening (Oct. 26).It was scheduled because Chancellor Ryan could not attend any of the other Senate sessions, due to a need to be at another institution over the weekend to receive an award.Although he had traveled all day (he had been at ESF that morning) he took plenty of time to meet and greet Senators and talk with us.He gave a few remarks in which he highlighted two of his priorities (internationalizing the curriculum anda �leadership� initiative which sounds like mentoring across SUNY).He also talked about his office�s efforts to lobby with the candidates for governor, so we will be able to �hit the ground running� after Election Day.There is fear that the budget will be difficult in the next year, as the governor will need to take care of a very large deficit on the state level.


Friday morning we were welcomed by the President of Buffalo State College, and their senators.The President gave a fairly lengthy report of his activities since April. (I will send a copy to the Senate secretary for our records).Kim Cline, from Vice Chancellor and Budget officer presented us with a PowerPoint which has also been shared with Presidents (I can share with you a hard copy if anyone would like it � I do not have it electronically).Dr. Bruce Johnstone, recently retired from Buffalo State College, and a former chancellor, gave a retrospective set of remarks � mostly focusing on teacher education and P-12 education.He actually was reiterating positions made in the SUNY 2000 report (developed in the early 1990�s).I have a hard copy of that document also, if anyone is interested.Dr. Pam Sandoval talked about P-12 Education and fielded questions as a follow up to Dr. Johnstone�s talk.She seems very interested in urban education and I was able to remind her about our CURE program.She ran the latter half of her time block as a sort of �focus group� asking us for solutions to the problems of underachievement by US (and NY) public school students vis a vis other countries.The solutions/discussion (in my estimation) were not �earth shaking�.


In the late afternoon, sectors (university centers, colleges, statutory colleges, etc) met separately to air their concerns.Usually this is a �venting� session where representatives often tell �horror� stories about things going on at their campuses.Some of the tales made SUNY Cortland seem �tame�.


We were hosted by the President of Buffalo State at a dinner at the prestigious Buffalo Club in downtown Buffalo.This club had been �men only� for quite a long history � so those of us who were women were informed we were �lucky� not to have to come in a side door!!The dinner was very good and the opportunity to meet Dr. Palm (our new SUNY Provost) was welcome.She is very �down to earth� and energetic.She is trying to visit all campuses and get the �lay of the land� so she didn�t speak about any details in her remarks � except to say that SUNY system administration is there to support us, and if she can reduce its size and make it responsive to our needs, she will have achieved one of her goals.


On Saturday morning there was a brief business meeting. The SUNY Senate usually has more business toward the winter and spring, when resolutions are made and passed, so this business meeting was fairly brief.The Faculty Council of Community Colleges (our counterpart for the Community College sector) did want our support as they attempt to get a member of their group on the SUNY Board of Trustees.SUNY Faculty Senate has recently achieved that position (a sitting member of the Board, although without vote) and is supportive of the FCCC obtaining the same rights.Committee chairs gave reports of the work planned for the semester and the Senate adjourned by noon on Saturday.


Respectfully submitted


Mary C. Ware

Faculty Senator SUNY Cortland


University Faculty Senate Fall Plenary Meeting, October 26-28, 2006

University Faculty Senate

144th  Fall Plenary Meeting, October 26-28, 2006Plenary Meeting
October 26-28, 2006

Buffalo State College

Thursday, October 26                 Holiday Inn Downtown Buffalo


Executive Committee Meeting

Franklin Room


Reception with Chancellor Ryan

Executive Board Room


CGL Meeting

Franklin Room

Friday, October 27                     Buffalo State College
Morning Session



Continental Breakfast & Registration



Call to Order and Introductions



- John DeNisco and David Carson, Senators
- Muriel Howard, President



President's report - Carl Wiezalis




Executive Committee report -






Kim Cline - Vice Chancellor and Chief Financial Officer



Kimberley Reiser, President Faculty Council of Community Colleges






Afternoon Session




Bruce Johnstone
K-12 and College Readiness to Teacher Education
Pamela Sandoval, Assistant Provost for P-16 - SUNY System Administration






Faculty Development Initiative -



Sharing of Concerns - Sector Sessions



Transportation to Buffalo Club for Reception and Dinner









Senate welcomes new Provost Risa Palm/Remarks by Dr. Palm


Saturday, October 28




Continental Breakfast



Student Assembly report - Alyssa Amyotte, President



Sector Reports



Committee Reports and Resolutions



Open Forum



Old Business/New Business



Adjournment/box lunch