����������������������� ���� FACULTY
SENATE MINUTES #12
����������������������������������� ���������
The
twelfth meeting of the
William Buxton
on
Fame Room.
SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT:� W. Buxton, K. Lawrence, J. Duncan,
J. Shedd,
O. White,
A. Dahlman, D. Harrington, T. Vigars,
M. Dwyer,
M. Rainsford, A. Rossi,
SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT:� N. Helsper, H. Botwinick, J. Reese,
J. Rayle,
B. Langhans, T. Slack, M. Ware, E. Bitterbaum, M. Prus, R. Franco, G. Sharer,
W. Shaut,
R. Kendrick, R. Collings, C. Cirmo
GUESTS PRESENT: J. Mosher, M. Dearstyne, J. Palmer, J.
Feliciano, M. Holland,
K.
Pristash
I�
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: �The minutes were approved from March 24,
2009.
II.�
SENATE ACTIONS:
There was a vote to
approve the Proposed Changes to the Handbook � Chapter 150.05 �
Article VII. Section F,
regarding membership on the College Curriculum
Review Committee (Approved; 13/3)
There was
a vote to approve the amendment to the Proposal for the Creation of a
Professional
Affairs Committee
of the
There was
a vote to approve the Proposal for the Creation of a Professional Affairs
Committee
of the
changes (Approved)
III.�
CHAIR�S REPORT: ��
Chair
Buxton reported on the attempt for the
which he
had indicated at the last meeting, had the President�s approval.� That access has been
denied but
will be revisited at the end of the year.�
Chair Buxton mentioned G. Levine�s assistance
in her
attempts to negotiate access, and reported that in the interim, Levine will be
sending out items
on the
faculty listserv on the Senate�s behalf. There was a discussion on the strong
need for access
as well as
public perception of the role the
�
IV. VICE CHAIR: �K. Lawrence � No report.
V. TREASURER�S REPORT:� J. Shedd � No
report.�
VI.�
SECRETARY�S REPORT: �J. Duncan � no report.
VII.�
PRESIDENT�S REPORT: ��
President
Bitterbaum was not present and no one was there to represent him in his absence
or give
a report.
VIII.�
STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Student Affairs Committee �- T. Phillips � Senator
Phillips reported that B. Langhans has
received
names as possible recipients of the
Faculty Affairs Committee � R. Collings � No report
(absent)
Long-Range Planning Committee � C. Cirmo � �No
report� (absent)
Educational
Policy Committee �
R. Kendrick, Chair � No report (absent)
College Research Committee � P. Ducey, Chair - No report (absent)
General
Education Committee �
D. Miller, Chair �� No report.
X. OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committee
on Committees
-� J. Barry, Chair � W. Buxton read the
report for the
Committee
on Committees {SEE Appendix 1} There
was a question and discussion
regarding
the need for outgoing Senators to conduct elections in their areas.
Ad Hoc Committee on New Senate Time � The Ad Hoc Committee
to study
a new
Senate time gave their report and recommendation, which was to keep
the Senate
date and time the same.� There was also a
discussion and agreement
supporting
the recommendation that faculty should receive accommodations in
adjusting
their schedules, the need for service to be rewarded, and changing
the
starting time to
{SEE Appendix 2}
XI.
AREA SENATOR�S REPORTS:� O. White
reported on a three person Thai
delegation
that will arrive on campus on April 29.�
He announced that Dr. Nason
will be
presenting a program on April 30 at
development
of a summer internship.� He ended by
stating that My Thai students
will make
a presentation on their dissertation progress and their activities at
during the
past year on May 1 at
XII.
SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT � M. Ware � M. Ware was unable to attend
due to a
work conflict but she submitted a report which is appended to the minutes.
SUNY
Senator Ware also strongly encouraged faculty to become involved
in the statewide
SUNY Senate by applying for membership on a committee at:
http://www.suny.edu/FacultySenate.� {SEE
Appendix 3)
XIII.
STUDENT SENATOR�S REPORTS: The Students gave a
brief report.
XIV.
OLD BUSINESS:
The Proposed Changes to
Handbook � Chapter 150.05 � Article VII. Section F,
regarding the College
Curriculum Review Committee, was discussed and voted on.
{SEE Senate Actions and Appendix 4.}
The
�Proposal for the Creation of a Professional Affairs Committee of the
{SEE Senate Actions and Appendix 5.}
The Ad Hoc
Committee on External Review report was discussed. Due to a lack
of time it
will be an agenda item under Old Business at the next meeting on April 21
where further
discussion will continue.
{See Appendix 6)
XV.
NEW BUSINESS:
There was no new business.
Respectfully Submitted:
Recording Secretary
The
following reports are appended to the minutes in the order they are submitted:
(1) �Committee on Committees report, submitted by
J. Barry, Chair
(2) �Ad Hoc Committee on New Senate Time
(3) �SUNY Senator�s Report, M. Ware
(4) �Proposal regarding proposed changes on the
College Curriculum Review
�Committee submitted by W. Buxton on behalf of
the
����� Committee
(5) �Proposal for the Creation of a Professional
Affairs Committee of the
�at SUNY
(6) �Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of External
Review, H. Steck, Chair
APPENDIX 1
Committee on
Committees report, submitted by J. Barry, Chair
- The call for nominations for 2009
issued April 1.� Nominations are due by
The slate of nominations will be presented
at the
at which time additional nominations will be
accepted from the floor.
�
- The attached list notes nominations
received so far (11 nominations for 39 vacancies).
ATTACHMENT I
Call for
Nominations - Fall 2009
The Committee on
Committees is seeking nominations for upcoming vacancies. Nominations
can be submitted
via e-mail to
Candidates may
self-nominate or nominate someone else. If nominating someone else,
please be sure you
have that person's permission to do so.
Deadline for
nominations is
presented at the
be accepted from
the floor. The vacancies are listed below with the outgoing member's
name
noted in parenthesis.
There are 39
committee vacancies and they are listed according to area as follows:
I.
At
Large (9 vacancies)
II.
School
of Arts & Sciences (13 vacancies)
III.
IV.
V.
Library
(6 vacancies)
VI.
Professional
Staff (1 vacancy)
VII.
M/C�s (1
vacancy)
- Senate Steering Committee - elected,
1-year term
Vice-Chair
(
Secretary (Duncan)
Treasurer
(Shedd)
- SUNY Senator � elected, 3-year term
(Ware) � Ware
- SUNY Senator (alternate) � elected
3-year term (Phillips)
- Faculty Representatives to the Student
Senate - 2 seats - elected, 1-year terms (Tobin, Connell)
- General Education Committee (Academic
At-Large) - elected, 2-year term (Worrell)
II.
A.
Arts & Sciences At Large (2)
Educational
Policy Committee - appointed, 2-year term (Kendrick) - West
1. Committee on Teaching Awards - appointed, 3-year
term, term runs January 2010 through
December 2012 (qualifications - must
have a minimum of 5 years teaching at SUNY Cortland)
(Knight)
B.
Fine Arts & Humanities (4)
Committee on
Committees - elected, 2-year term (Gascon)
1.
Faculty
Affairs Committee � appointed, 2-year term (
2.
3.
Student
Affairs Committee � appointed, 2-year term, 2008-10 (complete unexpired term)
(vacant)
C.
Math/Science (2)
College
Research Committee � appointed, 3-year term (Ducey) (qualifications:� should have received grant
from external
funding or reviewed grants from an outside agency)
1. Committee on Teaching Effectiveness �
appointed, 4-year term (Conklin)
D.
Social/Behavioral Sciences (5)
1. College Curriculum Review Committee �
appointed, 2-year term (Ouellette)
2. Committee on Committees � elected, 2-year
term (vacant)
3. Committee on Teaching Effectiveness �
appointed, 4-year term (Burke)
4.
Faculty
Affairs Committee � appointed, 2-year term (Collings) - Collings
5. Student Affairs Committee � appointed,
2-year term (Phillips)
III.
1. College Curriculum Review Committee -
appointed, 2-year term (Kelly) - Kelly
2. Committee on Teaching Awards � appointed, 3-year
term 3-year term, term runs January
2010 through December 2012 (qualifications
- must have a minimum of 5 years teaching
at SUNY
3. Educational Policy Committee � appointed, 2-year
term, 2 seats (Kelly, Lachance) -Smukler
4. Student Affairs Committee � appointed,
2-year term (Summers)
IV.
1. College Curriculum Review - appointed, 2-year term (Rayl)
- Hokanson
2. College Research Committee � appointed, 3-year
term (Hodges) (qualifications:� should
have
received grant from external funding or
reviewed grants from an outside agency)
3. Educational Policy Committee � appointed,
2-year term (Ford)
4. Faculty Affairs Committee � appointed,
2-year term (Walkuski)
V. Library (6 vacancies)
1.
College
Curriculum Review Committee � appointed, 2-year term (Harms) - Kronenbitter
2.
Committee
on Committees � elected, 2-year term (Hollister)
3.
Faculty
Affairs Committee � appointed, 2-year term (Melita)
4.
General
Education Committee � elected, 2-year term (Chiodo)
5.
6. Student Affairs Committee � appointed,
2-year term (Connell) - Connell
VI. Professional Staff (1 vacancy)
1.
General
Education Committee � elected, 2-year term (Jones) - Jones
VII.
Management Confidential
(1 vacancy)
��� 1.���� Committee
on Committees � elected, 2-year term (Barry) - Barry
APPENDIX 2
Ad Hoc
Committee on New Senate Time
Survey Results�
Report from the
(Joseph Governali, Kathleen Lawrence,
Survey
Response Rates by Question
1. Does the present
Yes� 29��� ������������� �55%� �������������������� �����
��������������� No��� 24� ��������������� 45%
��������������� Total
Respondents� 53
2. If
interested in participating?
I would be interested in participating���� �������� 38
������������������������� �72%����
I would not be interested in
participating��� ��� 15���������� � ������������� 28%
��������������� Total
Respondents 53
�3. Which of the following day/times for
���������������
���������������
���������������
����������������
���������������
�������������������������������������� Total
Respondents� ��43
4. Do you think it would be reasonable for members of the
that would facilitate participation (e.g., a teaching schedule
that would not conflict with
��������������� Yes������� ���������������� 40���� ����� ��������������������������������������������������������������� 82%
��������������� No���������� ��������������� 9������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������� 18%
������������������������������� Total
Respondents�� 49
5. There has been interest on campus in identifying a time block
during the week that would be free of classes and
available for meetings such as
were offered at
teaching an
��������������� Yes, I
would be interested���������������� ��������������� 19� �������� ��������������� 42%
��������������� No, I would
not be interested��������������������������� 26���������� ��������������� 58%
������������������������������� Total
Respondents������������ 45
6. If it was possible to block out a �Common Hour� for campus
events and campus meetings, would you be
interested in participating in such activities if the �Common
Hour� was
��������������� Yes, I
would be interested���������������� ��������������� 25���������� ��������������� 52%
��������������� No, I would
not be interested��������������������������� 23���������� ��������������� 48%
��������������� Total
Respondents� 48
Findings:
1.The response rate for the survey was very limited. Only 53 out
of a possible ______faculty/staff chose
to participate in the survey.
2.Although it a majority of the respondents indicated that the
present
3.it difficult to participate, there was not much difference
between those who said it was a problem (55%)and
those who said it did not create a problem ( 45%).
4.A good majority of respondents (72%) indicated that� they would be interested in participating in
Faculty
Senate if it was at a time that was convenient� for their schedule.
5..The respondents� positions on proposed times that would
facilitate participation in
were spread across all of the choices.� About half of the respondents (49%) indicated
that the present time,
the third was
changed, although it might be helpful to explore the percentage
of faculty/staff who would be able to meet
at the Wednesday time.�
That is, we already know the level of participation on Tuesdays and it
may be the case
that those who prefer the Tuesday meeting time could also make
the Wednesday time and this might result
in a higher rate of interest in participation.
5.There is strong support�
(82%) among respondents for making scheduling adjustments to facilitate
6.participation in
for Senate representation, it would be difficult to adjust fall
schedules, but with two year terms it would be
possible to adjust schedules for at least three semesters.� .
7.There does not seem to be much support for spreading the
teaching schedule more evenly across the day
by offering more
meetings.�
Forty-two percent supported the idea and fifty-eight percent
indicated� they would not be interested
in teaching
an
7.The respondents were almost evenly split between those would
be interested in participating in a
8.�Common Hour� that would be at
and 48 percent indicated they would not be interested.
Recommendations:
1.The possibility of adjusting work schedules to facilitate
participation on
with chairs and deans.� The
possibility of a Wednesday (
2.Faculty and staff should be asked if they could meet at this
time, rather their preference.�
3. The survey provides no basis for changing the present meeting
time of the
Respondent
Comments on Survey Questions (questions in bold):
If
you indicated that you would not be interested in participating in
briefly
describe why you would not like to participate (this information may help us
make changes
that
would make broader participation in the
1. I am already on more committees than 99% of the
faculty. A FEW people can't do it ALL.
2.As a professional it seems that most items that
are discussed during the meetings are more geared
towards academic concerns.
3.To be honest, I probably will not be attending
many meetings regardless of the time. Still, I answer in
the affirmative because there may be topics of
interest to me and I suppose that as I mature as a
faculty member my interest will increase. I am only
in my second year.
4. Too busy right now
5.I am not really familiar with all of the processes
on campus so I am afraid I wouldn't get too much
out of attending.
6.Until recently, Full-time Lecturers were not
afforded the opportunity to participate. Unfortunately, a
colleague had an unpleasant experience with her term
on the FS and felt there was great animosity
between certain faculty groups and that her time
commitment turned out to be much more than she
had been led to believe. Right or wrong she painted
a picture of a dysfunctional group and I don't
think that I would be interested. I will keep an
open mind, however and answer #3 below.
7. My schedule does not allow for additional
commitments at this time.
8.If I had continuing appointment, I might be more
interested in participating. For now, I would guess
that other pursuits keep many early career faculty
from participating.
9. My schedule is too hectic.
10.First, I should say I would not be interested in
participating right now, rather than ever. And the
Tuesday time slot is only a problem when I teach
during that time slot, which is often but not every
semester (or this semester or next semester). But
the scheduling constraints are really secondary to
the overall time constraints. I am already doing so
much service that making progress with scholarly
work is very difficult, and I want to continue doing
at least some scholarly work.
11. I don't believe it would be interesting for me.
12.To be honest, I am so involved with a variety of
things now that I don't know if fitting one additional
item in is a possibility. I do read the minutes and
following up if I have a question/concern.
Would it be
reasonable to make work schedule adjustments to facilitate participation in
1.This means the departments would need to be receptive to
accommodating/changing a faculty
member's schedule for this purpose.
2.If elections are held early enough, conflicts might be
resolved. At most, faculty should only have a
conflict (if they have one at all) with the first fall semester.
Senate seats are for 2 years (4
semesters). The last 3 semesters should be able to be free as
they have plenty of time to work out an
arrangement with their department chair.
3.In my department, it is possible to ask for a teaching
schedule that accommodates participation in
4.I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking
whether or not department chairpersons are
willing and able to schedule their faculty members around the
senate meeting time? If so, then yes.
5.This is, however, hard to do, given there are so many GEs,
major courses, and other meetings, and
more meetings......,plus child care, doctor's appointments,
...... (-:
6. Not sure
7.I have been on faculty senate for years (at least on and off
for 30)...and often senate at the TTR time
interfered with my schedule...only once in all that time did my
dept. make an adjustment...
8. I still think attendance would be sparse.
9.Our dept. in Education (FSA) has always accommodated Senators
with a preferred teaching schedule
to allow for the Tuesday afternoon session. Maybe giving
Senators this perk would make it more
attractive to all.
10.Our job is to make sure that our students have the best
education possible. A Flexible schedule for
faculty can be done if it does not affect students adversely.
11.I think most campus groups do their best to find a common
meeting time, work from there, and
accomplish their objectives.
12. Seems reasonable
13. It sounds interesting and worth looking at.
14.If this is done then where do you draw the line for other
outside activities in which so many of our
involved.
APPENDIX 3
SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT
M. Ware, SUNY Senator
I�m sorry I have to miss
today � some of my student advisees had just
about �no other time� to
see me.� As the college�s Faculty
Senator, I attended
The conference
celebrating the 60th anniversary of SUNY over this past weekend.
It was an amazing
gathering � several past chancellors spoke including Clif
Wharton and Bruce
Johnstone (both of whom I served under.)�
The amazing
part of the conference
was to hear and see that we are fighting the same battles
now that we fought before (in the 70�s and 80�s) with budget
cuts and the
legislature�s difficulty
seeing the importance of public higher education in the
State of NY. Henry Steck
was on the conference planning committee.
I have conveyed to him
the fact that this was one of the best conferences
I have attended�it was
well planned and well delivered. The proceedings
(some of the papers)
will be published by SUNY Press, so if you are
interested in SUNY�s
history (and it is VERY interesting) there will be a
chance to read about what
went on.� The next plenary will be held
in Buffalo
at the end of
April/early May. I would also like to encourage anyone with any
interest in faculty
senate (statewide) committees to read the e-mail Barb Kissel
sent out for me last
week and PLEASE apply for membership. The experience
is useful � a number of
your colleagues have done so in the past. Information
about the committees can
be found on the University
(http://www.suny.edu/FacultySenate.)
Thank you.
APPENDIX 4
Proposed Changes to Handbook � Chapter 150.05 � Article VII.
Section F
College Curriculum Review Committee
Submitted by W. Buxton on behalf of the
���������������������������������������������������������������
To:�������������� ��
From:�����������
College Curriculum Review Committee
����������������������
Date:�������������
September 22, 2006
RE:����������������
Proposed Changes to Handbook � Chapter 150.03 Article VII, Section F.
The College Curriculum
Review Committee met on September 20, 2006 and reached consensus on the
following
recommended changes in
the current membership structure of�
CCRC.� We are forwarding our
recommendations for
review by EPC and
subsequent approval by
College Curriculum Review Committee Membership
���� Section F:� College Curriculum Review Committee
1.
�Membership
a.
�A committee of fifteen members shall be
nominated by the Committee on Committees
�and appointed by action of the
b. �Membership shall be as follows:
����
��� One member representing
math/science
��� One member representing social/behavioral
sciences
��� One member representing fine
arts/humanities
��� Two members representing education
��� Two
members representing professional studies
��� One member representing professionals
��� One member representing the library
��� Two student members
��� Dean of Arts and Sciences or designee
(ex-officio, non-voting)
��� Dean of Education or designee (ex-officio,
non-voting)
��� Dean of Professional Studies or designee
(ex-officio, non-voting)
��� Associate Provost for Enrollment
Management.
Proposal for Change in
College Curriculum Review Committee Membership [changes in bold]
���� Section F:� College Curriculum Review Committee
1.
�Membership
a.
�A committee of fourteen members shall be nominated by the Committee on
Committees and appointed by action of the
b. Membership shall be as
follows:
����
���� One member representing math/science
�� ��One
member representing social/behavioral sciences
���� One member representing fine
arts/humanities
���� Two members representing education
���� Two members representing professional
studies
���� One member representing professionals from Academic Affairs
���� One member representing the library
���� DELETE:� Two student members
���� Dean of Arts and
Sciences or designee (ex-officio, non-voting)
��� �Dean of Education� or designee (ex-officio, non-voting)
���� Dean of Professional Studies or designee
(ex-officio, non-voting)
���� DELETE:� Associate Provost for� Enrollment Management
��� �ADD:� Registrar (ex-officio,
non-voting)
��� �ADD:� Associate Provost for Academic Affairs
(ex-officio, non-voting)
Rationale for changes:
Rationale for
clarification of Professionals seat:
���� All voting members should have direct and
demonstrable experience from review and critique of curricular matters.
Limiting this seat to
those involved with Academic Affairs more clearly meets the responsibilities and necessary
qualifications for the
committee.
Rationale for
eliminating student seats on CCRC:
���� There has been a clear gap in recruiting
representatives from the student body. For this past decade no students
have served on this
committee.� [This figure is in memory
of� those who have served for this period
of time, it may
be longer than 10
years.]� Scheduling for student
availability is difficult.
����
���� The appropriateness of voting membership
for students is highly questionable. Students may have limited�
understanding of
curriculum construction, and may have limited familiarity with the function of
curriculum
campus-wide.
���� Student opinion, when important to a
curricular decision could be obtained from the student representative to the
Faculty
Senate.
Rationale for
elimination of Associate Provost seat and addition of ex-officio members:
���� The committee aimed to reduce or maintain
the current committee membership number. The faculty wished to
emphasize faculty
governance for curricular matters, yet at the same time secure the most
appropriate and representative
ex-officio members.
���� The addition of the registrar (ex-officio,
non-voting) reflects a long-time practice of including the registrar in the
operation
of the committee. The
registrar has consistently and appropriately functioned on this committee in
an advisory position.
���� Including the registrar as a
representative of Enrollment Management allows the elimination of the seat for
the Vice Provost
for Enrollment
Management. Due to assignment of duties, a more appropriate representative to the
committee is the Associate
Provost for Academic Affairs (ex-officio, non voting).�
The Associate Provost for Academic Affairs can communicate and
assist in the management
of curricular issues from the committee to the Provost.
APPENDIX
5
Ad Hoc
Committee on the Creation of
A
Professional Affairs Committee
Submitted to the
M. Holland, Chair
Proposal for the
Creation of a Professional Affairs Committee
of the
RATIONALE � Consistent with the Agreement between the State of New York and the Bargaining
Agent and the Policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, the faculty of
SUNY Cortland includes professional staff having term or
permanent appointment.�
Last year the Review of Governance Committee strongly recommended that the Senate add a
Professional Affairs Committee as an additional Standing Policy Committee of the Senate.�
At the recommendation of
the following proposal to create a Professional
Affairs Committee.
We represent 243[1] professionals in 12 areas:� Institutional Advancement, the Schools of Education,
Professional Studies, and Arts and Sciences; Academic Affairs, Athletics, Information Resources,
Enrollment Management, Finance and Management, Student Affairs, the Vice-President for Student Affairs
Office and the President�s Office.
Professionals at SUNY Cortland are currently represented only through the Vice President for Professionals
of UUP, and by four seats on the
functional equivalent of the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Membership of Committee:
Eleven members that include:
one representative from Institutional Advancement and the President�s Office which includes
Alumni Affairs, Publications and Electronic Media, Public Relations, Financial Operations, The Cortland Fund,
Leadership
Giving, and Planned Giving.
one representative from Finance and
Management which includes Finance, and Facilities Management.
two representatives from Student Affairs and the VP of Student Affairs Office which includes Corey
Union and Conferences, Academic Support and Achievement Program, Educational Opportunity Program,
Residential Services, Recreational Sports, the Student Development Center, Judicial Affairs, University Police,
and Multicultural
Affairs. �
two representatives from Academic Affairs which includes the School of Education (Center for
Educational Exchange & Field Placement), School of Arts and Sciences (Art and Art History,
Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Performing Arts, and Physics.) School� of Professional Studies
(SUNY Youth Sports Coaching Institute and Kinesiology), Research and Sponsored Programs,
Athletics, Clark Center for International Education, Faculty Development Center, Graduate Studies,
Institutional Research and Assessment, Intercultural and Gender Studies, and Outdoor and
Environmental
Education.
one representative from Information Resources which includes Academic Computing,
Administrative Computing, Classroom Media Services, Memorial Library and the Center for Advancement
of Technology in
Education.
one representative from Enrollment Management which includes the Registrar's Office, Admissions,
Financial
Advisement and Advisement and Transition.
two representatives at-large from the
Professionals
one ex-officio non-voting UUP Vice
President for Professionals or his/her designee
The chair will be elected by the members of the committee and will serve as a member of the Faculty
Senate Steering Committee.�� Although the Review of Governance Committee suggested that the chair
of the proposed committee be a professional with permanent appointment, less than 1/3 of professionals
(65*) represented have permanent appointment.�� Therefore, the committee is not recommending that
the chair be required to have
permanent appointment.
Proposed Duties:�
1) To consider and recommend to the Senate matters related to professional employees, their welfare,
and other related subjects designated to it �����by the Senate. The Committee will also review requests
2) from professional employees regarding issues that are not addressed and/or resolved by existing formal
processes and will consider such matters as the Committee deems appropriate.�
3) To conduct periodic review of procedures and policies related to the employment of professionals,
including mechanisms for advancement, rank, permanent appointment, et al, as outlined in the College
Handbook and contained in the current Agreement between the State of New York and United University
Professions, including pertinent Memoranda of Understanding.� To propose any changes in language or
policy related to the above, as agreed upon by the committee, to the appropriate organization through the
appropriate liaison or committee.
In order to enact this proposal, the committee further recommends revisions to the SUNY Cortland Faculty
Bylaws:
150.03 SUNY CORTLAND FACULTY
BYLAWS
ARTICLE VI: FACULTY SENATE
Section A.
13. The four FIVE Policy Committee chairs, ex officio without
vote.
ARTICLE VII: COMMITTEES
Section C.
Policy Committees:
There shall be four FIVE standing Policy Committees:
a. The Educational Policy Committee
b. The Faculty Affairs Committee
c. The Student Affairs Committee
d. The Long-Range Planning
Committee
e. The
Professional Affairs Committee
Membership
shall be as follows:
one
representative from Institutional Advancement and the President�s Office
one
representative from Finance and Management
two
representatives from Student Affairs and the VP of Student Affairs Office
two
representatives from Academic Affairs
one
representative from Information Resources
one
representative from Enrollment Management
two
representatives at-large from the Professionals
one
ex-officio non-voting UUP Vice President for Professionals or his/her designee
Section E.
Steering Committee of the Senate
Membership: The four elected
officers of the Senate, the four FIVE committee
chairs of the Educational
Policy, Faculty Affairs, Student
Affairs, and Long-Range Planning Committees and Professional
Affairs Committees, and the parliamentarian ex officio shall comprise the membership of the
Steering Committee.
The committee further recommends
that upon
brought forth by the Ad-Hoc Committee for Professional Affairs, a referendum be conducted among all
faculty and professional employees before the end of the Spring 2009 semester.
�Upon the passing of the referendum, the preferred implementation of this proposed Professional Affairs
Committee would be for the start of
the 2009-2010 Academic Year.
����
APPENDIX 6
External Review Committee Report
Henry Steck, Chair
Submitted to the
To:������ Bill
Buxton
����������� Chair,
����������� SUNY
Cortland
Date:��� February
27, 2009
Re:������ Report
of the Committee on External Review
I am pleased to forward to you the
proposed recommended policies for External Review by the
External Review Committee.� We were charged with drafting recommended
policies in spring 2008.�
Our �intention to complete the work in an
expeditious manner was thwarted, I regret to say, by a series of
unanticipated impediments.� Gathering information from other institutions
took somewhat longer than we
anticipated.� Moreover, extended discussion on the
committee revealed divergent views on both the
general principles involved and on
the details to be included
in a recommended policy. As we wished
to proceed through consensus, these discussions could not be rushed.�
Our discussions were �thoughtful and productive and were guided by
what we understand to be �the core values
of our faculty community.� �We
were slowed down when our original chair went on sabbatical leave and
when several members of the committee
could not continue their membership. It took time for HR to
conduct an election to fill these vacancies.
The result, we firmly believe, has
been worth the wait.� The attached report
represent not a rush to
judgment but a careful and thoughtful
process.� Throughout, the deliberations
of the committee were
guided by the policies contained in
the college Handbook.� These are attached in Appendix 1 and bear
careful reading.
When � and if� -- the Senate approves the policies proposed
herein, it will be necessary, of course,
to convert the approved policies into
language for inclusion in the college Handbook.��
For myself I wish to thank my
colleagues for their cooperation and assistance in this task.� I hope �
we all hope � that all divergent
views will find their particular objectives met in a way that will
underscore our common commitment to
first-rate scholarly and creative activity and to a strong
faculty community.
Henry Steck
Henry Steck
Chair, External Review Committee
Members of the Committee
Regina Grantham (Department of Speech
Pathology & Audiology)
Kevin Halpin (Department of
Performing Arts)
Gretchen Hermann (Memorial Library)
Beth Klein (Department of
Childhood/Early Childhood Education)
Andrea Lachance (Department of
Childhood/Early Childhood Education)
Kathleen Lawrence (Department of
Communication Studies)
Thomas Pasquarello (Department of
Political Science)
Henry Steck (Department of Political
Science)
Susan Wilson (Department of
Recreation, Parks, & Leisure Studies)
RECOMMENDED
POLICY ON EXTERNAL REVIEW
FOR
PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR
1
The External Review Committee (hereinafter ERC) noted that the College
had agreed to undertake
a
program of External Review as a pilot program for candidates for promotion to
full professor.�
This
commitment was embedded an MOU with SUNY System Administration drawn up several
years
ago.�� Our committee was charged by the Senate to
propose recommendations for implementing this
commitment.� We note that we have learned that the system
of MOU�s has since been scrapped.
The
Committee reviewed practices of several other institutions, particularly within
SUNY. The
Committee
also had the benefit of an extended and productive discussion with Provost
Prus.
The
ERC shares the view of Provost Mark Prus that utilizing some form of External
Review for
promotion
to Associate Professor or for Tenure would be cumbersome, and, we assert,
unnecessary.
2
In developing its position on
external review of scholarly, intellectual and creative work, the Committee
reviewed
a policy discussed by the School of Professional Studies, SUNY Cortland
and the policies
of
a number of our sister colleges, e.g., SUNY Oneonta, SUNY Geneso, SUNY New
Paltz
3
Definition: As used herein, External Review will refer to the solicitation
of an evaluation of the
scholarly,
intellectual and creative achievement as outlined in the College Handbook �((230.04)
by
qualified professionals from outside SUNY Cortland.� Unless otherwise indicated, the term
Professor
will refer to the rank beyond Associate Professor, that is, the rank of full
Professor.�
4
Aside from the commitment in the MOU
with System Administration, the rationale for and goals
of
External Review have not been well articulated. �Accordingly, it is essential to specify clearly
the
values, goals, and objectives involved.��
The goal of the process of external review that is
proposed
herein is to provide another perspective on the candidate�s portfolio for the
benefit
of
personnel review committees and recommending individuals at the College.� The external
review
should thus be regarded as adding additional data to the candidate�s portfolio.
5
�� As this is a pilot project, it should
be subject to:
���� (a) A sunset deadline (e.g., five year);
���� (b) An evaluation methodology that will
need to be developed to test whether External
Review
adds an effective dimension to the evaluative process.�
6
The guiding policies shall be the
criteria for promotion contained Chapter 230, College Handbook.� ��
These
must be forwarded to all external reviewers along with the material from the
candidate.�
See Appendix 1 for Chapter 230.3 and
230.4.
7 �Bearing in mind the broad mission of SUNY
Cortland, the definition of professional obligation
contained
in the Policies of the Board of
Trustees, the diversity of disciplines and of departmental
practices,
and the weight of past practices, our strong counsel is that recommending
bodies
(i.e.,
Departmental Personnel Committees, School Personnel Committees,), and
individuals
(i.e.,
Chairs of Departments, Deans, Provost and President) shall take care that undue
weight
not
be given to letters of evaluation from external reviewers.� They shall not be regarded as
determinative
but as providing additional data for the candidate�s portfolio.
8 Consistent
with the College�s commitment to faculty governance and departmental autonomy,
each
department will be required to develop its own external review policies.� However:�
(a) Solicitation
of external evaluations will be solely in the hands of the candidate. The
candidate
will have the responsibility of soliciting and receiving letters of review in a
timely
fashion and for including them in her or his portfolio.� The Committee notes
that
our sister institution, SUNY Oneonta, puts the burden of soliciting external
evaluations
on the candidate for promotion and we conclude that this provides
a
workable approach for us.� We attach (Appendix 2) a suggested letter for
candidates
to
use in inviting colleagues to provide an external review of their work.
(b) No
more than three letters shall be required under the provisions of this External
Review
policy.� Departments may stipulate that
fewer are required for Departmental review.
9 �The
policies and provisions for External Review should be adopted as part of each
department�s
�Personnel
Policies and Procedures�.� Departmental
policies and procedures shall be approved by
the
Faculty Affairs Committee or such other body that the
shall
be reviewed every five years and submitted for approval to the Faculty Affairs
Committee
or
such other body that the
External
Review shall safeguard the interests of the Department, shall be workable and
shall
be
fair and equitable in terms of protecting the due process rights of the
candidate.�
10 Following
approval of these policies by the
of
the next academic year and shall be applied to persons appointed on or after
that date.
The
committee considered this point at length.�
Our committee concluded that to apply
this new
policy to current faculty � especially absent its prior
approval and inclusion in the College Handbook �
would be the very definition of an ex post facto
rule, i.e., changing the rules of the game and
applying them retroactively after the game is
underway, and would disadvantage those who
have structured their career choices according to
the provisions of the College Handbook effective
at the time of their initial appointment.�
11 These
proposed policies must be consistent with the provisions of the NYS-UUP Contract,
the
policies of the Board of Trustees and controlling College policies.� Because evaluation of
an
employee is a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law, UUP shall
be consulted
at
the appropriate level (e.g., campus or statewide) prior to the effective
approval of these
policies
and thereafter if and when the policies are amended.�� See Appendix 3 for a discussion
on
this point.
March 1, 2009.� Errors corrected March 21, 2009
From the College
Handbook, 2008-2010 (rev. July 2008)
230.03 PROMOTION CRITERIA
As used in this document, the term
criteria shall mean the standards established for evaluating candidates
for promotion.
Any instructor, assistant professor,
or associate professor who meets the educational qualifications set
forth above and who satisfies the
criteria for the next higher rank shall be eligible for promotion.
Criteria for rank of assistant
professor shall include:
a.
A demonstrated ability (i) to
organize and carry out courses of instruction in a manner that is
intellectually
sound
and effective in terms of student learning, and (ii) to assume a broad range of
professional
responsibilities
for the educational development of students;
b.
A demonstrated ability to undertake a
potentially productive program of intellectual inquiry, research,
or
creative work (The completion of the doctorate will normally satisfy this
criterion.);
c.
A demonstrated willingness to accept
and discharge service responsibilities within the department or the
College.
Criteria for the rank of associate
professor shall include:
a.
A demonstrated and continuing ability
(i) to develop areas of instruction in a manner that is intellectually
sound
and effective in terms of students learning, and (ii) to discharge in an
effective manner a
broad
range of professional responsibilities for the development of students;
b.
A demonstrated ability to undertake
and successfully carry out a productive program of intellectual inquiry,
research,
or creative work and to do so with a degree of intellectual or creative
excellence;
c.
A demonstrated and continuing service
to the department and the College or the University in a manner that
makes
a significant contribution to the overall excellence of the institution.
Criteria for the rank of professor
shall include:
a.
A demonstrated and continuing ability
(i) to develop areas of instruction in a manner that is intellectually
excellent
and significantly effective in terms of student learning, and (ii) to make a
substantial
contribution
to the educational development of students;
b.
A demonstrated and continuing ability
to undertake and successfully carry out a serious and
productive
program of intellectual inquiry, research, or creative work and to do so in a
way that
makes
a contribution to the intellectual, scholarly, or artistic community;
c.
A demonstrated and continuing service
to the department and the College or the University in a manner
that
makes a significant contribution to the overall excellence of the institution.
The criteria contained in paragraphs
3-5 should not be interpreted to exclude any meritorious service
not mentioned that contributes to the
achievement or excellence in the areas of scholarly activity, teaching,
and university service.
For disciplines to whose activities
the above criteria cannot be reasonably adapted, equivalent criteria shall be
determined by the discipline or
department in question and approved by a properly designated faculty body.
In all cases, the burden of proof
that the criteria are equivalent shall rest with the discipline or department
in
question.
A person who does not meet the
criteria described above may be eligible for promotion if exceptional
circumstances are judged to warrant
advancement. Such circumstances would include an exceptional
record of achievement in the areas of
teaching and service, combined with evidence of a satisfactory
record of scholarly activity. The
burden of proof that such achievements are of truly exceptional
quality rests with the faculty member
and with the recommending department.
230.04
APPLICATION OF PROMOTION CRITERIA
In this document the term
recommendation shall refer to a written statement conveying (a) the
recommender's decision or recommended
decision concerning a personnel matter; (b) the specific
reasons for the recommended decision
or decisions; (c) the evidence and other pertinent
data supporting the decision or
recommended decision. Recommendations shall provide specific
reasons and supporting evidence
justifying why a colleague should be promoted. For purposes of this
section "recommender" shall
be defined as that person or committee obliged by the College policies
and procedures to provide a personnel
decision or recommendations.
Evidence of accomplishments in
scholarship, teaching, and service, since the time of initial
appointment or since the last
promotion, whichever is more recent, shall be given primary
consideration in all recommendations.
Recommenders shall take into
consideration all supporting evidence presented by the candidate
or by the recommending department.
Examples of the types of evidence ordinarily considered
appropriate in each area are listed
below. (Note: activity via technology is legitimate activity
within the scope of professional
obligation, and it should be evaluated and entered under whichever
category on the personnel action form
is appropriate for the specific activity. Departments are
requested to discuss the issue with a
view of incorporating involvement in technology in their
personnel policies.)
These lists should not be taken to
exclude any evidence of meritorious accomplishment not
specifically mentioned. While some
types of evidence may be more important than others,
t is the function of the recommender
to judge the weight and quality of each item of evidence.
a. Teaching
|
student evaluations of courses and field work |
|
student recommendations |
|
colleague observations |
|
recognition by colleagues |
|
independent student scholarship |
|
curriculum development |
|
off-campus recognition |
|
academic advisement and counseling |
|
contribution to institutional change |
|
interdisciplinary instruction |
|
honors and awards for teaching |
|
course development |
|
work with student organizations |
|
developing instructional materials |
|
postgraduate student performance |
|
course outlines |
�
b. Scholarly, Intellectual and Creative Achievements
|
publication in scholarly and intellectual journals |
|
presentations of papers and research reports |
|
completion of unpublished work |
|
work in progress including exploratory research |
|
artistic achievements as demonstrated by recitals,
shows, performances and exhibitions |
|
editorial service for scholarly journals |
|
editorial service for scholarly journals |
|
reviews of manuscripts and books in the discipline |
|
grant awards and fellowships |
|
reputation among colleagues as demonstrated by letters,
citations, reviews and other honors |
|
participation in proceedings or learned societies |
|
consultative work or institutional research enhancing
one's scholarship |
|
speeches, workshops, presentations, books, monographs |
|
service to professional and learned societies |
c. Service to the Department, College and University
|
administrative work |
|
faculty governance |
|
service to off-campus populations |
|
contribution to institutional change |
|
institutional research |
|
work with the community |
|
external reviews |
5.
Using the criteria set forth above,
all recommendations shall be based upon qualitative as well as
6.
quantitative considerations in the
areas of scholarly activity, teaching, and university service.
7.
Primary but not exclusive weight
shall be given to the areas of scholarly activity and teaching,
8.
except as provided in paragraph
230.03 (8). In evaluating a candidate's work to determine
9.
whether a favorable recommendation is
warranted, all recommenders shall consider and all
10. recommendations
shall explicitly address the following questions and provide supporting
evidence
11. with
respect to scholarly activity, teaching, and university service, unless promotion
is sought under
12. the
exception established in paragraph 230.03 (8):
Has the candidate's past work
achieved a level and quality of excellence appropriate to the rank sought?
Does the candidate demonstrate
promise of continuing growth and continuing excellence in the future?
(Approved by President Jones, Feb. 6,
1978)�
�MODEL
LETTER FOR INVITING AN EXTERNAL REVIEW
The following is a suggested letter for candidates to
utilize.� While candidates may, of
course, draft
their own request to external reviewers, the points contained in
this suggested letter should be covered.�
We suggest strongly that the request be made in writing and that
the candidate keep written records
of the request and subsequent correspondence.� The candidate should be sure to note the date
when
�the external evaluation
is received.�
Dear Professor� ABCDE,
I am being considered for promotion
to the rank of Professor from the rank of Associate
Professor.� SUNY Cortland believes it will be valuable to
have a review of my scholarly and
creative work by qualified colleagues
from outside our college to assist those charged with
evaluating my work and making a
recommendation on promotion.
In light of this, I would like to ask
if you would be willing to review my��
work.� Those engaged
in the process of reviewing my work
would value your evaluation of my scholarly and
creative work.� You will not be asked to comment on my record
of teaching or service.��
If you do agree, I will forward the
following to you:
�A � The materials that I would like you to
review and comment on;
B � The relevant sections from the
SUNY Cortland College Handbook relating
to promotion
to the rank of Professor.
I must ask you review this carefully as SUNY Cortland includes a
wide range of activities under the
broad heading of scholarship and creative work.
SUNY Cortland believes in the
maximum transparency in its personnel considerations.
Accordingly, you should return a copy
of your evaluation directly to me for inclusion in my
portfolio.
Those who will be responsible for
reviewing my work and making recommendations are interested
in your assessment and appraisal of
the materials. Your review will become part of my portfolio
and will provide additional data for
the review committees and recommending individuals to consider.�
I should emphasize that you are not
asked to recommend whether or not I should be recommended
for promotion but only to provide an
evaluation of the materials that I forward to you.
I know that this is a busy time
for you and I and my colleagues appreciate your willingness to assist.
I do need to advise you that we have
a strict timetable. Should you agree to review the materials,
I will forward them to you
immediately. I ask that your review and the materials be returned
to me by MM DD, YYYY.� If problems or impediments arise, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Finally, on behalf of myself and my
colleagues, I appreciate your willingness to consider
this request and I hope you will
reply in the affirmative at your earliest convenience.�
Your willingness to assist is an
affirmation of our common commitment to a wide community of
scholars and academic colleagues.
If you have questions, do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely
___________________________________________
From the UUP Voice, �January 2009, p. 14
From the VP for Academics Fred Floss
��� �Letters of review� is tricky topic
Over the last few UUP chapter presidents and vice
presidents� meetings, there have been lively discussions
about whether letters of review of research made by
academics from outside the campus should be a
requirement of the tenure process. Such �outside letters�
are standard at some research universities
around the country, but are much less common at the
college level. But should these outside letters
be an integral part of the peer review process within
SUNY? Unfortunately, that is not an easy question
to answer. What is important to note is the evaluation of
an employee is a mandatory subject of
negotiations under the Taylor Law and a campus cannot
impose a change in policy on evaluations
without first negotiating with UUP.
Discussions over the use of outside letters for
evaluations are not new, particularly at the universities.
Past discussions have focused close attention on whether
or when the employee can see the
outside letters. In fact, several early rounds of contract
negotiations in the 1970s and later negotiations
between the state of New York and UUP addressed a
candidate�s access to a written evaluation or
recommendation. Article 31 of our contract memorializes
the collective bargaining negotiations.
In past decades, the members of negotiations teams used
the descriptor of �solicited letters� for these
materials. Often times, heated discussions occurred on the
argument that a candidate had a right to
face an evaluator and must have access to the document to
prepare an adequate reply for the
evaluation file. Healthy debate continues on the aspects
of whether a candidate�s access to an
evaluation or recommendation prejudices the author of the
evaluation and restricts the scope of
potential commentary.
Before a campus changes its procedures� and I am not
recommending that changes occur, UUP
needs to review any procedure changes and consider the
effects. This is an important part of UUP�s
role in protecting members� rights. Equally important is
that the details of any specific procedural
change needs to be equitable and fair to those involved.
The contract addresses the evaluation
process along with the rights of members to appeal, and
any changes in procedure would have to
be consistent with our negotiated agreement. One final
note on this subject: Article 33 of our
contract details relevant procedures regarding job
security reviews.
In thinking about a procedure change, a one-size-fits-all
approach may not be appropriate for all
SUNY campuses. The type of campus and its mission within
the SUNY family must be part
of any proposed solution. In fact, the status quo
procedures arrived at after many years of
practical experience at a given chapter may be the optimal
procedure for that campus.
Yet, any good solution will look at the costs and benefits
of a change in procedure.
It will clearly explain the change, the steps involved,
and how its implementation will
occur fairly. It will set out all due process rights and a
procedure for appeal.
This issue also raises some practical considerations. How
will letters be solicited and by who?
What will happen when a reviewer�s letters never arrives?
Will there be a review of the letters
by a neutral party representing our member�s interests if
they cannot see the letters affecting them?
A good procedure not only works when everything goes
right, but also considers potential problems
and ensures fairness before problems arise.
What may look like a simple issue at first blush is
actually very complex and that is why there has
been so much discussion among chapter presidents and vice
presidents. Before any procedure is
negotiated, all the affected parties must be brought into
the discussion of the issues and workable,
fair and equitable solutions need to be arrived at,
preferably by consensus. �
http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/0809min12.html