FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #13

�� FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #8

�� February 3, 2009

The eighth meeting of the Faculty Senate 2008�2009 was called to order by Chair William Buxton on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 1:10 PM in the Park Center Hall of Fame Room.

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT:� B. Buxton, K. Lawrence, J. Duncan, J. Shedd, I. Jubran, D. West, D. Miller, T. P hillips, J. Walkuski,

J. Hendrick, O. White, J. Rayle, A. Dahlman, T. Vigars, E. McCabe, T. Slack, M. Ware, S. Snell, M. Dwyer, M. Rainsford, A. Rossi, E. Bitterbaum,

M. Prus, G. Sharer, R. Kendrick, J. Walkuski, C. Cirmo, S. Anderson, T. Phillips

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT:� N. Helsper, N. Botinwick, J. Reese, J. Governali, B. Langhans,. D. Harrington, D. Videto, R. Franco,

W. Shaut

GUESTS PRESENT: P. Koryzno, B. Mattingly, J. Mosher

I� APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: �The minutes were approved from November 25, 2008.

II.� SENATE ACTIONS:

�� The Faculty Senate voted on the committee nominations from the Committee on Committees (Approved)

�� The Faculty Senate voted on the Summer Scheduling Proposal as recommended by the EPC Committee (Approved)

III. CHAIR�S REPORT: ��

Chair Buxton opened the meeting with one item.� He encouraged chairs of Faculty Senate committees to consider their agenda items and forward them to the Steering Committee as soon as possible before the end of the semester.� He explained that the Senate will be busy discussing important business such as the long range planning process and strategic planning with time being limited.� Chair Buxton reported that the Steering Committee has decided that if extra time is needed, additional meetings will be held during the time reserved for Steering Committee meetings, so that emergency meetings will not be held during finals week, as they have in the past.

IV. VICE CHAIR: �K. Lawrence � no report.

V.� TREASURER�S REPORT:� J. Shedd � no report.

VI.� SECRETARY�S REPORT: �K. Lawrence � no report.

VII.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT: ��President Bitterbaum gave a brief report.

VIII.� STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Student Affairs Committee �- T. Philliips � no report.

Faculty Affairs Committee � J. Walkuski � no report.

Long-Range Planning Committee � C. Cirmo � C. Cirmo reported that his committee is meeting bi-weekly and that the Faculty Senate Webpage is in the process of being updated soon and will include the minutes from the LRPC as well as other documents.

Educational Policy Committee � R. Kendrick, Chair � Chair Kendrick reported that the EPC has looked at revising college policy in relation to overlap between majors and minors and decided to make no changes in current policy.� He explained the process his committee undertook in coming to this conclusion, as well as possible disadvantages in changing current college policy. He further reported on 3 items of upcoming business:� 1)� changes to clarify curriculum guide; 2) looking at the relationship between the TEC and College Curriculum Committee; 3) request to define �what is a Capstone course.��

Student Affairs Committee � T. Phillips, Chair � no report.

Faculty Affairs Committee � J. Walkuski, Chair � no report.

College Research Committee � No report (absent) � no report.

General Education Committee � D. Miller, Chair �� Chair Miller reported that the GE Committee is considering 3 courses for GE category status this semester. He further reported that things are moving ahead as his committee is progressing towards a review of courses in categories and setting up assessments for GE courses.

X. OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Committee on Committees -� J. Barry, Chair � Chair Buxton read the report from the Committee on Committees.� The Faculty Senate approved the committee nominations as required. �{SEE Appendix 1)� A. Dahlman asked Chair Buxton when the Ad� Hoc Committee to Form the Professional Affairs Committee will be finalized and if the committee can start working before the slates are filled. Chair Buxton responded that he did not know when the committee would be finalized but added that the committee could meet now to begin laying the groundwork to begin its work.

XI. AREA SENATOR�S REPORTS: �O. White reported that the new Education building is open with classes being held there. He mentioned there were some operational issues as work continues but those issues are being dealt with.

XII. SUNY SENATOR�S REPORT � M. Ware � �M. Ware reported on the upcoming Spring Plenary being held in Morrisville on February 5-7 which she will be attending.� SUNY Senator Ware mentioned the Sharing of Concerns where issues are brought forth from local campuses.� Senator Ware encouraged anyone with a concern to contact her.� The next item of business regarded Nancy Zimpher being named Chancellor, which was confirmed by President Bitterbaum.� Finally, Senator Ware referred to a document from the person at SUNY in charge of federal relations, Liz Clark, entitled �Federal Economic Stimulus Legislation:� The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Summary of Provisions of Interest to SUNY� which examined federal economic stimulus legislation and gave predictions as to how this will affect SUNY.� SUNY Senator Ware explained that the analysis was done halfway through the legislation process and therefore may not be 100% accurate.� The document explains how the legislation will affect institutions of research and higher education. (SEE Appendix 2)

XIII. STUDENT SENATOR�S REPORTS: The Students gave a brief report.

XIV. OLD BUSINESS:

The Old Business item regarding the Summer Scheduling Proposal was discussed, voted on and approved.� (SEE Senate Actions and Appendix 3)

XV. NEW BUSINESS:

The LRPC Proposal regarding procedures for the period 2008-2010 was introduced by Long Range Planning Committee Chair Chris Cirmo.� The procedures will be discussed and voted on at the next Faculty Senate meeting on February 17, 2009 under Old Business. Cirmo referred to item III �in the handout entitled �Proposed Procedures to be Used by the LRPC (for approval by Faculty Senate)� which is what will actually be voted on at the next Faculty Senate meeting on February 17 under Old Business �(SEE Appendix 4)

Respectfully Submitted:

Barbara Kissel

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.

(2) Federal Economic Stimulus Legislation submitted by M. Ware, SUNY Senator.

(3) Summer Scheduling Proposal submitted by B. Mattingly.

(4) LRPC Proposal regarding procedures for the period 2008-2010 submitted by C. Cirmo, Chair.

APPENDIX 1

Committee on Committees � Report to the Faculty Senate

January 27, 2009

Item # 1

The referendum on the Faculty Affairs Committee passed (130 in favor, 52 opposed).�

Item #2

The referendum on adding two full-time lecturers as voting members to the faculty senate passed (145 in favor, 33 opposed).

Item #3

The ad hoc committee for Professional Affairs is being formed.� Nominations are noted below.� There is one contested seat (representing Enrollment Management), and ballots have been distributed.

Chair � at large � Mike Holland

Institutional Advancement (1 rep) � Jean Palmer

Finance & Management (1 rep) � Diana Harrington

Student Affairs (2 reps) � Marc Dearstyne, Kevin Pristash

Academic Affairs (2 reps) � Howard Lindh, Gary Babjack

Informational Resources (1 rep) � Hailey Ruoff

Enrollment Management (1 rep) � Giovanni Colosi, Jose Feliciano

Item #4

The Committee on Committees recommends the following appointment:

Regina Grantham � Committee on Teaching Awards (Professional Studies), January 2009 through December 2011

This requires confirmation of the Faculty Senate

Item #5

There is a new vacancy on the Teaching Effectiveness Committee � representing the School of Professional Studies.� The Dean of that school is canvassing the faculty.
Remaining committee vacancies are noted below:

Committee on Committees (Soc/Beh Sci) � complete unexpired term (2007-09)

Student Affairs Committee (Fine Arts/Human.) � complete unexpired term (2008-10)

APPENDIX 2

Submitted by SUNY Senator M. Ware

FEDERAL ECONOMIC STIMULUS LEGISLATION:

�THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT�

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF INTEREST TO SUNY

On Wednesday, the House has passed its version of the �American Recovery and Reinvestment Act� and the Senate is expected to bring its version of the legislation to the Senate floor on Monday, February 2.� This is a summary prepared for SUNY based on the House-passed legislation and the version of the legislation marked-up by Committees in the Senate this week.� Details of the Senate legislation could change before its final passage next week.

A.� HIGHER EDUCATION

(1) �State Grants for State Fiscal Stabilization�

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that NYS will receive: $ 1,995,929,000 in FY2009 and $ 1,995,929,000 in FY 2010 under this provision.

Each state�s Governor is required to use at least 61% of the state�s allocation to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. More specifically, the Governor is required to use these funds to provide funding, through the state�s principal elementary and secondary education funding formula, that is needed to restore the State budget for elementary and secondary education to its FY2008 level. In addition, the Governor must use these funds to provide funding to public institutions of higher education in the state needed to restore state support for postsecondary education to the FY2008 level. If the amount of funds provided through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund is insufficient to restore state support for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education to the FY2008 levels, the Governor must allocate funds between elementary and secondary education and postsecondary education in proportion to the relative shortfall in state support at each level of education.� The Governor may use up to 39% of the state funds for public safety and government services. These funds may, however, be used to provide additional assistance for elementary and secondary education and for public institutions of higher education.

There are many requirements the State must meet to receive these funds, including an assurance that, �The State will, in each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, maintain State support for public institutions of higher education (not including support for capital projects or for research and development) at least at the level of such support in fiscal year 2006.

Difference between House and Senate:� The Senate bill provision for the Stabilization Fund is very similar to the House version.

(2)� �Higher Education Modernization, Renovation & Repair�

The House bill proposes $6 billion and the Senate proposes $3.5 billion for higher education, for renovation and modernization, including technology upgrades and energy efficiency improvements

CRS estimates that NYS will receive: $ 398,806,000 under this provision, if the House allocation of $6 billion prevails, rather than the $3.5 billion proposed by the Senate.

With these funds, State Education Agencies may make subgrants to public and private not-for-profit postsecondary schools to modernize, renovate, or repair facilities that are primarily used for instruction, research, or student housing. No new construction is allowed.� Allocations to the States are based on the proportion to the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students enrolled in public and private not-for-profit postsecondary education schools in each jurisdiction.

Priority consideration is given to institutions eligible for federal title III or title V funding of the Higher Education Act, institutions impacted by major disasters, energy efficiency improvements or LEED compliant projects.

Difference between House and Senate:� The Senate legislation gives special consideration to community colleges.

B.� STUDENT AID

(1)Pell Grants

House:� $15.6 billion to increase maximum grant by $500 and eliminate shortfall

Senate:� $13.9 billion to increase maximum grant and close shortfall

(2)College Work Study

House:� $490 million

Senate:� N/A

(3)Loan Limits

House:� Increase limit on federal unsubsidized loans by $2,000

Senate:� N/A

(4)Higher Education Tax Credit

House:� Temporarily replaces Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 40 percent refundable. Cost: $12.5 billion over 10 years

Senate:� Temporarily replaces Hope tax credit with $2,500 credit available for four years of college. Credit phases out for individuals with income of $80,000, $160,000 for couples. Credit is 30 percent refundable. Cost: $12.9 billion over 10 years

C. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Funds in this section will primarily be awarded on a competitive basis.

(1) National Science Foundation

House:$3 billion, including $2 billion for fundamental science and engineering, $400 million to build major research facilities that perform cutting edge science, $300 million for major research equipment shared by institutions of higher education and other scientists, $200 million to repair and modernize science and engineering research facilities at the nation�s institutions of higher education and other science labs, and $100 million is also included to improve instruction in science, math and engineering.

Senate:� Would provide $1.4 billion for the National Science Foundation, less than half of the $3 billion included in the House package. The Senate version would provide $1 billion for research, $350 million for scientific infrastructure, and $50 million for education. The House version includes $2 billion for research grants, $900 million for equipment, and $100 million for science education.

(2) National Institutes of Health:

House:� $2 billion for research and $500 million to implement the �repair and improvement strategic plan� developed by the NIH for its campuses.� $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete for biomedical research grants.

Senate:� provides an amount for the National Institutes of Health similar to the House plan�$3.5 billion�but allocates the funding differently.

(3) Department of Energy:

House:� $1.9 billion for basic research into the physical sciences including high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences and improvements to DOE laboratories and scientific facilities. $400 million is for the Advanced Research Project Agency.

�� The House bill includes other major energy-related provisions including: $11 billion for research and development, pilot projects, and federal matching funds for the Smart Grid Investment Program to modernize the electricity grid and build new power lines to transmit clean, renewable energy from sources throughout the nation; $2 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment activities to foster energy independence, reduce carbon emissions, and cut utility bills. Funds are awarded on a competitive basis to universities, companies, and national laboratories; $1.5 billion for energy sustainability and efficiency grants and loans to help school districts, institutes of higher education, local governments, and municipal utilities implement projects that will make them more energy efficient.

Senate: provides $40 billion overall for �development of clean, efficient, American energy,� though it provides only $430 million for the Department of Energy Office of Science. The money would support �laboratory infrastructure, construction, and advanced computing development.�

(4) National Institute of Standards and Technology:

House:� $300 million for competitive construction grants for research science buildings at colleges, universities, and other research organizations

Senate:� There is no similar provision.

(6)� USDA

House:� House bill does include any funding for agricultural research or education at USDA.�

Senate:� Includes $100 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.

HEALTHCARE

(1) Medicaid Aid to States (FMAP):

House:� $87 billion to states, increasing through the end of FY 2010 the share of Medicaid costs the Federal government reimburses all states by 4.8 percent, with additional relief tied to rates of unemployment.

Senate: also includes $87 billion increase in FMAP.

Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAPs) are used in determining the amount of Federal matching funds for State expenditures for assistance payments for certain social services, and State medical and medical insurance expenditures.� One estimate calculates New York State�s share from the proposed stimulus legislation to be approximately $5 billion. A large portion of these funds will be redistributed to localities.�� FMAP funds are expected to be a significant source of state fiscal relief.

(2) Health Information Technology:

House:� $20 billion to jumpstart efforts to computerize health records to cut costs and reduce medical errors.

Senate:� $17.9 billion to help providers adopt health information technology.

(3) Indirect Medical Education

By implementing a retroactive moratorium, both House and Senate eliminate cuts to Medicare capital indirect medical education payments (IME).

APPENDIX 3

Summer Scheduling Proposal

September 19, 2008

Submitted by B. Mattingly

Background: The issue of summer scheduling was raised at Provost�s cabinet on July 23. The initial motivation for this discussion was a desire to revisit the past practice (in some departments) of offering daytime courses 4 days per week.� Provost Prus appointed a subcommittee to study this issue and develop recommendations. Committee members included Bruce Mattingly, John Cottone, Joy Mosher, Mary Cervoni and Donna Margine. During our discussions, other issues emerged that are relevant to this topic. In particular, we discovered that when the Faculty Senate approved the restructuring of summer session in February 2005, there was a suggestion that the reconfiguration of summer session be reviewed after two years. To our knowledge, this has not occurred. We therefore felt that this was an appropriate time to revisit the configuration of summer terms as well, because the two issues are related.� Beginning in summer 2006, the Summer Session Office discouraged the scheduling of 4-day per week courses. Their justification was that the introduction of the four 2.5-week terms increased the complexity of the scheduling process, and that the additional option of 4-day per week courses could no longer be accommodated.

Process: The committee reviewed data provided by the Summer Session Office with particular attention to the number of courses offered and cancelled in various terms, and the resulting enrollments in the courses that ran. Our intent was to formulate a list of specific recommendations as a starting point for a broad-based campus discussion in multiple venues.� Initially the recommendations will be presented to the chairs� council in each of the three schools, with the expectation that further discussion will occur at the department level, and also at the Joint Chairs� council. These recommendations will also be sent to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee so that they may determine whether this issue should be addressed by the Faculty Senate.

Recommendations: Based on our review of summer session enrollment data, we are issuing the following recommendations at this time. We encourage that implementation as early as summer 2009 be considered, with the understanding that there should be ample opportunity for broad-based discussion and consensus before any decisions are made.

� Summer courses that meet during the day will meet Monday-Thursday. Starting and ending times are shown in the attached Course times Chart (Appendix A.)

� Retain the full term (10 weeks), the two 5-week terms (I and II) and two 2.5-week terms (A and C) that coincide with the beginning of the 5-week terms.

� Eliminate the B and D terms (2.5 weeks, coinciding with the second half of the 5-week terms.)

� One-week courses may only be offered during the first week of terms A or C, with the exception of courses at Raquette Lake.

� One-week courses scheduled at Raquette Lake may be scheduled on an individual case by case basis determined by availability.� The refund policies for such courses must be clearly articulated to potential students well in advance.

Rationale

� Offering summer daytime courses for 4 days per week instead of 5 will reduce commuting time and expense for both students and faculty. It therefore has the potential to increase summer enrollments. Offering 4-day per week courses has been past practice in some departments, both formally and informally, indicating that this has been a desirable scheduling option.

� Data shows that current B and D terms are under-utilized. Retaining them creates additional difficulties for an already complex scheduling procedure. The tables in Appendix B show the number of courses offered and cancelled during the last 4 summer sessions, broken down according to term. Appendix C provides a bar graph showing the number off courses offered and cancelled in each of the short terms. Appendix D provides this information in tabular form and also shows the number of courses that were allowed to run with fewer than 10 students.

APPENDIX 4

LRPC Proposal regarding procedures for the period 2008-2010

Submitted by C. Cirmo, Chair, LRPC Committee

� To: William Buxton, Chair, Faculty Senate

� Fr: Long-Range Planning Committee

� Re: Agenda Item for February 2 meeting of the Faculty Senate

� Date: January 27, 2009

� We respectfully request to be put on the agenda for the February 3 meeting of the Faculty Senate. The agenda item is a proposal for procedures of the Long-Range Planning Committee for the period 2008-2010. In accordance with the College Handbook (Part One, Chapter 150.03, Article VII, Section C.d.1 and 2.), the role and charge of the Long-Range Planning Committee are as follows:

� (I) Handbook Role and Charge to the Long-Range Planning Committee

� 1. To consider and recommend to the Senate matters related to current academic plans, long-range planning, and other such matters designated to it by the Senate.

� 2. To determine the procedure whereby faculty and student input is obtained regarding long-range plans. The procedure developed shall be subject to approval by the Senate, and to mandatory review every two years.

� As a Faculty Senate Committee, the LRPC has a singular role in representing the academic mission and academic units of the college (i.e., departments, centers, programs). With the creation of the Strategic Planning Steering Committee (SPSC), and its overarching representation of other constituencies at the college (e.g., Academic Affairs, Student Affairs, Facilities, Institutional Advancement, Finance and Management, etc.), the LRPC proposes the following to fulfill this charge.

� (II) Clarification of the Role of the LRPC

� a) Determine common ideals as distilled and synthesized from all available academic unit long-range or strategic plans, mission, vision or other values statements. The LRPC will determine these commonalities while keeping in mind the current (evolving) mission statement of the college (a �bottom-up� process).

� b) Discover, refine, and recommend components and strategies for an academic long-range plan for the college. This reflects the committee's elected representative base as a Faculty Senate committee, as contrasted with Divisional strategic and long-range plans which are best reviewed and represented by the Strategic Planning Steering Committee.

� c) Interpret and present (through qualitative data analysis) collective faculty and student input about what is important for long-range planning for the college.

� (III) Proposed Procedures to be Used by the LRPC (for approval by Faculty Senate)

� a) Ask all academic units and departments to either (i) prioritize and submit to the LRPC aspects of their academic-unit long-range or strategic plans or statements, or (ii) if no formal plan or statements exist, to submit a statement of prioritized strategic values or issues agreed upon by the academic unit. This will be accomplished through a web-based survey and will be reflective of the new SUNY Cortland Mission Statement. This could include the use of an on-line forum (e.g., a �wiki�) or other methods of input such as open forums and/or surveys.

� (b) LRPC will present its findings and recommendations to the Faculty Senate, the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, and the campus community, in the spring of 2009.

� Current Long-Range Planning Committee Membership: Chris Cirmo (chair)-mathematics/sciences; Diane Craft-professional studies; Mel King-social/behavioral sciences; Virginia Levine (ex-officio)-president�s office; Josh Peluso-professionals; Dave Ritchie-library; Kim Rombach-education; Cynthia Sarver-fine arts/humanities; Danielle Singer-student; Second Student (open).

http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/0809min8.html