����������������������������������������������� FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #8
����������������������������������� ������������ �������������February 3, 2009
meeting of the
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,
GUESTS PRESENT: P. Koryzno, B. Mattingly, J. Mosher
OF THE MINUTES: �The minutes were
II.� SENATE ACTIONS:
III. CHAIR�S REPORT: ��
Chair Buxton opened the
meeting with one item.� He encouraged
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
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:
-� J. Barry,
Chair � Chair Buxton read the report from the Committee on Committees.� The
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
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.
Committees � Report to the
Item # 1
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
requires confirmation of the
Committee on Committees (Soc/Beh Sci) � complete unexpired term (2007-09)
Student Affairs Committee (Fine Arts/Human.) � complete unexpired term (2008-10)
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
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
House:� Increase limit on federal unsubsidized loans by $2,000
(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.
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.
(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
(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).
Summer Scheduling Proposal
Submitted by B. Mattingly
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,
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
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
� 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.
LRPC Proposal regarding procedures for the period 2008-2010
Submitted by C. Cirmo, Chair, LRPC Committee
� Fr: Long-Range Planning Committee
Re: Agenda Item
for February 2 meeting of the
request to be put on the agenda for the February 3 meeting of the
� (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.
� (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
� 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
� 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
Current Long-Range Planning Committee
Membership: Chris Cirmo (chair)-mathematics/sciences;
Diane Craft-professional studies; Mel King-social/behavioral sciences;