Bookmark and Share

February 15, 2011

                                            FACULTY SENATE MINUTES #9

                                                    February 15, 2011

The ninth meeting of the Faculty Senate 2010-2011 was called to order by Chair David Miller on Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM in the Hall of Fame Room, Park Center.

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT:  D. Miller, T. Phillips, T. Vigars, R. Grantham, D. West, W. Miller, D. Berger, R. Kendrick, J. Ouellette, J. Alemzadeh, S. Wilson, O. White, R. Borden, K. Pristash, E. McCabe, T. Slack, E. Owens, P. Schroeder, J. Campanaro, A. M. Rossi, W. Michael, E. Bitterbaum, M. Prus, A. Fitz-Gibbon, S. Anderson

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: I. Vincent, S. Rayl, B. Buxton, K. Hempson, M. Chandler, D. Harrington, J. Walkuski, J. Hendrick, R. Franco, G. Sharer, W. Shaut,

K. Stearns, A. Thomas, R. Spitzer, G. Clarke, M. Connell

GUESTS PRESENT:  H. Wilson

I.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  There was a motion for approval of the minutes from November 30, 2011. (Approved)

II. SENATE ACTIONS:

There was a vote to approve the recommendations for committee vacancies on the Committee on Committees (Approved)

There was a vote to approve the recommendation from the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee regarding the College Handbook 230.03 Promotion Criteria (Approved; 9 for;

7 against; 4 abstentions)

III. CHAIR’S REPORT:  The chair encouraged everyone to be cautious during the inclement

weather and indicated that the issues regarding campus closings is being examined. 

IV. VICE CHAIR:  T. Phillips – No report.

V. TREASURER’S REPORT  R. Grantham – No Report.

VI. SECRETARY’S REPORT:  T. Vigars –  No report.

VII.  PRESIDENT’S REPORT:   The President gave a brief report.

VIII  STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Student Affairs Committee  - M. Connell, Chair – No report.

Academic Faculty Affairs Committee  – A. Fitz-Gibbon, Chair – 

Long-Range Planning Committee – No report

Educational Policy Committee –  R. Spitzer, Chair – No report (absent)

Professional Affairs Committee  – G. Clarke, Chair –  No report (absent)

 X. OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Committee on Committees –T. Vigars read the report for the Committee on Committees.  There was a vote to approve the nominees for committee vacancies.

College Research Committee  – P. Ducey, Chair – No report.

General Education Committee – A. Thomas, Chair – No report.

XI. AREA SENATOR’S REPORTS:  There were no Area Senator’s reports.

XII. SUNY SENATOR’S REPORT – T. Phillips (SUNY Senator Alternate) – No report.

XIII. STUDENT SENATOR’S REPORTS:  The students gave a brief report.

XIV. OLD BUSINESS:  The Old Business item from the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee regarding the College Handbook 230.03 Promotion Criteria, submitted by A. Fitz-Gibbon, Chair, was discussed.  The recommendation was approved with the stipulation that the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee forward the recommendation to the departments and monitor progress and report back on a regular basis.

The other two items under Old Business, Recommendations from the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee regarding CTE’s and response to the English Department regarding Personnel Committee Members and use of Robert’s Rules/Abstentions was postponed to the next meeting on March 1 due to a lack of time.

XV. NEW BUSINESS:

Respectfully Submitted,

Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary

The following reports are appended to the minutes in the order they were submitted:

(1)   Committee on Committees report submitted by J. Barry, Chair

(2)   SUNY Senator Report, SUNY Faculty Senate 157th Winter Plenary, 1/28-29, 2011 at SUNY Binghamton, submitted by T. Phillips for J. Hendrick

(3)   Academic Faculty Affairs Committee recommendation regarding the College Handbook 230.03 Promotion Criteria, submitted by A. Fitz-Gibbon, Chair, AFAC; Recommendations from the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee regarding CTE’s; Academic Faculty Affairs Committee response to the English Department regarding Personnel Committee Members and use of Robert’s Rules/Abstentions

APPENDIX 1

                                         Committee on Committees – Report to the Faculty Senate

                                                                           February 15, 2011

                                                                    Submitted by J.  Barry, Chair

Item #1

The Committee on Committees recommends the following appointments:

  • Academic Faculty Affairs Committee, Education – Joseph Rayle (complete unexpired term 2010-12)
  • Academic Faculty Affairs Committee, Social/Behavioral Sciences – Herb Haines (complete unexpired term 2009-11)
  • General Education Committee, Professional Studies – Tony Trunfio (complete unexpired term 2009-11)

These require confirmation of the Faculty Senate.

Item #2

The Committee on Committees conducted elections as follows:

  • Arts & Sciences (at large) Senator (2010-12, complete unexpired term): 

o     John Hartsock – elected

  • Arts & Sciences (at large) Senator (spring 2011 sabbatical replacement):

o     Judith Ouellette - elected

  • Treasurer (2010-11, complete unexpired term):

o     Regina Grantham – elected

  • SUNY Senator (2009-12, complete unexpired term):

o     Joy Hendrick – elected

  • Professional Staff Senator (2009-11, complete unexpired term):

o     Joshua Peluso – elected

Item #3

There were no nominations received for the following vacancies:

Senators:

Math/Science – 2009-11 (complete unexpired term)

School of Education - 2009-11 (complete unexpired term)

Full-time Lecturer, Education/Professional Studies – 2009-11 (complete unexpired term)

Committees:

At Large:

Faculty Representatives to Student Senate (2 seats) – 2010-11 (complete unexpired term)

Math/Science:               

Student Affairs Committee – 2010-12 (complete unexpired term)

Social/Behavioral Sciences:               

Committee on Committees – 2009-11 (complete unexpired term)

Professional Staff:

College Research Committee – 2010-13 (complete unexpired term)

Respectfully submitted,

Joanne Barry

Chair

APPENDIX 2

                                                   SUNY Senator’s Report, Winter Plenary

                                                  Submitted by T. Phillips for J. Hendrick

 

 SUNY Faculty Senate 157th Winter Plenary

January 28-29, 2011 at SUNY Binghamton

President’s Report - Ken O’Brien (UFS President)

Budget – no news

Program Deactivation/Discontinuance – important to include faculty governance in the process or minimally have plans in place to include governance if/when needed. As a result of (or at least in part due to) a resolution made by the SUNY Faculty Senate at the Fall Plenary meeting, there is now a section on the form that campuses file that they must verify that governance was included (consulted) in the process.

SUNY Strategic Planning Process – It is now in the implementation phase for the 13 teams. The plans help to reconnect SUNY with NYS. SUNY is a public university, and the teams are focused on advancing the state of NY on social issues. They will produce a SUNY report card with metrics to measure steps toward achieving their goals. One comment was that we should help our alumni offices to locate alumni and share information on how many alums are working in NYS and what they are doing.

General Education and Student Mobility – The Joint SUNY and Community College Committee on Transfer and Articulation has been replaced with the new Student Mobility Advisory Committee. This is a faculty generated and defined process to identify courses.

Graduate Student Research Exposition is March 8 in Albany and will include student’s work from both SUNY and CUNY. A major objective is to share with legislators what is going on in the public colleges and universities in NYS and the state can benefit from what is going on.

Executive Committee Report - Norm Goodman(UFS VP and Secretary)

SUNY and CUNY Executive committees held a joint meeting in December. As the public universities in NY, shared issues were discussed. Ken Smith is working with Phil Smith from UUP to try to do more together with the union (i.e. – backdoor retrenchment, program development).

SUNY and the Educational Pipeline - Johana Duncan-Poitier (Chancellors’ Deputy for the Education Pipeline and Vice Chancellor for Community Colleges)

The Education Pipeline has to do with more students graduating from HS prepared to succeed in college and in the workforce

2/3 of jobs now require some college education

By 2018, 1/3 of all newly created jobs will require no less than an associate’s degree

Currently 56% of NYS adults, do not have a college degree (including associate’s degrees)

For every 100 9th graders in NYS

o 57 graduate from HS

§ 41 of these will go to college

31 of these are still enrolled in 2nd year

o 19 in NY graduate with either an associate’s degree in 3 years or a bachelor’s degree in 6 years

Approximately 72% of students graduate HS with a regents or local diploma after 4 years

o 61% with just a regents diploma

o Black and Hispanic only – around 40% (males only 35%)

o These are the percentages then that are prepared for the workforce

Large percentage of students enter college needing remediation:

o If no need for remediation, there is a 64% success rate in college

o If they need remediation, the success rate drops to only 52%

The issues are access AND completion

SUNY 6-year graduation rate is 64% (it is 68% for all NYS colleges)

o The 3-year associate’s degree graduation rate is only 23%

SUNY is committed to strengthening the pipeline

o SUNY prepares about ¼ of teacher educators in the state

o Having partnerships are key to success – bring resources together toward a common goal

o Major grant being secured by 8 SUNY campuses to enhance teacher preparation

 

Budget Report – Kathleen Preston (Interim Vice Chancellor for Financial Services and Health Affairs

No budget information yet – with a new governor, it does not have to be released until 2/1

Perspective – around $10 billion deficit in state

o $133 billion state budget

o $54 billion in general fund (where the hole is)

§ Of this, SUNY is $3.3 billion (approximately 6%)

o The message we are trying to convey: We are part of the solution, not part of the problem – regardless, there will likely be a cut

 

Provost Office Report – David Lavallee (Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs)

Graduation from any SUNY campus – 70% (including those who TR within SUNY)

o Comprehensives – 67%

o National average is only 55%

o Success rate is 90% (includes those who transfer outside of SUNY)

Discussed process of how SUNY administrations deals with applications to deactivate/discontinue programs

o Look all over SUNY (like with languages – all are suffering with numbers)

o Are things SUNY trends or national trends?

o Do other majors require courses?

o Will a curricular change alter a trend (can it be fixed without elimination?)

Credits in Degrees

o How many credits do students take in a specific degree program across all campuses – this is quite varied from campus to campus

o But looking at total credits taken comparing transfer students to non-transfer students, the number of credits is similar (reflecting good advisement)

o At our own campus, we should look at what is required for each of our degrees. Is it similar to other programs like ours? If more credits/courses are needed, are they really needed (asking ourselves, why is that requirement there?)?

Transfer – Improving Student Mobility

o Transfer website launched at SUNY website (http://www.suny.edu/student/transfer.cfm)

o Joint committee co-chaired by Presidents of SUNY Faculty Senate and Community College Faculty Council

§ In each discipline – compromises may need to be made and decisions to be made by faculty as a group – what courses are typically taken in 1st 2-years at 4-year campuses to be guaranteed (i.e. regardless of which physics program a student takes at a 4-year SUNY campus, what 4-5 courses can he/she take that will be accepted regardless of where he/she goes?)

§ Other courses may transfer by articulation agreements

§ Lots of commonality across schools

§ From this web site, students can find out what equivalent courses (including course numbers) for any campus

§ Can also add a planner which includes general education courses

§ Another section includes links to the GE program on each campus

Diversity

o New director in Office of Diversity & Educational Equity, Carlos Medina

Sector Reports with Comments from the Chancellor, Nancy Zimpher (C – Zimpher comment)

University Centers

o Performance-based Funds- (C) Faculty will be represented on a committee to look at performance allocation

o (C) Having 64 campuses is an asset – We touch many communities and therefore many jobs.

University Colleges (comprehensives)

o (C) Our goal is to befriend our new state administration – be its partner

o (C) The Governor will try to fix money problems now (the budget deficit).

o (C) We need to think creatively how we all can maintain our educational integrity

§ Cuts will likely be at a greater magnitude than in past years

§ We will have to collaborate and consolidate

§ We need to find a way to do this together

Colleges of Technology

o Presidential Review Process –

§ (C) – Presidents have reviewed a draft and are providing feedback

§ (C) – This will set a revised process in motion this year (likely in May)

§ (C) – SUNY System is behind in review of campus presidents due to many changes in chancellors in last 10 years

§ (C) – She will talk with Presidents annually regarding review.

Health Sciences

o Electronic data (communication and research) and privacy – there is a need to develop a policy system-wide

§ (C) – One of strategic plan teams is looking at this - A system should look at demand in certain sectors to determine and figure out how to meet the demand.

o REACH - (C) – A number of colleges are coming together to seek grants together

§ She applauds their efforts to work collaboratively

§ She encourages similar efforts in other areas/disciplines

Special and Statutory Colleges

o Metrics and Measures

§ (C) –Annually we should deliver to the public a report card

§ 3-fold format

Competitive SUNY – placement, time to degree…

Competitive NY – SUNY is helping NY being more competitive (ie. greener)

Diversity Counts (in middle of tri-fold) – a more diverse SUNY.

§ SUNY too will report annually on how well it is doing in all three areas

Campus Governance Leaders

o She thanked the UFS for suggesting a change to the form colleges must use to report if they are deactivating/discontinuing programs – see President’s report above. She thanked the UFS for making the resolution and suggested we continue to work with SUNY administration

o (C) – We are in a crisis; we will see program consolidation; we must save programs that are unique and that our students need for the betterment of the state

o (C) –We need to use our systemness to our advantage

o (C) – We need to be a player in our political environment

She showed the promotional YouTube video on the SUNY website

o Viewable at: http://www.suny.edu/

 

Faculty Council of Community Colleges - Tina Good (CCFC, President)

Presented a historical overview of SUNY and General Education since the mid-90’s

Trends and Emerging Practices in GE (May 2009) from AACU

o http://www.aacu.org/membership/documents/2009MemberSurvey_Part2.pdf

o Very similar to what came out of SUNY in 1998

o Also includes engaged learning experiences (ie. Undergraduate research, service learning…)

SUNY Student Assembly Report - Jesse Campanaro and Anna Marie Rossi from Cortland

Reported on student side of the strategic plan – how SUNY helped our students

Will be going to Albany on March 15

Reported on their Legislative Agenda

o http://www.studentassembly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=208:suny-sa-leg-agenda-2011&catid=9:documents&Itemid=138

o They want a rational, predictable tuition policy

o They want to increase TAP (this year, graduate students lost their right to apply for TAP)

o They are working hard and really trying to work with the legislature

(My personal note – They were terrific! – I was very proud of how they not only presented themselves as SUNY students, but also as Cortland students).

AAUP Shared Governance Panel Presentation

Several members attended an AAUP conference on Shared Governance

Importance of faculty having the opportunity to be involved in shared governance

A report was mentioned which had a definition of and characteristics of shared governance. It also included a survey to assess this. Included 3 values (academic freedom, shared vision and collective trust) and 8 characteristics. (A copy will likely be made available)

SUNY is one of many colleges on the AAUP sensor list. It was suggested that we might want to examine getting off the list

AAUP will be 100 years old next year. This was their first conference on shared governance (the registration for the conference was cut off at 250 – it was very popular, so they will likely offer more)

Four points of shared governance mentioned by a speaker at one of the conference sessions:

o No fear, No secrecy, Not just No (think first to avoid the immediate reaction to say No), and Its’ not just about us (it’s about the whole)

Question from the floor – Is UUP thinking of removing themselves from AAUP?

o Two comments were made –

§ UUP includes professionals and faculty while AAUP is only faculty

§ Initially (first 50 years or so), academic freedom was a primary mission of AAUP. More recently, it is not – it is more about budget, etc.

SUNY Faculty Senate Committee Reports-

(these will be available on the web: http://www.suny.edu/facultySenate/

REMINDER: Upcoming SUNY Faculty Senate Event:

Research that Matters: An Exposition of Graduate Research in SUNY and CUNY

March 8, 2011 in the Well of the Legislative Office Building in Albany, NY

(Note: Cynthia Benton, Chair of GFEC, is our campus liaison. Information will be circulated by her soon regarding opportunities for our graduate students to be involved.)

Respectively submitted,

Joy L. Hendrick

SUNY Distinguished Service Professor

Chair, SUNY Faculty Senate Undergraduate Committee

Kinesiology Department, SUNY Cortland

                                                               APPENDIX 3

Academic Faculty Affairs Committee Recommendation

College Handbook 230.03 Promotion Criteria

      submitted by A. Fitzgibbon, Chair

To: Dr. David Miller, Chair faculty Senate

230.03 PROMOTION CRITERIA

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. …

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 could 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.

The question before the AFAC was what is “evidence of a satisfactory record of scholarly activity” in the exceptional circumstances of a candidate applying for promotion from associate to full professor having excellent achievement in teaching and service.

Having discussed this at length and talking to an ad hoc assortment of department chairs, union officials and the Provost our conclusion is that it is the prerogative of each department to set its own level of “satisfactory.” In our experience, we have yet to see a set of department personnel policies that make this clear. Whilst some departments are quite specific about requirements expected for promotion is general circumstances, few, if any, address the “exceptional” clause. Whilst this remains unclear in personnel policies, it is likely that department PCs, chairs, sub-school PCs and administrators will continue to face disputed cases.

Where there is a dispute unresolved at lower levels, it is likely that the Provost will have the final decision. The Provost in her/his turn can only reach that decision on the basis of a department’s personnel policies. Where these remain unclear the Provost will make a decision on an interpretation of these unclear policies. In other words, the Provost would not apply a set of criteria other than those agreed by a department. It is each department’s prerogative to set scholarly standards for their members based on the internalized standards of their profession. When a department is unclear in its written representation of this, it makes everyone’s task more problematic. The more obscure department personnel policies are, the more power departments devolve to the administration. If faculty members are serious about faculty governance, then personnel policies ought to be as clear as possible and decided by the faculty members concerned.

Recommendation: That departments be asked to look at their personnel policies specifically to address this issue of the meaning of “satisfactory” in the exceptional circumstances of two areas of exceptional quality and one area of satisfactory quality for promotion from associate to full professor.

Memo:

From: Dr. Andrew Fitz-Gibbon, Chair, Academic Faculty Affairs Committee

To: Dr. David Miller, Chair faculty Senate

                                                APPENDIX 3A

          Recommendation from the Academic Faculty Affairs Committee

                                         Regarding the use of CTE’s

                                     submitted by A. Fitzgibbon, Chair

III. CTE Component of the Teaching Evaluation System

I. General Recommendations

1.1 All faculty and administrators should be evaluated on a regular basis. Part of the evaluation of faculty should be the regular systematic collection of information from colleagues and students as the basis for judgments about their teaching effectiveness. …

1.2 The teaching evaluation system will consist of two components: (a) the administration of a Course Teacher Evaluation (CTE) form, and (b) materials and information submitted by the teacher. Note: If a teacher does not wish to use a CTE form, an alternate procedure of visitation is possible.

1.3 Teachers will be evaluated, at a minimum, at least once every third time they teach a particular course. Departments will be responsible for establishing a time schedule for evaluating teaching. (Under exceptional circumstances, the recommended time schedule may be inappropriate. In such cases the department in question should submit to the Teaching Effectiveness Committee for approval an alternative in keeping with the principle of regular, systematic, longitudinal evaluation of faculty.)

3.4 The detailed procedures for collection of CTE data will be determined by each department, approved by the "Committee on Teaching Effectiveness,"…

The AFAC was asked to look at the issue of whether CTEs should be used for evaluative purposes or are rather for the use only of the instructor.

We discussed this at length and talked to a variety of people on campus. Among faculty of long-standing there was no consensus or clarity about the “original intent” of CTEs. In any event, to establish “original intent” is problematic as institutional cultures evolve. Newer faculty members seem to assume that CTEs are required and that they are used for evaluative purposes.

Paragraph 3.4 from the Handbook suggests that it is the prerogative of each department to establish the use of CTEs. We assume that “procedures” includes both the way data is collected and the purpose and uses of the data so collected. In other words, in a department personnel policy it can say how often CTEs should be administered (in compliance with the Handbook) and whether CTEs will be used to assess faculty teaching effectiveness.

CTEs remain the property of the faculty member. As only the faculty member concerned may place information in a portfolio, she/he could choose to omit CTEs, though this may be problematic. A department PC, chair or sub-school PC in the event of omission of CTEs could conclude that there was insufficient data to evaluate a candidate’s teaching ability. Presumably, this would be inadvisable for someone seeking renewal of contract or promotion. However, a candidate may elect to include evidence of teaching ability other than, or in the absence of, CTEs, though this is rarely seen in personnel matters.

Recommendation: That each department be explicitly clear in its personnel policies how often CTEs should be administered and whether or not and in what ways they will be used evaluatively to consider personnel matters.

                                                 APPENDIX 3B

                              Academic Faculty Affairs Committee

                                Response to the English Department

                               Regarding Personnel Committee Members

                                 and use of Robert’s Rules/Abstentions

                                     submitted by A. Fitzgibbon, Chair

Memo:

From: Dr. Andy Fitz-Gibbon, Chair, Academic Faculty Affairs Committee

To: Dr. Matt Lessig, Chair English Department

The AFAC was asked to look at a memo by the English Department regarding Personnel Committee members retaining the right to abstain in personnel actions. Provost Mark Prus had said in an open meeting that Personnel Committee members could not abstain.

The issue is complex, but the AFAC makes the following observations:

a)     The AFAC approved English Department personnel Policies in 2004 that included the English Department’s desire to operate according to Robert’s Rules.

b)     Robert’s Rule’s allows for abstentions, although abstentions are not counted for determining a majority or a two-thirds majority vote (Doris P. Zimmerman, Robert’s Rules, 205, p 103).

c)     In the absence of any mention in the College Handbook of abstentions or of Robert’s Rules, this does not preclude the English Department from adopting Robert’s Rules, under the faculty autonomy clause 220.06. This would suggest that the English Department is correct in wishing to retain the right of abstention in personnel decisions.

d)     However, section 220.06 A of the handbook suggests “The success of any system of evaluation depends upon the willingness of both faculty and administrators to be candid, objective, and fair in the performance of their responsibilities. Only if this occurs can the best interest of the University be served.” The AFAC found it difficult to find a situation where a faculty member who had not recused her/himself  before discussion would later abstain in a vote.

Note: the English Department memo says that it is the purview of the AFAC to change personnel policies and procedures. The AFAC acts only in an advisory capacity