����������������������� FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO. 10
1.� CALL TO ORDER: The 10th meeting of
the Faculty Senate for 2003-2004 was called to order at on
SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Walkuski, B. Jackson, P. Buckenmeyer, K. Coombs, B. Mattingly, P. Walsh, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, L. Anderson, M. Friga, J. Rayle, M. Chandler, K. Pristash, A. Johnson, S. VanEtten, A. Young, M. Barone, D. Walker, D. Stevens, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, W. Shaut, E. McCabe, C. Poole
SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Beadle, J. Hokanson, J. Peluso, P. Schroeder, T. Phillips, C. Plunkett, T. Fay, M. Ali
GUESTS PRESENT: D. Fish, H. Wilson, D. Margine, R. Spitzer
II. SENATE ACTIONS:
The Senate voted to approve the Presentation Skills Requirements Proposal as submitted by R. Spitzer on behalf of the GE Committee (Passed)
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Minutes #9 were voted on and approved from
IV.� CHAIR'S REPORT:
Chair Walkuski reported that the Professional Faculty DSI Committee, chaired by Dawn Van Hall, has met and will be discussing Professional DSI Policy.
V.� VICE CHAIR'S REPORT:
Bernard Jackson also reported that the Faculty DSI Committee has met and the DSI procedures, as outlined in the faculty handbook, will remain with no changes.
VI.� TREASURER'S REPORT:
Treasurer Coombs reported that the Faculty Senate treasury is "in bad shape."� This will make it difficult to fund the Faculty Senate Scholarships and Memorial Plaques.� She will be posting to the Faculty Senate website a� list of those individuals who have paid their dues, by department. Senators are encouraged to urge constituents in their areas to pay their Senate dues. Coombs will be sharing fund-raising ideas at the next Senate meeting.
VII.� SECRETARY'S REPORT: No report.
VIII.� PRESIDENT'S REPORT:
President Bitterbaum opened by reporting on an exciting new initiative where large employers in Cortland County have been invited to breakfast to see, "how can the college, with its ability, knowledge base and students, partner with the community in moving Cortland County forward."�
The Sports Council has been meeting, a group of
businessmen and women in the community, along with some people from the
college. He shared that Pete Koryzno has come up with
a monitor, "
Earlier this week a representative of the
The President of the National Olympic Handball Team has met here about the possibility of hosting women's handball in the future.�
John Mosser and the President
The last item of business is that SUNY Cortland has never
received much coverage in the Syracuse Post Standard and there has an attempt
to rectify the problem.� The Editor,
Stephen Rogers, has been invited to come down to speak with the Cabinet and
have a tour of the campus. Since there are about 8,000 alums who
live in the
His closing words were, "We like this warm weather, it's easy on the budget."�������
IX. QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT:
Vice Chair Jackson asked the President about the economic outcome of the Empire Games to our campus.� Vice President Shaut responded that the campus was paid for use of the facilities, he said, "about 30-35 in range," as well as other fees being paid for food and housing. However, the exact figures not known exactly offhand.
Vice President Franco responded that the idea has been brought
up in the past, perhaps building an addition onto the Corey Union.� Mike Whitlock has been proposing that for a
few years now, he said, and it could be connected to Fitzgerald Hall.� This could be a place where we could focus
conference housing in the summer. However, because of the deferred maintenance,
the project has been proposed and is on the books, and will be out there along
with the next couple of five year plans.�
We did receive the Alumni House on
The President reported that the only drawback is that people might see it and perceive us to be a wealthy college.� Just to maintain it will actually be a burden for the Alumni Association, he reported.� He indicated that he had met with John Mosser and Bill Shaut that morning where they have contacted some graduates from Cornell Food Management Program to offer us a model and advise us.
K. Alwes asked if the Alumni House was exclusively for alumna and President Bitterbaum reported that they are developing a model where weddings and bar mitzvahs could be held, with the opportunity for people to use it. He also said they hope to use it for alumna functions because many institutions have alumna houses that could rival ours.� Mr. Gibson was a great collector of antiques, he stated, but it is not yet known if they will be part of his bequest.� He reported that since the college did not expect Mr. Gibson to leave so quickly, a lot of work still needs to be done, and it is not in full force as yet.� He encouraged faculty that if they know of anyone who would like to stay there, such as a guest lecturer, there would be an opportunity for housing in the future.
X. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Educational Policy Committee - No report.
Student Affairs Committee�� P. Buckenmeyer reported that his committee is awaiting candidates for the Faculty Senate Memorial Scholarship and will be working on it shortly.
Faculty Affairs Committee - E. McCabe reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee has approved the policies and procedures for ESSS.� Her committee will also be meeting with the Faculty Development Committee in April.
XI. SUNY SENATOR'S REPORT: No report (absent)
XII. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Committee on Committees - No report.
XIII. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old Business.
BUSINESS: Robert Spitzer brought forward the Presentation Skills
Requirement on behalf of the General Education Committee. He offered a brief
summary and background information.� This
proposal, he said, comes before the Senate for two reasons.� One, he said, "is because it surely is a
good thing to do because it is good for students to have presentation related
oral skills." Secondly, he explained, and more importantly, "The
other reason is it is the only elements of the SUNY Cortland GE that is not in
compliance." He added, "...and to complicate pre-existing assessment
Walkuski then pointed out that, technically, the motion is not on the floor until it is read. He felt that since there were editorial changes there wouldn't be any need to amend the document. Thus, he asked if Spitzer� could read the motion and then bring it forward for discussion. He explained that since is comes from a committee it did not require a second.
Spitzer asked if he should read the whole thing, and it was decided after conferring with the Chair, that it could be considered read into the record.� It was explained that there was an additional slip of paper which represented an amendment, replacing number 4 on the document in question.�
Alwes recognized D. Margine. Margine said she prepared a document which Senator Cottone passed around that mirrors the change that Spitzer put into the clarification process. She had questions as regards transferability. She said since he mentioned being out of compliance with SUNY GE 10, by virtue of a student attending another institution and fulfilling SUNY GE 10 at such institution, when that student attempts to transfer that to Cortland that requirement to fulfill SUNY GE 10, would that requirement be automatically fulfilled as well?
Spitzer felt it was most sensible for the implementation committee called for in the document to answer such questions, just like the writing requirement and its own subsequent committee.
Margine offered that when a
student fulfills SUNY GE 9, the foreign language requirement, this does seem to
suggest a precedent, since there is transferability along those lines.� Her second question was by virtue of a student
transferring a course into
Spitzer responded, "That is a question that rests with definition and would fulfill the presentation skills requirement, and if that were the case, I would most likely believe transfers in would also hold for presentation skills as in foreign language."
Margine asked, "Wouldn't that have to be proven before it goes in?"
Spitzer paused and replied, "No, because that is an implementation question and a matter left to the committee to be created, which courses will be designated, what the mechanics will be, the statement of policy, the mechanics of how they are transferred is superfluous. I would say no."
Walkuski asked if the pink sheet distributed J. Cottone was a point of information.
Margine replied that she just has concerns about the transferability, "to be clarified if this is going to be adopted so everyone understand how this is going to work."
Walkuski asked Dr. Spitzer if this were an implementation issue, as he had stated.
Spitzer said, "Yes. One on expertise, the other on policy making and policy implementation. The proposal is pretty brief, doesn't include details, which courses, under which circumstances, etc.� I don't think you would want me to include that in a policy statement, The first point, "it's an issue best left to go with expertise, which would be the people who would compose the committee who would do this evaluation.� This particular proposal, as I have seen it, it's really, look at the framework, the starting point for this process.� He asked if the third point, third sentence down, "The approval shall be conducted by a permanent appointed committee?" Where does your committee envision an appointment emanating from?"
Spitzer said, "You are right."� He said the proposal doesn't say whether such an appointment would emanate from the President's office or another committee. He stated, "As you know, there are some Senate committees that are appointed...The president appoints committees as well. It goes through the Faculty Senate and is treated through Senate committees. Makes sense."
Bitterbaum made an observation, from his ten years as academic VP, that when there were transferability issues the first individual to consult would be the Registrar, the first academic VP. He went on to state, "That is their responsibility, working with the implementation committee.� When it breaks down there are problems and that's when the Governor gets involved, so we want to move back and forth.� When there are problems the chair can be called up and things can be worked out.� He expressed that he is not a big fan of starting new committees, and that we probably already have the structure.� Do we charge the Provost or Assistant Provost to do it?" was his final question.
Spitzer said, "I have spoken to...we are looking at sort of an idea. We don't really talk about implementation per se, that's going be coming out."
The Provost wanted to differentiate, what she sees as Faculty Senate concerned with policy development. She said, "Implementation falls through the administration and for this body to say where that should occur seems to be inappropriate..."
Walkuski said the committee is appointed by the Provost because those are academic issues.
Senator VanEtten said, working with the Gen Ed committee, his office has been asked to identify each year what we are going to be assessing by May so it is urgent to require the logistics.
Spitzer said that part of the implementation piece would have to be fall 2004 critical issue people have to rush and be appointed by the Provost to take care of business.
Walsh said he thinks this is an implementation question. He mentioned that the second issue would be the issue of large classes requiring implementation. He said if you had 40 student implementation might be an issue.
Spitzer said the policy doesn't stipulate enrollment per se, the instructors and departments who will be offering such courses will make such judgment. He stated, "We had discussion with Communication Studies about the enrollment cap issue.� We were not advocates of cap, that applies to writing courses.� There was a notion you could easily deliver the presentation skills in classes in a variety of ways.� The notion is not to force a professor to offer such courses but up to departments distribution where these courses will lie. As to burden of service there will be a call to go out right away, voluntary, the Dean of Arts and Sciences has put out a list of how they are structured.� That does not include the Communication Studies Department. The initial activity would be having submissions fall through this new committee.� This would require a great deal of work so they could review and approve."
Dr. Bitterbaum made a quick observation.� He mentioned a particularly exciting general physics and biology course where he had previously been an administrator, which was very creative in the way it was done, and mentioned time and time again when graduating seniors mentioned the highlights of their academic career at this campus, this was listed as one of their favorite assignments.
The Provost clarified that when we got SUNY learning outcomes, "...we wanted to see that we were offering." Referring to Dr. Spitzer's reference to the Dean, "He didn't make up the list but circulated which departments were teaching courses..." The attempt was to contact departments and find out which courses might lend themselves to this particular skill. She ended, ...that it is a response from the departments about what they were doing."
Alwes asked, referring to course eligibility, "Can any course be submitted?" She asked about the issue of WI and other disciplines, if participation was voluntary because, ..."you don't want to ask other disciplines to take on presentation skills...or across all the disciplines?"
Spitzer replied, It is the assumption most departments, probably today a majority, course which could reasonably fall under this category and there is no distribution requirement here. He said it is not the case that every department offering one nor is student required one in every department.
Alwes reaffirmed that every discipline might have one.
Spitzer replied, "Over time, yes."
Walsh questioned the rationale in terms of this.
Walkuski asked a point of information. He said that it was his understanding that it was possible for departments to have components in various courses fulfill that by demonstrating that in the course, so not specifically talking about a course but a series of activities that are inherent in a variety of ways.
Spitzer said nothing in this proposal would preclude that. He agreed with President Bitterbaum about being creative and said, "within bounds of guidelines would be welcome seems to me you'd like to have different kinds of experiences, it seems to me that's a good thing."
There was a vote and it passed unanimously.
Spitzer thanked the Senate and said, "It's always a pleasure to come to the Faculty Senate, as far as I am concerned." There was general laughter.� He also encouraged anyone that was a registered Democrat to vote in the primaries since it was Election Day.
Bitterbaum made an observation
that the polls in
Margine asked about the protocol for routing the Presentation Skills proposal since she thought it should have gone through EPC.
Walkuski explained that there has been a big problem because the General Education Committee is not found in the College Handbook. He went on to state, "...and this needs to be rectified when the handbook is rewritten in the following year. The GE Committee also discusses policy regarding the Gen Ed program. Do we want to have several committees focusing on policy?� This is a specific area of the curriculum." He said that he had himself wavered on this issue, spoken with Lynn Anderson, and Anderson, as chair of EPC, felt very comfortable that this part should be brought forth, as it was, at the Senate.
Spitzer said that in the Gen Ed program guidelines circa 1984, again followed by laughter, "It says two things. It says that while approval of addition of new categories was under the purview of the Faculty Senate, the Gen Ed has authority to recommend policy as it sees fit, sends it to the Senate. He said, "It also says on page 16 that the Gen Ed Committee was charged with recommending category changes to the Faculty Senate. The GE Committee is not a sub committee. I think the guidelines are perfectly clear regarding creating the categories. It is a Senate committee."
Walkuski affirmed that it need to be worked out in the new handbook.
Provost expressed that she found it confusing and explained her remark at the last meeting about this issue not going through EPC.�� She said, "I would highly recommend that the handbook clarifies these issues and also includes a diagrammatic schema to show those policy issues should go....make it clear to everyone."
Spitzer remarked, "I think the reason the GE Committee was never included in the catalog was because it was 20 years old.� No one ever thought to do it." His remark was followed by much laughter from everyone.
President Bitterbaum asked whose responsibility the handbook was, and if was the Senate's?
The Provost explained that Patty Francis coordinates the process, and the last time she did, she had a committee where people recommended changes. But, she said, "I don't know where the responsibility lies."
President Bitterbaum added, "But we'd be happy to help."
Walkuski responded by saying, "It is my understanding that the responsibility lies with the Administrative Assistance to the President. That's what I have been told, anyway."
Bitterbaum responded decisively, "Let the minutes reflect that." He added, "A number of things come up that need to be clarified. The handbook is outdated and needs to be reviewed.� You need to stay on top of it."
Coombs had a question regarding the Graduate Education Committee and whether it deals exclusively with Graduate Education.
XIV. STUDENT REPORTS: There were no student reports. However, Chair Walkuski asked the Student Senators about the increased fee and what it was for. Matt Barone responded that the $5.00 increase was for the student activity fee, $2.50 per semester.
XV.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS: No reports.
The meeting was adjourned at
The following reports are appended to the Minutes in the order they are submitted by Senators and other members.
(1) Administration's report to the Senate submitted by Dr. Bitterbaum.
(2) Proposed Presentation Skills Requirement submitted by Dr. Spitzer.
(3) Memo to Jeffrey Walkuski to the Gen Ed Committee re the Proposed Presentation Skills Requirement
(4) Presentation Skills Implementation Proposal submitted by J. Cottone
����#��A��� ��C�� ��C� "
,��R,��T,��u-��w-���-���-��x.��z.���.���.���1���1�1��3��3���5���5��b6��d6��W7��Y7���7���7��V8��9��9���9���9���:���:�:��/>��1>���?���?��uA��wA���B���B���C���C���C���C��D��‑D��PD��RD��RD�E���E���F�� F���F���F���G���G��fH��hH���H���H��OK��QK���M���M���N���N!N��gN��iN���O���O��~P���P���P���P���Q���Q���Q���Q���R���R��vS��xS��xS�S���S���T���U���U���U���U���U���U��V��V��#V��8V��:V���V���V���V���V�V��@W��BW���W���W���W���W���W���W���W��.X��0X��2X��4X��6X��8X��<X��<X>X��@X��BX��DX��GX��HX��IX���=�/�p5 P�Wc�W����9GUVWX`hACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO������������� SUNY CortlandSUNY Cortland3/22/4� 3/22/4� �W