�������� March 22, 2005


1.CALL TO ORDER: The 11th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15 PM on February 8, 2005 in the Park Center Hall of Fame Room by Chair Ram Chaturvedi. ���������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Chaturvedi, J. Rayle, P. Buckenmeyer, C. DeGouff, D. Driscoll, D. Berger, M. King, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, K. Rombach, B. Griffen, K. Pristash, M. Barduhn, A. Young, P. Schroeder, D. Vegas, D. Walker, M. K. Boland, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, W. Shaut, J. Governali, J. Cottone, D. Kreh, P. Buckenmeyer, M. Barduhn


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Walsh, L. Anderson, J. Peluso, D. Canaski, D. Ritchie, T. Phillips, B. Kissel, C. Plunkett, R. Grantham


GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, M. Prus, E. Caffarella, D. Margine, M. Holland, J. Walkuski, K. Russell



The Minutes from February 22 were approved.



There was a vote to approve the first amendment to the Presentation Skills Proposal, �Change the above sentence to read: �Any course with a minimum of 3-credits in any discipline may be submitted for PS designation{SEE Old Business} (Defeated)


There was a vote to approve the second amendment to the Presentation Skills Proposal, �Add to section �3. Course Eligibility� the following statement: �If a course is taught both in the traditional classroom and online, the traditional classroom mode may be submitted for the PS designation.When the traditional classroom mode is approved for the PS designation, it shall be the responsibility of the department chair to remove the PS attribute whenever this course is in an asynchronous mode.� {SEE Old Business} (Approved)



The Chair opened his report by stating that at its last meeting on March 15 the Steering Committee received reports from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC presented by Drs. Griffen and Walkuski, and Dr. Barclay presented the Senate Ad Hoc Committee Report on Senate Reconstruction.Chaturvedi also announced he had attended the College Council meeting where he gave a brief report.



J. Rayle reported that the Senate Reconstruction Committee is working and there is no new business beyond that report.



No report.



C. DeGouff reported that the Senate checking account has a new balance of $532.07 with $463.50 in encumbered expenditures, leaving a balance of $63.57.The balance in the College Foundation investment account, maintained for scholarship purposes, is $22,994.00.She added that the reserve requirement of principal in order to maintain the account is $11,000 leaving $994.00 expendable.The foundation, she said, allows a 5% expenditure for the year, so the budget expenditure will probably be $500 from the investment account to the checking account. Therefore, the Senate needs to raise the amount of $431.43 in dues or contributions to meet our expected contributions in the scholarship program.


P. Buckenmeyer asked for clarification if the scholarship was $500 this year, having been $750 last year..


DeGouff responded �yes� according to Linda Battin.



President Bitterbaum gave a brief report to accommodate the other Senate committee�s business.He announced that he had spent the prior week in Albany and was pleased to share with the Senate that Senator Seward was able to pass a new Education Bill which the Senate is supporting in the amount of ten billion dollars. This will enable us to fund buildings for education purposes.�� He explained that Cornish is not adequate,since it was designed as a lab school, and hopefully as a result of this incentive we will be able to design state of the art buildings for faculty and the School of Education, as well as a child care center that our early childhood students can use as a laboratory.



K. Rombach asked when the outcome would be realized and we would find out �yes� or �no?�


Bitterbaum said it may be decided by April 1 but now it depends on negotiation with the Governor.He expressed concern that the Governor will support it.He said once it is signed by him it goes into law and that all signs are pointing to a May budget.



No report.




Long Range Planning Committee - No report.


Educational Policy Committee - No report.


Student Affairs Committee - Buckenmeyer reported that his committee will be meeting this Friday to consider the 11 applicants for the Faculty Senate Scholarship.�� He strongly recommended faculty and staff to send in their ten dollar dues and he expressed the importance of the Senate�s role on campus giving students representation of what the Faculty Senate is all about, mainly leadership, and encouraged everyone�s financial support..


Faculty Affairs Committee - G. Clarke reported that his committee approved the Physic�s Department policies and will be meeting on the next Thursday.


College Research Committee - No report.


General Education Committee - No report.






Committee on Committees - No report.



D. Kreh explained that the debate would be limited due to time constraints and asked the chair how much time he allowed.Chaturvedi replied ten minutes.


The Presentation Skills Committee was represented by M. Barduhn.She opened by introducing herself as a member of the committee.She went over the background of how the committee had been operating, reviewing course proposals with a 3 credit minimum, and said that if the amendment does get passed, allowing courses under 3 credits, then we would have to amend our GE report requesting a change from Albany.


D. Berger yielded the floor to R. Spitzer, who distributed a handout consisting of a letter from 4 department chairs, chemistry, physics, biology and geology, expressing their opposition to changing the current policy, in support of allowing courses under 3 credits.He referred to the GEAR report, which is a document dated August 2002, which the campus prepared and sent to Albany to explain how we are going to fulfill SUNY�s GE requirement. He said there was some confusion as to how the departments on campus would satisfy oral presentation, however, this was done before there was any college policy.He read from the GEAR group guidelines that each campus plan for Gen Ed should fall to faculty members and that campus based assessment plans should be approved by the Faculty Senate or Faculty Council prior to being submitted to the GEAR group for formal review.When the GEAR report came out in 2002, Spitzer explained, there was no presentation skills requirement yet because the campus was behind in that endeavor.When the Senate did approve it in the Fall of 2004, with a late start, he said the GEAR requirements, with respect to the campuses� ability to make decisions, what it came down to was, �What the campus proposes is what fulfills the appropriate guidelines.�He stated that on all SUNY campuses the presentation skills requirement was filled by rolling it into composition courses, however our campus didn�t do that.He finished by saying, �The campus is not doing anything inappropriate by upholding the policy enacted last year� and that, �any credit number should be allowed.�


D. Berger commented on this Spitzer�s statement, referring to a comments from department chairs in the Sciences, that it says they strongly support the presentation skills component. He felt that presentation skills and existing courses that meet the requirement are really what is critical to him.He said, �If a course is teaching presentation skills it almost really doesn�t matter how many credits it is. It is up to the individual�s department, with regard to writing as well as presentation, and it may not be oral or may just be presentation. I think the key is that does it teach presentation skills not how many credits it is.�


K. Russell commented that, as chair of the GE committee, when this issue came up and Bruce Atkins was on the committee, although she would be have to find the exact verbiage, the General Education Committee did roll presentation skills into the English Composition classes and that was their intent.


M. Prus commented on Russell�s remark. He explained the history and said that when Dean Ryder submitted our plan for meeting the SUNY Board of Trustees requirement to the Provost�s Advisory Committee on General Education, the original intent was General Education Skills, which is that part of the learning outcome associated with Basic Communication and Presentation Skills and wasn�t intended to be delivered in Composition courses. He said the original submission to the Provost�s Advisory Committee on General Education did not include a specific assessment plan and that wasn�t until 2002 that the newly formed General Education Assessment Review Committee asked for plans. He added that when those plans were submitted it was the revision of the document originally submitted through the Provost�s Office in April.Revisions included presentation skills requirements that came in response to concerns raised by the GEAR group as to the perceived passage of the vehicle of delivering oral and basic communication.���


The Provost reminded everyone that whichever way the Senate voted the reality is that departments need to take into account that all students, regardless of the department the student is in, must demonstrate competencies on these learning outcomes that have been articulated by the system.Whether one does a one or three credit course those learning competencies must be embodies in there otherwise the students will be disadvantaged.And since the system is using the results as part of funding incentive, we don�t want this campus to be disadvantaged in any way because we are not providing students with what they need to pass or to know that they are not meeting standards.


Alwes remarked that whatever the intentions, presentation skills are not in composition courses. Secondly, she asked regarding to a few Faculty Senate meetings ago that several Senators were saying that they did not feel capable of teaching presentation skills. She asked if that argument got lost. She also asked the President if he had not indicated he would inquire as to the list of what SUNY required from these presentation skills courses.


Alwes responded that Grantham was supposed to do that.


Governali responded that part of the argument Alwes referred to was that the kind of evaluation that was being implemented was so complicated that people didn�t think they could teach the course, and they had to see what the evaluation was and then decide.He also remarked that he was not sure if the Senate saw the two together.He felt the Senate saw the standards but he wasn�t sure if they saw the evaluation tool.


The Provost said the chair of the presentation skills committee came to see her yesterday. The committee has grave concerns because they only have a few courses that are available to students.There is a backlog of students coming in, particularly transfer students, who must complete this requirement before they graduate.She said, �As it stands we do not have sufficient courses for these students to take.I think you must keep this in mind as you discuss the issue and vote.�


D. Walker said if there is not sufficient courses, is that under the 3 credit course system.�He said if you offered 1 and 2 credit courses would there be sufficient courses available to take?�


The Provost responded that she would like the committee to answer that question, since they approve courses and send them to her for final approval.


M. Barduhn answered that there are 21-23 courses now that have been approved. If you look at the list of courses, she explained, her committee finds that there are a lot of concerns about students being able to meet the requirement on the graduation date of May 5.Her committee hasn�t received an overwhelming amount of proposals at this point, she commented, and she mentioned that the time line is out there.The issue, she stated, of 1 and 2 credit courses is also something that has been under discussion, as well.She declared that if you have 1 and 2 credit courses involving presentation skills, evaluation may be difficult.


M. King stated that since the Senate has not seen the SUNY�s requirements and the local evaluation together, he was wondering if the local evaluation was written in such a complex way that would go well beyond what SUNY requires.He said, �It would just make it that more difficult to meet requirements.�


R. Spitzer said that the discussion pointed to whether we want to be offering more courses, not fewer.He said in view that faculty want to offer 1 and 2 credit courses and that SUNY needs to deliver that it needs to deliver, he is was in support of the Presentation Skills Amendment, but pointed out that it only applies to how the policy was written, to students admitted by the fall of 2004.


The Provost pointed out that there were students who applied before the fall of 2004 and that Spitzer was mistaken.


Vegas made a motion to extend the debate for five minutes which was approved.


D. Margine said that of the 22 courses that have been approved, not all departments have submitted courses forcing students to go out of the realm to meet the requirement.She said this was a grave issue of the committee causing a serious backlog.


The President said this was a serious issue he was unaware of. He felt it is unconscionable of the college to bring students here and not have the ability to graduate. He stated that this is the first issue that we, as a campus, have to resolve.


R. Olsson pointed out that Presentation Skills are imbedded in the course and that students taking 1 or 2 credit courses may not get enough time to acquire the skills.


D. Margine said you have to look at the syllabus to see if it meets the learning outcomes.


A. Young said that he supported it as it exists.He felt otherwise it would tie hands of the faculty whereas offering 1 and 2 credit courses would follow the requirements of the committee originally voted on by the Faculty Senate.


D. Kreh read the amendment where it stated a course minimum of 3 credits.


The debate was over. D. Berger asked for a seriatim vote.


There was a vote on both proposal amendments {SEE Senate Actions}



D. Barclay gave a presentation on behalf of the Faculty Senate Reconstruction Committee {SEE Appendixes 1 and 2}


K. Alwes stated that this was an attempt to redistribute seats rather than add them.


D. Berger had comments and questions referring to participation, indicating that Arts and Science has four seats.He said that from his many years on the Faculty Senate that people from Arts and Sciences often express their dissatisfaction to him with the Faculty Senate for different reasons. Furthermore, he stated, whether or not one agrees with their reasons, this explains the unfilled seats and lack of participation by Arts and Sciences on the Senate.He said, in regards to page 3 of the proposal referring to redistribution, he felt this was a reasonable compromise with a recommendation of 7 seats for Arts and Sciences and 4 seats for the other departments.He said, �But one thing I have heard a lot from some of my colleagues is the concept of a two chamber Faculty Senate where we (also) have a College Senate.�


The Chair reminded him that this was debate and discussion was limited to questions and information only.


Berger responded that he was asking Barclay, as chair of the committee, if his committee had considered or discussed having two chambers, one Faculty Senate and one College Senate, on this campus.


Barclay responded that, although his committee discussed it briefly, it was decided not to pursue it because it was felt that the campus didn�t need two chambers and that the Faculty Senate represents the whole college.


M. King responded, �There is no Faculty Senate on this campus.�


K. Pristash recognized J. Walkuski, who reminded the Senate floor that last year when he chaired the Senate Reconstruction Committee they discussed having two chambers of the Senate on campus.


����������� * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


B. Griffen gave the report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC. {SEE Appendix 2}. The appendixes to this report are also on reserve at the Memorial Library.


J. Walkuski gave his minority report of the ROTC Committee {SEE Appendix 5}


J. Walkuski asked Griffen about the meeting dates on the report challenging the detail that they didn�t really meet until February 2, not January 26 as listed .He also mentioned the statement that 8 out of 11 faculty voted to deny ROTC, adding that one member could not be tracked down and there was one missing student who never attended.He said the committee only met 5 times.


K. Russell insisted that they met initially on January 26 in Old Main. Walkuski challenged her on the actual date.


D. Berger reminded the chair that this was not Senate business.


Chaturvedi said these details were out of line.


Walkuski had other issues with the ROTC Committee, one being that an open meeting was never held.Walkuski stated that he was the sole member who voted to allow ROTC.This information is outlined in his minority report, he said, which he was given two days to prepare.Walkuski reiterated the charge of the committee, which he felt had not been addressed.He challenged the issue of ROTC being in conflict with the mission statement of the college.Walkuski further discussed people�s right to freedom of speech, which he thinks the ROTC report is in violation of, since the military is under civil law. He pointed out that he has had that section of the law put on reserve at the library.He argued the ROTC committee�s contention that the culture of the military is in conflict with the mission statement, as well.Walkuski wanted to go on record as saying he feels strongly against denying the influence on ROTC on campus.


R. Olsson agreed with Walkuski, explaining that he grew up in a military family and felt that he was not in agreement with the statements the ROTC Committee made regarding military life and the negative influence of the military.


P. Buckenmeyer asked if, in the deliberations, did anyone resolve that ROTC wanted to use classroom space as opposed to just using a classroom on campus? He stated that there is a fundamental difference


J. Walkuski pointed out that he challenged the difference between use of classroom space and ROTC being officially recognized on campus, but felt the ROTC Committee had not taken this into consideration. Walkuski felt this was an important distinction.


B. Griffen felt that allowing ROTC to hold classes on campus meant incorporation of their beliefs on campus which, his committee felt, is in opposition to the mission statement.


K. Russell explained that she was the one who convened the committee, with G. Douglas serving as co-chair. She said the progressive faculty group whom they addressed felt that allowing ROTC to hold classes on campus felt this was in contradiction to our mission statement.


The Provost expressed her concern that there was a distinction about ROTC just using our classrooms to hold classes versus SUNY Cortland incorporating ROTC in our curriculum.


B. Griffen addressed Provost Davis-Russell�s concerns by asking, �Isn�t allowing them to use classrooms on this campus saying we are instituting the ROTC program on campus?�


The Provost indicated she felt there was a difference between us implementing ROTC course offerings and allowing ROTC to use our space.


B. Griffen felt it was not a substantive issue and that there findings were in contradiction to what the Provost was saying.He remarked that the mission statement is stated to not allow such a presence on campus.

The Provost asked if the committee did see that the task was incorporating a use for space?


B. Griffen said �incorporating was synonymous with them being on campus and he felt that the mission statement does not allow for this.


J. Walkuski stated, for the record, that the committee did not fully understand their charge. He felt that there was confusion about them using space as opposed to us installing ROTC on campus.


K. Russell said that she understood the distinction and knows the distinction.She felt that by allowing ROTC on campus it is increasing their presence.She further said that ROTC is already on campus, since ROTC students take classes here.


C. DeGouff spoke to the fact that students attend school here due to ROTC scholarships and that it would be unfair not to allow them the opportunity to take advantage of such scholarships by denying their presence here.


Chaturvedi ended the meeting by saying the debate could be further clarified on the 4/5 meeting.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:40.



No report.





D. Vegas reported that last week representatives from ASC came to the Student Senate where the new meal plans were voted on.The SGA voted in favor of the new meal plans and Vegas said the students are very pleased with that outcome.The previous night, she stated, B. Griffen came to SGA and reported on behalf of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc ROTC Committee.The students supported the recommendations from Griffen�s committee that ROTC not be allowed to hold classes on this campus.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM


Respectively Submitted,


Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary


The following reports are appended to the Minutes in the order reported and submitted by Senators and other members.


(1) Letter from Department Chairs in the Sciences submitted by R. Spitzer


(2) Ad Hoc Committee for Faculty Senate Reconstruction submitted by D. Barclay


(3) Recommended College Handbook Changes for Faculty Senate Restructuring submitted by D. Barclay.

(4) Report of the Ad Hoc ROTC Committee submitted by chair B. Griffen


(5Minority Report of the Ad Hoc ROTC Committee submitted by J. Walkuski.