FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES NO. 12

April 5, 2005

CALL TO ORDER: The 12th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15 PM on April 5, 2005 in the Park Center Hall of Fame Room by Chair Ram Chaturvedi. ��

SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Chaturvedi, P. Buckenmeyer, C. DeGouff, D. Driscoll, P. Walsh, M. King, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, K. Rombach, B. Griffen, K. Pristash, J. Peluso, D. Canaski, D. Ritchie, A. Young, P. Schroeder, D. Walker, D. Vegas, M. K. Boland, E. Davis-Russell, R. Franco, W. Shaut, J. Governali, G. Clarke, J. Cottone

SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Rayle, D. Berger, J. Hokanson, M. Barduhn, L. Anderson (sabbatical), T. Phillips, E. Bitterbaum, C. Plunkett, D. Kreh

GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, M. Prus, E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane, L. Larson, D. Barclay, T. Pasquarello, B. Baxton, J. Walkuski, S. Jeffers, R. Gendrom, C. Helwig, E. Green, L. Caruso, C. Kaltefleiter, G. Pinckney, J. Shatsky, K. Russell, M. Lessig, R. Storch, N. Helsper, H. Botwinick, K. Dweris, S. Cohen

I.� APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

The Minutes from March 22 were approved, as amended.

II. SENATE ACTIONS:

There was a vote to approve Senate participation in the search for the Director of Fundraising (Failed)

There was a vote to approve the appointment of J. Cottone to the Facilities and Master plan Oversight Committee to replace S. Meyer (Passed)

There was a vote to approve the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee=s report and recommendation for Senate Reconstruction (Passed; 14/2/2)

There was a roll call vote to approve The ROTC Committee=s report and recommendation that ROTC not be allowed to use classroom space on campus (Passed 13/5).� P. Buckenmeyer,�� Against; C. DeGouff, Against; D. Driscoll, For; P. Walsh, For; M. King, For; K. Alwes, For;� J. Cottone, Against; K. Rombach, For; B. Griffen, For; K. Pristash, For; J. Peluso,Against; D. Canaski, Against; D.Ritchie, For; A. Young, For; P. Schroeder, For; D. Walker, For; D. Vegas, For; M. K. Boland, For.��

III. CHAIR=S REPORT:

The chair opened the meeting by reporting that the Steering Committee members had met the previous Tuesday and received a report from the LRPC Committee.� He also announced that D. Berger had also met with the committee.� Chaturvedi then told the Senate he had a request from J. Mosser, from Institutional Advancement, regarding the search for the Director of Fund raising, and asked the Senate if they want to participate, according to handbook rules. The Senate voted and did not want to participate.� The Chair then asked for Senate approval of J. Cottone to the Facilities and Master plan Oversight Committee, due to the resignation of S. Meyer. The appointment was approved. Chaturvedi then explained to the floor the need to change the agenda with Old Business being conducted first due to discussion and vote on two proposals from the Ad Hoc Committees on Senate Reconstruction and ROTC.� There were no objections so the Chair introduced T. Pasquarello, chair of the Senate Reconstruction Committee.� Chaturvedi explained that the Standing Rules were in order and that time for debate would be limited to no more than 3 minutes with a timer.

IV. VICE CHAIR=S REPORT:

No report.

V.� SECRETARY=S REPORT:

No report.

VI. TREASURER=S REPORT:

No report.

VII.� PRESIDENT=S REPORT:

No report.

VIII. VICE PRESIDENT=S REPORT:

No report.

IX. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Long Range Planning Committee - No report.

Educational Policy Committee - No report.

Student Affairs Committee - No report.

Faculty Affairs Committee - No report.

General Education Committee - No report.

X. SUNY SENATOR=S REPORT: - No report.

XI. COMMITTEE REPORTS:

Committee on Committees - No report.

XII. OLD BUSINESS:

The Senate Reconstruction Committee was represented by T. Pasquarello, chair. Pasquarello opened by listing the members on his committee: D. Barclay, J. Barry, B. Buxton, J. Casciani, M. Holland, C. Plunkett, K. Pristash, J. Rayle and J. Walkuski.� He explained that the committee=s charge was to study the composition of the Senate, report the results to the Steering committee no later than March 15, and include in its report the committee=s recommendation, one that would insure fair and adequate representation of each constituency of the Senate. He felt that his committee had duly discharged its responsibilities.

He then went into the discussion and explained the consensus the committee had reached that a fair distribution of seats in the Senate should represent all four areas of concern. They reflected the distribution of voting faculty and felt it should reflect the schools of the college as well as limits of participation.� He said, AWe recognize that some, or all, of these factors are perceived as important to different Senate groups and considered at Faculty Senate to have credibility for all concerns. We also realize that we believe there is no way to hold them to a formula, to weight them....but that all needed to be considered.@ He also explained that it had been discussed at previous Senate meetings, as well as Chair=s meetings in all 3 schools.� He stated that his committee had also held open meetings on campus.� He then made the committee=s recommendation. AThe distribution of seats that we recommend based on a ten to zero vote in favor was that Arts and Sciences would have: 7 seats, devised as one for each sub school and 4 at large seats; Professional Studies would have 4 seats, all selected at large; Education would have 3 seats, all selected at large; and Professional Staff would have 4 seats, all selected at large. All others would remain unchanged as they are in the 2004-2006 handbook.@� He offered to let anyone on the committee make a statement and opened the floor open for questions.

D. Canaski expressed that he felt it was a fair and reasonable compromise trying to blend 4 different areas together.� He said, AIt seems reasonable to me and well thought out.@

There were no other questions and K. Alwes called the question.

The recommendation was approved 15/2/2 {SEE Senate Actions}

K. Alwes expressed her thanks to the committee for their good work and expressed her appreciation. There was a hearty round of applause.

T. Pasquarello inquired as to the disposition of this recommendation and if it would go to a faculty referendum. The chair responded that it would go to the faculty at large for a vote to referendum with a Ayes@ vote for approval of the recommendation and a Ano@ vote for disapproval.� Once the final vote is in, he said, the results would be announced at the May 3 Senate meeting and then it would go to the President for his final recommendation.

G. Clarke asked about the breakdown and if every faculty member would vote in a block?

Chaturvedi explained that faculty members would vote individually, with no breakdown by division.

P. Walsh asked the chair if the referendum needed a 2/3 vote for approval?

Chaturvedi explained that since this is a handbook change it required a 2/3 vote, with abstentions being counted as a Ano@ vote.� There was a motion for approval of conducting a faculty referendum. The chair was reminded this was not necessary, since it is required according to the handbook.

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

B. Griffen, co-chair of the ROTC Committee, gave an overview of the last two weeks and what has transpired.� He explained that two open meetings were scheduled, with one being attended for approximately one hour. The other one was cancelled due to the Agreat flood of >05, according to Griffen.� Nothing new was presented at the one open meeting with both pros and cons being discussed. He said that he wanted to set in context and to get it on the record that, as co-chair, he wanted to raise two issues. First, he wanted some sort of ruling on the prior referendum. He explained that the initial referendum back in 1992 came as a result of a faculty referendum that challenged the ROTC and military policy, referred to as ADon=t Ask, Don=t Tell,@ which conflicted with our Mission Statement.� He felt that the interpretation now is that we are having a new referendum to cancel the prior one, when this is not necessitated.� He felt that since nothing has changed, and according to sentiments at the open meeting, the policies are still in conflict with the Mission Statement.� He also wanted to share with his colleagues and with the Senate that the campus would be subject to all sorts of disapproval if we did not have a full hearing. He said, AI feel as a member of the committee that allowing ROTC on campus is in violation of the college mission statement.@�

D. Vegas asked Griffen if he knew the exact wording of the original referendum and if there was a time frame mentioned there?

Griffen, said that the information is on page 3 of the ROTC Committee report. He read it and quoted, AIf the policy is not altered by June 30, 1996...@ and that according to that the referendum stays in effect.

An unknown individual asked for the exact referendum.

The Chair reminded everyone that any discussion had to go through the chair.� He also explained to guests that they would need to be recognized by Senator=s to speak.

J. Peluso asked if the charge of the committee could be read.

Chaturvedi read the charge.

P. Walsh recognized H. Botwinick.

H. Botwinick said, after discussion with colleagues who seem to understand the issue of ROTC, that it violates our mission statement.� He wondered why the ROTC issue is coming up again, and could only assume that it had to do with the war in Iraq.� He said that, although people do not want to talk about it, he and others feel that it can not be ignored, and that people assume if you ignore it, it will go away.� He felt the need to address the war and its consequences, which he attempted to explain.

J. Peluso interrupted Botwinick and reminded the chair that his speech had nothing to do with the ROTC issue as presented on the Senate floor.� He said, AIt=s a political grandstand and not appropriate in this discussion.@

The chair allowed Botwinick to continue.

H. Botwinick said that the notion that the war is not relevant to the issue is not a valid one. He explained that there were hundreds of campuses that were asked to have ROTC leave their campuses during the Vietnam war, saying, AIt is the way we said >no= to a war...the harvesting of our young persons...@ and again reiterated his contention that, for this reason, the ROTC program should not become part of our program.

Chaturvedi asked Botwinick for clarification that he was opposed to ROTC being on campus and asked if there was anything he wanted to add that was important to the discussion as to the report from the ROTC Committee.

Botwinick argued that the war issue is an important one because, AA lot of people think we are not taking students into mind, the students who take part in this war, and we are violating their rights or discriminating against them...I want to be clear it=s precisely because we are very concerned about those young people, we are unwilling to give them up so easily to this war.@ He mentioned the casualties of the war, in addition to psychological distress, exposure to uranium and denial of benefits.� AIf we care about students that is precisely why we should say >yes= to this resolution.@

D. Canaski reflected that there are a lot of deeply held emotions on this issue. He offered a different opinion that was expressed, saying� ABut as someone who works with students and works with them paying for school, this isn=t an issue about whether this way or that the way is right, whether people think the military is evil, and some people think it=s good. It=s about students. If we send another letter to the Secretary of Defense, I bet Donald Rumsfeld isn=t going to sleep at night because SUNY Cortland doesn=t offer classroom space to students. I am sure he is not going to care.� But it will make us feel good because we have made some political point. The real issue is, we have students, a very small minority of students, who happen to have a minority opinion around here who have asked us, can we provide them with space to meet? We may not agree with what they agree with, we may not agree with their point of view, they have asked, can they have classroom space?@

Chaturvedi asked Canaski if he was in favor of bringing ROTC on campus to teach?

D. Canaski replied that he was not necessarily in favor of what ROTC stands for, but he was in favor of being tolerant of people with different views, requesting a small minority of space and providing that space if it is not economically a problem for the college to do so.

K. Alwes said, AWhether or not we agree with these students really isn=t the issue. The issue is the mission statement. These students who are in the minority, as David says, can belong to ROTC, they just can=t have a room here. If minority or majority, it simply goes against the mission statement...always has, always will.� We can=t say we are doing this for the students, we are doing the mission statement for the students as well. The fact that students gain ROTC scholarships , we cannot allow (that according to) our mission statement, can=t allow ROTC back on campus. Giving them a room is allowing ROTC back on. There is no other way to look at it.@

J. Walkuski asked if he could respectfully ask the chair if the minority report would be considered.

The Chair gave Walkuski 3 minutes to speak. Walkuski elected to wait.� There was discussion back and forth between the chair and Walkuski. Walkuski responded to the Chair that he just wanted affirmation that the minority report was going to be considered.� The Chair reminded Walkuski that was recognized.�

The Provost said, AI am not speaking for or against the report.� I just want to put it in context while we are here. People ask why are we discussing this again?� It is because we received a request from ROTC and the President then asked that this be investigated.@

J. Governali asked, in terms of background, if there are other groups who use campus rooms, and if ROTC were allowed classroom space, would they pay for the space?� He asked what the context was within which this would fall.

R. Franco responded that was a good question. He said there is certainly a review of users and that typically users are groups that the college is familiar with, such as community groups and agencies, as well as statewide professional associations.� He said there have been unknown groups and there has been an attempt to check the mission goals of the group. But he couldn=t say, in fact, if any groups were ever rejected based on the mission statements or values.� But he said, AIt wouldn=t surprise me if we have, however.@

S. Cohen was recognized by the chair.

S. Cohen said the question of allowing outside groups on campus was whether the college was allowing outside groups to teach classes here, other than the faculty?

J. Governali responded that in the past TC3 has held classes here but he didn=t know whether they still did.

K. Russell was recognized and explained that, as an ROTC committee member, she wanted to speak to the issue of the mission statement which says the college seeks to establish behavior which honors gender, ethnicity, ace, age, physical mental ability, sexual and affectional orientation or socio-economic class.� The major goal, she said, of Cortland is to develop and maintain an atmosphere of learning about prejudice and discrimination so the college community can strive to reduce it.� She expressed disappointment in her colleagues who say that the college should set aside those beliefs which go contrary to the mission statement because it still is a violation and shouldn=t be allowed. She said she talked to ROTC students and posed the question that if a lesbian student wanted to go to an ROTC class, what would happen, and was told that student would feel very uncomfortable and it would be unlikely they could attend and continue. . AI say we can=t set those rights aside. It violates the mission statement.� Period.@

The Chair asked for opinions in favor of ROTC, to offer those individuals equal time.

J. Peluso said, A I think it is about the students, and the fact of the matter, students are adults.� If they want to participate they do that knowing what ROTC is. If, under the mission statement, it has goals we are debating here, I don=t see how ROTC is violating the mission statement.� I don=t see it. I understand everybody is concerned with it, but I think students make a choice knowing what are they are doing.� Part of the mission statement is teaching students how to make decision about their own future.@

J. Walkuski was offered time by the chair but elected to defer his time to others until later.

S. Jeffers was recognized. He explained that he is a student who went around after Dr. Griffen=s attendance at SGA and asked around campus as to other opinions about ROTC recognition.� He distributed a petition {SEE Appendix 1} and got 163 signatures, he explained, and would have gotten more if the flood had not cancelled classes on Monday.� He distributed the petition and said, AConsider and make a decision@ and thanked the Senate for their time.��

J. Walkuski then said he wanted to address the premise, as stated in his minority report, about one of the aspects the committee looked at concerning the mission statement itself, explaining that it is explicit in a variety of issues and themes. He felt, in his report, that he made a case regarding the military and its policies and how it can be rectified. He prefaced his comments to those speaking in favor of allowing ROTC to hold campuses, that the change has to be made through the military, citizens and changing federal law.� He asked those who focused on the mission statement if we support religious viewpoints, and if a religious viewpoint was in conflict with our mission statement as regarding affectional orientation, whether or not that would constitute a conflict.�� He said this issue is making headlines around the country and named Columbia and Yale as just two.� He said, AWould those students who want to go through a program at Cortland, would they have to bring some sort of attitudes to the military?@ or bring ideas to the military that we have given them. He declared, AHow can we deny the influence of the military of academia and civilian control?� I base my decision letting them hold classes on campus based on our college learning goals for students. It is very important to allow students to see all viewpoints.....@ He ended by saying that he felt, as educators, the faculty has a responsibility to encourage the above.

P. Walsh yielded time to L. Caruso

Chaturvedi asked Caruso if she was for or against ROTC being on campus..

Caruso spoke against ROTC being on campus. She said, AAs a gay student, I am personally threatened by the presence of ROTC on campus. I would also like to have this body recognize that there are students present today who took the time out to come here and voice their opinion against ROTC. So, the fact that we are here and that our voices are not heard in this issue, (the fact) that we are here today is a very significant action that we are, as students, against bringing ROTC on campus. I am personally threatened by it.@

K. Alwes responded to the minority report by referring to the ADon=t ask, Don=t tell@ policy. She said, AAlthough (it is) a good idea if we want our students to take new ideas to military, the problem with that is, we don=t want ROTC and their very old ideas on campus.@� She offered a situation that if a group such as the Klu Klux Klan came on campus, that obviously we would not allow that. She made it clear that she was making no parallels between the ROTC and the Klu Klux Klan.� She said, AI don=t understand the discussion (regarding) why don=t we let them in anyway? Why don=t we change the college mission statement? They don=t go together. We can reread it, rewrite it. They don=t go together.@

C. DeGouff said, AWith all due respect to my colleagues, if we are honoring the dignity and respect of all students, it sounds like we are honoring the work of just the students in the majority. Right now we have one, maybe two, students who participate in this program. I do not think they are a threat to anyone on campus. For most of these students this is a funding vehicle. We have accepted their money in the past. We continue to accept their money. I have had a mother call me and say he (her son) is a freshman and has no way to get to Ithaca and asked the college >isn=t there something the college can do so he can finish his program?= I just don=t think we are honoring the dignity of those students who are in the minority.@

A. Young asked what the mechanism was by which a situation has been created a situation where students can take courses which are not reviewed by any curriculum process here and taught by faculty not reviewed by our institution. Not only are they given credit, he said, and their grade accepted, but he reminded everyone we don=t even do that for transfer students. He asked how this evolved and called it Aa very highly irregular practice.@

Chaturvedi was asked if Young=s question was being addressed to the Provost.

Young explained that it predated the Provost=s arrival but she could respond to it if she knew.

The Provost explained that it did predate her arrival and she had no idea how it came into place.

The chair asked anyone from the President=s Cabinet if they knew.

G. Levine responded that she thought it originated from a joint agreement that would allow students to take classes at the Cornell campus and apply that for a grade at Cortland.

P. Walsh said that it was his understanding that Cornell does not accept SUNY Cortland courses.

Levine said that is correct.

P. Buckenmeyer asked for a point of clarification, if a course under Cornell was in terms of no credit?� He asked if a course is taught at this campus, would it or would it not, be considered for credit?

Levine explained that ROTC is listed in our college catalog under Ainter-disciplinary.@

B. Griffen recognized J. Shatsky.

J. Shatsky expressed that, as he felt some might be aware, there is a current of unrest with some students on campus who seem to be getting more confused and frightened about various things. He said that their response is by being sick. He had checked with R. Peagler from Student Counseling Services and found that the number of students needing intervention had tripled during last year.� He said that although the number is not large, it is growing.� He said the issue and presence of ROTC has enhanced growing uncertainty among those more vulnerable. He said that this should be a consideration for thinking about the mental and emotional needs of students on campus, that although not� everyone would be affected, those who are affected have to be considered.

P. Walsh recognized R. Gendrom.

R. Gendrom introduced himself. He said AI am a gay student. I am a freshman this year. I came to this campus with the idea that I would be accepted by everyone for who I am and that I was coming to a place where people would be educated and caring towards humanity...I do feel threatened by ROTC on campus.� Even if just two students came...all it takes is 2 people...hatred can spread so far...we=ve seen that before in this country.� Why would we want to breed hatred? All it takes is two people.@ He said that although he understood that not everybody would be affected, he felt that just having their presence on campus allows prejudice to spread.� He said he would be here 3 more years and AI don=t want to go to a school that allows a group on campus who would allow discrimination against me because of who Ia m.@

D. Canaski said that he wanted to object to the assumption that an ROTC student is necessarily intolerant, or hateful, or agrees with the work conditions of his employer.� He said that he would assume that we do not all agree with President Bitterbaum, or with every policy on campus, and that what we are really talking about is not a couple of individual students, we are not saying anything about their character, but that these are just people who have an employer who has something we find objectionable as a group. He said, ALet=s not personalize this.@ Secondarily, his question was, AWhere do we go from here?� We had a previous referendum and what should the correct procedure be?@� He wanted clarification as to exactly what was being voted on,� pertaining to a referendum.

Ram asked for clarification of Canaski=s question.

Canaski clarified whether or not the ROTC recommendation has to go to referendum?

The Chair responded that it would go to a referendum either way and that for this a majority vote is needed because the handbook is not being changed on this.

K. Rombach expressed that she felt there was a missing link.� She mentioned the mission statement and said that what is missing is that maybe there needs to be something in place that establishes policy on outside groups that might not be in alignment with our college mission statement. She said that not having a policy to address outside groups who are not in accord with our mission statement is the problem.

E. Davis-Russell said, AI just wanted to make a response to that, whether policies are developed, it has to do with recognition that we are a public institution, not a private institution. When we make policies that keep the public out, we have to deal with (the fact that) we are a public institution.

B. Griffen spoke in response to D. Canaski, that he felt, in interpreting the mission statement, we have to think of the institutional entities, and the institutional entity that speaks to the college mission statement. He said that President Bitterbaum is an individual and connected to the mission statement, and to a higher education ethos and ethics in general.� He said that the group needs to deal with the institutional voice that speaks against prejudice and discrimination.� He mentioned that in the fall he spoke to President Bitterbaum about the ROTC issue and was open and honest with him, although now he expressed his regret that he was not more forceful in his response.� He said that he was not sure if the referendum was not inevitable. He shared his disappointment that the President was not present at the meeting.� He said, AYou can=t vote out students rights@ and that the issue of the prior resolution had to be addressed.� He supported the testimony that the most vulnerable would be most affected and that for that reason we should offer them protection.

The Provost had a point of information, saying, AThe President does know the history. The President does know about the referendum. He did his homework. When the request was made of him, he talked with people when he had the time. He does know about the referendum, but because a new request had come in, he wanted to follow the process to see what the thinking was on campus now. He did the same as he did with the arming issue, that even though it had not been his position, he brought it to the community, as he is bringing this to the community.� So, it=s not fair to say that he is unaware of the history of this. He is quite knowledgeable about it.@

B. Griffen said that he was quoted ad hominem.� He said that the 1992 referendum has not changed things at all, and he didn=t think the President was ever asked. He said, AShould we have a resolution to overturn the previous one?@� He ended by saying that he didn=t think it was on the record anywhere.

D. Vegas said, AWe keep hearing this is about the students.@� She said that from talking to faculty, administrators and students, she didn=t feel the faculty truly cared as much as they said they did. She said that the students have been lobbying for the student vote for 5 months, and that a student wide referendum should carry weight.� She stated that if there is a faculty referendum she would spend all of her time lobbying President Bitterbaum to make sure that it carries just as much weight.

R. Storch expressed that she is against ROTC. She wanted to respond to D. Canaski about the power of institution. She said that she cared about students and that she is close to one or two students in the ROTC program, expressing, AHe=s not sexist, not racist, thoughtful,and he can still take ROTC at Cornell.@� She said, AWith buildings down and lack of space...and in regards to the mission statement, there=s no change to the rules at this time.@�

L. Larson spoke against ROTC.� He stated that he was on the 1992 committee that looked into it.� He referred to K. Rombach=s statement, in response to policy, that there are anti-discrimination rules and whenever a recruiter comes on campus to Career Services they must sign a waver. The only case, he said, where this doesn=t apply is regarding the military, due to a mandate from the Governor, making them exempt. In reference to credit, Larson said, Cornell=s instructor teaches, the student gets credit which is given by Cornell and then entered into our system. Then the student is given a grade through Cornell, but it=s SUNY Cortland=s credit.� He said, AMany on the committee feel we have never been in compliance with the original referendum in 1992 because we allow them to get credit here.@

G. Clarke said, AI am against this.@ But he expressed a difference in view due to a difference regarding the last referendum.� He thought that to allow through the Cornell affiliation to conduct classes here, which he felt was not the same as in 1992, and might explain the President=s actions.� He felt that since ROTC=s politics are like saying Ayou are not welcome here,@ that goes in disagreement with our mission statement, which is to be inclusive to everyone.

J. Peluso made a motion that the Faculty Senate support a student referendum to be conducted by SGA.� He also said he didn=t see why the Faculty Senate was supporting this resolution.

A motion was made for SGA to have a student referendum.

M. King was not in favor of this motion, saying that students are only here 2-3 years, while the faculty could be here 50 years, and the faculty was more impacted in the long run because this could affect this campus for half a century.

D. Walker said, AI live here. I go home at night and for four years...I am going to be here for four years...four very developmental years.@ He said, AI feel that the student voice should be considered on this issue.@

J. Waluski reminded everyone that since this is a curriculum matter, that if the resolution is voted on, it needed to be in more precise language.

P. Walsh challenged Walkuski that it is a faculty issue, not a curriculum issue.

Chaturvedi reminded everyone that there were two motions on floor at the same time.� He wanted to discuss a vote on the ROTC report.

D. Vegas called the question and D. Walker seconded.

There was general confusion about what was being voted on.

The chair said that the motion was to accept the ROTC Committee=s recommendation and report.

D. Vegas said that the motion on the floor stands.

K. Pristash reminded everyone that the report is the motion.

Chaturvedi clarified that the motion was to accept the report from the ROTC committee.

P. Walsh stated to the chair that people weren=t finished their discussions.

D. Vegas reminded Walsh that calling the question could be voted down, if necessary.

There was a vote to approve calling the question on the ROTC committee report.�

The vote was approved 10/5.

D. Vegas called for a quorum.

The chair responded to Vegas that the quorum had been checked, with 13 being the minimum number required.

G. Clark asked if this report was approved would there be a referendum?� He also asked if it would be decided by the majority of faculty or majority of faculty voting?

The Chair responded that it would be the majority of faculty who voted.

A. Young said that he didn=t see anything in the charge as to a referendum.� He said since accepting this report meant no change since 1992, he couldn=t see the need for a referendum.

D. Griffen said that this came from a pronouncement from President Bitterbaum.

A. Young asked if the President was going to be conducting the referendum?

B. Griffen said that this was not the responsibility of his committee.

J. Governali agreed with Griffen that it was his understanding that the Faculty Senate would conduct the referendum, not the President.

D. Vegas reminded the chair that since a motion was on the floor, the Senate needed to vote.

R. Chaturvedi asked for a vote to accept the ROTC committee report.

An unknown individual asked if the vote included the minority and majority report?

Another unknown party responded that the reports were all folded into one and were not separate.

M. King called for a roll call vote.

The ROTC committee report was voted on with a roll call vote:

P. Buckenmeyer�� Opposed

C. DeGouff�� Opposed

D. Driscoll�� Approved

P. Walsh�� Approved

M. King�� Approved

K. Alwes�� Approved

J. Cottone�� Opposed

K. Rombach�� Approved

B. Griffen�� Approved

K. Pristash�� Approved

J. Peluso�� Opposed

D. Canaski�� Opposed

D.Ritchie�� Approved

A. Young�� Approved

P. Schroeder�� Approved

D. Walker�� Approved

D. Vegas�� Approved

M. K. Boland�� Approved

The vote to accept the ROTC Committee=s report was approved 13/5

The chair announced that the committee report was approved.� He said that it would now go to a faculty referendum.

D. Vegas made a motion for a student wide referendum.

The chair asked for clarification if this referendum included students and faculty?

J. Governali inquired as to what was stopping the students from conducting one on their own?

D. Vegas responded, AWe are not going to waste our time if you guys aren=t going to consider it.@

D. Governali asked Vegas if a non-binding opinion encompassing the vote of the faculty would not count?� He reminded her that the Senate had already voted in favor of the ROTC recommendation.

D. Vegas said that President Bitterbaum told her the students could hold a referendum but that it wouldn=t be taken into consideration.

The chair said that this is a faculty referendum and if the students want to hold their own, they can have one. He said he couldn=t speak for the President because he was not present.

G. Levine said that the President told her that if this came up, to remind the students that they have 3 student votes on the Senate.

N. Helsper was recognized and said she didn=t understand why this was going to a referendum. She said that with the firearms issue the President formed a committee which gave their recommendation and the President made his decision.��

There was a reminder to the chair that the motion on the floor to vote on the student wide referendum in conjunction with a faculty referendum.�

The students told the floor that this issue would affect them deeply for four years and they insisted on inclusion in the referendum.

D. Canaski repeated the motion pertaining to the student wide referendum.

A. Young stated that the students can hold a referendum and that the faculty and campus would Awatch and read the results with interest.@� He felt no such referendum was necessitated.

There was a motion by D. Vegas to table the business to the next meeting.

The chair called for a vote on the student wide referendum.

The motion was defeated (7/9)

The chair announced that the ROTC Committee report and recommendation would now go to a faculty referendum.

XIII. NEW BUSINESS:

No new Business.

XIV.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:

No report.

XV. SUNY SENATOR:

No report.

XVI. STUDENT SENATOR REPORTS:

No report.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:38 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) Petition signed by faculty and students in support of ROTC holding classes on the SUNY Cortland campus, submitted by S. Jeffers (student)

http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/m12.html

�