�������� ���������April 19, 2005


CALL TO ORDER: The 13th meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15 PM on April 19, 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, M. King, K. Alwes, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, K. Rombach, B. Griffen, D. Ritchie, M. Barduhn, A. Young, P. Schroeder, D. Walker, D. Vegas, M. K. Boland, E. Bitterbaum, E. Davis-Russell, W. Shaut, J. Governali, G. Clarke, J. Cottone, D. Kreh


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: P. Walsh, D. Berger, L. Anderson (sabbatical), K. Pristash, J. Peluso, D. Canaski, T. Phillips. R. Franco, C. Plunkett


GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, E. Caffarella, Y. Murnane, P. Warnken



The Minutes from April 5 were approved as amended.



The Senate voted on a motion by P. Buckenmeyer from the Steering Committee: The Faculty Senate will conduct a faculty referendum on the question �should Cortland grant ROTC their request to provide on campus space for ROTC classes for Cortland students?� (Defeated; 8/10)


The Senate voted on whether it wished to participate in the search committee for Director of Admissions (Defeated)


The Senate voted on whether it wished to participate in the search committee for Associate Provost (Approved)


The Senate approved the following nomination for Faculty Senate Vice Chair, Mel King (Approved)


The Senate approved the following nominations for Faculty Senate committees: Faculty rep to Student Senate, Amy Dahlman, B. Griffen; College Research Committee, Gretchen Herrmann; Long Range Planning Committee, Professional Staff, Josh Peluso; Faculty Affairs Committee, Library, Lorraine Melita; Student Affairs Committee, Mark Connell.(Approved)


The Senate granted Joanne Barry, Committee on Committees, the authority to fill in the blank slots on Senate committees without waiting for Senate approval to avoid a delay (Approved)



The chair opened the meeting by calling the meeting in session.He recessed the meeting for a half hour so that John Ogden and members from the Long Range Planning Committee could discuss long range plans and goals {SEE Long Range Planning Committee below}


The slate of nominations were approved for Senate offices and committee vacancies. M. King asked a question, with the Senate now being reorganized, how such change would take affect, and if that would mean that in two years the Senate would completely turn over?


Kreh answered that issue is something that would have to come before the Senate and have to be worked out.He stated that he didn�t feel it would have much of an impact, however.



No report.



No report.



No report.



President Bitterbaum announced the Governor�s approval of funds for a 10 million dollar educational building on campus and thanked Steve Hunt, Senator Seward and Assembly woman Barbara Lifton. He also announced the initiative, in conjunction with town planners, to develop second floor space on Main Street including classrooms, reading groups and the American Democracy project. He reported next on the referendum for the new Student Life Center. He also announced that student elections were taking place. He stated that Andy Young has been designated as the newest Distinguished Teaching Professor. Bitterbaum announced that one alumna has purchased 160 bikes for the community bike program. In his final words he thanked Chaturvedi for his ability at keeping his sense of humor during difficult times during his tenure as chair.


D. Ritchie asked if there is the possibility of the new education building being green?


Bitterbaum responded that state law requires elements in accordance with that, making our buildings more expensive but ecologically sound, and that most likely we will meet all codes and standards. He said Bill Shaut and Nasrin Parvisi will be involved and �we will see where that takes them.�




Long Range Planning Committee - J. Ogden, Chair, Long Range Planning Committee held a discussion regarding long range plans and goals. He opened by introducing his committee members, P. Warnken, D. Ritchie, J. Cottone, M. Barduhn and G. Levine.He explained that the last round was set up as a two year cycle where the committee solicits input from the faculty on goals the faculty would like to receive, set up and accomplish.The committee members met the day before at the Bookmark where they also held an open meeting.There was a discussion about whether or not the two year cycle is effective because not everything can be accomplished in two years.He indicated that the discussion may taken place at the Chair�s Council.


The President stated he also agreed that maybe two years is not enough of a period when you are considering long range planning.He said that many people use 5 year plans and he is curiousregarding faculty feedback.He also indicated that when he came 1-1/2 years ago, goal #8 did not discuss everything the campus does with students, such as Student Centers, programmatic programming, learning communities and summer orientation. He felt that there are a lot of things that we as a campus continue and need to do. He wanted input and encouraged that the campus community have an open dialogue.


R. Kendrick said that, as Director of the Institute for Civic Engagement, his involvement being great, a 5 year plan makes sense.He said an additional goal area of civic engagement activities should be reflected in our long range plan.


D. Vegas asked if there was a report afterwards to see if these goals were reached?


Ogden responded that there is a status report from the last 3 year cycle and anyone is welcome to look at them. He also said that in May the committee will submit the report, with addenda, as an update. He stated that G. Levine indicated that this has been previously distributed as a report, with updates in the form as an appendix, along with it.


B. Griffen thanked the committee for being very attentive the day before at the Bookmark.He said he worked on goal #1 when B. Sharpe was Provost and he felt there is a certain vagueness which is difficult to overcome when we talk about societal needs.He addressed civic engagement, eco-justice and the environment, in general, and the need to support academic excellence beyond the classroom.He wanted to look at the mission statement to express our concerns for the environment, which he feels is a weakness that needs to be addressed.


The Provost responded that one of the distinctions that we need to keep in mind is that the goal Griffen mentioned is one of the main ways in which it differs from the mission statement, which is the aspiration that the goal must be something that is measurable and that you know you have attained it with some measures to it.


E. Caffarella asked what made something a long range goal?He mentioned the goal of student retention and felt the need for a goal to improve student retention.His second question was, �What are we going to do to institutionalize some of these goals, once we�ve achieved them and identified the problem, so that the problem doesn�t become another problem 3 years from now?�


Ritchie said the LRPC hasn�t been doing long range planning, referring it rather as middle level planning. He said the original stipulation for long range plans for SUNY came out of the Chancellor�s edict in the 70's or 80's, with 5 year rolling plans, and now the current 2 and 3 year goals have come out of that.He said one of the questions the long range planning committee has taken to the Faculty Senate and President�s Council has been �what should the role of the committee be?�He said that there are optional types of goals, and when achieved they are taken off the long range plan list, although that doesn�t mean the committee doesn�t continue to address them.There are several particular enrollment goals that existed in a previous cycle that have actually disappeared from this list and have been replaced by others.


The Provost said an important step in the process is that each Vice President would then institutionalize the goals.One problem, she said, is in the long range funding for goals. She said that when the Vice President agrees to take into his or her area, that Vice President is agreeing to continue that as part of the institutional mission, but with no additional funding this presents a problem.


Ogden responded that $200,000 was allocated to implement goals over this 2 year period as one time funds and that although the Vice President or administrator didn�t decide to continue that funding, some have continued, such as in the international area, association in admissions for student advising, and one time funds continue.


J. Rayle wanted to join Griffen in expressing his hopes to have a goal making operations ecologically friendly, stating that he feels this presents a great opportunity in regards to those also teaching people about the college.


Bitterbaum mentioned the initiative for the greening of the campus and community bike program through the Recreation Leisure Studies Department. He also said, as an ecologist, he takes great interest in this endeavor to be good stewards of the environment.He said there are 9 sub committees, and mentioned Larry Klotz� contribution at Hoxie Gorge, saying it should not involve just a Biologist and the need for new blood and fresh ideas. He encouraged everyone to join in the endeavor which is being co-chaired by Colleen Katua, ICC, and Elizabeth Fraser, Geology. He urged everyone to get involved in this important issue campus wide.


Governali agreed that community civic engagement and environmental concerns are important goals.


M. King spoke to the area of measurement and that when a goal has been met there are processes that include with each goal the specific means of measurement of each goal so that there is no question of whether that goal is met.


The Provost stated that indicators of success and a time line are included when each goal is met, and in the process.


Ogden said there is an action plan and measure of success with each goal and a chart which shows how that process worked, which was very successful the last time around.


Bitterbaum mentioned an interesting point regarding retention which evolved because the campus was challenged several years ago.The figures now indicate an 82.3% success rate, in terms of sophomores. He asked if we could go to 84 or 85, indicating that we are already very high in the nation, although he would like to see it higher.He stated the need for that kind of discussion.


The Provost responded to Bitterbaum that the administration has incorporated having a task force looking at factors that contribute to and impede retention, as well graduation rates, which is an ongoing process. He said that what has been done in Mission Review is to extend the number there from where we currently are, by the year 2010.


President Bitterbaum stated that he visited with people in Albany because the retention factor is an important one, being extended to the year 2010. He said the question came up in his mind that long range could be folded under Mission Review II, but that is something that has to be worked out. He said the campus will have a more serious discussion about that as things move along.


Ritchie discussed King�s point about making sure that any goal has a way of being measured and evaluated. He stated that does not eliminate the idea of having qualitative goals, for example, that might reflect a greater emphasis on ecological or environmental issues, under action plans beneath goals, to include those specifically proposed as additions to the mission statement, andin addition to those ways of evaluating whether or not that action transpired. He said he didn�t want people to think everything had to be measured by numbers.


The Provost responded that measurement doesn�t necessarily mean numbers, but rather indicators of success and whether it is qualitative or not, and whether you know it has

been achieved.


The President said the campus is very interested in this data but he stated that he is not sure if faculty or staff really feel or know if a good job is being done. He felt that what needs to be done is make that part of the long range goals as well, putting a document on the web and inviting people to observe. He said then if the goals and plans are falling short, people should come toFaculty Senate meetings, because �everybody has ownership.� He said he knew what R. Kendrick is dong with American Democracy project, and that it probably should be communicated what goal is actually encompassed there.


D. Ritchie asked if the President was arguing to re-up the goal regarding the American Democracy project?


The Provost said that people have to read what is available. She said it is put on the web and sent out continually. She said she wasn�t sure but maybe there are some things that aren�t being done. She wondered if what they are presently doing is sufficient or if there are other ways to communicate this?


D. Walker asked when the 2005-2007 goals will be made available? He also asked when it would be published whether or not the goals were met from the 2004 period?


Ogden said, as a result of the Senate and Bookmark meetings, as well as sharing it with the President�s Council, everything will be looked at as to formulation of those goals, and whether or not they have been completed. Once the cycle has been completed, he said, the committee makes recommendations to the President�s Council, as well sharing at the summer retreat..


The Provost asked Walker for clarification on whether he really was referring to a report of these goals?


Walker responded that he wanted to know when the list of 2005-2007 goals would be distributed. He felt it would be interesting to see the goals and whether or not certain steps were being taken.


Ogden responded to Walker that this would happen in the fall semester.


Walker asked if the entire student body on campus would see it?


Ritchie said it is posted on Faculty Senate web page.


Ogden added that this has been the time frame for the past two year cycle, but doesn�t include added year is put on the end of it.


Mel King said he glanced over the handouts Ogden distributed and noticed the emphasis on the goal concerning retention, but noticed he didn�t see anything that included learning?


Ogden suggested King complain to the people who proposed that goal the last time around.


King expressed that he felt it was cynical to say that in order to lower retention give easier passing grades, hoping that isn�t something that would happen. He said the question is �how are we assuring ourselves that we are improving retention and student learning?�He said if we can demonstrate that is happening, that would truly put us way ahead.


The Provost responded to King, in terms of student learning, that there are currently two ways of achieving that, one through GE annually, and the other through the program that reviews the process in the 5 year cycle. She said each program, in its program review, has to address student learning goals, and give data to the extent to which learning outcomes are achieved.


King stated that he felt student learning should be specific in the goals.


The Provost said that this is currently operational, but if one wants it overly, she felt that is fine, although it is currently at the major and GE level.


Walker asked if there are any students on the committee?


Ogden replied that there is supposed to be but currently there are none.


Walker asked when the committee would be sending out information?


Ogden said his committee will be getting together next week to talk about goals that have already been submitted.


Governali referred to the 7 goals, asking if each is a goal or activity, or sub goal?


Ogden responded that for each of the sub goals there are action plans with steps to be taken to accomplish those.


Buckenmeyer stated that he wasn�t sure if ethics was embodied, since he didn�t see anything referring to it. He asked whether or not ethics belongs to a separate goal or within the context of other goals, which he felt is a big issue that perhaps is not being discussed to the extent it should.


Rayle felt there should be goals addressing ethics and commitment to liberal arts education.


Ogden asked Rayle to articulate that for clarification


Rayle responded that the way liberal arts education is currently approached according to General Education requirements, speaking as a childhood education professor, that the concept is �something that you get out of the way before you get on with your life,� and that we need to institutionally change that perception of what does it mean to be liberally educated?


Ogden asked Rayle how he would phrase that.


Rayle replied that part of the crisis is that �it may be too vague here, but it may have something to do with addressing review of GE�s.�


Ogden said that GE goes beyond the concept of liberal education, GE being the mechanism to implement liberal arts education.


The Provost said that she didn�t think the problem is in the formulation of the goal or mission, but how we are implementing it to students seems to be the issue, because, she said, in all of the documents, whether it is GE or not, in the conceptual frame work and commitment to liberal arts, how does it get translated?


The Chair announced that the half hour was over andcongratulated the committee for doing such good work.


Ogden expressed his appreciation for the Senate�s time, and encouraged the campus to send feedback to him, D. Ritchie or J. Cottone.


Educational Policy Committee - J. Governali distributed the EPC proposal on transfer credit catalog description change which will be voted and discussed at the last Senate meeting on May 3.


Student Affairs Committee - P. Buckenmeyer announced Robin Blackmoor as the new recipient of the Faculty Senate Scholarship.


Faculty Affairs Committee - G. Clarke said his committee has approved the English department�s organizational plan. He announced that they have received a memorandum from the Provost and will be addressing that. He said there is a student vacancy because Caitlyn Pickford dropped out and a number of pending vacancies on committees. He urged individuals who are interested to put their names forward.


College Research Committee - No report.


General Education Committee - No report.






Committee on Committees - Nominations were taken from the floor for all Senate offices and senate committees and approved.The Senate granted Joanne Barry the right to fill in slots for interested parties to avoid a delay on Senate approval.



P. Buckenmeyer read the motion from the Steering Committee that the Faculty Senate conduct a faculty referendum on the question �should Cortland grant ROTC�s request to provide on campus space for ROTC classes for Cortland students?�


The Chair said, since the motion came from the Steering Committee, it does not require a second.


Griffen stated that he mentioned the problem previously, at least four times, during proceedings and deliberations, what the statute of limitation is regarding referendums. He said that if you have one going back to 1992, could you have another one, since the two issues that prompted the debate have not changed. Griffen asked a question regarding the use of whereas in resolutions.


Kreh responded that when you vote on resolutions the whereas clause has nothing to do with the resolution.


Cottone asked a point of clarification, if the college withdraws official recognition, he is curious as to what the terms recognition means, since it is clearly stated in the college catalog that ROTC is available to freshmen and sophomores. He stated that this clearly indicates recognition and support since it is in the catalog.


The Chair reminded Cottone that the issue is providing classroom space for ROTC and to restrict the discussion to that.


Alwes said she is not clear on what precipitated the Steering Committee to conduct a faculty referendum, since there have been so many other issues, such as the arming issue, requiring no referendum, asking, �Why are we being asked now to have one?�


Kreh advised that with resolutions being looked at again, they should go back to the same body that created them in the first place. He said that the Senate is within its authority to conduct a referendum or not, since the Faculty Senate already constitutes a vote from the faculty. He felt, personally, that this would constitute bad politics, and advised the Steering Committee that he feels the Faculty Senate should conduct a referendum.


K. Alwes asked the parliamentarian why?


Kreh said that the issue should be discussed on the floor.


M. King said the problem is �why did we ask that committee to waste all of its time when they said there was going to be a referendum?�


Governali mentioned a couple of issues, such as the arming of university police, where there was a committee that had laid out pros and cons for the President to take action on. He said at the last Faculty Senate meeting there was a lot of confusion and people were not sure what was being voted on. He said there was a charge to the ROTC committee to gather information and ideas on the merits of ROTC on the Cortland campus. He indicated that the Senate was not asking for a recommendation, but simply data. He asked, however, that since the committee subsequently made a recommendation, when we voted on accepting the committee�s report, did we vote on to accept the report, or did that mean we accepted the recommendation from the committee? He stated the problem that the committee was charged to collect data and the Senate approved their recommendation.


Griffen said that if you look at the transcript and listen to the recording the same question was raised, and he thought maybe it was P. Buckenmeyer�s voice he heard, saying the Senate was voting toaccept the recommendations. He said that was the last thing that was said before the Senate voted.

Buckenmeyer said he thought that he had raised the question as to whether or not the Senate was voting to accept the minority and majority report?


Vegas expressed that she felt Cottone�s point was relevant about ROTC already being in the college catalog and felt that the Provost or President should address it.


The Provost responded to the procedures that are followed, that unless there is some change made in the catalog, when changes are made all items in the catalog get extracted and new information put in. She said when she came, ROTC was already in the catalog, and there was no change. She said that she didn�t know of anybody who had voted to change that, and so thatpractice continues. She said there should there be an instruction to change the ROTC listing either from a Senate directive or the President, and then the change will be made in the catalog.


Andy Young spoke against holding a referendum.He felt that he found it disturbing that the college was taking lightly the previously approved resolution, and then not following up on it. He felt that rather to vote on having ROTC back, the Senate should vote to see if we still support the policy.


Walker made a motion to include the student wide referendum.


Rayle asked the students what their intentions were.


Walker said he wanted to see the students have a voice and the right to expressing an opinion.


The chair called for a vote on the amendment.


Griffen asked for discussion on the amendment. He asked if the student leaders intended to inform the student body of the information that had just transpired in this discussion here?

He was not sure if there had been a previous student wide referendum back in 1992 and told the students if there was one at that time they may have the same dilemma the faculty are now faced with.


Walker said that if there was a student wide referendum there potentially be informational sessions held open to students who would then be able to make educated decisions.


Governali felt that the issue of a student referendum is too complicated constituting of two issues, and he stated that he didn�t know what it would mean and whether or not it was binding on the students and/or faculty?


Rombach agreed with Governali and expressed that although she valued student input, she felt that since this constitutes curricular matter any decision was up to the faculty.


Buckenmeyer asked the students if they had already conducted a referendum, since he stated he had seen one advertised.


Walker said that the students are currently holding elections but that they would like to have one.


Ritchie urged the Senators to vote against the faculty referendum, saying he felt the 1992 issue was different than this one, since now the issue is one of classroom space, and he encouraged everyone to vote down the referendum.


The Provost said she was not speaking for or against the issue, but as a point of clarification, she said coming from a state where we live by referendum, just because a referendum is passed, it is not passed in perpetuity, and people can come back and put forth another referendum that reverses that. She also stated that the idea that there can�t be another referendum because there is an existing one is not accurate.


King asked a point of information, �Is it the case that Cornell University does not give college credit for courses, in their own program, for their own students?�


Bitterbaum responded that Cornell makes the distinction that they do give college credit for ROTC courses they teach, using their faculty, but if the class is conducted by a military officer who doesn�t have faculty rank, it is not counted as credit.


King asked if the college is giving college credit for ROTC courses?


Bitterbaum replied, �That is my understanding.�


Alwes responded to the Provost that she understands that a referendum is not held in perpetuity, but since the campus hasn�t changed the mission statement, not to have a referendum should be considered based on what Young and Griffen have said, that although the mission statement hasn�t changed, we should let ROTC come here because we have ROTC anyway.�


Bitterbaum replied that we do not have ROTC on campus.


Alwes responded, �But�s its in our catalog!�


The Provost said there are two parallel processes that should have been integrated, after the faculty passed the referendum, although she didn�t know the players. She indicated there should have been a corresponding action to negate the institutional agreement, since it wasn�t doesn�t done, and when the referendum was passed, the inter institutional agreement still persisted and the listing remained in the catalog. She stated that these two agreements have to come together and be fixed in some way because they are operating on two parallel tracks.


Mel King asked, in the proposed referendum, is it to simply allow them office space?


Bitterbaum responded, �Use of classroom space.�He reviewed the history that shortly after he came to SUNY Cortland he had been contacted by Colonel Weisweber to see if ROTC could use classroom space here at SUNY Cortland. He stated that he initially took it to be a simple issue, but when he conferred Patty Francis, she revealed to him the prior history. Subsequently, he stated, he invited the Colonel to come to the Senate. He said that Columbia University is going through the same issue, having the same debate on their campus, with the end result being the campus is in controversy because the students want ROTC back and the faculty don�t.


The chair called for a vote.


D. Vegas called for a quorum.


Parliamentarian Kreh said that there are 25 members on the Senate, requiring 13 Senators to be present for a quorum, and there were presently18 present


Walker asked how to amend the motion so that the handbook gets corrected.


Alwes corrected Walker by stating he meant the catalog.


Walker asked how the catalog could be amended and did it have to go through the Faculty Senate?


The chair urged for continuance of the agenda due to important business that needed to be conducted.


The Provost said that the issue was an important one, since the referendum for faculty to grant space for ROTC on campus said nothing specifically about the catalog in terms of courses or credits, which is a different issue.


Walker asked if it is still printed in the catalog that ROTC is available for students?


The Provost stated that the relevant page would be changed


Walker asked if he needed to make a motion to do this?


The Chair implored everyone to get on with the agenda.


The motion to conduct a referendum was voted on an defeated {SEE Senate Actions}



No new business.



J. Mosser asked about the issue of search committees, referring to a memorandum from J. Barry.The Chair said he had received the report and had given it to the Steering Committee who would take action on it the next week.


XV. SUNY SENATOR: No report.




M. K. Boland reported on the student elections taking place, the referendum on the student life center, Festivus on Sunday, April 24th, and the Community Outreach Program that helps the children of Cortland.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 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) 2002-2004 long range planning goals and subgoals


(2) EPC transfer credit catalog description change