����� ����FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES NO. 13
��������
����������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
I.� APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The
Minutes from April 5 were approved as amended.
II.
SENATE ACTIONS:
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)
III.
CHAIR�S REPORT:
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.
IV. VICE CHAIR�S
REPORT:
No report.
V.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:
No report.
VI. TREASURER�S REPORT:
�No report.
VII.� PRESIDENT�S 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.��
VIII. STANDING
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
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 curious�
regarding 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, and� in 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 to� Faculty 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 and� congratulated 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.
IX. SUNY SENATOR�S
REPORT: - No report.
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
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.
XII. OLD BUSINESS:
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 to� accept 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 that� practice 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}
XIII. NEW BUSINESS:
No new business.
XIV.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:
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.
XVI. STUDENT SENATOR
REPORTS:
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
http://www.cortland.edu/senate/minutes/m13.html