October 5, 2004


1.CALL TO ORDER: The 3rd meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15 PM on , 2004 in the Corey Union Fireplace Lounge by Chair Ram Chaturvedi.


SENATORS AND MEMBERS PRESENT: R. Chaturvedi, J. Rayle, P. Buckenmeyer, D. Driscoll, P. Walsh, K. Alwes, L. Anderson, J. Cottone, J. Hokanson, J. Rayle, B. Griffen, K. Pristash, E. McCabe, A. Young, P. Schroeder, D. Vegas, D. Kirschner


SENATORS AND MEMBERS ABSENT: J. Peluso, A. Henderson-Harr, T. Phillips, B. Shaut, E. Bitterbaum


GUESTS PRESENT: G. Levine, J. Mosser, P. Koryzno, R. Olsson, M. Prus, P. McGinnis, C. DeGouff, N. Libous



There was a motion to approve the Student Laundry Resolution as amended (Passed)


There was a motion to approve the motion, as amended, regarding formation of a Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Reconstruction (Passed)



The Chair reported that he had attended the Chair�s council meetings of the School of Education and Professional Studies to seek their help in filling vacancies on the various Senate committees. He was very happy to announce that his plea drew positive responses.At The Steering Committee three issues were considered: 1) ROTC; 2) Reconstruction of the Senate; and 3) SGA Student Laundry Resolution.Further action on the ROTC issue is postponed until contact is made with a representative from Cornell University. The other two issues will be presented shortly.The Chair plans to attend the SUNY University Faculty Senate meeting to be held at Maritime College 10/21,22 and 23.�� The chair offered to convey any messages or concerns that anyone has.


In response to a question from J. Rayle, the chair responded that the ROTC representative will be presenting a talk to the Senate, and subsequently the Steering Committee will consider the issue and bring a resolution forward as to its recommendation.



No report.



{See Provost�s Report}



Provost Davis-Russell presented the administration�s report in the absence of President Bitterbaum. The Provost first spoke to the budget and explained, at this point, that the budget has been determined, although we it is not known yet what may be vetoed by the Governor.She further reported that the administration has been told to be prepared for two difficult years in the next two years. She stated that Vice President William Shaut is putting together a campus mailing.In terms of personnel issues, there are a number of searches in place. She is waiting to hear from the Senate regarding members for three searches her office is conducting: Associate Provost for Curriculum Management and two Associate Deans.The committees are needed to be constituted as soon as possible to start their business. There is a search going on for Director of the Budget in Business and Finance. She asked G. Levine how the search was progressing and Levine answered that interviews would start that week.


The Academic Affairs Office is also searching for Associate Director for the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment because the director is on extended medical leave. It is a critical office so they hope to get someone in there soon.Dennis Weaver and his wife came to campus and gave a presentation, as well as speeches around the campus.The last one was in Brown Auditorium where he talked about Ecolonomics, which is a combination of Ecology and Economics. Davis-Russell commented that Weaver was quite impressed with how we, as a campus, strive to conserve various containments that separate trash from recycled material, which made a great impression him. She hoped that students would learn something from the talk so they can apply it during their stay here. Visitors are here from �partners abroad,� she stated. Four faculty spent three weeks here, from Anadula University, whom we will be having a dual degree program with along with TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language.) The faculty there have written back to H. Steck and J. LeLoup expressing how impressed they are, particularly with ASAP.They indicated they are going to pressure their president into developing a service like ours at Anadula. There have also been visitors from Nice University, which is another partnership program that J. Steck coordinated.Last weekend was Parent�s Weekend.


Vice President Franco gave his report, about Parents weekend, where there was a panel of four parents, with 60 parents in attendance, consisting mostly of freshmen parents, concerned about adjustments and assessments of the various aspects of the program.


Vice President Mosser announced his office hosted Kevin Rowell, class of �83, on September 30. Kevin served as Executive in Residence and was found to be very interesting.As Mosser stated, he was �definitely one of our successful Cortland alumni. He is Executive Vice President of the Charles Schwab Co.The company has 1 trillion dollars and Kevin�s division manages 330 billion. He taught in two of Tim Phillips� classes and also met with some students of Tom Mwanika and Sam Kelley. He also met with Dean Prus and President Bitterbaum. He will be coming back again on October 21.Mosser then asked P. Koryzno to say something about the College Community Appreciation Award.


Koryzno stated that this is our 30th year for the College Communication Appreciation Award given out by the College Council to honor someone in the community through their actions or words, or who has actually benefitted the college in some fashion, and in some instances, has gone to donors. This year the College Council has decided to honor James Seward in his contribution to the college since 1986. Senator Seward �has been a good friend to the college. It�s not hard to make a case for him. He is very supportive of the college and the district.�


Vice President Franco reported on a Sandwich Seminar sponsored by his office the prior week, including a booklet, �Person to Person Links,� which he passed around. It reflects a number of faculty and staff, trying to get a handle on how our students are connected to the campus and community. He said, �The purpose of the Sandwich Seminar was not only to get information, but also continue dialogue and conversation on campus at the department, individual and college level, in terms of how we can do a better job in raising our students and feel part of college community.He offered to come to any departmental meeting across campus.He complimented the Senate Chair for his attendance at the meeting and support. The Chair responded that it is an excellent report and everyone should read it.


Alwes asked, �Is the search for the Director of Institutional Research going to be a temporary person until the former director returns?�


The Provost responded that it�s not a search for Director, but the position of Associate Director which has not been filled in the last two years.








Long Range Planning Committee - No report.


Educational Policy Committee - Governali reported that EPC has met and is working on the summer reconstruction and reconfiguration proposal.


Student Affairs Committee - ���� No report. {SEE Student Senators Report}


Faculty Affairs Committee - McCabe reported that the committee has met and she will be chairing it again this year. She will be giving a report at the next Senate meeting.


College Research Committee - No report.


General Education Committee -�� Dean Prus did not give a report but asked a question that has come up since their first meeting of the year held the week prior.He said, �One thing that continues to come up before the committee is their status as part of Faculty Senate.He relayed some history, that it was first created in the mid 1980s, through a charge by the Faculty Senate. He wondered why it was not included in the College Handbook, and whether it is a standing committee of the Senate?


The chair asked Prus if he was making a motion to make it a standing committee. Prus replied that he just wanted clarification and to bring it to the Senate�s attention.


The Chair replied that the Senate has four Standing Committees currently in place.He said, after conferring with the parliamentarian, that in order for it to be standing committee it would require approval from the Senate.


The Provost responded to the confusion of whether or not GE is part of the Faculty Senateby saying when she came she was told the GE reported to her. She further stated she felt it would be beneficial to go back through the history of the committee and see if it is a standing committee of the Senate or one that reports to the Provost.


Chaturvedi said he would bring it to the Steering Committee unless someone wanted further discussion.


In response to a question from K. Alwes, who asked how the GE Committee got formed, someone from the floor replied it was formed by the Faculty Senate to develop GE. The program is also given the responsibility for any changes that would be made in categories and also to consider the individual courses that would be included in part of the GE program.Alwes asked if it is more than an ad hoc committee since it needs to be continuing.


The chair responded that he will bring the issue to the Steering Committee and report back to the Senate at the next meeting.


The Provost added, �Because I did charge the GE Programs we have, because we currently we have two GE programs, where the intent if of making one GE program. So, if this is a committee of the Faculty Senate then that charge has been coming from the Faculty Senate rather than the Provost.�


Prus said he concurred with the Provost.He further stated, �We need to determine what the nature of the status of the committee is to try to resolve these apparent inconsistencies.�



No report.Chair Chaturvedi reiterated that the SUNY University Faculty Senate meeting will take place at Maritime College on 10/21, 22 and 23.Phillips and Chaturvedi will be attending so if anyone has any issues or concerns please contact either of those two individuals.


Alwes asked if the ROTC issue was a SUNY one or local.Chaturvedi replied that it is a local campus issue having nothing to do with the SUNY Senate.




Committee on Committees - No report.



D. Vegas, SGA President, presented the Student Laundry Resolution and additional copies were passed around.


The Chair asked if Buckenmeyer was moving an amendment.Buckenmeyer read the amendment: Be it resolved that the SGA insists that any proposed increase in fees will be consulted by the Student Senate, where said increments are implemented, or will be consulted before said increments are implemented.


The Chair asked for the reasoning behind this motion. Buckenmeyer replied in regards to certain issues that may not have to go back to the full Student Government Association which require extra time commitments. He further stated that the students don�t feel it�s an issue to bring every increase back to the entire SGA. He said they just want to be involved in the situation.


D. Vegas said by adding �as necessary� leaves the door wide open and would weaken it, if anything.


Alwes responded in agreement, saying, �It leaves the door so open someone maybe have trouble closing it.�


D. Kirschner spoke against the resolution by stating he also felt the �as necessary clause� would shut the door.


There was a question from the Chair about whether the resolve referring to the laundry resolution applied to that or others.


Vegas responded, �The last resolve is something we would hope would come to the Student Senate for an increase. We are not comfortable with this, only some aspects. Some factions of campus are required to come to campus for support. There is no reason all faculty on campus who want an increase should have to go to SGA.�


The Chair asked if the last resolve on the last page did not refer to laundry specifically.


Someone from the floor asked specifically as to what variations are allowable when students do and don�t want to be consulted?


The Provost answered, in response to a question about which fees go before SGA,� Tech fees, health fees, athletic fees....�


The Chair mentioned transportation, all mandatory fees, and resident hall increases. He then asked if this pertained to course fees?


Vegas responded that the students just want consultation.�Were not saying we�re going to cause an uproar, go riot in the streets. We just want to know about it. We think that we deserve that, you know.�


Alwes felt the word �consulting� was a problem.


Governali asked if notification was sufficient.


Vegas replied, �We will settle for notified.No one told us with the laundry. We found out when we came back to campus.�


The Provost said, �I think we have several categories here.Where consultation is necessary that does occur.There are other situations where there are external factors that impinge upon what happens.In this case, notification is what would be intended rather than consultation. So if, perhaps, the item were reworded so that it makes which distinctions, that should satisfy all of those situations.�


Vice President Mosser said he wanted to clarify what Dr. Franco pointed out there are mandatory fees and optional fees. The Chair asked that comments be strictly on the amendment as it is presented.


Buckenmeyer reread the motion: Resolve that SGA insists that for any future proposed increases in fees Student Senate will be consulted as necessary before set increases are implemented.


The amendment was voted on and defeated.


Someone from the floor said, �I think it sets a good example to preach engagement and democracy on campus to students.�


L. Anderson said, �I worry that this adds another administrative or bureaucratic layer of scheduling courses, making it more cumbersome. There are a million things I have to do when scheduling courses. I am in favor of the resolution but worry about the level of curriculum.�


Cottone spoke in favor of the spirit of the motion. He felt the last resolve should change.


The Chair asked if Cottone was making an amendment to the resolution to change the wording.


The Parliamentarian told the Chair that Cottone couldn�t because he spoke to it first.Kreh explained that when you make a motion to an amendment, if you make a speech first, you abrogate the opportunity to make a motion until discussion takes place.He said, �You have to make the motion first, then as maker you get to speak to it. It might seem arbitrary but if the group doesn�t want to discuss it they won�t second it.�


Governali made a motion that Student Senate be informed before any increase instead of consulted.


Alwes recognized Walsh who explained he hadn�t officially won his election yet.


Walsh wasn�t sure if wording was going to solve the problem.He spoke against the amendment.


The Provost stressed that there are different levels where notification is mandatory where consultation does occur. The motion would not, in any way, obviate those, she said, there would still be the need for consultation that this motion would seek to address.


Vegas called the question requiring a 2/3 vote. The vote did not carry.


Walsh asked, What does consulted mean, entails, does it mean bring it to the Senate? What does that mean?�


Vegas replied that it stipulated coming to Student Senate and bringing it forth.


An amendment was made by J. Cottone.


Anderson asked about the word �informed.�She said in course related terms it seemed unnecessary for a course increase of 5 dollars where the outside vendor raised his prices, to have to do that. She wanted the wording changed. She asked when she sets course fees for Recreation Programs at Raquette Lake, would students have to be consulted?


Vegas responded that the students just want to know about it.


Alwes asked everyone to reflect on the wording. She asked Vegas what specifically they were thinking when they wrote the resolution?


Governali talked to the issue of consultation.He asked if they would settle for notification?


Vegas said they just want notification.


Anderson spoke for the motion saying she was more in favor now. She felt informed was softer, but doesn�t want course related fees to burden her as chair.


B. Griffen supported the amendment because it spoke to the nature of the objections which were made in the original motion, that the fees would be in consultation.He felt, in concurrence with J. Rayle, that the new wording made it more open and maybe would give students a chance to be more involved with situations as they occurred.


Walsh questioned whether the motion said anything specifically to class fee increases.


Anderson pointed out the term is �course related fees.�


Vegas attempted to make an amendment to the amendment, which she was told was not allowable.


Vegas wanted to add the words, �with the exception of course related fees.�


The amendment to the motion was voted on and passed.


A. Young spoke in favor of the spirit of the motion but was concerned.In his words, �Whether we as a Senate can actually pass a resolution worded of this kind. We are in a position to endorse the resolution but to simply say this is our resolution....�


Chaturvedi said according to the parliamentarian the Senate had a right to either support the motion or vote it down.


Someone asked for clarification whether or not the wording was changed to �informed� rather than �consulted,� to which the Chair responded in the affirmative.


Kreh explained that once the motion was on the floor it no longer belonged to the maker of the motion and the body could do with it as it wanted.


The motion, as amended, was voted on and passed.


Vegas expressed her thanks to the Faculty Senate.





Governali spoke to the Faculty Senate Steering Committee�s decision to bring the matter of how to proceed with the attempted Faculty Senate Reconstruction. He said, after discussion with the Steering Committee, it was decided to bring the decision of how to proceed, whether or not to form an Ad Hoc Committee to bring forth a recommendation on Reconstruction of the Faculty Senate to the floor and let them decide.He gave an overview of the data that had been collected and distributed handouts containing the feedback.


Alwes asked if one option is to leave the Senate the way it is.Governali responded that last year the Chair re-constituted a roster as a temporary measure, which only serves as aninterim arrangement.


Alwes said she felt that the problem still exists without their being adequate representation from Arts and Sciences, which is reflected, she said, in the inadequate constitution of the Faculty Affairs Committee, for example, and still needs to be looked at.


E. McCabe was wondering if an Ad Hoc Committee were formed, if it could first align the schools, taking into consideration the new School of Education, and then look at the other problems regarding representation.


K. Pristash suggested that the issue would take a lot of soul searching.He felt that since the Senate has to decide how to create seats and proceed, the feelings of the Arts and Science faculty has to be taken into consideration.He said, �Any reduction in their numbers is appropriate. A lot of people think fte�s in their schools is larger. In Arts and Sciences they feel they should have greater representation. That�s the crux of the whole conflict. Until we define our terms, who are we representing, our constituents faculty members in their offices and classes, students who vote on curriculum matters? They are the ones we are educating. Until we come to some kind of agreement on whatever, I think it�s going to be hard to get beyond where we are right now.�


J. Cottone said, as a member of last year�s ad hoc committee, that another ad hoc committee be formed to look at the issue.


The Chair asked if Cottone was making a motion.


Cottone made a motion that an ad hoc committee be formed to look at the issue of reconstruction and that the creation of the committee be conducted by Committee on Committees determining representation.


Governali spoke in support of the motion.He said that it is a sensitive issue that no one seems to want to address.�What kind of representation should exist in the Senate, some kind of model, or each school having the same number of representatives. That�s at the heart of what we are trying to deal with. It�s a tough issue. We just don�t want to deal with it.�


The Provost sought clarification considering what transpired last year, that going back to McCabe�s point, �Does the faculty need to be restructured or recreated to a distribution that is fair and equitable to a new school?�


Walsh spoke of two issues, one of representation of different schools as a result of the new school and the professional staff issue.He said, �The two issues got snarled up together. We should limit the charge of the ad hoc committee breaking up the two colleges. That would make it easier.�


The Provost said, �I ask the question, if you are going to form a committee, it needs to be clear on what its task is.We could be looking at this ad infinitum.What is it that they are to report back to the body?�


Someone from the floor answered that the committee make a recommendation on the structure.


Governali asked what the amendment was exactly.






Cottone replied that he was proposing that not only does the ad hoc committee look at options but make recommendations to the Senate.


Alwes wondered that the committee was being given too much to accomplish. She asked Cottone, as maker of the proposal, �Were you thinking of different levels of responsibility forthis committee?�


Cottone explained that the Steering Committee who will charge the ad hoc committee would define the task specifically this time.


Chaturvedi further explained that the Steering Committee would clarify it and bring it back to the body for further action.


Anderson spoke in favor of the motion thinking the ad hoc committee would have some data to work from with work already accomplished.She said that last year�s committee started from scratch and now the new committee would have something to build on.


The amendment was voted on and carried.


McCabe offered an amendment, that the committee would initially start restructuring to include the new school and then later realign the faculty representation to be equitable.


The parliamentarian reiterated that when the committee is formed the Steering Committee would set up a charge and guidelines and any implementations would be approved by the full Senate body.


Kreh explained that he was trying to move the motion along and not to get concerned with the charge just to expedite getting the committee formed.McCabe added that the particulars would be worked out later accordingly.


Griffen asked if the maker of the motion thought of any chronology.


McCabe said that when the ad hoc committee was formed last year other problems arose and other questions of representation came up. The committee got �bogged down� in trying to come up with a plan to please everyone. The committee started out with a simple thing to include the new school but got burdened with other recommendations.


There was a vote and the amendment was defeated.The main motion was voted on and was passed


XII. STUDENT SENATORS: Vegas reported that the Student Senate has been phenomenal. She explained that they had set a goal of 287 Senators in each area, which she reported is �huge.�She said, �We are proud of that.�She announced that different groups on campus are working on voter education along with NYPERG. She said they have registered about 1200 students, setting a goal of 1500.She reported that SGA is doing something to help out with tragedy in Russia.She said a Middle School in Syracuse took up a drive to collect canned goods but was unable to send it because shipping was too expensive. An Education student on campus contacted SGA to see if they were willing to sponsor shipping the items. She also said they are getting something together to send to the hurricane victims in Florida such as canned goods and flashlights.She reported on a recommendation the Student Senate approved last week and handed out a document which she announced was not asking for support or vote, but �Just to make sure everyone on campus sees it, our thoughts regarding the past situation, to get our statements out there.�She stated they were also sent through inter-campus mail to the Miller Building and an attempt to was made to disburse them all over campus.

Mosser explained that there was no animus from the ASC alumni Board. He said that two issues occurred, one was the ASC Alumni Board and the other one an outside vendor who handles laundry.A recommendation was made to the President�s Cabinet that recommended increased laundry fees. He said a mistake was made in not coming to SGA first. He said, �We are very sorry that occurred.His office has conveyed that to them and assured them, he said, and �We will make every effort that never happens again.� He said the vendor made the mistake when they programmed the swipe cards to charge five cents more than was approved by the Cabinet. He explained a type of refund has been enacted to remedy the situation. �There was a breakdown in communication and we are very sorry that occurred.�



The chair introduced �newly elected Senators, D. Driscoll from Math/Science and Bill Griffen from EDU.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 PM.


Respectfully 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) Student Laundry Statement submitted by D. Vegas.


(2) Student Laundry Resolution submitted by D. Vegas


(3) Questionnaire regarding Faculty Senate Reconstruction submitted by J. Governali